>Anders Sandberg, <email@example.com>, writes:
>> Sounds reasonable. But medical and avionics systems have to deal with
>> fairly well defined environments; the number of things that might be
>>thrown at ufog in an ordinary home (just imagine what the toddlers do)
>> are astronomical. Hmm, that actually suggests an ufog problem: getting
>> foglets into liquids where they shouldn't be - how can we guarantee
>> that none of the fog gets into our food?
>I had the impression that utility fog, despite the name, was more of a
>gel than a fog. It does not have free-floating foglets, but rather it is
>a contiguous material which flows around the inhabitants, always keeping
>a small distance from them. It has lasers which constantly track the
>eyes of the people living within it so that any desired scene can be
>projected to them, making the fog invisible. It might not even have
>to be extremely close to the inhabitants but perhaps could be several
>inches away, much of the time.
>There will presumably be pieces constantly breaking off due to failures,
>so it is a legitimate concern that these be inert and unharmful when
>breathed or swallowed. Hopefully the pieces would be very tiny and the
>rate of such failures would be small enough that the health problems
>would be minor.
Why the separation? Could not the U-fog be designed to have direct contact?
Nutrients could be absorbed directly through the skin and mucous membranes to eliminate the need for eating. At the other end of the spectrum, bodily wastes would be absorbed as they are released by the U-fog. The U-fog would also be a breathing medium that adjusted itself as required to supply oxygen at times of peak activity.