The security issue in this situation lies in repitition, a layering of
programming instructions, one atop the other thus covering any holes. There
would also have to be an on board repair command. This would recreate a
failed structure before activation began. Consider also, replaceable parts.
Your focus is a well stated fact, programming and software will be important
implimentations of a utility fog or nanoassembler.
Gina "Nanogirl" Miller
"Nanotechnology: solutions for the future."
>"Raymond G. Van De Walker" <email@example.com> writes:
>> The big advantage of ufog is that it provides many of the advantages of
>> nanotech while exposing one to fewer hazards than a solution in which
>> general-purpose assemblers are ubiquitous.
>It is often easier to rely on finished products than having the
>production system itself (only DIY people, survivalists and
>programmers disagree :-).
>> However, it also looks like ufog is pretty hazardous by itself. Think of
>> the lung disease that could be caused by misprogrammed ufog.
>The problem seems to be that it is impossible to test very complex
>systems for all possible contingencies, and this will likely cause
>trouble when designing ufog. How do you convince the customers it is
>You get the same problem with AI: what testing would be required
>before an AI program was allowed to completely run a nuclear power
>plant? Most likely a lot, and even then I guess insurance premiums
>would go up and if somethind did go wrong people would be sued to
>hell. But having humans is allright, as long as they have had a
>certain education and passed certain less stringent tests.
>> Also, the value would then shift from the material to the intellectual
>> property, right?
>> Intellectual property however, can be cheap.
>Values are already shifting from material to intellectual values.