mark@unicorn.com writes:
> Anders Sandberg [asa@nada.kth.se] wrote:
Sigh. You still miss my point: even very rare crazies with
sufficiently powerful weapons are a problem. It is a simple product:
population * proportion of crazies using big weapons * tech level =
amount of damage done. I don't think crazies are a major problem
today, but they might very well be in the future if the conditions
> >True. But today a moderately educated crazie can buy enough ammonium
> >nitrate to blow up a block or two.
>
> And the fact that few do is strong evidence that the crazy threat is
> vastly overstated.
> >Tomorrow he might buy an assembler
> >kit and release industrial strength disassemblers in the watru
> >supply.
>
> And if you're relying on keeping assemblers out of their hands as a
> 'defence' you will die when they get one. If, like me, you're building
> real effective defences you'll live.
Did you read my analysis in my first post in this thread at all? I did point out that limiting access to many such technologies is hard or impossible. I also pointed out that it isn't given that a defense exists against all technologies, although this is still unsettled.
> >I think you miss my point in this thread: there is a real problem is
> >certain technologies of mass destruction become too available and
> >there are no good ways of protecting from them or avoiding them.
>
> But there are; I've given you the most effective defence against every
> single one of them: don't be there when it happens. I'm talking about
> living in reality, Brin and others are playing S&M fantasy games.
In order to convince me that you are really realistic, you better convince me that you can get personal off-world capability before the risk posed by crazies with big guns becomes severe.
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Anders Sandberg Towards Ascension! asa@nada.kth.se http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa/ GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y