>From: Dan Fabulich <email@example.com>
> > Tell me it is *impossible* and I will shut up. The mere fact that its
> > not easy does not make a hill of beans difference to me. It wasn't
> > *easy* going to the moon. If it can be done, at some point or another
> > somebody will throw enough money and enough programmers at the problem
> > to get it done. The fact that nobody has done it yet, or that *you*
> > don't see a way to do it does not matter.
>Again, I don't think it's impossible. I think it's hard. Which means
>that it's easier for the more powerful.
OK, its hard. Agreed. But so is nearly *everything* that society spends
its time doing. But that doesn't mean that government is in control of
everything we do. Creating the internet was hard. But me and my little
business now benefit just as much from it as the government does. Building
a highway is hard. So hard in fact that I've never even tried it. But I
use one everyday, virtually *free* of charge.
> > But even a hugely massive problem becomes manageable when tasks are
> > up and distributed. The bigger the problem, the more hardware and
> > you throw at it. If you have every machine on the planet working to
> > it there is no such thing yet as an unbreakable code. You have to admit
> > that at *some* level of computational power the problem can be solved.
> > think you'll also have to admit that at some point in the future that
> > of computation will be reached.
>Sure. And it will be more accessible to the powerful than the weak.
As explained above, the "powerful" might be needed to create the system.
That does not however mean that they will be the sole beneficiaries of it.
"I like dreams of the future better than the history of the past"
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:06:48 MDT