". ..Any replication information should be error free. .." hmmmmmmmm.
Every living organism is dependent on resources that can only be found in a specific region. Organisms living today are dependent on resources, such as oxygen, that weren't available in earth's past. I hope no nanotech researcher honestly believes that replication information can be transmitted without error. We have to assume that there will be error; with that assumption any self replication will result in evolution. If errors are one in a million, then there will be a mutation a thousand times every time a billion nonobots are produced. If all but one in a million are deleterious, it will still only take a trillion nanobots before one has a happy (for it) accident.
I never agreed with my Biology texts, when they made the arbitrary decision to consider only cellular organisms as living. When we create a self replicating system, the best model we have to predict how they will behave is organic life. And the life form most simular to the proposed nanobots, is the virus. Nonobots and virii will share a number of common attributes: 1. Biologists don't consider them to be living. 2. They are precocious molecules. 3. They can reproduce.
Well, I still think we should take the risks, but this document is a little to optimistic in my opinion. We need stiffer controls, and I DON'T like the idea of purposefully making nanobots evolve, even in "controlled" conditions.
Well more power to the gurus for pointing out that community support of napster could be politicaly dangerous for the open source movement. I haven't bought a CD in ages, but I just recently started pirating MP3's. I didn't buy CD's then because I hoped to hinder in my small way the music maketing industry that sponsers mediocrity, shuns art, and fixes prices. I now pirate MP3's for the same reason. In an ideal world I would be able to use napster to get ahold of legitamately distributing music, reviewed by my peers. Instead I have to make due with what is passble after my peers have been brain washed by billions(?) of dollars in marketing/propaganda. Well they shot the Tzar, they gillotined the King, and here in the US murderers get electrocuted. Stealing isn't quite as wicked as shooting gillotining or electrocuting,and I feel little remorse given the character of the victems. The RIAA is concerned that some of us don't have respect for their property. In fact I lack respect for their industry, their culture, and their sarcastic,and parasitic world view.
Slashdot Mirror
". . .Any replication information should be error free. . ." hmmmmmmmm.
Every living organism is dependent on resources that can only be found in a specific region. Organisms living today are dependent on resources, such as oxygen, that weren't available in earth's past. I hope no nanotech researcher honestly believes that replication information can be transmitted without error. We have to assume that there will be error; with that assumption any self replication will result in evolution. If errors are one in a million, then there will be a mutation a thousand times every time a billion nonobots are produced. If all but one in a million are deleterious, it will still only take a trillion nanobots before one has a happy (for it) accident.
I never agreed with my Biology texts, when they made the arbitrary decision to consider only cellular organisms as living. When we create a self replicating system, the best model we have to predict how they will behave is organic life. And the life form most simular to the proposed nanobots, is the virus. Nonobots and virii will share a number of common attributes:
1. Biologists don't consider them to be living.
2. They are precocious molecules.
3. They can reproduce.
Well, I still think we should take the risks, but this document is a little to optimistic in my opinion. We need stiffer controls, and I DON'T like the idea of purposefully making nanobots evolve, even in "controlled" conditions.
Well more power to the gurus for pointing out that community support of napster could be politicaly dangerous for the open source movement.
I haven't bought a CD in ages, but I just recently started pirating MP3's. I didn't buy CD's then because I hoped to hinder in my small way the music maketing industry that sponsers mediocrity, shuns art, and fixes prices. I now pirate MP3's for the same reason. In an ideal world I would be able to use napster to get ahold of legitamately distributing music, reviewed by my peers. Instead
I have to make due with what is passble after my peers have been brain washed by billions(?) of dollars in marketing/propaganda. Well they shot the Tzar, they gillotined the King, and here in the US murderers get electrocuted. Stealing isn't quite as wicked as shooting gillotining or electrocuting,and I feel little remorse given the character of the victems. The RIAA is concerned that some of us don't have respect for their property. In fact I lack respect for their industry, their culture, and their sarcastic,and parasitic world view.