I actually worked for a summer (admittedly, several years back) on an NSF research project studying the properties of silicon for micro/nano machines. Additionally, I worked in a tribology (the study of friction, wear, and lubrication) lab operated by the Navy for several years (NRL, WDC).
A) (Friction is bad) Unfortunately, your vision of frictionless machines is completely unfounded. TANSTAAFL.
In fact, at small scales van der Waals forces contribute proportionally gigantic static (as opposed to kinetic) frictional resistance that will take a fair amount of energy to overcome.
B) (Friction is good) Without friction (of some sort), how would our friendly neighborhood nanites be able to manipulate anythig for us? Please think about it before thinking frictionless anything would be a good thing.
Then came the kicker: "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
Huh?
Preliminary discussions of how the ARPANET would be designed began in 1967, and a request for proposals went out the following year. In 1969, the Defense Department commissioned the ARPANET. Gore was 21-years-old at the time. He wasn't even done with law school at Vanderbilt University. It would be eight more years before Gore would be elected to the US House of Representatives as a freshman Democrat with scant experience in passing legislation, let alone ambitious proposals.
By that time, file copying -- via the UUCP protocol -- was beginning. Email was flourishing. The culture of the Internet was starting to develop through the Jargon File and the SF-Lovers mailing list.
END QUOTE
So please allow me to rephrase: Al Gore claimed to have 'taken the initiative in creating the internet' that started _growing_ (it wasn't "created", it grew) before he was out of school.
Contrary to your belief, most bodily functions are not operated by "mind control". Most bodily functions, even those we 'perform' all of the time, are operated at the subconscious level, are they not?
Consider for a moment a function as simple as walking. Do you consciously determine the rise rate of the left foot, the complex motions of the ball of the foot and the ankle? I think not - we don't even learn to walk via conscious effort (notwithstanding folks undergoing physical therapy; I'm referring to when we're toddlers) - at least no one I know has.
Riding a bicycle is another example.
It is this subconscious processing that has the potential to muck things up while using this sort of tool.
There's no reason for daydreaming to cause those neurons to fire at random.
There's no reason for them not to! The electrical signals that travel through the brain are chaotic (read: nonlinear/nondeterministic, not necessarily disordered) in nature and are not subject to reason. It is certainly possible for regions firing in one "side" of the brain to stimulate a response in a completely unrelated contextual or physical "area" (when you get up from your desk to go to the fridge and wham! you remember the name of that book/tv-show/movie/song/piece of code that's been eluding you - )
Don't presume that just because you can walk and chew gum at the same time means we'll be using this technology (and I'm sure we will - just a matter of time for the price - physcial and financial - to come down) without a few hiccups now and then.
Based on the military's excellent intelligence regarding the Chinese embassy (I'll stipulate that the 'accident' might not have been such, but let's leave that aside for the moment), what makes any of us think their ability to target electronic infrastructure would be any better?
In fact, this is one of the primary reasons they didn't try anything - the military was too unsure of
a)platforms b)topology/interconnectedness of military and civilian networks
to try any major cracks.
Even if the Yugoslavian infrastructure was as built out as ours and western Europe's, the military still would have the same intelligence problem - how do we know that taking out this power plant/military air control/petroleum product distribution depot won't also take out the hospital/school/apartment building next door?
The unknowns make cyberwarfare difficult to justify _in a situation like Yugoslavia_ where our intelligence is probably lacking. Unfortunately, regions with similar or lower levels of electronic sophistication are going to harbor those against whom we would probably like to use remote methods such as this. Of course, we can always look at the Subcontinent for another set of examples....
Slashdot Mirror
I actually worked for a summer (admittedly, several years back) on an NSF research project studying the properties of silicon for micro/nano machines. Additionally, I worked in a tribology (the study of friction, wear, and lubrication) lab operated by the Navy for several years (NRL, WDC).
A) (Friction is bad) Unfortunately, your vision of frictionless machines is completely unfounded. TANSTAAFL.
In fact, at small scales van der Waals forces contribute proportionally gigantic static (as opposed to kinetic) frictional resistance that will take a fair amount of energy to overcome.
B) (Friction is good) Without friction (of some sort), how would our friendly neighborhood nanites be able to manipulate anythig for us? Please think about it before thinking frictionless anything would be a good thing.
End of Rant.
A quote from the WIRED story to which you linked:
BEGIN QUOTE
Then came the kicker: "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
Huh?
Preliminary discussions of how the ARPANET would be designed began in 1967, and a request for proposals went out the following year. In 1969, the Defense Department commissioned the ARPANET.
Gore was 21-years-old at the time. He wasn't even done with law school at Vanderbilt University. It would be eight more years before Gore would be elected to the US House of Representatives as a freshman Democrat with scant experience in passing legislation, let alone ambitious proposals.
By that time, file copying -- via the UUCP protocol -- was beginning. Email was flourishing. The culture of the Internet was starting to develop through the Jargon File and the SF-Lovers mailing list.
END QUOTE
So please allow me to rephrase: Al Gore claimed to have 'taken the initiative in creating the internet' that started _growing_ (it wasn't "created", it grew) before he was out of school.
Forgive my ranting.
Saw it in high school. Now that I can afford it, I fly instead.
Al Gore claiming to have invented the internet
AOL failing to upgrade their modem banks after moving to flat rate pricing
Windows (although it _did_ popularize the PC)
1. Send him/her to elementary school.
2. Send her/him to middle school.
3. Send him/her to high school.
At this point, most subjects have been taught to not think, and are then
4. Malleable and susceptive to advertising and other sorts of propaganda.
Time consuming? Yes. But generally highly effective. Unfortunately.
Consider for a moment a function as simple as walking. Do you consciously determine the rise rate of the left foot, the complex motions of the ball of the foot and the ankle? I think not - we don't even learn to walk via conscious effort (notwithstanding folks undergoing physical therapy; I'm referring to when we're toddlers) - at least no one I know has.
Riding a bicycle is another example.
It is this subconscious processing that has the potential to muck things up while using this sort of tool.
There's no reason for daydreaming to cause those neurons to fire at random.
There's no reason for them not to! The electrical signals that travel through the brain are chaotic (read: nonlinear/nondeterministic, not necessarily disordered) in nature and are not subject to reason. It is certainly possible for regions firing in one "side" of the brain to stimulate a response in a completely unrelated contextual or physical "area" (when you get up from your desk to go to the fridge and wham! you remember the name of that book/tv-show/movie/song/piece of code that's been eluding you - )
Don't presume that just because you can walk and chew gum at the same time means we'll be using this technology (and I'm sure we will - just a matter of time for the price - physcial and financial - to come down) without a few hiccups now and then.
Based on the military's excellent intelligence regarding the Chinese embassy (I'll stipulate that the 'accident' might not have been such, but let's leave that aside for the moment), what makes any of us think their ability to target electronic infrastructure would be any better?
In fact, this is one of the primary reasons they didn't try anything - the military was too unsure of
a)platforms
b)topology/interconnectedness of military and civilian networks
to try any major cracks.
Even if the Yugoslavian infrastructure was as built out as ours and western Europe's, the military still would have the same intelligence problem - how do we know that taking out this power plant/military air control/petroleum product distribution depot won't also take out the hospital/school/apartment building next door?
The unknowns make cyberwarfare difficult to justify _in a situation like Yugoslavia_ where our intelligence is probably lacking. Unfortunately, regions with similar or lower levels of electronic sophistication are going to harbor those against whom we would probably like to use remote methods such as this. Of course, we can always look at the Subcontinent for another set of examples....