Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!nanotech From: alan@oz.nm.paradyne.com (Alan Lovejoy) Newsgroups: sci.nanotech Subject: Re: What, me worry? Message-ID: Date: 1 Jul 89 02:18:07 GMT Sender: nanotech@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: AT&T Paradyne, Largo, Florida Lines: 24 Approved: nanotech@aramis.rutgers.edu >[A shield which tried to eat the energy supplies as fast as possible would > be awwwwwfully close to being goo itself. In fact, that probably constitutes > the strongest case against active shields--Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? > --JoSH] Depends on what the "energy supplies" are precisely. If they're protein, then "eating them up as fast as possible" is definitely NOT the strategy we want the shield to pursue. However, it may be a perfectly sensible strategy in some cases. Another related tactic would be to "lock up" the energy-supplying molecules by surrounding them with useless molecules that require more energy to remove than is contained in the molecule(s) they are "protecting". The problem with this is tactic is where the supply of "useless molecules" is supposed to come from. You do have to be able to trust your shield. You do your best to design it so that it can't betray you. And then you have to decide whether going without a shield is a greater risk than releasing it. We DO have options. It's just that none of them are surefire bets. But that's life, ain't it? Alan Lovejoy; alan@pdn; 813-530-2211; AT&T Paradyne: 8550 Ulmerton, Largo, FL. Disclaimer: I do not speak for AT&T Paradyne. They do not speak for me. ______________________________Down with Li Peng!________________________________ Motto: If nanomachines will be able to reconstruct you, YOU AREN'T DEAD YET.