Alt-BEAM Archive
Message #00543
To: beam beam@corp.sgi.com
From: Sean Rigter rigter@cafe.net
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 11:41:50 -0800
Subject: [alt-beam] Re: hmmm...i wonder which subject
Here is something I fished out of my draft directory:
I find the single most compelling (perhaps final) argument for BEAM over
uCPU etc is:
IT CAN BE SCALED down to nano size ....
I tell no secrets since this is discussed in LIVING MACHINES (IMHO
highly recommended reading) in the context of BEAM tech scale
invariability: "cellular ATP gobbling, high survivability, evolving,
self-assembling, MICROMACHINES" to paraphrase (with my comments) a
mozaic of the terms from that chapter.
I'm somewhat concerned how this "self-assembly" conflicts with the
EXPERIMENTAL MACHINE MORPHOLOGY second working assumption: "Machines
cannot be made to reproduce themselves easily, nor would we want them
to". And my fears are compounded by "Asimov's laws .... make inadequate
survival machines" So Mark, you wouldn't be GOODLIFE or something
hmmm...8^)
Well I'm gonna crawl back into bed now koz I'm down with a flu. koz?
K-os (Chaos operating system), hmmm.., I like the sound of that! OK,
it's a keeper >> K-os(c)rigter 1999
later [if the BESERKERS don't get me first (SF inside joke)]
arghh, I feel crummy!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/alt-beam
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com
Home