It appears as if Dan Ritter <> wrote: | |This discussion is essentially silly. In the battle between armor and |warheads, warheads have always won. If it does not kill my organic parts, it should not kill my cybernetic parts. If we make our installations survive a near direct hit by (natural) lightning, it will probably also handle most of the _EM_stuff_ humans will throw at it. (After all, nukes never were a success in street fights. :-) |Let's look at what you're concerned about: |1. loss of function, temporary and permanent |2. loss of data, temporary and permanent | |For (1), there's nothing to be done short which fits into the wearable |size/weight requirements. All we can hope for is that the hardware is either |insured or cheap (or both). Consider the solutions used by the U.S. Army for their ``cyber soldiers''. You might also wish to consider the technology of U.S. police forces. They will definitely want to solve this problem. |For (2), the solution is simple. Backup early and often and offsite. E.G. |do your backups over your wireless link; use a Coda-style filesystem; dump |complete backups whenever you have a physical proximity to a trusted |computer or encrypted high-speed network link to same. | |The one sensible idea to come out of this is "leave the computer at home, |do your work through speech recognition and synthesis over a cellphone". |How many years away from this are we? My guess is 5ish. Your advice makes sense for cyborganic systems consisting of low number of computing nodes (e.g. a human owning one wearable computer). For cyborganic systems consisting of several computing nodes communicating in a distributed fashion it makes less sense, as such a system really lacks an ``off-site'' location. -- Subcription/unsubscription/info requests: send e-mail with subject of "subscribe", "unsubscribe", or "info" to
Wear-Hard Mailing List Archive (searchable): http://wearables.blu.org
From Wear-Hard Mailing list Archive (WH)
Maintained by R. Paul McCarty
Archive created with babymail