YODO

We are woot...you will be assimilated. Resistance is futile!

Based on current population of the USA of 312,000,000, if we did everyone that would be 3 million + deaths. That's one way to thin the herd.

it depends. Is this 1% at the time of deployment? Or is is recurring with each new replication?

I wouldn't be willing to give up sick days. Leave me my weak, human immune system.

Batman4oz wrote:We are woot...you will be assimilated. Resistance is futile!

Took it right outta my mouth... But hey, without those Borg nano probes Capt. Janeway couldn't have developed a weapon to use against Species 8472.

Woah... Letting the inner nerd try to escape! BACK TO THE BRIG NERD TENDENCIES!

Save the nanobots until I'm under some affliction that will kill me, then inject them.

If there is a 1% chance I know that I would be that 1%. If they had a bad luck Lottery I know I would be the Powerball winner every time.

If you think 1% is a small chance, consider this: Let's say 1% of the coffee served contains a deadly poison. If you drink two cups a day, seven of them would potentially be your last.

Unless you've already got a deadly disease, 1% is a pretty high risk.

If I've learned anything from watching Stargate, it's if nanobots (nanites) are involved, it will always end badly.

So ... does "repairing cellular damage" mean prevents aging? That may change the equation concerning the risk factor.

If these nanobots are smart enough to repair cells and fight bacteria/viruses, shouldn't they be equally able to defend against faulty nanobots?

This is like asking:
Do you want skin cancer if it may make you look younger?
Will you ride an airplane if 1 in 100 will crash?

My answer is NO. I am surprised many people voted YES.

d4daniel wrote:This is like asking:
Do you want skin cancer if it may make you look younger?
Will you ride an airplane if 1 in 100 will crash?

My answer is NO. I am surprised many people voted YES.

This is why almost everyone in college has to take a statistics class.

Everyone should look up this book for further information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_Music_(novel)

Double post

d4daniel wrote:This is like asking:
Do you want skin cancer if it may make you look younger?
Will you ride an airplane if 1 in 100 will crash?

My answer is NO. I am surprised many people voted YES.

I guess the better question then is what percent chance of death would you accept (don't say 0%)

I already have those things. The body comes equipped with them at birth.

RWoodward wrote:If you think 1% is a small chance, consider this: Let's say 1% of the coffee served contains a deadly poison. If you drink two cups a day, seven of them would potentially be your last.

Unless you've already got a deadly disease, 1% is a pretty high risk.

Ah, but in the scenario above it's implied that you only have to drink one cup.

And think of the possible things you could do! You could travel anywhere and drink the water! Work with the CDC and go into quarantined areas with no biosuit! Never worry about STD's! Save a bunch of money on health insurance! The benefits might outweigh the risks - especially if it opens up new career paths

1 percent is really very high. But things like this are actually on the horizon. So be aware!

Sign my mother in law in!!!

I want to know can the bots be hacked and turned into weapons? Or am I the only one to think of this?

Cellular breakdown is the essence of old age and can be traced back to just about every natural cause of death. Doing this would almost guarantee basic immortality or just very, very long life. That's something I don't want to have. No way in hell.

Sign up my Missus'

I just had this discussion with some friends of mine and i would want the healing on a level like wolverine or higher then it would be Sick

1% seems like an unlikely high percentage for such technology. I would think that each nanite would be individually controlled, meaning that all obedient nanobots could be programmed to react defensively to any disobedient nanobots. Also, why would there be be disobedient nanobots in the first place?! What is this, 1981? Your supposition is contrived.

Can you add an optional "Wait!? There's Homework?, ... Really?" answer option?

Right now, I have a spinal condition that leaves me in constant pain, unable to work and greatly diminishes my quality of life, not to mention the effects it has had on my family. Most of the treatments that the docs prescribe have a much higher than 1% chance of failing, especially when you consider prescription meds that react with one another as well as with me. A 1% chance of death? That's a hell of a lot lower than my current 100% chance of death, so sign me up. How high that number seems really depends one's perspective - a 1% chance of death and a 99% chance of getting my old life back sounds wonderful to me. I strongly suspect that there are a heck of a lot of handicapped people who feel as I do.

1% of the nanites? or 1% of the people? 'cause 1% of the nanites would end up killing 100% of the people!!!

stm027 wrote:I guess the better question then is what percent chance of death would you accept (don't say 0%)

It would round down to 0%, anyway.

Unless the scenario's more like, 99% of people are rendered clinically immortal, and 1% of them will ever suffer a bad case of the gray goo at some point in the future. Those odds don't sound so bad.

dredwolff wrote:Ah, but in the scenario above it's implied that you only have to drink one cup.

If everyone in the US drank one, 312,000 people would die. That's a lot of corpses to deal with.