http://studotnet.blogspot.com
Use the "Sci-Tech" and "Society" categories to filter out SC style posts :)
Use the "Sci-Tech" and "Society" categories to filter out SC style posts :)
Please join me at the new site!
Sunday, 10 May 2009
Wednesday, 4 March 2009
Monday, 2 March 2009
To Know is to Control
What are the implications of storing a complete record of your life online?
More than likely, you'll be halfway towards this already. Facebook has your friends. Google has your search history, your emails and your documents. Microsoft has your chat history. Last.fm has your taste in music. Delicious has your interests. Twitter has your random thoughts. And all this is voluntary. Imagine what they may be doing with this data, when it's all brought together, what will it tell them about you? It's no surprise that Google is buying everything.
Of course it's worrying, but I suppose it's not the end of the world if some big corporation has your information. It's not even anything new, credit card companies have been doing it for decades.
The issue now though is that the information mined is more detailed and complete than it's ever been before. And it's all owned by American companies. Companies who, thanks to the patriot act, have to hand over any information the US government asks for.
However, the problem is not what they will do with one person's information. It's what they will do with all of it.
Social control is a relatively simple practice. If the government knows enough about its society, it can play off its fears, play up to its desires, and essentially manipulate the populace with counter-information spread via its mainstream media. It's not a new practice, but it is getting a lot easier for those who hold the information.
If you don't think that this is what really happens, you probably think that Obama's success was real. ;-P
Knowledge truly is power.
More than likely, you'll be halfway towards this already. Facebook has your friends. Google has your search history, your emails and your documents. Microsoft has your chat history. Last.fm has your taste in music. Delicious has your interests. Twitter has your random thoughts. And all this is voluntary. Imagine what they may be doing with this data, when it's all brought together, what will it tell them about you? It's no surprise that Google is buying everything.
Of course it's worrying, but I suppose it's not the end of the world if some big corporation has your information. It's not even anything new, credit card companies have been doing it for decades.
The issue now though is that the information mined is more detailed and complete than it's ever been before. And it's all owned by American companies. Companies who, thanks to the patriot act, have to hand over any information the US government asks for.
However, the problem is not what they will do with one person's information. It's what they will do with all of it.
Social control is a relatively simple practice. If the government knows enough about its society, it can play off its fears, play up to its desires, and essentially manipulate the populace with counter-information spread via its mainstream media. It's not a new practice, but it is getting a lot easier for those who hold the information.
If you don't think that this is what really happens, you probably think that Obama's success was real. ;-P
Knowledge truly is power.
Sunday, 1 March 2009
Thursday, 26 February 2009
The Key to Automation
There have been several great reports lately about new and incredible robots that are being developed. Robots that carry stuff for soldiers, robots that perform surgery, and robots that wrestle. It's all very exciting, but what we really need are robots to make our lives easier. To give us more time to do what we want. To do the mundane jobs and free us up to take on more creative work that robots can't do.
Of course, that would be ideal. but how do we go about this? How do we bring robots and automation into our everyday lives, unless robot intelligence is significantly improved. Well, while this intelligence is improving at a rapidly accelerating pace, there is a huge potential for solving problems using simple, task repeating, programmable robotics. The key is to standardize everything. We have to "put it on rails".
As an example, let's look at making an automated dish washing system.
We have dishwashers, but we still need to load and unload them. We need to develop 2 things. Firstly, we need a robot that can safely sort dishes no matter how randomly they're piled up, and insert them into their relevant areas of the dishwasher. Secondly, and this wouldn't be so difficult once the first stage was completed, is a mechanism for unloading the dishes and putting them away.
A kitchen would need to be designed with this in mind. In many solutions, we may need to consider our existing infrastructure. This needn't be as complex as it's made out to be, and would always pay off once a working automated system was integrated.
So you would need containers either side of the dishwasher, one for humans to pile up the dirty dishes, and one where the clean dishes would be stored permanently. This is would make it easier than if the storage cupboard was, say, on the other side of the room to the dishwasher.
The next step, we could consider 2 options. The first is to standardize all our plates, cups, dishes, pots, pans, and cutlery, so that the loading robot would "recognize" them all. Alternatively, we may be able to develop robots that can recognize new items and program themselves "on the fly" to deal with them effectively. This would obviously be a little harder. To achieve the first step, all the dishes we use in a house could be embedded with RFID. The robot could also have powerful sensors similar to face recognition software many cameras currently have.
Within the dishwasher, every item would have a specified place. The robot would simply grab each item and move it to its "cleaning slot". Any odd items could occupy a separate platform within the dishwasher.
You get the idea. While it still has some creases to iron out, the point is that there is plenty that can be achieved with a minimal level of robot intelligence, if we standardize our practices. The same theory could be applied to transportation. It's baffling why trains are still driven by human beings, when a computer could control them perfectly.
If you think that giving computers so much responsibility is dangerous, it's because you've been conditioned to seeing machines that have been challenged by real life scenarios. The point is, these machines have been limited by the programming of humans. They have been put in situations where they have not been designed to cope with all possible scenarios. They were expected to work like humans, yet they were limited in their actions. Automation system designers need to limit the scenario to a set routine, as well as limiting the influence of external factors.
To put it another way, they need to simplify what a robot has to do, and design its environment to confine it, protecting it from the need to make decisions. Do this by standardizing its interactions.
Of course, that would be ideal. but how do we go about this? How do we bring robots and automation into our everyday lives, unless robot intelligence is significantly improved. Well, while this intelligence is improving at a rapidly accelerating pace, there is a huge potential for solving problems using simple, task repeating, programmable robotics. The key is to standardize everything. We have to "put it on rails".
As an example, let's look at making an automated dish washing system.
We have dishwashers, but we still need to load and unload them. We need to develop 2 things. Firstly, we need a robot that can safely sort dishes no matter how randomly they're piled up, and insert them into their relevant areas of the dishwasher. Secondly, and this wouldn't be so difficult once the first stage was completed, is a mechanism for unloading the dishes and putting them away.
A kitchen would need to be designed with this in mind. In many solutions, we may need to consider our existing infrastructure. This needn't be as complex as it's made out to be, and would always pay off once a working automated system was integrated.
So you would need containers either side of the dishwasher, one for humans to pile up the dirty dishes, and one where the clean dishes would be stored permanently. This is would make it easier than if the storage cupboard was, say, on the other side of the room to the dishwasher.
The next step, we could consider 2 options. The first is to standardize all our plates, cups, dishes, pots, pans, and cutlery, so that the loading robot would "recognize" them all. Alternatively, we may be able to develop robots that can recognize new items and program themselves "on the fly" to deal with them effectively. This would obviously be a little harder. To achieve the first step, all the dishes we use in a house could be embedded with RFID. The robot could also have powerful sensors similar to face recognition software many cameras currently have.
Within the dishwasher, every item would have a specified place. The robot would simply grab each item and move it to its "cleaning slot". Any odd items could occupy a separate platform within the dishwasher.
You get the idea. While it still has some creases to iron out, the point is that there is plenty that can be achieved with a minimal level of robot intelligence, if we standardize our practices. The same theory could be applied to transportation. It's baffling why trains are still driven by human beings, when a computer could control them perfectly.
If you think that giving computers so much responsibility is dangerous, it's because you've been conditioned to seeing machines that have been challenged by real life scenarios. The point is, these machines have been limited by the programming of humans. They have been put in situations where they have not been designed to cope with all possible scenarios. They were expected to work like humans, yet they were limited in their actions. Automation system designers need to limit the scenario to a set routine, as well as limiting the influence of external factors.
To put it another way, they need to simplify what a robot has to do, and design its environment to confine it, protecting it from the need to make decisions. Do this by standardizing its interactions.
Tuesday, 24 February 2009
The Everlasting MP3 Player - Our Key to Freedom
Technology. It's constantly getting cheaper, right? So why, when I go to buy a new ipod, are they the same price as they were last year?
Of course, they're a bit better than last year's model. But I don't want this extra stuff. I'm happy with any old piece of crap I can put my music on and listen to it.
So, lets check the second hand market. Well, they're cheap. But now I have to put up with a scratched screen, dodgy play wheel and a few bogeys wiped on the back.
Things might be getting cheaper, but there is a constant, hidden debt on everything you buy.
Lastability.
Nothing is ever quite enough. The current boom in technology is gold for the producers, because there is always something newer, something cooler. So you're constantly kept in a job, feeding the economy, buying things that break down or are obsolete within a few years.
This is an important issue. Not just because it's yet another factor keeping you a "slave to the system", but because it is going to affect you in a much more significant way very soon.
The next decade is set to see a revolution in medicine similar to that of the computer revolution of the 1990s. Treatments will be available that could regrow organs, limbs, or skin. Functions of the human body will be restored and improved, such as sight, hearing, and brain power. Robotics and cybernetics may change the playing field of what it means to be human.
Now imagine what this will mean if we continue to live in a money driven society.
Your body fixes and upgrades will all come with the same cost that the ipod of today does. They will break down. They will become obsolete. They will keep you in debt to the system, and this time, it won't be because of your consumer desires, it will be because of necessity. If your robot liver stops working, you won't be able to just "stop using it until you get some cash", like you would with your ipod.
This alone is an issue worthy of some discussion. But my point of this article is to emphasise the problem of lastability. There is no reason why I can't have an MP3 player that will never break. The technology is now at such a level that a perfectly decent one can be made extremely simply, with robust parts. But this will put Apple out of business in a few years time. They rely on repeated sales so a very slow and subtle self destruct mechanism is built in.
Obsolescence is a different issue and of course we want to see continued improvement, but many things have reached levels where they no longer need to be improved. I've had my laptop for 4 years and I'm going to keep it until it blows up - it does everything I need it to and there is simply no need to constantly upgrade it. If people want to continue to buy the latest and greatest, they can, but those who chose not to spend their money, can also acquire most of the same benefits.
It is this concept that can massively increase the quality of life in the third world. $10 laptops for India, while it was exaggerated this time, aren't far away.
If the problem of lastability is addressed, this would have profound implications for us all. Our outgoings would slowly decrease over time. Eventually, many of us would need to work less and less, because we would have everything we would need. Even consumables (such as clothes and razor blades) would last longer.
Imagine if you got all your energy for free from renewable sources, your land was paid off, and you no longer had to buy the best new MP3 player, because you had all the gadgets you needed. How many hours a week would you need to work just to buy food and clothing? Not a lot.
And that's what the rich elite are afraid of.
Wednesday, 18 February 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
