the core plot element of minority report is that it involves psychic people to predict the crimes. taking out the element of the supernatural, it is highly doubtful that we will be able to create any sort of pre-crime division. we could develop allot of predictions on how people generally act, and try to predict crimes, but because everyone is different, there would be too many deviations to be a legitimate crime prevention technology.
i think the main meaning behind the movie is that we are allowing less then ideal classifications and systems be a part of our legal system and every day life. this can jeopardize our freedom and even our innocence if such incomplete things are allowed to become the norm.
even if you found genes that made someone likely to commit crimes, you could not convict a person before they commit a crime even if they posses the gene in a free country. the best method would be to understand this gene better and find a way to modify it and remove it from the human population.
Monday, December 7, 2009
Monday, November 23, 2009
Homework 14
1:
I believe that if it becomes economical to put colonies on celestial body, our first choice would be the moon due to its close distance and possible presence of water. On the moon you would have to use enclosed self sustained environments such as bio-domes where people would live most likely in very high density homes and work in tight work spaces. As the technology evolves we may find ways to increase our efficiency of the domes, and allow for bigger domes at lower cost allowing for bigger homes, work places, and populations.
However if we went to another planet such as mars, it could be possible in the short term to live in bubbles, but in the long term we could terraform the planet’s atmosphere into one that can sustain human life. Terraforming would most likely take a few centuries or maybe more or less depending on the tech used and the evolution of that tech.
Naturally moving to a new planet is only a temporary fix, if people want to keep on living, they will need to do one of 2 things. The most reasonable method is to control the population’s reproduction to have equal birth and death rates to keep the growth at 0. This is the most efficient method, but people generally want the freedom to populate on their own decision, not of that from the government, so implementing this method it could be difficult. The other method is to constantly terraform new planets, solving our population problem temporarily each planet and moon at a time.
2:
Back to a very broad ethical issue, how immersive should we let our entertainment get? As the technology to directly input images into the mind, and allow the closest thing to physical interaction with a digital world , how will that effect our social skills. The argument can be made today, that although people do interact over the internet in games, chat, and business, how healthy is it?
Currently our interactions over the net cut out all, or almost all body language and most things such as voice. Because of this we miss key pieces of information that allow us to understand the other person. If people use this type of communication more, it could lead to a overall less understanding between society to put it bluntly. In the future the communication technology may allow a person to also record such information as body language and voice may become the main form of communication over text (or a mix of the 2, voice as primary which is then trans-coded into text for archiving) and that would raise the level of communication quality, but since it is all over a digital media, it is possible to manipulate the data. One can bring up endless discussions of how a person may block certain things to remain anonymous or hide certain things that they don't want to communicate, but in the end it leads to the same problem of privacy.
Lets assume we do spend a majority of our life connected over the net, even for our jobs. What would this do to the occasions that we do go out and communicate with people in reality? And our digital worlds become too good, and become more like our fantasy then how will that effect the will to go back into reality. There are already plenty of entertainment related addictions that are not based on drugs, and I believe that for some the net could become even more of an addiction then it is now.
I believe that if it becomes economical to put colonies on celestial body, our first choice would be the moon due to its close distance and possible presence of water. On the moon you would have to use enclosed self sustained environments such as bio-domes where people would live most likely in very high density homes and work in tight work spaces. As the technology evolves we may find ways to increase our efficiency of the domes, and allow for bigger domes at lower cost allowing for bigger homes, work places, and populations.
However if we went to another planet such as mars, it could be possible in the short term to live in bubbles, but in the long term we could terraform the planet’s atmosphere into one that can sustain human life. Terraforming would most likely take a few centuries or maybe more or less depending on the tech used and the evolution of that tech.
Naturally moving to a new planet is only a temporary fix, if people want to keep on living, they will need to do one of 2 things. The most reasonable method is to control the population’s reproduction to have equal birth and death rates to keep the growth at 0. This is the most efficient method, but people generally want the freedom to populate on their own decision, not of that from the government, so implementing this method it could be difficult. The other method is to constantly terraform new planets, solving our population problem temporarily each planet and moon at a time.
2:
Back to a very broad ethical issue, how immersive should we let our entertainment get? As the technology to directly input images into the mind, and allow the closest thing to physical interaction with a digital world , how will that effect our social skills. The argument can be made today, that although people do interact over the internet in games, chat, and business, how healthy is it?
Currently our interactions over the net cut out all, or almost all body language and most things such as voice. Because of this we miss key pieces of information that allow us to understand the other person. If people use this type of communication more, it could lead to a overall less understanding between society to put it bluntly. In the future the communication technology may allow a person to also record such information as body language and voice may become the main form of communication over text (or a mix of the 2, voice as primary which is then trans-coded into text for archiving) and that would raise the level of communication quality, but since it is all over a digital media, it is possible to manipulate the data. One can bring up endless discussions of how a person may block certain things to remain anonymous or hide certain things that they don't want to communicate, but in the end it leads to the same problem of privacy.
Lets assume we do spend a majority of our life connected over the net, even for our jobs. What would this do to the occasions that we do go out and communicate with people in reality? And our digital worlds become too good, and become more like our fantasy then how will that effect the will to go back into reality. There are already plenty of entertainment related addictions that are not based on drugs, and I believe that for some the net could become even more of an addiction then it is now.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Homework 13
1: although I was not at class the day that everyone was talking about it, from the bit of research I did it seems that toxoplasma gondii is rather normal. It does not seem to be anything too special as it is not a serious threat, or an epidemic of any kind. Although reading about it may give you some ideas about how parasites work and some of the ways they transfer between hosts and their general composition.
The only animals that are seriously effected by this parasite are cats, and although they are rather susceptible to them. Although as much as a third of the human population is infected with this parasitic disease, it does not cause harm in most cases.
2: Perhaps the second biggest entertainment industry besides games would have to be music and movies. Both of these are long lasting forms of entertainment, but they have one major downfall. With music even though someone may be able to think up a song, they may not have the talent to play a instrument in the real world. But using mind interface implants you could give people the ability to just think of a tune and export it in the purest form, right out of the mind. Now with movies/video it can be a bit more complicated to get a clear image of something in your imagination, so perhaps you could use the same recording method, but with filters, or enhancing programs to clear up your mental images for video , giving you the opportunity to create your own good looking movies, assuming you have the talent to come up with good ideas.
Now even with the ability to easily record music and video from the mind, we can all understand even without the technology existing that the world will be flooded with bad music and movies because of this, just as it is somewhat today with independent music. However, in the future I believe that to counter this even bigger problem that we will create filters to filter out what each person does not want to see, and what they do, sort of like a Google search for mind recorded content.
The only animals that are seriously effected by this parasite are cats, and although they are rather susceptible to them. Although as much as a third of the human population is infected with this parasitic disease, it does not cause harm in most cases.
2: Perhaps the second biggest entertainment industry besides games would have to be music and movies. Both of these are long lasting forms of entertainment, but they have one major downfall. With music even though someone may be able to think up a song, they may not have the talent to play a instrument in the real world. But using mind interface implants you could give people the ability to just think of a tune and export it in the purest form, right out of the mind. Now with movies/video it can be a bit more complicated to get a clear image of something in your imagination, so perhaps you could use the same recording method, but with filters, or enhancing programs to clear up your mental images for video , giving you the opportunity to create your own good looking movies, assuming you have the talent to come up with good ideas.
Now even with the ability to easily record music and video from the mind, we can all understand even without the technology existing that the world will be flooded with bad music and movies because of this, just as it is somewhat today with independent music. However, in the future I believe that to counter this even bigger problem that we will create filters to filter out what each person does not want to see, and what they do, sort of like a Google search for mind recorded content.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Homework 12
1: if i could have a robot that could do anything at all, i would like one that could clean the house so i could focus on other things without having to worry about that. the reason i would choose this is because it's the most time consuming thing that unpleasant to do.
2:
Robotics is also another interesting field, as the interface to “read our minds” becomes more sophisticated, we could use it to control things remotely such as a robotic body. Take for example a nuclear power plant. It could be beneficial to use remote robotic bodies to handle work in such a potentially hazardous environment rather than having the person go in and do the job manually. Because robots would not suffer from exposure to toxic chemicals and high doses of radiation, they are a prime candidate for a way to improve hazardous jobs. Also besides work place use, remote robotics also has a private use. Say that a family member is half way across the world, and instead of talking over the phone , you can interact with them through a robotic body. Although remote robotics may seem like a good idea from the previous statement, it also can have it's downfalls. The technology will be used by the military as a replacement for humans if it is economical to do so, and this then becomes an ethical problem about “robotic killing machines”.
2:
Robotics is also another interesting field, as the interface to “read our minds” becomes more sophisticated, we could use it to control things remotely such as a robotic body. Take for example a nuclear power plant. It could be beneficial to use remote robotic bodies to handle work in such a potentially hazardous environment rather than having the person go in and do the job manually. Because robots would not suffer from exposure to toxic chemicals and high doses of radiation, they are a prime candidate for a way to improve hazardous jobs. Also besides work place use, remote robotics also has a private use. Say that a family member is half way across the world, and instead of talking over the phone , you can interact with them through a robotic body. Although remote robotics may seem like a good idea from the previous statement, it also can have it's downfalls. The technology will be used by the military as a replacement for humans if it is economical to do so, and this then becomes an ethical problem about “robotic killing machines”.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Homework 10
Sadly I was not at class Wednesday so I do not know what was talked about, but I do not believe that I can properly agree with this topic. There IS such thing as scientific proof, and saying there is a product of not looking beyond the short ranged ideas. Science in a nutshell to me is the formal study of the world, and development of new ideas and applications of those ideas. Scientific proof being the ideas brought up for a new scientific idea or application that have been proven to be generally correct.
There is no arguing the concept I just mentioned at it's core, if you add other details to it you can persuade yourself to believe there is no scientific fact, but you can do that to make yourself believe you live on the moon with the easter bunny and Santa if your that far over the edge. One of the big topics that may make people THINK there is no scientific proof is a slight understanding of quantum mechanics and deeper science in general. Yes at it's core the universe is not as concrete as we think, and it possibly could have no rules at all, but this does not mean that everything we mention as fact is not true because at a lower level everything is randomized and there is a possibility for everything to happen. Earlier I said scientific proof is generally correct because even if a lot of the would was randomized, even if there was an event that proved the scientific “proof” wrong 1 % of the time, that is still negligible.
You may say that I have lost my argument at this point by admitting that even if there are flaws in scientific proof that we should still believe in it, but let me explain why exactly this is true, if you have not already figured it out. Lets say for example when an apple falls from a tree, 99 % of the time it will fall down, but 1 out of 100 apples will actually rise up into the sky. You could then say that the scientific proof “apples fall to the ground due to gravity” or something similar is false, and that the whole idea of gravity and everything related is also false because that one event is not explainable. Yes it's true that gravity may not exist in the way we think of it, and the truth may be radically different. But in the end if we do not say that certain things are constant, if we do not give the scientific community and the world as a whole a concept to start with, then we will just end up going nowhere. The method we currently use is to think of ideas, and the one with the most evidence to back it, and the most logical sounding given the information is considered scientific proof. If new evidence comes up later on to prove the idea wrong in some way, then the idea will be reformed to the new idea, and the world as a whole knows a little more.
There is no arguing the concept I just mentioned at it's core, if you add other details to it you can persuade yourself to believe there is no scientific fact, but you can do that to make yourself believe you live on the moon with the easter bunny and Santa if your that far over the edge. One of the big topics that may make people THINK there is no scientific proof is a slight understanding of quantum mechanics and deeper science in general. Yes at it's core the universe is not as concrete as we think, and it possibly could have no rules at all, but this does not mean that everything we mention as fact is not true because at a lower level everything is randomized and there is a possibility for everything to happen. Earlier I said scientific proof is generally correct because even if a lot of the would was randomized, even if there was an event that proved the scientific “proof” wrong 1 % of the time, that is still negligible.
You may say that I have lost my argument at this point by admitting that even if there are flaws in scientific proof that we should still believe in it, but let me explain why exactly this is true, if you have not already figured it out. Lets say for example when an apple falls from a tree, 99 % of the time it will fall down, but 1 out of 100 apples will actually rise up into the sky. You could then say that the scientific proof “apples fall to the ground due to gravity” or something similar is false, and that the whole idea of gravity and everything related is also false because that one event is not explainable. Yes it's true that gravity may not exist in the way we think of it, and the truth may be radically different. But in the end if we do not say that certain things are constant, if we do not give the scientific community and the world as a whole a concept to start with, then we will just end up going nowhere. The method we currently use is to think of ideas, and the one with the most evidence to back it, and the most logical sounding given the information is considered scientific proof. If new evidence comes up later on to prove the idea wrong in some way, then the idea will be reformed to the new idea, and the world as a whole knows a little more.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
homework 9
Andrew Bour
computing, information, and the future
10/4/09
Future of computer entertainment
The future of computer entertainment is very vast, and can range between something related to what we see around us today, to radical new ideas. Some of the most interesting things about the development of entertainment in computing is that radically new technology can appear out of nowhere. Take for example the Nintendo Wii, the motion sensing technology inside It was not on the consumer market, and the general public was amazed at the new method of gaming when it came out. Although the technology was not completely new, in the case of Microsoft's project NATAL we can see how that also wowed the populous by releasing a major jump in technological complexity in the form of motion sensing and lucid human interaction with machines.
Future ideas for computer entertainment do not have to be specifically what we can see being developed around us rite now. For example, you could talk about the short run future as the release of more advanced motion sensing technology, or you could look at the long term future, mind machine interfaces or any other idea.
We do know that more advanced motion sensing technology is being developed, and will most likely reach a very common point (outside of game consoles) by the mid decade of 201X. with the software that can analyze human and other movement becoming available for smaller developers to play with, the ability for the technology to spread into non console, and into markets like mobile phones becomes very easy.
Lets talk about cybernetic implants in the form of brain/electronic interaction for a minute. As the technology advances, and the ability to sense what a person is thinking or feeling with the implant, this opens up the ability for crime stopping. For example, if a country has this technology widespread in it's population, the police force could monitor thoughts to search for illegal activity. Ethical issues aside, this method could be used against certain types of crimes that would require little to no debate.
A great example of this is if a person is thinking about getting an illegal drug, the police could focus their attention on if the person actually does obtain that drug, and use it, along with the distributer of the drug. There is no debate on if the person wouldn't have committed the crime, because this technique can be used post-act and still be effective. You can catch the person selling the drug from the information provided by the buyer, or at least you could crack down on the individuals abusing the drug.
Now if we put ethics back into the issue, we can also see a downfall to this technology. Lets say that a person constantly dreams/thinks about killing his annoying boss or co-worker, he never has physically progressed on the action, but is always thinking about it. Should that person be arrested just because he is thinking of doing it? Without him actually committing the crime, it is impossible to determine if he actually would have committed the murder without police intervention.
(the detailed information about cyberimplants and the issue of mind reading for the use of police forces is related to the plot elements of minority report)
as our computers become more sophisticated, and our programmers also evolve their work complexity, we come closer to being able to create artificial intelligence. If we ever succeeded in creating artificial intelligence, it would most likely be before any laws would be put into place to manage them. It's all speculation, but there could possibly be a lot of problems with creating AI, if it can think and is self aware what rights does it have? Would we treat it just as another machine, or would we treat it like we do other human beings? Undoubtedly artificial intelligence could give us vast evolution in technology but at what cost? If we create something that has a higher level of thinking power then us, what will it think of it's creators? There are many horror stories about AI running amuck and destroying humanity seeing them as inferior, or some other bad thing, but what Is the possibility of such a thing actually happening.
(speculation on artificial intelligence in reference to ghost in the shell)
computing, information, and the future
10/4/09
Future of computer entertainment
The future of computer entertainment is very vast, and can range between something related to what we see around us today, to radical new ideas. Some of the most interesting things about the development of entertainment in computing is that radically new technology can appear out of nowhere. Take for example the Nintendo Wii, the motion sensing technology inside It was not on the consumer market, and the general public was amazed at the new method of gaming when it came out. Although the technology was not completely new, in the case of Microsoft's project NATAL we can see how that also wowed the populous by releasing a major jump in technological complexity in the form of motion sensing and lucid human interaction with machines.
Future ideas for computer entertainment do not have to be specifically what we can see being developed around us rite now. For example, you could talk about the short run future as the release of more advanced motion sensing technology, or you could look at the long term future, mind machine interfaces or any other idea.
We do know that more advanced motion sensing technology is being developed, and will most likely reach a very common point (outside of game consoles) by the mid decade of 201X. with the software that can analyze human and other movement becoming available for smaller developers to play with, the ability for the technology to spread into non console, and into markets like mobile phones becomes very easy.
Lets talk about cybernetic implants in the form of brain/electronic interaction for a minute. As the technology advances, and the ability to sense what a person is thinking or feeling with the implant, this opens up the ability for crime stopping. For example, if a country has this technology widespread in it's population, the police force could monitor thoughts to search for illegal activity. Ethical issues aside, this method could be used against certain types of crimes that would require little to no debate.
A great example of this is if a person is thinking about getting an illegal drug, the police could focus their attention on if the person actually does obtain that drug, and use it, along with the distributer of the drug. There is no debate on if the person wouldn't have committed the crime, because this technique can be used post-act and still be effective. You can catch the person selling the drug from the information provided by the buyer, or at least you could crack down on the individuals abusing the drug.
Now if we put ethics back into the issue, we can also see a downfall to this technology. Lets say that a person constantly dreams/thinks about killing his annoying boss or co-worker, he never has physically progressed on the action, but is always thinking about it. Should that person be arrested just because he is thinking of doing it? Without him actually committing the crime, it is impossible to determine if he actually would have committed the murder without police intervention.
(the detailed information about cyberimplants and the issue of mind reading for the use of police forces is related to the plot elements of minority report)
as our computers become more sophisticated, and our programmers also evolve their work complexity, we come closer to being able to create artificial intelligence. If we ever succeeded in creating artificial intelligence, it would most likely be before any laws would be put into place to manage them. It's all speculation, but there could possibly be a lot of problems with creating AI, if it can think and is self aware what rights does it have? Would we treat it just as another machine, or would we treat it like we do other human beings? Undoubtedly artificial intelligence could give us vast evolution in technology but at what cost? If we create something that has a higher level of thinking power then us, what will it think of it's creators? There are many horror stories about AI running amuck and destroying humanity seeing them as inferior, or some other bad thing, but what Is the possibility of such a thing actually happening.
(speculation on artificial intelligence in reference to ghost in the shell)
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Homework 7
Andrew Bour
computing, information, and the future
10/4/09
Future of computer entertainment
The future of computer entertainment is very vast, and can range between something related to what we see around us today, to radical new ideas. Some of the most interesting things about the development of entertainment in computing is that radically new technology can appear out of nowhere. Take for example the Nintendo Wii, the motion sensing technology inside It was not on the consumer market, and the general public was amazed at the new method of gaming when it came out. Although the technology was not completely new, in the case of Microsoft's project NATAL we can see how that also wowed the populous by releasing a major jump in technological complexity in the form of motion sensing and lucid human interaction with machines.
Future ideas for computer entertainment do not have to be specifically what we can see being developed around us rite now. For example, you could talk about the short run future as the release of more advanced motion sensing technology, or you could look at the long term future, mind machine interfaces or any other idea.
We do know that more advanced motion sensing technology is being developed, and will most likely reach a very common point (outside of game consoles) by the mid decade of 2015. with the software that can analyze human and other movement becoming available for smaller developers to play with, the ability for the technology to spread into non console, and into markets like mobile phones quite easily.
(reserved space – talk about long term future)
(other stuff, rough draft != final paper)
computing, information, and the future
10/4/09
Future of computer entertainment
The future of computer entertainment is very vast, and can range between something related to what we see around us today, to radical new ideas. Some of the most interesting things about the development of entertainment in computing is that radically new technology can appear out of nowhere. Take for example the Nintendo Wii, the motion sensing technology inside It was not on the consumer market, and the general public was amazed at the new method of gaming when it came out. Although the technology was not completely new, in the case of Microsoft's project NATAL we can see how that also wowed the populous by releasing a major jump in technological complexity in the form of motion sensing and lucid human interaction with machines.
Future ideas for computer entertainment do not have to be specifically what we can see being developed around us rite now. For example, you could talk about the short run future as the release of more advanced motion sensing technology, or you could look at the long term future, mind machine interfaces or any other idea.
We do know that more advanced motion sensing technology is being developed, and will most likely reach a very common point (outside of game consoles) by the mid decade of 2015. with the software that can analyze human and other movement becoming available for smaller developers to play with, the ability for the technology to spread into non console, and into markets like mobile phones quite easily.
(reserved space – talk about long term future)
(other stuff, rough draft != final paper)
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Homework 6
1:
A:
1: (http://www.templetons.com/brad/robocars/)
2:(http://www.lightingdesignlab.com/articles/LED_fund/led_advant.htm)
3:(http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1042158/japan-offers-gigabit-broadband)
B:
1: this site is a terrific resource for researching automatic driving cars, it is very detailed but still an easy read. The topics covered range from what the technology is, the different methods to possibly achieve it, the progression so far, all the way to things like the ethical issues. The site is well rounded in it's content, and although it may look rather unprofessional, the information is superb.
2: if you are looking for a non-wiki or front page result on Google as this homework required, this web page is a rather nice source. It has the basic statistics like the lifespan of the average LED, the efficiency in light/to power compared to other lighting technologies, and the ability to operate in all colors. Although your best sources for getting more detailed information would most likely be wiki, or whatever Google comes up with as a obvious answer (search engines exist for a reason, they bring up results) this is still a fair site.
3: simply put, this website proves it already exists. If you look around at statistics for world wide bandwidth, you will find certain areas like japan, Sweden, specific areas in china (Hong Kong) and Korea have extremely high speeds in comparison to the rest of the world.
C: (classwork)
2:
A:
the topic I chose for my term project was the future of humans and computer entertainment, so it is kind of a broad field. Because of this I can not easily branch off without taking a specific idea of something that may evolve entertainment in the future. So I will do a bit of both, by providing a specific example of the future of computer entertainment, and also describing how the technologies can branch out to outside the entertainment field.
A good example of this would be the future augmentation of electronics into our bodies. This can be done to provide a faster, and more expansive input for games, and digital recreation in general (from control of movies, to moving around music files in your queue with the wave of a hand) but besides it's entertainment purposes, this same technology could use the collected information sent from your body/mind to it, to also help the medical field. For example, if you get a overall generic implant into your brain that can interact with it, you could use it as a hub to get information from the brain about what is generally going on in the body. This is a very generic application, but it still shows how the same technology can branch out into distinctly different uses.
B:
1: Beforehand Cushioning – when dealing with cybernetic implants (which will be a major evolution in the computer entertainment field) you will need to have some sort of safeguards to prevent the implants from causing harm if they ever malfunction. An example of this would be cutting the connection from the implant to the brain, if they are not co-dependent.
2:Dynamics – for the implants, it would be very useful for them to adapt to better suit the structure of your brain, as not every structure is the same. If you could create a generic model for mass production, that when implanted, or at any time after/during use it could adapt to your brain to function properly. you could cut down on the cost and maintain efficiency for the product by avoiding customization in the production line.
3:continuity of useful action – this may sound obvious, but even if the implant is used for entertainment purposes, when not in use for that purpose, it should be able to augment other mental challenges, such as providing you with faster mathematical computations, or something similar that expands it's scope of use.
4:Mechanics Substitutions – although you may think as all implants being digital, this is not always the case. Going outside the scope of entertainment a bit, you could have cybernetic implants interact with mechanical implants. For example, for someone who as a inoperable arm or leg, you could replace it with mechanical parts that are given signals by a cybernetic implant to move. However, you could remove the mechanical implant, and replace the nerve function with a system of artificial replacements that could work on the muscles to move a arm/leg, assuming that the only problem is the nerves in that part.
5:flexible shells and thin films – cybernetic implants even when they first come out for the general consumer market will most likely be made of some sort of thin film, but over time I predict that they will evolve to the point of being more flexible, until they are mostly biological instead of electronic.
6: homogeneity – as mentioned in # 5, as the implants evolve, most likely they will move to biological rather then electronic. Closely mimicking the brain's composite material/structure to create a better link.
7: discarding and recovering- depending on how these cybernetic implants are created, when it comes time to replace them, they should be able to dissolve, or somehow remove itself. This would make replacing it easier. However, instead of having the implant destroy itself, if it would be worth it you could try to recover it. Say for example that the material that these implants are made from are easy to recycle, or for some reason are valuable, then it may be profitable to manufacture them to remove there self , but still be removable.
8: parameter changes – if the implant could change it's state, this could be a method to remove these implants. If they can change state and in doing so detach from the brain/body, then they could be removed easier. This principle works well with #7 .
9: taking out – after the implant is augmented with the brain, and if it adapts to your brain/body's structure, it may have certain parts left over after the adaption that are there for universality. But since it has adapted to it's purpose, these parts may not be used anymore. So it may be useful to reduce resources used/other things by shutting off or taking out these parts.
A:
1: (http://www.templetons.com/brad/robocars/)
2:(http://www.lightingdesignlab.com/articles/LED_fund/led_advant.htm)
3:(http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1042158/japan-offers-gigabit-broadband)
B:
1: this site is a terrific resource for researching automatic driving cars, it is very detailed but still an easy read. The topics covered range from what the technology is, the different methods to possibly achieve it, the progression so far, all the way to things like the ethical issues. The site is well rounded in it's content, and although it may look rather unprofessional, the information is superb.
2: if you are looking for a non-wiki or front page result on Google as this homework required, this web page is a rather nice source. It has the basic statistics like the lifespan of the average LED, the efficiency in light/to power compared to other lighting technologies, and the ability to operate in all colors. Although your best sources for getting more detailed information would most likely be wiki, or whatever Google comes up with as a obvious answer (search engines exist for a reason, they bring up results) this is still a fair site.
3: simply put, this website proves it already exists. If you look around at statistics for world wide bandwidth, you will find certain areas like japan, Sweden, specific areas in china (Hong Kong) and Korea have extremely high speeds in comparison to the rest of the world.
C: (classwork)
2:
A:
the topic I chose for my term project was the future of humans and computer entertainment, so it is kind of a broad field. Because of this I can not easily branch off without taking a specific idea of something that may evolve entertainment in the future. So I will do a bit of both, by providing a specific example of the future of computer entertainment, and also describing how the technologies can branch out to outside the entertainment field.
A good example of this would be the future augmentation of electronics into our bodies. This can be done to provide a faster, and more expansive input for games, and digital recreation in general (from control of movies, to moving around music files in your queue with the wave of a hand) but besides it's entertainment purposes, this same technology could use the collected information sent from your body/mind to it, to also help the medical field. For example, if you get a overall generic implant into your brain that can interact with it, you could use it as a hub to get information from the brain about what is generally going on in the body. This is a very generic application, but it still shows how the same technology can branch out into distinctly different uses.
B:
1: Beforehand Cushioning – when dealing with cybernetic implants (which will be a major evolution in the computer entertainment field) you will need to have some sort of safeguards to prevent the implants from causing harm if they ever malfunction. An example of this would be cutting the connection from the implant to the brain, if they are not co-dependent.
2:Dynamics – for the implants, it would be very useful for them to adapt to better suit the structure of your brain, as not every structure is the same. If you could create a generic model for mass production, that when implanted, or at any time after/during use it could adapt to your brain to function properly. you could cut down on the cost and maintain efficiency for the product by avoiding customization in the production line.
3:continuity of useful action – this may sound obvious, but even if the implant is used for entertainment purposes, when not in use for that purpose, it should be able to augment other mental challenges, such as providing you with faster mathematical computations, or something similar that expands it's scope of use.
4:Mechanics Substitutions – although you may think as all implants being digital, this is not always the case. Going outside the scope of entertainment a bit, you could have cybernetic implants interact with mechanical implants. For example, for someone who as a inoperable arm or leg, you could replace it with mechanical parts that are given signals by a cybernetic implant to move. However, you could remove the mechanical implant, and replace the nerve function with a system of artificial replacements that could work on the muscles to move a arm/leg, assuming that the only problem is the nerves in that part.
5:flexible shells and thin films – cybernetic implants even when they first come out for the general consumer market will most likely be made of some sort of thin film, but over time I predict that they will evolve to the point of being more flexible, until they are mostly biological instead of electronic.
6: homogeneity – as mentioned in # 5, as the implants evolve, most likely they will move to biological rather then electronic. Closely mimicking the brain's composite material/structure to create a better link.
7: discarding and recovering- depending on how these cybernetic implants are created, when it comes time to replace them, they should be able to dissolve, or somehow remove itself. This would make replacing it easier. However, instead of having the implant destroy itself, if it would be worth it you could try to recover it. Say for example that the material that these implants are made from are easy to recycle, or for some reason are valuable, then it may be profitable to manufacture them to remove there self , but still be removable.
8: parameter changes – if the implant could change it's state, this could be a method to remove these implants. If they can change state and in doing so detach from the brain/body, then they could be removed easier. This principle works well with #7 .
9: taking out – after the implant is augmented with the brain, and if it adapts to your brain/body's structure, it may have certain parts left over after the adaption that are there for universality. But since it has adapted to it's purpose, these parts may not be used anymore. So it may be useful to reduce resources used/other things by shutting off or taking out these parts.
Monday, September 21, 2009
Homework 5
1: Windows 7 released before dec09 (30 US$ invested)
2: net neutrality by end of 2010 (52 US$ invested)
3: gasoline price by September 30th 2.50=> (600 US$ invested)
4: US agrees to lower CO2 emissions under UNFCCC 20 % => by 2025 (220 US$ invested)
5: internet gambling to be outlawed by December, 31, 2010
6: Google's market share by December 2009
7: apple gaming by 2011
8: cable companies forced to change their model by 2015 due to the internet
9: mad cow disease to be detected in the US before dec 31
10: bird flu to be confirmed in the US before 30th of September, 2009
I listed the first 4 first because those are the few predictions I found worth investing in. some of the others looked really promising, but the prediction I had matched up with the majority of others. For example the internet gambling to be outlawed by 2009, if it was possible I would bet against that, because I am very sure that such a thing will not be outlawed for some time, due to the difficulty of actually enforcing such a thing.
As far as net neutrality, that is the one I plan to make the most money off of. Yes windows 7 by December 09 seemed like a good bet at first, because recently around the time I made the bid, it was announced that it would be released in October. The only problem with that is I bought at a rather high value, so the profit will be rather small. However with the net neutrality it was roughly at the 50 % mark, with a lot of news about the FCC wanting to enforce at least some form of net neutrality, I believe that this market will come to a conclusion fairly soon. My hope is that the FCC will succeed in passing something close enough to the current definition of net neutrality, so that the value of my contracts will near double. Because of the nature of that specific contract, if the FCC does pass something, but it does not qualify for the prediction market's definition of net neutrality then it will be a total loss, because the chances of the FCC revising it to the point of acceptance by in-trade would not happen, or at least take longer then the time allotted for the prediction.
Gasoline prices where a easy prediction, after going on a few sites and viewing global graphs on price, with my limited, but still not negligible knowledge of the individual state's average consumption, I was able to put together a national average on the price of gas. Although there was a nice amount of the states that where in the 2.30 US$ range per gallon, they are mostly southern states that typically are not as populated in comparison to the other states where gas was far greater, peaking to 2.70 with an average of at least 2.50 US$. The amount of money I will make off this prediction will be more than the windows 7 because the methods I used to determine my predictions re accessible to others, but it is still a better option than some of the I did not invest in.
2: net neutrality by end of 2010 (52 US$ invested)
3: gasoline price by September 30th 2.50=> (600 US$ invested)
4: US agrees to lower CO2 emissions under UNFCCC 20 % => by 2025 (220 US$ invested)
5: internet gambling to be outlawed by December, 31, 2010
6: Google's market share by December 2009
7: apple gaming by 2011
8: cable companies forced to change their model by 2015 due to the internet
9: mad cow disease to be detected in the US before dec 31
10: bird flu to be confirmed in the US before 30th of September, 2009
I listed the first 4 first because those are the few predictions I found worth investing in. some of the others looked really promising, but the prediction I had matched up with the majority of others. For example the internet gambling to be outlawed by 2009, if it was possible I would bet against that, because I am very sure that such a thing will not be outlawed for some time, due to the difficulty of actually enforcing such a thing.
As far as net neutrality, that is the one I plan to make the most money off of. Yes windows 7 by December 09 seemed like a good bet at first, because recently around the time I made the bid, it was announced that it would be released in October. The only problem with that is I bought at a rather high value, so the profit will be rather small. However with the net neutrality it was roughly at the 50 % mark, with a lot of news about the FCC wanting to enforce at least some form of net neutrality, I believe that this market will come to a conclusion fairly soon. My hope is that the FCC will succeed in passing something close enough to the current definition of net neutrality, so that the value of my contracts will near double. Because of the nature of that specific contract, if the FCC does pass something, but it does not qualify for the prediction market's definition of net neutrality then it will be a total loss, because the chances of the FCC revising it to the point of acceptance by in-trade would not happen, or at least take longer then the time allotted for the prediction.
Gasoline prices where a easy prediction, after going on a few sites and viewing global graphs on price, with my limited, but still not negligible knowledge of the individual state's average consumption, I was able to put together a national average on the price of gas. Although there was a nice amount of the states that where in the 2.30 US$ range per gallon, they are mostly southern states that typically are not as populated in comparison to the other states where gas was far greater, peaking to 2.70 with an average of at least 2.50 US$. The amount of money I will make off this prediction will be more than the windows 7 because the methods I used to determine my predictions re accessible to others, but it is still a better option than some of the I did not invest in.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Homework 4
the delphi method topic i chose was the average human lifespan in the US, in the year 2050. although that is an interesting topic, i think i will switch my term project to that of humans and the future of computer entertainment. the kind of things i would like to look into are more advanced man/machine interfaces, and looking into the evolution of ingenuity and innovation instead of just increasing the looks/other simplistic aspects of things like computer games.
Monday, September 7, 2009
Homework 3 (delphi method)
(1) my question to ask in class is; what will be the average human lifespan in the year 2050 (in 40 years)
I chose this question because it is a statistic that has risen over the past centuries of medical evolution. It allows for such thoughts as “will we ever live forever, through some incredible medical breakthrough” and “maybe we will find a hard limit that we can not generally pass”. It's a open question that allows for a broad range of unknowns, but also has a lot of statistics in the past to draw from, for those who know them.
(2/3)the Delphi method ideally should have each of the members giving their estimates remain anonymous to the other members. The method we used in class was roughly based in the Delphi method, in the fact that we had several people give information, sum it up, explain their reasoning, then adjust their thoughts. Since everyone saw everyone else, knowing the number and reasoning that each person provided, it broke down the anonymity of the members to each other, allowing for bias. Not just that but the greatest flaw was related to anonymity in a way, we all could hear each other speak , therefore as the data was being collected, each person could then be biased by the other person's results, therefore rendering their own opinion biased with feedback before their primary conclusion. With these biased results, the ending numbers/reasons are most likely different then what would have been otherwise, this is a problem because the expertise of each member, which the Delphi method holds as it's strongest point are broken down.
I chose this question because it is a statistic that has risen over the past centuries of medical evolution. It allows for such thoughts as “will we ever live forever, through some incredible medical breakthrough” and “maybe we will find a hard limit that we can not generally pass”. It's a open question that allows for a broad range of unknowns, but also has a lot of statistics in the past to draw from, for those who know them.
(2/3)the Delphi method ideally should have each of the members giving their estimates remain anonymous to the other members. The method we used in class was roughly based in the Delphi method, in the fact that we had several people give information, sum it up, explain their reasoning, then adjust their thoughts. Since everyone saw everyone else, knowing the number and reasoning that each person provided, it broke down the anonymity of the members to each other, allowing for bias. Not just that but the greatest flaw was related to anonymity in a way, we all could hear each other speak , therefore as the data was being collected, each person could then be biased by the other person's results, therefore rendering their own opinion biased with feedback before their primary conclusion. With these biased results, the ending numbers/reasons are most likely different then what would have been otherwise, this is a problem because the expertise of each member, which the Delphi method holds as it's strongest point are broken down.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
homework 2
1:
broadband penetration in the US represents the advancement and quality of the net for the country as a whole. even if everyone in the US was connected to the internet, if they are on a dial-up connection then the bandwidth supplied to them is below what modern pages need to view. ever since it gained popularity in the mid 90s, the content on the internet has been evolving, and so has the connection speeds for the users with it. starting in the late 90s broadband (high-speed) connections started to pick up, and have been increasing in numbers every month. as you can see from the graph here, from late 99 to 2006, there is a sharp increase that does not have any appearances of leveling off (http://www.websiteoptimization.com/bw/0408/broadband_hm_td_0407.gif)however if you look at an updated graph here (http://www.websiteoptimization.com/bw/0906/broadband_hm_td_0906.png) you notice that the total broadband penetration has leveled off due to the total number nearing 100 %.
based on previous and current graphs i predict that the broadband penetration for the US will continue to rise, but at a much much slower rate. the remaining 5 % of users that are not on high speed are most likely the people that live far out from any cities, or populated areas in general that do not have easy access to anything besides satellite connectivity, or dial-up. even by the year 2015 i doubt we will have reached the 98 % mark but regardless with near all of the country on higher speeds, for all intents and purposes there is not much of a reason to adapt to the needs of those without.
on a side note, although broadband connections may be what the majority have, the US household internet connectivity is not near 100 % as you can see from this graph (http://www.websiteoptimization.com/bw/0906/us-internet-connection-trends.png) a much smaller 70 % of the population is connected at all. however i believe this in the future will follow the same path as the broadband penetration over dial-up. the amount of people that do have connections will level off at around 9x % due to the nonavailability of the internet , or cost for a small percentage of people.
2:
6 % per year = 11.9 years to double.
2 years double = 41 % per year.
18 month double = 59 % per year.
at 2 % per year, it takes 35 years to double your initial amount.
broadband penetration in the US represents the advancement and quality of the net for the country as a whole. even if everyone in the US was connected to the internet, if they are on a dial-up connection then the bandwidth supplied to them is below what modern pages need to view. ever since it gained popularity in the mid 90s, the content on the internet has been evolving, and so has the connection speeds for the users with it. starting in the late 90s broadband (high-speed) connections started to pick up, and have been increasing in numbers every month. as you can see from the graph here, from late 99 to 2006, there is a sharp increase that does not have any appearances of leveling off (http://www.websiteoptimization.com/bw/0408/broadband_hm_td_0407.gif)however if you look at an updated graph here (http://www.websiteoptimization.com/bw/0906/broadband_hm_td_0906.png) you notice that the total broadband penetration has leveled off due to the total number nearing 100 %.
based on previous and current graphs i predict that the broadband penetration for the US will continue to rise, but at a much much slower rate. the remaining 5 % of users that are not on high speed are most likely the people that live far out from any cities, or populated areas in general that do not have easy access to anything besides satellite connectivity, or dial-up. even by the year 2015 i doubt we will have reached the 98 % mark but regardless with near all of the country on higher speeds, for all intents and purposes there is not much of a reason to adapt to the needs of those without.
on a side note, although broadband connections may be what the majority have, the US household internet connectivity is not near 100 % as you can see from this graph (http://www.websiteoptimization.com/bw/0906/us-internet-connection-trends.png) a much smaller 70 % of the population is connected at all. however i believe this in the future will follow the same path as the broadband penetration over dial-up. the amount of people that do have connections will level off at around 9x % due to the nonavailability of the internet , or cost for a small percentage of people.
2:
6 % per year = 11.9 years to double.
2 years double = 41 % per year.
18 month double = 59 % per year.
at 2 % per year, it takes 35 years to double your initial amount.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEMM17XJD1E_index_0.html
the most interesting thing about the Lagrangian points is that the technology exists today, or rather the technology behind the points are a natural phenomena. It involves the gravitational pull between different large cosmic bodies (planets, moons, stars, and so on) to keep a object of insignificant mass by comparison , in a stationary position. This means with the rite calculations to maneuver satellite , or other man made structure into these points could theoretically keep them in place with little or no adjustment needed to keep it's location. With much less power needed to keep it in space, longer term observations, experiments, or possibly even habitation would be possible without having to deal with the troubling task of transporting new resources to keep it in space.
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/whatisai/whatisai.html
artificial intelligence is a man made computer intelligence. Although the meaning is broad and has changed slightly over the years, typically what most think when they hear about AI is sentient computers. The study of AI and how to properly achieve it has been on the mind of scientists for decades, and although there has been some progress, intelligence of the human level or above is still far off from the looks of things. The possible uses for such a technology are hard to list because there are just about as many uses for it, as there are for humans in general.
http://www.understandingnano.com/index.html
nanotechnology involves manipulating/creating things on an atomic and molecular scale. In a nutshell it's the science of creating anything by piecing it together with the most basic building blocks available (not going into advanced theories involving even smaller units). The use of this technology is just as vast as AI, with the ability to create microscopic machines, or even organic machines, you could do a variety of tasks. An interesting application would be engineering a biological machine that could be programmed to assist the immune system against a certain virus, or possibly even be used as a way to remove cancer cells from normal tissue and then assimilate itself into the removed area as a replacement for what the cancer cells use to be. Besides the benefit to the medical field, nanotechnology could be used to create extremely strong materials, since the technology involves working on such a small scale, the ability to accurately engineer stronger materials should be much easier, and produce far greater results than conventional methods.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)