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)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)