We were watching some of the first season episodes of The West Wing last night, and in this episode the White House Press Secretary comments that a news story is already “on the Internet” and will be in the newspapers the next day.
I turned to my wife and made note of this, how it shows the evolution of our language in just 8 years. Because the usual word choice today to say the same thing would likely be that a news story is already “online” – it would be understood that meant on the Internet.
Just thought I’d share that.
Jim Downey
Filed under: Artificial Intelligence, Babylon 5, General Musings, Humor, J. Michael Straczynski, JMS, Predictions, Science Fiction, Society, tech
As noted previously, I’m a big fan of the SF television series Babylon 5. One of the things which exists in the reality of the series is the ability to erase the memories and personality of someone, and then install a new template personality. This is called a “mindwipe” or “the death of personality.” It’s an old science fiction idea, and used in some intelligent ways in the series, even if the process isn’t explained fully (or used consistently).
Well, I’m about to mindwipe my old friend, the computer here next to this one. It’s served me faithfully for over seven years, with minimal problems. But old age was starting to take a real toll – I could no longer run current software effectively, and web-standard tech such as modern flash applications caused it a great deal of difficulty. The CD player no longer worked, and the monitor was dark, bloated. One side of the speaker system had quit some time back. My phone has more memory, I think – certainly my MP3 player does.
So, about six weeks ago I got a new computer, one capable of handling all the tasks I could throw at it. It allowed me to start video editing, and was perfectly happy to digest my old files and give them new vigor. The monitor is flat, thin, and quite attractive. It plays movies better, and will allow me to archive material on CD/DVDs once again. The laser mouse is faster and more accurate, and I’ll never have to clean its ball. Both sides of the sound system actually work. There’s more memory than I can possibly ever use . . . well, for at least a couple of years, anyway.
And today I finished migrating over the last of my software and data files. I’d been delaying doing this, taking my time, finding other things I needed to double check. But now the time has come. There is no longer a reason for me to keep my old system around. In a few moments I will wipe its memory, cleaning off what little personal data is on there. And in doing so, I will murder an old friend. A friend who saw me through writing Communion of Dreams, who was there as I created a lyric fantasy, who kept track of all my finances during the hard years of owning an art gallery. A friend who gave me solace through the long hours of being a care provider. A friend who allowed me to keep contact with people around the world, who brought me some measure of infamy, who would happily play games anytime I wanted (even if it wouldn’t always let me win).
So, goodbye, my old friend. I will mindwipe you, then give you away to someone else who needs you, who will gladly give you a home for at least a while longer, who will appreciate your abilities as I no longer can.
Farewell.
Jim Downey
Here’s a fun little thing I thought I would pass along: the visual recreation of Washington, D.C. in the spring of 1814. Using a combination of historical documents, paintings, maps, geological surveys, mixed with state-of-the-art imaging technology, they’ve created a short digital reconstruction. Nice use of technology and solid scholarship.
Jim Downey
As mentioned in my previous post, we were gone for the weekend. Went to Chicago, for a rehearsal of the North American Welsh Choir prior to our Patagonia trip in about 6 weeks. No, I wasn’t singing – I leave that to my wife. If you heard me sing, you’d understand why.
Anyway, since she was going to be busy all day Saturday with the rehearsal, I decided to pop out and spend a bit of time in Chicago. That’s always easy for me to do, since Chicago is one of the great cities of the world and I know it reasonably well. This time I opted to take the public transportation down to the Museum of Science & Industry, which I haven’t visited in at least 30 years.
The choice of taking public transport was probably not the most efficient one, in terms of maximizing my time at the museum. But I did so for a fairly simple reason: I had never done so in Chicago, and I wanted to exercise my skill at navigating an unknown system “cold”, so to speak, prior to going to Argentina next month. I’m usually pretty good at using such systems, but it has been a couple of years since I had to do so, and I thought a brief refresher would be a good idea. It went fine.
So I eventually got to the Museum, waited in line for my ticket, went in to the exhibits. There’s a lot to see there, and I may write about a couple of things in the next few days. But the one exhibit I particularly enjoyed seeing up close was their reproduction of the Wright Flyer.
No doubt you know the story of this small biplane, and the history that Orville and Wilbur Wright made with the original 105 years ago. You may have even seen the original or one of the reproductions on TV or on display somewhere. But have you ever been up close to it? It’s fascinating to see how simple it is in construction and design. Wandering around, looking at it on my own (the display was basically ignored by the mass of kids with parents in tow, who were more interested in the more ‘high tech’ displays in the museum), for the first time it sunk in that if I wanted to, I could build such a thing. Oh, I would probably outsource the engine (as did the Wrights), but all the rest of it I could easily make. It would just take some time, some space, and a bit of money to do so.
Think about that. You, in all likelihood, could build one too, if you have some basic mechanical skills and wanted to take the time. It wouldn’t meet current safety standards, of course, but it would be flyable.
This is in no way meant to belittle the breakthroughs of the Wright brothers, or, for that matter, the accomplishments of the AIAA Wright Flyer Project. But I think that it is important for us to not lose sight of the fact that there was no magic involved, just a lot of good hard work, testing, and innovation, by real people using simple materials and tools. I think we forget that, sometimes.
Jim Downey
Filed under: Arthur C. Clarke, Charlie Stross, Nuclear weapons, Predictions, Science, Science Fiction, Space, tech, Travel, Wired
Bit over a year ago, I wrote about Charlie Stross’s pessimistic views on space colonization. Pointing out that Stross was correct in terms of the current technology curve, I said that the bigger issue was a failure to understand that forecasting breakthrough technologies is almost impossible. From my post:
The thing is, it is difficult in the extreme to make solid predictions more than a couple of decades out. In my own lifetime I have seen surprise wonders come on the scene, and expectations thwarted. Technology develops in ways that don’t always make sense, except perhaps in hindsight. 100 years ago, many people thought that commercial flight would never become a reality. 40 years ago, people thought that we’d have permanent bases on the Moon by now. You get my drift.
Everything that Charlie Stross says in his post makes sense. You can’t get to that future from here. But “here” is going to change in ways which are unpredictable, and then the future becomes more in flux than what we expect at present. For Communion of Dreams, I set forth a possible future history which leads to permanent settlements on the Moon, Mars, and Europa, with functional space stations at several other locations outside of Earth orbit. Will it happen? I dunno. I doubt that exactly my scenario would come about. But it is plausible.
And I have pretty much the exact same reaction to this item from Wired:
Rocket Scientists Say We’ll Never Reach the Stars
Many believe that humanity’s destiny lies with the stars. Sadly for us, rocket propulsion experts now say we may never even get out of the Solar System.
At a recent conference, rocket scientists from NASA, the U.S. Air Force and academia doused humanity’s interstellar dreams in cold reality. The scientists, presenting at the Joint Propulsion Conference in Hartford, Connecticut, analyzed many of the designs for advanced propulsion that others have proposed for interstellar travel. The calculations show that, even using the most theoretical of technologies, reaching the nearest star in a human lifetime is nearly impossible.
Well, yeah. And if you asked medieval blacksmiths about about building a weapon that could kill a million people instantly, they’d also say it was impossible. For them, it was. For us, it’s technology which is 63 years old as of last month.
I’m sure everyone attending that conference (professionally, anyway) knows more about rocket science than I do. And probably about any exotic propulsion technologies on the horizon as well.
But that doesn’t mean they’re right. In fact, even if they aren’t elderly, they’re very probably wrong.
And even they know it. From that same article in Wired, after saying this:
The major problem is that propulsion — shooting mass backwards to go forwards — requires large amounts of both time and fuel. For instance, using the best rocket engines Earth currently has to offer, it would take 50,000 years to travel the 4.3 light years to Alpha Centauri, our solar system’s nearest neighbor. Even the most theoretically efficient type of propulsion, an imaginary engine powered by antimatter, would still require decades to reach Alpha Centauri, according to Robert Frisbee, group leader in the Advanced Propulsion Technology Group within NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
Frisbee says this:
As for interstellar travel, even the realists are far from giving up. All it takes is one breakthrough to make the calculations work, Frisbee said.
“It’s always science fiction until someone goes out and does it,” he said.
Perzactly.
Jim Downey
Filed under: Artificial Intelligence, Connections, Expert systems, General Musings, Health, Predictions, Science, Science Fiction, Synesthesia, tech, Titan, Writing stuff
[This post contains mild spoilers about Communion of Dreams.]
One of the difficulties facing computer engineers/scientists with developing expert systems and true Artificial Intelligence is the paradigm they use. Simply, working from structures analogous to the human brain, there has been a tendency to isolate functions and have them work independently. Even in modern computer science such things as adaptive neural networks are understood to analogous to biological neural networks in the brain, which serve a specific function:
Biological neural networks are made up of real biological neurons that are connected or functionally-related in the peripheral nervous system or the central nervous system. In the field of neuroscience, they are often identified as groups of neurons that perform a specific physiological function in laboratory analysis.
But what if the neuroscience on which these theories are based has been wrong?
Here’s the basics of what was Neuroscience 101: The auditory system records sound, while the visual system focuses, well, on the visuals, and never do they meet. Instead, a “higher cognitive” producer, like the brain’s superior colliculus, uses these separate inputs to create our cinematic experiences.
The textbook rewrite: The brain can, if it must, directly use sound to see and light to hear.
* * *
Researchers trained monkeys to locate a light flashed on a screen. When the light was very bright, they easily found it; when it was dim, it took a long time. But if a dim light made a brief sound, the monkeys found it in no time – too quickly, in fact, than can be explained by the old theories.
Recordings from 49 neurons responsible for the earliest stages of visual processing, researchers found activation that mirrored the behavior. That is, when the sound was played, the neurons reacted as if there had been a stronger light, at a speed that can only be explained by a direct connection between the ear and eye brain regions, said researcher Ye Wang of the University of Texas in Houston.
The implication is that there is a great deal more flexibility – or ‘plasticity’ – in the structure of the brain than had been previously understood.
Well, yeah. Just consider how someone who has been blind since birth will have heightened awareness of other senses. Some have argued that this is simply a matter of such a person learning to make the greatest use of the senses they have. But others have suspected that they actually learn to use those structures in the brain normally associated with visual processing to boost the ability to process other sensory data. And that’s what the above research shows.
OK, two things. One, this is why I have speculated in Communion of Dreams that synesthesia is more than just the confusion of sensory input – it is using our existing senses to construct not a simple linear view of the world, but a matrix in three dimensions (with the five senses on each axis of such a ‘cube’ structure). In other words, synesthesia is more akin to a meta-cognitive function. That is why (as I mentioned a few days ago) the use of accelerator drugs in the novel allows users to take a step-up in cognition and creativity, though at the cost of burning up the brain’s available store of neurotransmitters.
And two, this is also why I created the ‘tholin gel’ found on Titan to be a superior material as the basis of computers, and even specify that the threshold limit for a gel burr in such use is about the size of the human brain. Why? Well, because such a superconducting superfluid would not function as a simple neural network – rather, the entire burr of gel would function as a single structure, with enormous flexibility and plasticity. In other words, much more like the way the human brain functions as is now coming to be understood.
So, perhaps in letting go of the inaccurate model for the way the brain works, we’ll take a big step closer to creating true artificial intelligence. Like in my book. It pays to be flexible, in our theories, in our thinking, and in how we see the world.
Jim Downey
Hat tip to ML for the news link.
Filed under: Artificial Intelligence, Astronomy, Humor, MetaFilter, Science, Space, tech
OK, I spent *way* too much time playing this game last night: Orbitrunner. And because I’m the kind of guy that I am, I wanted to inflict it on you.
It’s actually a very interesting bit of gaming, for as simple as seems at first glance. Here’s the description from the site:
Control the Sun with your mouse. Use it to manipulate the planets’ paths. The Sun’s pull gets stronger as planets get closer. If the gravity is at a right angle to the direction of travel, an orbit can form. Make sure planets don’t leave the screen or collide!
I’m sure that they have established some fairly basic approximations for your computer to manipulate, but it still addresses one of the classic problems of physics: how to calculate the orbital dynamics for two or more bodies in motion. Even if you restrict the interactions to one orbital plane, this is a surprisingly difficult problem for more than two bodies, and has been for centuries. From ScienceWorld:
The three-body problem considers three mutually interacting masses
,
, and
. In the restricted three-body problem,
The efforts of many famous mathematicians have been devoted to this difficult problem, including Euler
and Lagrange
And Wikipedia has a very good entry (beyond my math level) about the broader n-body problem:
General considerations: solving the n-body problem
In the physical literature about the n-body problem (n ≥ 3), sometimes reference is made to the impossibility of solving the n-body problem. However one has to be careful here, as this applies to the method of first integrals (compare the theorems by Abel and Galois about the impossibility of solving algebraic equations of degree five or higher by means of formulas only involving roots).
The n-body problem contains 6n variables, since each point particle is represented by three space (displacement) and three velocity components. First integrals (for ordinary differential equations) are functions that remain constant along any given solution of the system, the constant depending on the solution. In other words, integrals provide relations between the variables of the system, so each scalar integral would normally allow the reduction of the system’s dimension by one unit. Of course, this reduction can take place only if the integral is an algebraic function not very complicated with respect to its variables. If the integral is transcendent the reduction cannot be performed.
Well, have fun with it. And be amused about that all that phenomenal computing power at your fingertips making a simple little game. Such is the future.
Jim Downey
(Via MeFi. Cross posted to UTI.)
Jon walked to the edge of the pool. He heard a noise behind him, turned slowly to look at it.
From beside a large bush a pile of boulders shifted. The air shimmied, light danced, and a crouching figure emerged, covered in a fabric drape that tried to keep up with the changing surroundings. One hand pulled the drape to the side. Another was holding a very large sidearm.
Excerpt from Chapter 18 (page 258 of the .pdf) of Communion of Dreams. That’s my description of a military ‘stealth suit’ being used by one of the characters. Why do I mention it? Because:
WASHINGTON – Scientists say they are a step closer to developing materials that could render people and objects invisible.
Researchers have demonstrated for the first time they were able to cloak three-dimensional objects using artificially engineered materials that redirect light around the objects. Previously, they only have been able to cloak very thin two-dimensional objects.
The findings, by scientists at the University of California, Berkeley, led by Xiang Zhang, are to be released later this week in the journals Nature and Science.
The new work moves scientists a step closer to hiding people and objects from visible light, which could have broad applications, including military ones.
Wow. Another prediction coming true in my lifetime.
Jim Downey
Filed under: BoingBoing, Climate Change, Cory Doctorow, Emergency, Flu, General Musings, Global Warming, Government, Heinlein, Pandemic, Plague, Predictions, Robert A. Heinlein, Science Fiction, Society, Space, tech, Tor.com, Weather, Writing stuff
Via BoingBoing, an interesting discussion over on Tor.com: The Dystopic Earths of Heinlein’s Juveniles. An excerpt:
It’s funny how it’s overpopulation and political unpleasantness that cause the problems, never ecological disaster. Maybe that wasn’t on the horizon at all in the fifties and early sixties? I suppose every age has its own disaster story. It’s nice how little they worry about nuclear war too, except in Space Cadet which is all nuclear threat, Venusians and pancakes. They don’t make them like that any more. Come to think it’s probably just as well.
* * *
No individual one of these would be particularly noticeable, especially as they’re just background, but sitting here adding them up doesn’t make a pretty picture. What’s with all these dystopias? How is it that we don’t see them that way? Is it really that the message is all about “Earth sucks, better get into space fast”? And if so, is that really a sensible message to be giving young people? Did Heinlein really mean it? And did we really buy into it?
Yeah, he meant it. And further, he was right.
No, I’m not really calling into question the premise of the piece – that Heinlein had something of a bias about population and governmental control. And I’m not saying that he was entirely correct in either his politics or his vision of the future.
But consider the biggest threat facing us: No, not Paris Hilton’s involvement in the presidential election, though a legitimate case can be made that this is indeed an indication of the end of the world. Rather, I mean global warming.
And why do we have global warming? Because of the environmental impact of human civilization. And why is this impact significant? Because of the size of the human population on this planet.
And what is the likely response to the coming changes? Increased governmental control.
[Mild spoilers ahead.]
For Communion of Dreams I killed off a significant portion of the human race as part of the ‘back story’. Why? Well, it served my purposes for the story. But also because I think that one way or another, we need to understand and accept that the size of our population is a major factor in all the other problems we face. Whether it is limitations caused by peak oil or some other resource running out, or the impact of ‘carbon footprints’, or urban sprawl, or food shortages, all of these problems have one common element: population pressure. We have too many people consuming too many resources and generating too much pollution. In fact, when I once again turn my writing the prequel to Communion, I may very well make this connection more explicit, and have the motivation of the people responsible for the fireflu based on this understanding.
So yeah, Heinlein was right. He may not have spelled out the end result (ecological disaster) per se, but he understood the dynamic at work, and what it would lead to. Just because things haven’t gotten as bad as they can get doesn’t mean that we’re not headed that direction. Our technology can only compensate for so long – already we see things breaking down at the margins, and the long term problems are very real. You can call it ‘dystopic’, but I’ll just call it our future.
Jim Downey
Communion Of Dreams 