Quantum Computers differ from the computers we have today in a way where today's computers work with bits with values of either a 0 or a 1. However, Quantum Computers are said to use a qubit which can have a value anywhere between 0 and 1. Quantum Computers are believed to excel past the computers we have today in a way where computers today "think one thought at a time" where a Quantum Computer can "think several thoughts simultaneously." However, the problem with Quantum Computers is that it requires the polarization of nuclear spin which is a tough feat tough to overcome at room temperature. However, Linköping University researchers created a spin filter which overcomes this problem. The spin filter lets electrons through that only have the desired spin, which in effect polarizes the nuclear spin. Not only does this filter bypass the room temperature problem but it also leads to the ability for information to be read.
Computers today already seem efficient and compact enough for our daily lives but it seems that we still have a ways to go. The Quantum Computer may be the next step towards an even more efficient/smarter computer in this computer time period.
article: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130430092420.htm
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Tracking Gunfire With a Smartphone
A computer engineering team from Vanderbilt University's Institute of Software Integrated Systems has made it possible to use your smartphone to track gunfire. If one were to unfortunately find themselves in some sticky situation for who knows what the reason may be, one could simply use their smartphone to find the direction in which a shot was fired and from where. The technology consists of the use of both hardware and software which can pinpoint the location of a shooter. The hardware uses microphones and clocks to that listen for both the muzzle blast and the shock waves produced by the supersonic bullets in order to calculate the position and direction of bullets. The software will calculate and display the information on a map of the area showing a red arrow as the direction of a bullet which is placed essentially using triangulation. The smartphone version along with the military versions, require multiple 'nodes' in order to accurately pinpoint a shooter so there would have to be multiple smartphone users in the area in order to make an accurate reading. These nodes form a network, of which the data they receive from the hardware, will be shared among the network to make an accurate reading. However, another version was developed which is a bit bulkier, but it requires only two nodes to make an accurate reading, but it can only estimate the range of the shot. This technology is very useful in the military for protection so a more available version would certainly help police departments and other authority units to protect a community and make an area safer.
article: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130425213800.htm
article: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130425213800.htm
Drones and Their Uses
Drones are something that is to be expected in the United States in the next upcoming years but these drones could bring up a lot of problems. A drone with a camera becomes a surveillance drone. A drone with a weapon, becomes a weapon itself. By placing different devices on drones, the drone shifts into a different technology. As stated in the article, drones are just a platform. How does one censor the uses of drones so that spying or terrorizing is prevented? This is a big problem we face in the United States and it is certainly not an easy question to answer. Not to mention, although drones can be used to spy and kill, they can also be used for the greater good such as in emergency responder situations or finding a lost person. So because a drone can be used for both good and bad, how will we be able to differentiate between the two? We will never know whether or not a drone was spying on us, or simply just searching the area for a nearby lost child. It's frustrating that drones could be used in so many good ways, but also be used in so many bad ways; hindering its reputation and potentiality in a community. Even then, a community with drones in use would be a scary one because you would be getting spied on constantly without even knowing or you wouldn't even see a terrorist drone attack coming because of everyone being used to seeing drones all of the time. It's a very difficult problem to handle and I'm interested to see what the results will be in the oncoming years.
article: http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2013/04/domestic_drone_surveillance_the_golden_age_of_privacy_is_over.html
article: http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2013/04/domestic_drone_surveillance_the_golden_age_of_privacy_is_over.html
Evolution Through Virtual Robots
A program built by a team at the Creative Machines Lab at Cornell University, simulates a variety of virtual species. The program builds these virtual robots out of 4 different types of cubes: Type 1 Muscle, Tissue, Type 2 Muscle, and Bone whereas tissue and muscle act as soft and hard supports respectively and Type 1 and 2 Muscles contract then expand and expand then contract respectively. The program then combines these blocks in seemingly random ways to construct these 'blocky' looking organisms. The Type 1 and 2 muscles are the main system for moving the organism and this movement can be simulated. Based off of this simulated movement, a distance over time calculation can be made and from this, the computer can simulate evolution with the concept: "quicker robots are rewarded with more children." These blocky robots are given the ability to 'breed' whereas the robots could, so to say, combine their DNA with other robots or some could produce in an asexual way. With this program, it is believed that concepts for robots that were not at all that easy to imagine can now be demonstrated and might lead to a design for an actual robot. However, these robots are very strange looking and I myself am having a hard time imagining what some of these robots may be used for, but the designs and the somewhat randomness does help to imagine what some of these ideas would look like. At this stage, all of the designs are very odd looking, and appear to act like Jellyfish, fumbling and wobbling around. It's actually quite creepy to watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=z9ptOeByLA4#!
article: http://www.livescience.com/29092-virtual-robots-breed-and-evolve.html
article: http://www.livescience.com/29092-virtual-robots-breed-and-evolve.html
Monday, April 29, 2013
The Big Dog
Currently, Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) made the Big Dog robots which are
hoped to serve as a robotic pack mule to accompany soldiers in terrain too
rough for conventional vehicles. Instead of wheels or treads, Big Dog uses four
legs for movement, allowing it to move across surfaces that would defeat
wheels. Big Dog has a variety of locomotion behaviors. It can stand up, squat
down, walk with a crawling gait that lifts just one leg at a time, and walk
with a trotting gait that lifts diagonal legs in pairs, trot with a running
gait that includes a flight phase, and bound in a special gallop gait. It looks
ugly; DARPA did not do any aesthetic design on Big Dog, because the military is
not very much concerned with the aesthetics either. What they want is a
tireless animal that can do the job of an animal as well as an animal without
the need to feed it, care for it, house it and train it.
You may already know
about the Big Dog from DARPA and Boston Dynamics from eight years ago. At that
time, the Big Dog could wobbly walk
up to 5 mph. But now it has some bestial
competition: the DARPA Cheetah. Its legs are so frightening. DARPA made a great
change of the Big Dog which is called Cheetah now. It could run up to 23 mph in
laboratory’s running machine. (Biddle, 2013)The robot's movements are designed to
mimic those of fast-running animals in nature. The robot increases its stride
and running speed by flexing and un-flexing back on each step, much as an
actual cheetah does. The improvement of the Big Dog is not only running faster,
but it also has added an arm, which can throw a cinder block weighing 35 pounds
17 feet while walking. In this case, the Big Dog can walk on the battlefield
smoothly. Even there is something on its way; the Big Dog can easily clean up
the way with its arm. That is really helpful.
Sunday, April 28, 2013
A Reflection to "All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace"
The documentary "All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace" is a really interesting 45-minute show about Science and Technology Studies. I like how it relates Ayn Rand's individualism ideology to the economic crisis in South East Asia in 1997-98. Ayn Rand was a Russian-American writer who inspired many of her American readers until today with her philosophies of individualism and objectivism. According to Ayn, the society should be free from any kind of governance, mutual relationship is irrelevant and happiness can only be achieved by fulfilling one's own desires.
How did these ideas trigger financial catastrophe in Asia? From the documentary, during her lifetime Ayn had a circle of friends who shared the same ideas as her, and among these was Alan Greenspan. Alan was loyal to Ayn-he was among the few who stayed with Ayn when her controversial work "Atlas Shrugged" drove away the literature community and when her scandal with one of the circle members, Nathaniel Branden, was revealed. Years later, Alan, who was an economist, rose up from being a consultant for Wall Street to the Chairman of the Federal Reserve in 1987. In less than two months after taking office, as the head of the country's central bank Alan faced a dramatic financial collapse as the stock market had the largest one-day drop in stock prices in U.S. history.
Alan was reappointed as Chairman for another two terms: first when President Bush took office in 1991 and next when Clinton became President. In 1996, U.S economy was still under recession. President Clinton believed that his political power could bring the country's economy back to its feet while Alan wanted deregulation of the market from political involvement, letting the free market decides for itself-the similar notion pointed out by Randian philosophy. Clinton's agenda of saving the economy using governmental policies failed, especially after his scandal with Monica Lewinsky was exposed. Clinton received criticisms from every angle and he was overwhelmed with it. He finally decided to listen to Alan's view and eventually, the American economy was in the hands of the Federal Reserve. The economy was free from political intervention and decision making was trusted to the machines, which calculated financial risks in the stock market. That time, economists, especially Alan, believed in the machines rather than men, that calculated numbers were more trustworthy and unbiased.
In 1997-98, many American companies have already invested in South East Asian countries and this propelled their economy significantly. However, after the stock market collapsed, the companies had major losses in stocks and wanted to move out of Asia. The fall of the large corporations means the fall of the entire American economy. So, the Federal Reserve bailed these companies out, leaving a huge sum of middle class workers in these countries out of job, inflation occurred and chaos erupted throughout the region. There was no such thing as a free market. When the government pulled its hands off the economy, the market didn't decide by itself. The power simply changed hands from the government to those who created the machines-the so called "1% of the population" who controls the central bank. Capitalist economy gave birth to a new form of dictatorship, not by any single entity but by a group of people who created the economic system and understand how to get around with it. It is interesting how the documentary related this back to Ayn's ideals.
As soon as I heard the name Ayn Rand, I knew I have encountered one of her works before. After the class, I typed in her name on Google search and found out that I have studied her work entitled "Anthem" few semesters ago. Anthem is a story set in the future about a man named Equality who lived in a collectivist society. The society was controlled by a central government, there was no "I" in their vocabulary as individuality was restricted, and knowledge and technology were limited to only a small group of society they called the House of Scholars. Equality knew that things were not right in the society and was tortured by the government for standing up against the system. He was pushed down to the lowest class in the society known as the House of Sweepers. One day when he was at work cleaning streets, he discovered the technology from the past. With this newly found knowledge, he liberated himself and his lover from the society to set out a new one, in which individuality will prevail.
From the documentary and also after revisiting Anthem, I learned that over time ideologies will fail. Communism does not serve well for the nations who implement them, capitalism is proven to oppress its society time after time, and even Ayn's opportunistic notion of individualism did not work nicely for her as she died alone, and sadly I assume, in her apartment in New York City. Yes people can say that ideals do not apply in reality and with the knowledge from the past, human civilization will improve over time. The questions is, for how far can we justify ourselves for the mess we are causing to the world? Are we really heading in the right direction?
Sources:
1. http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_ayn_rand_aynrand_biography
2. http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Alan_Greenspan.aspx
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthem_(novella)
How did these ideas trigger financial catastrophe in Asia? From the documentary, during her lifetime Ayn had a circle of friends who shared the same ideas as her, and among these was Alan Greenspan. Alan was loyal to Ayn-he was among the few who stayed with Ayn when her controversial work "Atlas Shrugged" drove away the literature community and when her scandal with one of the circle members, Nathaniel Branden, was revealed. Years later, Alan, who was an economist, rose up from being a consultant for Wall Street to the Chairman of the Federal Reserve in 1987. In less than two months after taking office, as the head of the country's central bank Alan faced a dramatic financial collapse as the stock market had the largest one-day drop in stock prices in U.S. history.
Alan was reappointed as Chairman for another two terms: first when President Bush took office in 1991 and next when Clinton became President. In 1996, U.S economy was still under recession. President Clinton believed that his political power could bring the country's economy back to its feet while Alan wanted deregulation of the market from political involvement, letting the free market decides for itself-the similar notion pointed out by Randian philosophy. Clinton's agenda of saving the economy using governmental policies failed, especially after his scandal with Monica Lewinsky was exposed. Clinton received criticisms from every angle and he was overwhelmed with it. He finally decided to listen to Alan's view and eventually, the American economy was in the hands of the Federal Reserve. The economy was free from political intervention and decision making was trusted to the machines, which calculated financial risks in the stock market. That time, economists, especially Alan, believed in the machines rather than men, that calculated numbers were more trustworthy and unbiased.
In 1997-98, many American companies have already invested in South East Asian countries and this propelled their economy significantly. However, after the stock market collapsed, the companies had major losses in stocks and wanted to move out of Asia. The fall of the large corporations means the fall of the entire American economy. So, the Federal Reserve bailed these companies out, leaving a huge sum of middle class workers in these countries out of job, inflation occurred and chaos erupted throughout the region. There was no such thing as a free market. When the government pulled its hands off the economy, the market didn't decide by itself. The power simply changed hands from the government to those who created the machines-the so called "1% of the population" who controls the central bank. Capitalist economy gave birth to a new form of dictatorship, not by any single entity but by a group of people who created the economic system and understand how to get around with it. It is interesting how the documentary related this back to Ayn's ideals.
As soon as I heard the name Ayn Rand, I knew I have encountered one of her works before. After the class, I typed in her name on Google search and found out that I have studied her work entitled "Anthem" few semesters ago. Anthem is a story set in the future about a man named Equality who lived in a collectivist society. The society was controlled by a central government, there was no "I" in their vocabulary as individuality was restricted, and knowledge and technology were limited to only a small group of society they called the House of Scholars. Equality knew that things were not right in the society and was tortured by the government for standing up against the system. He was pushed down to the lowest class in the society known as the House of Sweepers. One day when he was at work cleaning streets, he discovered the technology from the past. With this newly found knowledge, he liberated himself and his lover from the society to set out a new one, in which individuality will prevail.
From the documentary and also after revisiting Anthem, I learned that over time ideologies will fail. Communism does not serve well for the nations who implement them, capitalism is proven to oppress its society time after time, and even Ayn's opportunistic notion of individualism did not work nicely for her as she died alone, and sadly I assume, in her apartment in New York City. Yes people can say that ideals do not apply in reality and with the knowledge from the past, human civilization will improve over time. The questions is, for how far can we justify ourselves for the mess we are causing to the world? Are we really heading in the right direction?
Sources:
1. http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_ayn_rand_aynrand_biography
2. http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Alan_Greenspan.aspx
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthem_(novella)
Thursday, April 25, 2013
Reconciliation
I took this class, simply put, because Professor Vinsel taught it and I needed something to fill the space. In that aspect, it was a bad decision, because it demanded much more time than other 100 level HUM's.
But I do not regret that. It was, by far, the best mistake I've made here at Stevens.
I'm a computer scientist, but before that I was somewhat of a historian. In high school I was a passionate student about global history, and I almost went to NYU to study classics and ultimately become a journalist or something like that so I could write about why the world was turning the way it was.
Every day I acknowledge that, in some way, I made a mistake by running away from that dream. Some days I don't know why I signed off for Stevens instead of NYU. Some days I do. But that's neither here nor there.
This class breathed life back into the last dying embers that I clung to of the man I once was.
I'm bad at time, but I'd wager that it was halfway through the term, when were discussing that we needed to factor in where actors were coming from, that a gentle breeze caused one of those last embers to flare up, for just a moment, as I was flung back into my past.
I remember reading a historical text in my sophomore year of High School, analyzing what the motivations of the writer were for some text written in the something-hundred's, and I remember what it felt like to be in love with analyzing others through what they say, through their lives, their stake's in a system.
I realized, once again, that I wanted to think about the other people again. This was it, I realized: here it was, the bridge between the self I thought I murdered years ago when I signed up for here, and the self I became in my travels thereupon.
I could not ignore the flames in my heart then, as I felt my older claw through a pile of ashes, and try and take over. If he did, I wouldn't be writing this blog post: I'd have transferred out of here, decided that I should go do half my schooling over again.
No, this class made me look in that strange mirror we all have in our soul's and take my own hand and admit "Maybe, maybe we can make this work, somehow. Let's reconcile it; because if either one of us keeps going, the other one's going to go away forever. And neither of us really want that."
And so it was that this class triggered many, many weeks of reconciliation. I started reading a little bit again, I started writing again. I had to reconcile two worlds I thought were totally different: the world of science and technology, and the world of the human being.
The class became much more interesting after that, because my older self had woken up. I took this class because I liked the professor and needed a class; now, leaving it, I realize that taking this class gave me much more. It gave me the ability to stare in the mirror and stop ignoring my past.
I regret that I could not give this course the attention I should have given it. I made some poor decisions this term, decisions that taxed me too heavily, that spread me too thin. Decisions that really made me suck as a student for this course.
I regret that I did not make this discovery three years ago, before I made a few mistakes with my time and path here. I am remorseful that I do not have the ability to change my minor within a year and get this one, instead.
For a time, this class was making me regret coming to this college. The things we've studied... they've made me a little more cynical, seeing how everything is a power struggle, talking about the ever-diminishing sense of privacy we have.
But this is a story of reconciliation. By this point I realize that this class was my saving grace. I would have gone one way or the other, but now I realize that I can be neither here nor there, and be happy with that.
So thank you, Professor Vinsel. Thank you, Science and Technology Studies. You reminded me of who I used to be, what I used to love.
You helped me stare into the mirror again and realize that there's more to me than a cog in the machine. There's a man who can turn around and talk about why the machine is there, what people can do about it, and why they even interact with it.
The next step is going to be up to me. It's hysterical that a 100 level free elective made me shift gears, reconsider where I was going for my long term career, but it's the truth.
I stand here, not sure what I'm going to change, but I know that I'm going to change something in the path ahead of me. Perhaps I'll go become some sort of journalist in my future. Perhaps I'll study the implications of the things I do in my career. Perhaps maybe all that will come is that I become a little more cognizant of how technology changes society, and vice versa, and factor that in every day.
I don't really know, but I'm sure I'll figure something out.
But I do not regret that. It was, by far, the best mistake I've made here at Stevens.
I'm a computer scientist, but before that I was somewhat of a historian. In high school I was a passionate student about global history, and I almost went to NYU to study classics and ultimately become a journalist or something like that so I could write about why the world was turning the way it was.
Every day I acknowledge that, in some way, I made a mistake by running away from that dream. Some days I don't know why I signed off for Stevens instead of NYU. Some days I do. But that's neither here nor there.
This class breathed life back into the last dying embers that I clung to of the man I once was.
I'm bad at time, but I'd wager that it was halfway through the term, when were discussing that we needed to factor in where actors were coming from, that a gentle breeze caused one of those last embers to flare up, for just a moment, as I was flung back into my past.
I remember reading a historical text in my sophomore year of High School, analyzing what the motivations of the writer were for some text written in the something-hundred's, and I remember what it felt like to be in love with analyzing others through what they say, through their lives, their stake's in a system.
I realized, once again, that I wanted to think about the other people again. This was it, I realized: here it was, the bridge between the self I thought I murdered years ago when I signed up for here, and the self I became in my travels thereupon.
I could not ignore the flames in my heart then, as I felt my older claw through a pile of ashes, and try and take over. If he did, I wouldn't be writing this blog post: I'd have transferred out of here, decided that I should go do half my schooling over again.
No, this class made me look in that strange mirror we all have in our soul's and take my own hand and admit "Maybe, maybe we can make this work, somehow. Let's reconcile it; because if either one of us keeps going, the other one's going to go away forever. And neither of us really want that."
And so it was that this class triggered many, many weeks of reconciliation. I started reading a little bit again, I started writing again. I had to reconcile two worlds I thought were totally different: the world of science and technology, and the world of the human being.
The class became much more interesting after that, because my older self had woken up. I took this class because I liked the professor and needed a class; now, leaving it, I realize that taking this class gave me much more. It gave me the ability to stare in the mirror and stop ignoring my past.
I regret that I could not give this course the attention I should have given it. I made some poor decisions this term, decisions that taxed me too heavily, that spread me too thin. Decisions that really made me suck as a student for this course.
I regret that I did not make this discovery three years ago, before I made a few mistakes with my time and path here. I am remorseful that I do not have the ability to change my minor within a year and get this one, instead.
For a time, this class was making me regret coming to this college. The things we've studied... they've made me a little more cynical, seeing how everything is a power struggle, talking about the ever-diminishing sense of privacy we have.
But this is a story of reconciliation. By this point I realize that this class was my saving grace. I would have gone one way or the other, but now I realize that I can be neither here nor there, and be happy with that.
So thank you, Professor Vinsel. Thank you, Science and Technology Studies. You reminded me of who I used to be, what I used to love.
You helped me stare into the mirror again and realize that there's more to me than a cog in the machine. There's a man who can turn around and talk about why the machine is there, what people can do about it, and why they even interact with it.
The next step is going to be up to me. It's hysterical that a 100 level free elective made me shift gears, reconsider where I was going for my long term career, but it's the truth.
I stand here, not sure what I'm going to change, but I know that I'm going to change something in the path ahead of me. Perhaps I'll go become some sort of journalist in my future. Perhaps I'll study the implications of the things I do in my career. Perhaps maybe all that will come is that I become a little more cognizant of how technology changes society, and vice versa, and factor that in every day.
I don't really know, but I'm sure I'll figure something out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)