We are on the edge of a fantastic technological break-through.
I am certain it will happen in my lifetime, but I'm not exactly sure when.
It could be VERY near or it could happen when I'm in my 90s but I am certain it WILL happen.
Whenever it happens it will be both AWESOME AND TERRIFYING.
This break-through is cracking DNA in such a way that we see it for what it really is: a programming language.
ALL computer operations are reduced to a binary instruction set. EVERYTHING on a computer is reduced to a string of digits that are all either a 1 or a 0.
DNA is the same, yet VERY different. It is the same in that it is a VERY long program that instructs our cells how to form, build, maintain, etc US. We, in essence, are the manifestation of that program. That is how DNA is the same as binary. Here's how it's different: is exponentially more complicated.
A string of two binary digits has four possible outcomes: 00, 01, 10, and 11.
A string of three binary digits has eight outcomes: 000, 001, 010, 011, 100, 101, 110, 111.
The pattern is the base (2) to the power of the number of digits (3).
DNA is, essentially, a base four system. A T C G are the four "numbers" that exist.
A string of two digits, therefore, has 16 combinations instead of 4.
A string of four digits will yield 64 combinations instead of 8.
So what does this MEAN?
It means that DNA is exponentially more complicated a base-language than binary. That is how it can do all of the things it does for biological beings.
How is this AWESOME?
This is awesome because when the code is cracked we will be able to program LIFE from scratch. We'll be able to make robots that are biological in nature (Arthur C. Clarke coined the term "Biots" with respect to this). We'll be able to cure diseases. We'll be able to get ANYTHING we need to be grown directly. Trees that grow in the shapes of chairs; algae that spews out oil as a waste product; flowers that compute, pretty much anything you can think of that we can BUILD we could grow.
How is that TERRIFYING?
For starters: watch the movie GATTACA.
But also look at all of the junk available for your computer. Look at all of the malicious code that exists to make pornographic pop-up windows on laptops, that fill your email box with spam, that hijack your search result links, etc. Look at all of the things that require computers to have security software and imagine having to have that type of software running IN YOU.
I am excited by the ideas that what good this type of development could bring the world, but I really fear the idea of having to purchase Norton Anti-Virus for my brain and body.
Monday, December 6, 2010
Friday, December 3, 2010
Automation is a Good Idea
There is a lot of debate about automation in society.
In fact I posted earlier about how it is training us to be helpless.
I believe this is true, but at the same time I find that there is still a HUGE volume of good to be done by automating dangerous things.
We've increased productivity and decreased costs by automating assembly lines and, while we've done that, we've decreased the volume of harm done to people through accidents caused by human error.
I work on trying to automate a great deal of things in my job because of the limited financial resources for person-power to do routine tasks.
If there is anything that computers (and thus robots) are REALLY good at it is repetitive and predictable tasks. They perform their tasks WITHOUT error. Robots and computers don't make mistakes; people do. The mistakes that appear to be made by robots and/or computers are actually mistakes made by people FAR upstream from the robot / computer. The programmers made the mistake. The people assembling the robot made the mistake. The operator of the robot made the mistake. A computer or robot is ONLY capable of doing what it is programmed to do BY A PERSON.
As we refine our programming we are also making systems that are FAR more capable. They are more capable of analyzing input and providing an appropriate output. They are more capable of handling error correction (e.g. conflicting input and/or part failure and/or programming errors in one section of their instructions) to provide the best output.
You might ask what prompts this post and I can quickly and surely answer that it is Google's automobile project. I mean "automobile" in the truest sense of the word: an automated mobile. That's right, Google has automated cars. They've run them on public roads without any accidents (except one, where someone else rear-ended the automated car) and with user intervention only a handful of times (like when cyclists and/or pedestrians walked out in front of the car against the light).
I have faith in the technology to be less dangerous than humans. I believe that computers could drive at faster speeds, in closer range to each other and for longer durations than people with fewer collisions. I believe that the automated cars are a good thing.
I especially believe that they would make my commute a heck of a lot more pleasant (nap, anyone?).
On the flip-side: I like driving. I imagine that once the majority of the cars on the road are automated I would have to go to a driving resort to be able to drive my own vehicle.
Thoughts?
In fact I posted earlier about how it is training us to be helpless.
I believe this is true, but at the same time I find that there is still a HUGE volume of good to be done by automating dangerous things.
We've increased productivity and decreased costs by automating assembly lines and, while we've done that, we've decreased the volume of harm done to people through accidents caused by human error.
I work on trying to automate a great deal of things in my job because of the limited financial resources for person-power to do routine tasks.
If there is anything that computers (and thus robots) are REALLY good at it is repetitive and predictable tasks. They perform their tasks WITHOUT error. Robots and computers don't make mistakes; people do. The mistakes that appear to be made by robots and/or computers are actually mistakes made by people FAR upstream from the robot / computer. The programmers made the mistake. The people assembling the robot made the mistake. The operator of the robot made the mistake. A computer or robot is ONLY capable of doing what it is programmed to do BY A PERSON.
As we refine our programming we are also making systems that are FAR more capable. They are more capable of analyzing input and providing an appropriate output. They are more capable of handling error correction (e.g. conflicting input and/or part failure and/or programming errors in one section of their instructions) to provide the best output.
You might ask what prompts this post and I can quickly and surely answer that it is Google's automobile project. I mean "automobile" in the truest sense of the word: an automated mobile. That's right, Google has automated cars. They've run them on public roads without any accidents (except one, where someone else rear-ended the automated car) and with user intervention only a handful of times (like when cyclists and/or pedestrians walked out in front of the car against the light).
I have faith in the technology to be less dangerous than humans. I believe that computers could drive at faster speeds, in closer range to each other and for longer durations than people with fewer collisions. I believe that the automated cars are a good thing.
I especially believe that they would make my commute a heck of a lot more pleasant (nap, anyone?).
On the flip-side: I like driving. I imagine that once the majority of the cars on the road are automated I would have to go to a driving resort to be able to drive my own vehicle.
Thoughts?
Network Neutrality is important
A lot of people don't know what Net Neutrality is and a lot more have heard the term but don't understand what it means.
If you have no idea what it is or what it means then you don't know how important it is to you.
"The Internet" is not a single thing. The internet is really an interconnected network of computer networks. It's MANY things. It's MANY things that all talk to each other and generally play nice together. Or, at least, that's what it USED to be.
Net neutrality is the concept that having all of the networks play nice to each other is the way it SHOULD be and that it is the way it should STAY.
If you enjoy being able to get on your computer and go to www.Google.com or www.YouTube.com or stream a NetFlix movie then you enjoy the benfits of Net Neutrality.
ComCast is trying to change all of this.
ComCast is trying to change a "peering agreement" with another of the networks that makes up the internet. The other network, Level3, is the network that is set to service connectivity to NetFlix. ComCast fears the overwhelming level of material that will, therefore, come FROM the Level3 network back into the ComCast network (at ComCast user request). ComCast is threatening to terminate their peering arrangement with Level3 unless Level3 pays ComCast considerably more money for this traffic.
If Comcast gets their way in this EVERYONE loses.
ComCast subscribers lose because they will no longer be able to reliably access traffic that is on the Level3 network instead of the ComCast network.
Level3's customers lose because they can no longer reliably provide services to customers of ComCast.
ComCast thinks they will have won, but they will have drawn the ire of EVERYONE in the world dropping their already terrible reputation even further.
And that's just the FIRST step.
This will open the door for EVERY network that is a part of the internet to re-evaluate how they want to manage the network traffic that YOU, the consumer, are paying to have access to. Contrary to the belief of the opponents of Net Neutrality the larger sites are NOT getting a "free ride." Every time you request information from Google you're using the connection that YOU pay for and Google is using the connection that THEY pay for on their end. Each bit of data being passed is paid for TWICE as it is now. ComCast wants Level3 to pay more for the traffic going into ComCast.
This might not SEEM like a big deal. But if the underlying structure of "playing nice" goes away we could ALL have internet service provider plans that look the like satirical graphic created and posted here.
I'd be fully in support of this if I actually had a CHOICE on who provided my internet. But very few people do. You have your cable company for fast internet and you have the phone company for slower broadband access. If you want selection I guess you could revert to a dial-up provider if you can find one.
(Note: this post was edited to change the abbreviation of Level3 that I used, L3 back into the proper name as there is a different company named L3)
If you have no idea what it is or what it means then you don't know how important it is to you.
"The Internet" is not a single thing. The internet is really an interconnected network of computer networks. It's MANY things. It's MANY things that all talk to each other and generally play nice together. Or, at least, that's what it USED to be.
Net neutrality is the concept that having all of the networks play nice to each other is the way it SHOULD be and that it is the way it should STAY.
If you enjoy being able to get on your computer and go to www.Google.com or www.YouTube.com or stream a NetFlix movie then you enjoy the benfits of Net Neutrality.
ComCast is trying to change all of this.
ComCast is trying to change a "peering agreement" with another of the networks that makes up the internet. The other network, Level3, is the network that is set to service connectivity to NetFlix. ComCast fears the overwhelming level of material that will, therefore, come FROM the Level3 network back into the ComCast network (at ComCast user request). ComCast is threatening to terminate their peering arrangement with Level3 unless Level3 pays ComCast considerably more money for this traffic.
If Comcast gets their way in this EVERYONE loses.
ComCast subscribers lose because they will no longer be able to reliably access traffic that is on the Level3 network instead of the ComCast network.
Level3's customers lose because they can no longer reliably provide services to customers of ComCast.
ComCast thinks they will have won, but they will have drawn the ire of EVERYONE in the world dropping their already terrible reputation even further.
And that's just the FIRST step.
This will open the door for EVERY network that is a part of the internet to re-evaluate how they want to manage the network traffic that YOU, the consumer, are paying to have access to. Contrary to the belief of the opponents of Net Neutrality the larger sites are NOT getting a "free ride." Every time you request information from Google you're using the connection that YOU pay for and Google is using the connection that THEY pay for on their end. Each bit of data being passed is paid for TWICE as it is now. ComCast wants Level3 to pay more for the traffic going into ComCast.
This might not SEEM like a big deal. But if the underlying structure of "playing nice" goes away we could ALL have internet service provider plans that look the like satirical graphic created and posted here.
I'd be fully in support of this if I actually had a CHOICE on who provided my internet. But very few people do. You have your cable company for fast internet and you have the phone company for slower broadband access. If you want selection I guess you could revert to a dial-up provider if you can find one.
(Note: this post was edited to change the abbreviation of Level3 that I used, L3 back into the proper name as there is a different company named L3)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)