Technology, what's to come?

What is your view on technology and how fast it is growing? If you take a look at your surroundings, you’re bound to see a piece of technology. From a digital clock to a high-functioning laptop, technology is very much involved in our everyday lives. How far has technology advanced though and will it continue to improve? I say that we have only seen a glimpse of what technology can really do.

                When the first computer came out decades ago it took up an entire room and had the functions of a modern day dollar store battery. When the first mobile phone came out years ago, it was the size of brick, but after just a few years we now have phones that are almost paper-thin. Yes, the list of how much technology has changed and improved is a long one indeed, and the great thing about it all is that it keeps breaking the boundaries. Even when you think something has reached the best it can be whether it’s the newest operating system or the graphic qualities that a video game can provide, technology will always overtake their previous designs, given an adequate amount of time.

                With the way technology has progressed, it has become a crutch for us without us even realizing it. Many individuals would find it hard to do daily activities if they were stripped of their current technology. An architect who only specialized in designing buildings via a computer program might find their work stagnant if the program was taken from them and they were told to finish a building design using a pencil and paper, what would have taken an hour to complete might now take day to finish. We are not dependent on technology though, it helps further us. We’ve been able to explore areas that had been in the dark for years (top of mountains, underwater depths, space). We’re constantly making smarter technology as well such as the google self-driving car that will take us securely from point A to point B.

                Before you know it, technology that is shown in hit tv shows and movie will become a reality. A fully-functioning Millennium Falcon from “Star Wars” could be built in a few years; technology such as teleportation is currently being studied in Japan who knows what the technological will be like in a few years. One thing that will remain consistent is the easy to use user interface. No matter how much technology advance, it would be pointless if a regular consumer is unable to use it. Technology is meant to evolve around us, no point in making a high-processing computer if the regular everyday user is unable to work around it. The day technology stops growing is when we ourselves are unable to keep up with it, which will never happen.

Video Games: An extra life

Video games, they’ve been around for a short time, but they have grown exponentially from small beginnings to become a prominent force in marketing and entertainment industries. You may be a hard core fan of video games, might consider yourself just a casual player, or you might not even play video games at all, no matter who you are, you realize that they exist and have gain a lot of popularity in the world. No longer are videos game just a “guy’s only” market, video games have been crafted to appeal to audience of various ages and gender. I honestly believe that anyone can enjoy a video game as long as they find one that fits their interests which shouldn’t be hard with all the genres of games there are: shooting, fighting, action, adventure, puzzles, racing and role-playing the list goes on and on.

                While many look towards video games as a source of entertainment, there is one concept that many tend to overlook and that is the amount human interaction that is on a game’s user interface that allows the game to be displayed and show action. Simple commands in a video such as “press “A” to jump and “move the analog stick” to move your character may not seem like much, but the player is essentially giving life to what once was a motionless object. By playing a video game, you essential take on the role of a character where you are in control of their actions and they are prompted they should  do to make the story progress by inputted button commands that you, the player, have chosen. You control the character, you are responsible for if they live or die in the game, how far they get in the story, and how far their skills can be improved.

                I’m not attempting to say that you basically end up nurturing characters in a video game, what I mean to say is that you become them. I love “The Legend of Zelda” video games series, you become a young male who is unaware of their astonishing destiny which involves a lot of self-growth, adventuring, facing one’s fear, solving mysteries, and overall becoming stronger after countless trials in order to bring peace and defeat maleficent forces. When I play as the hero from the Zelda series, I like to disconnect myself from reality and attempt to see thing through his life in the video game because that is where all my attention is focused, it starts to feel as though I’m living a separate life from the one I’m used to now of going to school and trying not to go broke. In no way am I trying to say that I view video games as a way to escape the harsh trials that life throws on your path, what I mean to say is that video games offer the players an “extra life”. An “extra life”, a life where if only for a few hours a day, you can forget about you current life and live a life that would only appear in your dreams. You can be a pirate, ninja, assassin, hero, villain, soldier, doctor, lawyer, explorer and so much more in a video game. Video games and technology are shaping themselves in a way where it allows the user an opportunity to see and live a life that would not normally be presented to them while still maintaining a hold of what their current reality is, life is great, but lives in video games aren’t half-bad either!

Computers, the unappreciated art palette

Art is commonly associated with paintings, sculptures, music and performance crafted by human hands. I’ll be the first to admit that then when I first thought of art that I would not associate it with computers. When one thinks of computers they think of technology, analytical solutions, expressionless and raw data. Yet, I quickly came to realize how wrong that perception is, the computer can serve as a wonderful art palette for expressing oneself and their creativity. Computers have actually assisted in the progression of art and greatly expanded its range of expression.

                In today’s current age, digital media is ever expanding and along with its expansion so is the idea of digital art continuing to grow. Using computers, many artists have been able to craft digital artwork. What’s great about a computer is that it can help create things to add to your art by helping you craft specific colors that you desire that would be difficult to mix correctly in real life, and if you do a mistake on digital art, you are easily able to undo the error with the touch of a button and leave continue on with your work unaffected. Using a computer, the artist is able to quickly publish their digital artwork to the general public, whoever has Internet connection would be able to see the artwork, the Internet essentially becomes the world’s largest art museum. Of course, computers are not just limited to digital artwork; they possess many more tools to express artistic freedom. Using the latest music technology, it is possible to draft up music on computers, no longer is one restricted to playing a physical instrument, with a few keystrokes a computer becomes any musical instrument that you desire. Even using of the simplest functions that computers have, the typing function, is able to bring art to life. Poets and storytellers use computers to type out their literary works, proofread them, and publish them on websites where works of literature are promoted and praised.

                Deviantart, Fanfiction and Soundcloud are some the leading websites in which various art forms are displayed prominently. Digitizing artwork is something that is slowly gaining popularity. In Barnes and Nobles, they advertise towards their customers to purchase electronic copies instead of paperback novels by selling the electronic version at a lower price. You may also buy digital copies of published artwork to have on your computer. I personally prefer digital copies of art; it provides a better sense of security. Your favorite book, cd or even drawing may get damaged, but a digital copy remains safe and intact, safely stored online. With the progression of technology, we may one day wake up to world where art is displaced and preserved in a digital format while physical copies are only maintained if one wants to reminisce at antiques and admire a format of what was once used so prominently around the world. 

Robots are becoming a coexistent species

Robots, they come in all shapes and sizes and can be seen in many parts of our daily lives. Many view robots as mechanical proxies guided by computer programs or circuitry and heed no attention to them. To many, robots are such regular occurrence that one does not bother to acknowledge their existence, or just accept them as a staple to life that help events to flow naturally. Robots can be considered a tool that helps simplify a multitude of tasks, but from a different point of view they can be considered a man-made species that coexists with humans.

                Robots have been seen doing menial tasks such packaging assignments where the robots take a material from a conveyor belt; place it into a box for loading or unloading purpose and continuing this cycle for any new material that happens to appear on the conveyor belt. Robots are so much more important to society than being mere packaging assistants, they help humans continue to function and in return we help them function. There robots that have built-in security functions and help keep us safe from unexpected harm, there those that are designed to help gather resources essential for living and robots that have the responsibility of taking care of us. In Japan, there are robot caregivers that specialize in caring for the elderly with tasks such as lifting them from their bed to a wheelchair, just one of many human interactive activities that are being entrusted to a robot. In exchange for all the assistance that robots provide for us, we in return make sure to maintain them (e.g. clean them, make sure their hardware is up-to-date, provide it with a source of power to maintain its life).

                Robots appear everywhere in our lives, they appear with tasks assigned to them meant to help us, and sometimes they appear without people even desiring them to be there. Robots have been introduced to provide social interactions with us, they have been known to sing, dance and respond to our actions. Some robots have also been given humanoid appearances so as to help break down the boundary the sets man and machine apart. There are conflicting view as to whether we have been allowed robots to have too much of an impact on our lives. Movies have portrayed robots as reaching the point where they have the ability to process thought and make decisions on their own whiles still assisting humans and living with us in harmony; some movies have shown that if robots are given too much power, that they will eventually overtake us, and that they will hold dominance over us.

                No matter how one may feel about robots, one cannot deny that they are essential for the world to maintain itself and continue to advance. Mankind has created robots to help break pass human limitations and help us achieve things that we could never do on our own. It is because we have made robots so integral in our lives that we can consider them a coexistent species. Without robots, humans would stay stagnant and without humans, robots cannot continue to advance and grow. Humans and robots share a healthy relationship of one constantly improving and maintain the other towards a progressive future.

Has Google made us forgetful?

The world is in the Information Age, we are able to access information on a plethora of subjects using the Internet. We are always connected to the Internet via computers, tablets and of course smartphones. Various information is available in the palm of our hands whether you can’t recall when the Battle of Bunker Hill took place or what the name of Lady Gaga’s last album was.  Yet, some may say that this easy access to information has made us all a bit forgetful, I’m referring to the Google effect, a phenomenon described by Betsy Sparrow. The Google effect states that people have a tendency to forget information that can be found online by using Internet search engines such as Google.

            We spend so much time on computers and smartphones that information is always accessible to us. It appears to be a trend that people will choose to forget or at least not retain information on things that can easily look up using a search engine. It’s almost as if we end reducing the memory capacity that our brains can process because we can connect to our “external hard drive” known as the Internet to look up any information that we choose not to store in the memory space of the brain. You can ask any engineer student if they truly remember the equation set for any subject and they’ll most likely reply no. For most engineering exams, professors allow their students to bring a cheat sheet with them filled with any information they find relevant from the course (e.g. equations, facts, examples) that can be applied to the exam at hand because students are not expected to remember all that information.

            In the research that Betsy Sparrow conducted she came across various results. In one of Sparrow’s studies she asked participants various trivia questions and by using key words relating to search engines came to realize that participants instantly thought of the use of search engines when it came to searching for information to answer trivia questions. In another of Sparrow’s studies, Sparrow tested giving her subjects some trivial information and told them that they would be saved into one of five generic “folder”. The subjects were able to recall the names of the folders with great ease and what Sparrow learned was that her subjects were able to remember where to find information even if they couldn’t remember details of the information itself.

            Based on Sparrow’s research it feels as though our society as whole has gotten accustomed to realizing where information can be found instead of what the information exactly is. We’re slowly progressing to the point where it’s better to have an understanding of an idea or a method of thinking instead of relying on just pure memorization. By solely memorizing something we end up retaining nothing. We’re at the stage where it’s better to have an understanding of information so that when we’re able to look it up on the Internet we can apply our basic understanding of the information with the facts provided to reach a more remarkable viewpoint that wasn’t viewable before. 

Digital Idols

It’s hard to go anywhere without hearing about the latest pop culture news. Today’s society has the tendency of spreading the news and occurrences of popular celebrities such as the act of  Justin Bieber spitting on his fans or the news of Miley Cyrus doing obscene dance moves on stage. We tend to admire celebrities for their amazing talents involving their skills of singing, dancing and acting because these are all skills that we can witness firsthand and applaud. We applaud their hard work and dedication to have reached the status of fame they currently hold and how well they have sharpened their skills. Yet, currently technology has advance to the point where we can almost replicate celebrities’ talents and social status via digital means. Digital Idol, Hatsune Miku, is a fine example of how technology can produce celebrities through digital means.

Hatsune Miku is a female humanoid persona that is used to market a singing synthesizer app developed by Crypton Future Media that was released in 2007. Crypton’s app allowed for its user to create lyrics of their own preference and then have the Hatsune Miku app give the lyrics life by performing them. Hatsune Miku started gaining popularity for its amazing app capabilities and soon went viral after popular video-streaming websites such as YouTube and Nico Nico Douga spread her character image through numerous videos portraying her and songs created using her sound bank. Users quickly began creating their own customized songs for Miku to sing, by 2011 it has been confirmed that over 100,000 unique songs have been created for Miku to perform.

What makes Hatsune Miku app so popular is not only the capability to bring any song to life, but also the fact that it has a face that can be attached to it. Hatsune Miku is portrayed as a 16 year old girl with long turquois pigtails who sings and dances to your lyrics. Her performances and image spread the internet through fan-made depicted art and uniquely created songs. She has risen to celebrity status through her merchandise including artwork, cds, clothes, and toys. What makes her so interesting to users is that since Miku has risen to celebrity status, giving her a user-created song to perform is the equivalent of giving Beyonce a song to perform.

Hatsune Miku started off a computer image, but after reaching her celebrity status a lot more work was put into expanding her persona. Through the use of projectors and curved glass, Crypton has brought Miku to life and created a 3D holographic image of her to appear in front of thousands of audience members. The 3D hologram of Hatsune Miku has performed lived concerts to huge crowds of fans, and yes these fans actually paid money to go see a 3D computer image perform songs that have been synthesized via computer applications just as they would pay money to see any other type of performer in concert. Fans around the world dress up as Hatsune Miku, outright support her and fall in love with her. While a few years ago, the idea of people admiring a digital persona would be seen as bizarre, with the way technology has grown to this date, the idea is not to obscure.  

How to Fight Patent Trolls

The U.S. House of Representatives recently passed the Innovation Act, a bill that will purportedly fight patent trolls.  Patent trolls are companies that own patents, but do nothing with them, other than attempt to collect licensing fees from other companies which infringe their patents.  For instance, a company might buy a smaller company that has many patents to sue other infringing companies for money.  Their intent is not to use the patents to provide a service or manufacture products, but to simply "troll" the other companies for money.  The Innovation Act attempts to help rectify some of the problems faced when fighting patent trolls.  An article written by the EEF explains it quite well and breaks down the specific ways the act is fighting patent trolls.

Patent trolls often sue without intending to win, but rather have the defendant settle.  Currently, a patent suit can be brought about without any specification of the patent being infringed upon or the technologies that use them.  This leaves the defendant guessing about the case and they often decide to settle instead.  The Innovation Act will require that reasonable information concerning the infringement will be given in the suit.  The legal cost of fighting one of these lawsuits is extremely high, so smaller companies who cannot afford the cost of the suit will settle, even if they will probably win.  The act will rectify this by shifting the cost of the suit to the loser.  There is also the cost of getting the information required by the plaintiff for the case.  The cost for the defendant can be extremely high, while it is very low for the troll.  The act will push back this discovery until after the court has initially reviewed the case and also limit the demanded documents to only the most relevant, pushing the cost of any additional discovery to the plaintiff.  Patent trolls like to transfer their patents to shell companies, they own, to make their claims.  The lack of information regarding the ownership of patents can give the trolls an advantage.  The act will provide transparency by forcing the plaintiffs to release information regarding the ownership of the patents and also force the involvement of companies which have a "direct financial interest" in the case.  Trolls won't be able to hide behind their shell companies so easily anymore.  Patent trolls also target companies which simply use the services or products which they did not develop, but do infringe.  The act will pause the case against that company until the company which manufactured or supplied the infringing product or service settles the case with the troll.

I was surprised to see how malicious companies are with their patents and relieved that there is finally something being done.  The Innovation Act has yet to be passed in the Senate, so the changes are not set in stone, but we can only hope that it will provide some level of protection against patent trolls.  Large companies are using their vast resources to basically extort money from smaller companies due to high litigation fees and weak laws.  These are not competitors fighting for business, but rather predators bleeding small business using technologies they have no intention of using.  Patent trolls need to be fought because they slow the progress of technology to line their own pockets.

https://www.eff.org/cases/six-good-things-about-innovation-act

94Fifty Smart Basketball

I read a fairly recent article about a new innovation in basketball, here. In the article, it describes a product called 94Fifty, which is a $295 basketball that includes “sensors and a Bluetooth chip to communicate with an app that runs on your iPhone. The idea is to better track a player’s performance and better develop their skills.” Nowadays, it is very rare to see technology implemented in professional sports. It took a very long time before the MLB started using heavier statistical strategies with computer programs, and it still isn’t even fully optimized given today’s current technology.  Basketball tends to follow the same trends as baseball, but Soccer seemed to be the only sport showing advanced uses of modern technology.

 In this article, it discusses implanting a chip in Adidas soccer cleats so that players can “track and measure their distance covered, top speed, number of sprints, and other statistics during games or practice.” The chip can even connect to an iPhone app that will allow the player to compare with their past performance, as well as the performance of others. “’Understanding individual performance data is one of the best ways to improve your game,’ renowned trained Mark Verstegen said. For the first time, amateur athletes can have access to the performance tracking and analysis technology available to professional athletes.” While I agree with implementing this technology professionally, there is no doubt that this type of tracking cleat will cost hundreds, thus making it not very scalable in regular commercial markets. Moreover, tracking your performance data is only half the battle, where understanding what to do with the data comes with experience, and knowledge of the game. I believe that in order for this type of product to work, you would still need the know-how, understanding, and proper training to improve upon your current performance. The same argument can then be made with the 94Fifty basketball, since it already costs roughly $300. I find it funny that the basketball’s makers tag their basketball as “The Ultimate Holiday Gift” because I have severe doubt that this type of product will succeed in the consumer market. Not to mention, the ball is hyped to make you a better player, but as I said for the case of soccer cleats, tracking your performance does not guarantee success.  

Although I disagree with these types of products being sold to the consumer market, I think they will find perfect use in professional sports where teams have the necessary talent and resources to understand this type of recorded data. In the case of soccer cleats, team managers and coaches will be able to pinpoint weaknesses in certain areas on the soccer field, and adjust offensive strategies based on their player’s talent. Furthermore, team coaches will be better able to place their players in the positions they are best suited for. In the case of the 94Fifty basketball, players can better understand their possible flaws and weaknesses during team drills, and the product will even be able to tell the player what needs to be done in order to improve. For these reasons, people tend to classify these tools as a form of cheating. For instance, in the article regarding soccer cleats, it mentions that the NBA banned a $300 dollar shoe that added nearly four inches to a player’s jump. However, I do not believe that 94Fifty causes an unfair advantage since it simply gives player’s a better understanding of their current performance. I always find it very interesting when new technological innovations are introduced to professional sports, and it becomes even more interesting to see how these technologies affect the game.

The good and bads of autonomous vehicles

Driver-less Roads

Autonomous vehicles are something that many people have been talking about recently.  Just today, Volvo released their plan to have driver-less vehicles on Swedish roads by 2017.  This is something that has been worked on by many companies and many people would really like to see move forward.  Google is one of these large companies pushing to have autonomous vehicles.  I have very mixed feelings about whether or not this is a good idea.

Kindle Fire Mayday Button

Live support has been a pretty standard business practice for the last 20 years. It has gotten better over the years but nothing has improved live support like the new Kindle Fire Mayday button. Being able to see the support specialist and the ability for the specialist to draw and show you how to use your Kindle is awesome. Companies that sell technology are going to integrate this technology into this business. It is a no-brainer for companies that already offer support to offer a live video chat and device control. Although, it does make me wonder what really they can do with it. Can and are they recording things the user does not know about? Who knows, I doubt it, but now-a-days you still have to wonder. Besides that I don't see any issue with why a consumer would not want this technology in their devices.

People usually don't know how to do everything on their device. With live chat at a click of a button away, users will fall in love with this. I think it will even improve the users experience with the device as any hassles they have can easily be solved by a trained specialist. Improving the user experience and their knowledge of the device will keep users buying their product. Amazon is killing it with everything, their support is the best in the business and they levy technology to improve their customer experience better than any other company.

The secret Hong Kong facility that uses boiling goo to mine Bitcoins

http://www.theverge.com/2013/12/2/5165428/bitcoin-mine-in-hong-kong-uses-jelly-to-keep-cool

The title of the article says it all. There is a facility out in Hong Kong that fills tubes with computer chips and then fills the tubes with a liquid with a low boiling point. While the liquid boils it releases gas out the top which removes the heat from the computer chips. This whole process helps bitcoin mines cool their systems to mine coins quicker and more efficiently with less energy.

According to the article, Hong Kong is the best place in the world for bitcoin mining because it has low energy cost's. Between Hong Kong's low energy cost's and their state of the art technology,  I see Hong Kong becoming a world headquarters for bitcoins, with potentially some fear. I have heard that it is impossible for someone to corner the market, this is not what worries me.

I am worried that bitcoins will only bring wealth to the countries that can afford the state of the art technology and low energy costs that is needed to mine them. To me this kind of defeats the whole idea behind it. Bitcoins may not be everything they're made out to be and one small issue could lead to major problems. It will take bitcoins over 100 years to solidify itself as a steady worldwide currency in my opinion. Bitcoins are going to take a while to circulate and may take even longer for countries to accept as a currency. I see a lot of issues ahead for bitcoins but if it can get past the next 5 years I think it has a shot to continue.

Amazon’s Prime Air

In case you haven’t already heard, Amazon unveiled its newest innovation yesterday, Delivery Drones, which they plan on using for making deliveries to those who are in close proximity of their fulfillment centers. They say that with this new technology, it could reduce shipping times to a mere 30 minutes after an order is placed. Google tends to get all the praise for being one of the best evolving companies in the technological market, but I believe Amazon deserves some recognition as well given this new news. Starting off from originally selling books, to increasing their global presence, to building Amazon Web Services, to creating their own tablet, to constructing Delivery Drones, they never seem to stop on just one idea.

However, even though I find this new innovation to be absolutely amazing, I find it hard to believe Jeff Bezos’s claim that “Amazon drones could be in operation by 2015.” While I don’t doubt Amazon’s ambition towards delivering this new technology, I do doubt the legal processes and procedures that would need to be settled before seeing Delivery Drones implemented in the world. After all, since most drones have only been highlighted as being a military technology, it’s very difficult to believe that we would be seeing this technology being used for commercial purposes any time soon. Additionally, commercial drone certification “isn’t even slated to begin until 2020. (Source)

Some people have expressed their negative reception towards Amazon’s drones, saying “Delivery drones can explode, or run into things. Unmanned drones are guided by not-always reliable GPS and equipped with metal-bladed propellers and batteries that may be prone to combustion. They’re likely to be impossible to use in many urban areas.” Other concerns are that the drones will interfere with commercial airlines by possibly getting sucked into an airplane’s engine. (Source) Not to mention, I’m sure this type of technology opens the door for plenty of privacy issues, with possibly advertising companies wanting to generate more relevant advertisements based on what people do daily. Similar to the criticism that was met from Google Glass’s pay-per-gaze, I expect we might see close to the same arguments about commercial drones.  However, with drones entering the commercial market, it opens up the door for a lot of positive outcomes as well. There is of course Amazon’s delivery drones, but possibly drones to monitor traffic easier, monitor weather in close proximities, or even monitor possible crime. We obviously won’t be seeing this for many more years to come, but at least Amazon started the market in the right direction.

In my own personal opinion, I am very excited to see this type of technology used for deliveries, but I still remain skeptical about what doors commercial drones could open. Would there be laws in place that would forbid surveillance, or prevent drones being used for unethical purposes? Then again, maybe there are certain, not too invasive methods for using drones where surveillance could be a good thing. It’s too early to tell as of this moment I think, but as we have discussed numerous times in class, it would be interesting to see the how the different standards develop on this new technology.

Prosthetic Evolution

The paper I am currently writing for Computers and Society summarizes “Artificial Parts, Practical Lives,” a historical depiction of prosthetic appendages and aesthetics that analyzes societal influences on the design and implementation.  The latter part of my essay intends to focus on the current state of prosthetics and also on future developments, along with their ethical and implications such as replacing completely healthy appendages with beneficial prosthesis.  I wish to explore this topic with the content of this blog post.

It is quite amazing how far prosthetics come over the course of history.  Simple wooden peg legs and metal hand hooks are now being replaced by state of the art appendages controlled by nerve impulses and microprocessors.  The introduction of new materials, such as advanced plastics and carbon-fiber composites enhance make limbs lighter and stronger while also allowing for easier manufacture.  Despite these recent breakthroughs, there are a few key issues that are encumbering biomedical engineers, including the direct attachment of the prosthetic to the patient’s bone, and the availability of prosthetic limbs in both developed and developing countries.  A modern prosthetic limb can cost upwards of $100,000.   Scientists and engineers are working on methods to resolve such issues and progress is promising.

The largest area of development relative to prosthesis’s long and complex history falls within the interface between the amputee’s stump and the socket of the appendage.   Current prosthesis incorporates silicon elastomers that create a soft and slightly elastic inner liner.  This provides more comfort and a compliant barrier between the rigid prosthetic and the skin of the user.  Carbon fiber is also being widely used as a structural component due to its light weight and high strength.  Flex-Foot, a prosthetic foot company founded in the U.S. by amputee Van Phillips, use carbon fiber springs that store and release energy upon impact and retraction and better emulate the physics of biological motion.

Since the early 1990’s and the decades first artificial knee with an “on board” computer, biomedical engineers have been incorporating microprocessors into prosthetic appendages.  Termed “intelligent prostheses,” these high-tech limbs provide a more reliable gait pattern during the swing phase of the gait cycle.  The Otto Bock C-Leg offers symmetry in the swing phase and also a greater security in the stance phase by preventing unintentional buckling during standing.  Sensors in the prosthetic record information on the position of the leg in space and send that information to two microprocessors in the knee.  A hydraulic damper then receives this information and is adjusted up to 50 times per second.  Over 1000 C-Legs have been fitted to date, and their innovative design has reached much success, however, these prosthetics can cost 4 times more than the conventional limb replacements, decreasing overall availability.

Researchers are now trying to conquer the take of attaching artificial limbs directly to the bone of the patient.  Attaching artificial teeth to the jaw bone, a similar concept, has been going on for decades and now the procedure developer, Per Branemark, is attempting to carry over his techniques to prosthetics.  The stump is a dynamic body part that changes over time.  This makes the fitting process very arduous and the comfort level of the prosthetic vary.  With osseointegration, directly attaching the titanium implant to bone, fit is unaffected by the volume of the stump.  Swedish physicians are conducting experiments in order to deem osseointegration fit for long term use. 

A common theme in the advancement of prosthetics involves a narrowing of the gap between the abled and disabled.  This is occurring on levels of performance, as depicted above, and aesthetic quality.  The same silicon coating that has been used for the socket of prosthetics is also being used as a lifelike external surface of the fixtures.  Much work goes into matching the prosthetic limb to the intact limb, in color and symmetry.  Expense is once again a factor as a custom made prosthetic skin can cost upwards of $3500 and requires replacement every few years.  

Lower manufacturing costs, due to modern industrial fabrication and injection molded plastics, are closing the gab between social class and economic standing in terms of acquiring a prosthetic appendage.   Red Cross is producing low cost polypropylene plastic prostheses, that can be assembled by the unskilled local workers, for areas where conflict or environmental catastrophes result in large amounts of amputations.  Durability comes as a drawback for these low cost limbs.

The technological advancement of prostheses, especially over the past couple decades, has drastically improved the condition of the disabled and narrowed the gap between the abled and disabled.  Some groups , however, believe that at this rate, individuals will not only be able to match the quality and functionality of biological limbs but also far surpass them in strength and dexterity.  Ray Kurzweil, a large presence in the field of emerging technology, believes that sometime in the near future, patients will voluntarily want to have their biological limbs replaced by prosthetic ones.  There are plenty of ethical concerns that accompany voluntary prosthetic replacement, with the major one being the unfair advantages given to those who can afford them.  Once prostheses match the ability of their biological counterparts, will they keep advancing?  If this is the case, there will be a gap opposite to the one we have right now between the abled and disabled.  Those who don't want to upgrade their limbs or vital organs to technically advanced synthetic ones will now be the ones suffering from disabilities.   

Drone Delivery, is it possible?

            Today, people don’t have to go markets to buy what they want; they can just order from internet, and E-markets will deliver products to people’s house in short amount of time. This is really efficient way, but what if we don’t need any human labor to deliver?

Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos revealed an experimental drone-based delivery service in a 60 Minutes segment on Sunday. Bezos said the service, dubbed Amazon Prime Air, could be ready for customer use in “four or five years.”

“I know this looks like science fiction, it’s not,” said Bezos, before adding that “this is early, this is still years away.”           

Bezos said the drone could carry objects of up to 5 lb. (2.27 kg) within a 10-mile (16 km) radius of an Amazon distribution center. Given that Amazon has been steadily building distribution centers in an increasing number of urban areas, the service would theoretically cover a significant number of customers.

The craft are autonomous, per Bezos: an Amazon employee would enter a delivery recipient’s location and away the aircraft would fly.

“The hard part here is putting in all the redundancy,” Bezos told interviewer Charlie Rose. “All the reliability to say this can’t land on somebody’s head.”

Amazon’s drone delivery service will also have to comply with the Federal Aviation Administration’s new airspace rules for unmanned aircraft, which the agency is planning to have in place by 2015.

In preview segments, Bezos promised “something he wanted to unveil for the first time,” leading people on Twitter to speculate that it could be an Amazon television. Others joked that perhaps Bezos would buy CBS (he stunned the media world when it was announced in August that he had bought the Washington Post for $250 million).

This drone delivery technology seems ridiculous; what if the drone functions wrongly, and drone doesn’t deliver to the right places? People can’t trust drone since it’s just a robot: drone might malfunction, or people can hack drones. However, surprisingly, this is possible.

            First of all, GPS helps this technology. Today, we have Global Positioning System (GPS) that can navigate every movement; GPS connects to multiple satellites to determine the current location and the path to the destination. This technology will help to advance this drone delivery technology to be safer.

            Second, we are using this kind of technology even now. There is a system called “Autopilot” that guides a vehicle without assistance from a person. This system is applied to airplanes and missiles; furthermore, there is Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV). UAV is using autopilot system that computer controls all of its functions. Since this technology is used even now, drone delivery system is not impossible.

            Now, let’s think about the benefits of drone delivery system; what will happen if drone delivers the product instead of people? Well, first, it might be faster to deliver products than before; since drone flies to the destination, it will not suffer from traffic; therefore, it will be faster than normal deliveries. Also, since Amazon will send multiple drones, it will take less time for one person to receive it than one truck holding multiple items. Not only that, but it also will take less money to deliver; since e-market doesn’t have to hire people to deliver, it will cost less than human delivery if the drones perform well.

            However, there are several problems this technology will face; first, drones can malfunction easily. It can have bug and errors from coding or from environment; what if there is a rain, tornado, or dust that causes drones to malfunction? Not only it will hurt the drone, it might also damage the product it’s carrying. Second, since drone is based on coding, it is possible for hack the drones; it will be much easier to steal the products! In order for Amazon and other markets to use this technology, they will have to overcome these problems.

http://techland.time.com/2013/12/01/amazon-bezos-drones/

Prosthetic limbs with sense!

            Even with advanced technology, there are many disabled people caused by the war or mistakes. People weren’t able to cure disabled people but now. Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has been working on prosthetic limbs controlled by brain interfaces, but DARPA doesn’t have any good result from it. However, DARPA got a good result to make prosthetic limbs controlled by nerve and muscle interface recently. Reliable Neural-Interface Technology (RE-NET) from DARPA researched new peripheral interfaces using signals from nerves and muscles to both control prosthetics and to prive direct sensory feedback.

“Although the current generation of brain, or cortical, interfaces have been used to control many degrees of freedom in an advanced prosthesis, researchers are still working on improving their long-term viability and performance,” said Jack Judy, DARPA program manager. “The novel peripheral interfaces developed under RE-NET are approaching the level of control demonstrated by cortical interfaces and have better biotic and abiotic performance and reliability. Because implanting them is a lower risk and less invasive procedure, peripheral interfaces offer greater potential than penetrating cortical electrodes for near-term treatment of amputees. RE-NET program advances are already being made available to injured warfighters in clinical settings.”

A team of researchers at the Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago (RIC) demonstrated a type of peripheral interface called targeted muscle re-innervation (TMR). By rewiring nerves from amputated limbs, new interfaces allow for prosthetic control with existing muscles. Former Army Staff Sgt. Glen Lehman, injured in Iraq, recently demonstrated improved TMR technology. In the following video, Lehman demonstrates simultaneous joint control of a prosthetic arm made possible by support from the RE-NET program.

Researchers at Case Western Reserve University used a flat interface nerve electrode (FINE) to demonstrate direct sensory feedback. By interfacing with residual nerves in the patient’s partial limb, some sense of touch by the fingers is restored. Other existing prosthetic limb control systems rely solely on visual feedback. Unlike visual feedback, direct sensory feedback allows patients to move a hand without keeping their eyes on it—enabling simple tasks, like rummaging through a bag for small items, not possible with today’s prosthetics. The Case Western Reserve University video shows how direct sensory feedback makes some tasks easier. Case Western also received funding from the Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Office of Research and Development, Rehabilitation Research and Development Service at the Louis Stokes Cleveland Veterans Affairs Medical Center. The FINE is one of many different types of nerve interfaces developed under the RE-NET program.

Result of this technology is going to be significant; although this technology might be worse than one using brain interfaces directly, this can help many disabled people! Since 2000, there are more than 2,000 service members have suffered amputated limbs. Also, there are people who lost their limbs because of serious accidents. This technology would definitely help those people! Current prosthetic limbs will just help people to barely move their limbs, but with DARPA’s RE-NET, people can have prosthetic limbs with feeling; this is far superior than current one; although this will just help people to barely feel, if people can advance in this technology, people will have the prosthetic limbs that people can feel and moves based on brain interface.

Also, this technology makes people to take one more step closer to immortality; this might be exaggeration for now, but think about it. If people can basically create prosthetic limbs that are connected to brain and work like real limbs, it means that body doesn’t really matter anymore! People just have to extend this technology to organs, and even to brain, and that might be the key to immortality!

http://www.darpa.mil/NewsEvents/Releases/2013/05/30.aspx

Artificial Intelligence, Can it become a human?

                People are creating to make our life more convenient; people invented cars to move to somewhere quickly, phones to communicate to other people instantly, and typewriters to record something easily. Now, people are trying to invent artificial intelligence (A.I.) that will basically think for them; is this even possible? Can A.I. think like a human?

                There are many fictions that talks about A.I., and A.I. in those fictions can think like a human; is this going to come true? For instance, in the novel Neuromancer, two A.I., Wintermute and Neuromancer, combines themselves and become a cyberspace with its own conscious. It has its own mind and behaves like a human, or like a superior creature than a human. Also, in the movie Matrix, robots can think and even rebel against human because human didn’t accept robot as a living creature.

                However, fictional A.I. is a far more advanced than real A.I. at the moment;  for now, there is no real A.I.; A.I.s in real life are just a program that acts based on algorithm that collects data and updates itself; they collect data from people’s input, but they can’t use that data to infer from it. Also, there is no chatterbot - programs that simulates people’s communication through voice or text - that passed Turing Test, a test to figure out whether it’s human or computer. Furthermore, Turing Test isn’t the best way to figure that whether I’m talking to human or A.I. since Turing Test is from 1950s; considering this, it will take much more time to improve A.I. to think like a human.

                Then how are we going to improve an A.I.? Well, first of all, people need motives; if there aren’t people who are trying to create a perfect A.I., this technology will not be advanced. Fortunately, we have Loebner Prize that is a yearly held competition for chatterbots. It applies the Turing Test, it someone creates a chatterbot that passes the Turing Test, it will give 100,000$, but there is no one who got that prize; it also gives around 2,000$ ~ 3,000$ to chatterbot that is the most similar to human.

                Second, people need to analyze and completely understand about human’s brain. Beside the existence of soul, people behave as their brains order through electric signals. People can’t build something that they don’t know; they need to know about human’s brain first so that they can program it. If human can comprehend how brain works, then programmers may able to apply that knowledge into their program and make an A.I.

                Third, people need to create a body for the A.I. Perfect A.I. can’t be created without having a body because they will not feel. Feeling is very important to act like a human; people learn from what they feel. Let’s say there is a baby near a fireplace; the baby might go near the fire, try to touch the fire and get hurt. Then the baby learns that fire is dangerous, and will not touch anything that feels hot; the baby learned from one’s feeling. If scientist can understand the reactions between human’s brain and nerve system, they can probably create a body that can feel, and they can put A.I. into those bodies so that A.I. can feel.

                There are so many steps to make the perfect A.I.; people don’t know completely about human’s brain and nerve system. Even though people succeed to create the perfect A.I., there will be more problems we will face; how will people treat those perfect A.I.s? If people create A.I. that is smarter than human, how can we control it? Would we accept those A.I.s like one of “us”? We have to think about these questions before we creates the perfect A.I.

3 REASONS WHY GOOGLE GLASS WILL FAIL

3   R E A S O N S   W H Y   G O O G L E   G L A S S   I S   G O I N G    T O   F A I L

1. We Already Have SmartPhones

Stay with me here. I know full well what this argument sounds like to you. You’re going to try to compare me to someone from a past generation who said “well we already have typewriters, why would we need computers” and dismiss this argument as short-sighted. That’s not what I’m getting at.

My point in saying that Google Glass is going to fail because many people already have smartphones stems from a few observations about what the system can presently do. As far as I have seen, Google Glass does not have any function it performs that a SmartPhone cannot. I encourage commenters to prove me wrong on this one, because I would certainly love to hear what new thing Google Glass could add to my life. It can call people, take pictures and video, search for things, and give you directions. But my challenge is this – besides being able to refrain from holding your phone in front of your face to display a map in front of you, what is Google Glass really adding to the technology experience?

The jump from old cellphones (affectionately called “dumbphones” now) was clear – the device was more than a phone. It was now more like a computer in your pocket, complete with a web browser and the ability to download apps. The device became customizable to what you wanted to do with it, and arguably more convenient. The concept of a touch screen took away the need for buttons to clutter design – which opened the way for adaptable interfaces that change depending on the app that is currently running. In praising Google Glass’ “innovation,” we may be taking the SmartPhone for granted.

So would there even be a jump of any kind when making the move to Google Glass from a SmartPhone? In my opinion, that jump would at best be a jump to the side, not forward. It may even be a step backward, if interacting with your headset proves to be less innovative that using a SmartPhone. How much can you interact with a device when it only has a scrollbar you can touch with your fingers and a slew of voice commands? The importance of haptic feedback in interface design cannot be understated, and for every technological innovation that tries to make do without it, I have never seen a product that I have been pleased with.

2. Not Everyone Wants To Wear Glasses

I stole this argument from my father, who pointed out the lengths he went to in order to not wear glasses all the time. He wears contact lenses in order to correct his vision without the need to wear something on his face, and I only ever see him wear glasses late at night when he’s already removed the lenses. My aunt got corrective laser eye surgery so that she wouldn’t need them anymore – and she is just one of many. Now I realize that I’m citing two personal examples of people from an older generation, but I don’t think that the need to not have your face obstructed is an old-fashioned ideal. It could be as natural to human beings as basic survival – people are very resistant to change, and glasses take getting used to. Very few people wear them purely as fashion items. In addition, do people always want to have glasses on whenever they need the services of a mobile computer?

3. Not Everyone Wants To Look The Same

Think of any science fiction movie you’ve ever seen. What stands out about it to you? Is anything strange? Sure, those movies have odd plots, but what about the world they’ve created? Does anything stick out to you as something that “human beings just wouldn’t do because it isn’t in their nature?” Hmmm… what could it be…

Oh, I know! It’s weird when everyone in those movies wears the exact same jumpsuit thing, almost like a uniform. This is very common in dystopian works that want to show off how the individuality of the person has been lost and absorbed into the complacent mob. Why does Google think that people are going to want to wear the exact same pair of glasses as 100,000 other people in their own country? Fashion isn’t a part of our culture because it’s necessary or important. It’s a part of our culture because people want to use it to stand out.

“But Google Glass comes in 6 distinct colors!”

Stop. That’s not enough. Color barely matters – what people notice is form. The shape of the glasses, which will no doubt be determined by the function it needs to provide. No one wants to look like everybody else and wear a big Google ad on their face. And none of these reasons have anything to do with privacy or the Glass ad experience, which is a completely different topic anyway. 

NEUROMANCER IMPLIES DEUS EX

N E U R O M A N C E R   I M P L I E S   D E U S   E X

Can we talk about how the creators of Deus Ex (Eidos Interactive, 2000) totally read Neuromancer (William Gibson, 1984) and loved it? And how it absolutely inspired about 75% of the backstory and world design for the story of Deus Ex? This post isn’t even going to be a cohesive argument, I’m just going to list two of my biggest observations about the similarities between the two works.

Body Augmentation

The ability to augment one’s own body for purposes that do not seem essential or lifesaving is a key element in Neuromancer. Granted, there are bartenders who have robotic arms because their arms got removed in an accident. The book showcases a world where working prosthetics have become a staple of healthcare. However, for every case like this, there is another example in the book of someone who has augmented their body in order to become something more than a human. Molly Millions, Case’s “handler” in the book, has retractable blades that come out from underneath her fingernails and are razor sharp. Her eyes have received implants to let her see in the dark, and “cowboys” like Case can dive into her brain to experience what she’s experiencing. Plastic surgery seems to be a given for most people, even those who are not well-off, and most young people have chips in their brains that let them access cyberspace. The posthumanist undertones of the book are palpable, sending home a clear message that with technology, people can be whatever they want to be.

This is also the main focus of Deus Ex, a game whose world includes secret agents and operatives who have willingly removed their limbs in order to replace their body parts with “Augs,” a slang term for augmentations. These Augs may be weaponized arm cannons, eye implants, or just stronger robotic limbs. JC Denton, who you play as throughout the course of the game, is a secret agent coming onto the force right around the end of this new wave of augmentation. The new thing is nanotechnology – the ability to become a superhuman and still retain your human body parts, as long as trillions of nanites are flowing through your blood. Perhaps the idea of robotic prosthetics is a staple of futuristic fiction, (Luke’s working hand in the original Star Wars trilogy comes to mind) and most world designers have a hopeful dream about a future where losing a part of yourself doesn’t have to be permanent, detrimental, or even negative.

Chiba and China

The beginning of Neuromancer takes us on a journey through Chiba, Japan – a seedy underbelly of a town filled with weird arcades, dive bars, and futuristic clinics. The book’s protagonist, Case, has come to this town in search of a way to repair his body’s damage neurological system. Apparently, the Japanese know the most about these kinds of surgeries. While Case is there he deals with gun smugglers, angry employers, and strange cultural phenomenon like coffin hotels. These are inspired by real hotels in Asian countries where occupants only get a small box-like compartment built into the wall to stay in. These “coffins” are just large enough to sleep in and are barely large enough to sit upright in. Case makes his home in one of these until he leaves Chiba.

In almost every single Deus Ex title since the original game, there has been a level that has taken place in the seedy streets of some Asian country. Deus Ex, which is set in a similar near-future Earth setting, took the player to Hong Kong in 2052, where a company tied to the Illuminati was developing a real working lightsaber. We return to China in Deus Ex: Human Revolution to sneak inside of Tao Yong Medical, a hospital community built literally on top of the city beneath.

When I make these comparisons, realize that I’m not trying to accuse anyone of merely copying another’s work. I’m trying to gain insight into some beliefs about the future that may be universal – and perhaps the insight to be learned here is that we believe Asian countries may be at the forefront of technology in the near future. Perhaps Americans feel threatened by this. Even more compelling is that both works take the user across the globe, traveling to many distant locations. Just like a new level in Deus Ex is a guarantee of a new country and city, the same is usually true for a new chapter in Neuromancer.  

Conclusion

As I review my post, I realize I probably come off as a crazy person trying too hard to make connections between the two works. I accept the fact that in order to vindicate what I’ve claimed here, you really need to play the games yourself and read the book on your own. There are too many small details within each work to even mention here, and the similarities within the nuances are sometimes as great as the more obvious ones. You will have to take my word for it that I had many “aha” moments when reading this book that instantly made me draw comparisons between the two.

Piracy and Privacy.

It is easier than ever to partake in online piracy, but at the same time riskier than ever. The source of the new risk may not come from where you suspect. More and more groups are tracking individual's behavior. Whether that's Google or Microsoft (Bing) recording all your search queries or the US Government watching everything they can, the number of databases containing incriminating evidence against pirates is increasing exponentially. Of course, these groups aren't gathering the information for the direct purpose of building a legal case against you, but the evidence is there just the same.

Right now, Google could probably prove I've illegally downloaded software and movies. I've used their search engine to find sites illegally hosting files. I've run pirated android apps on my phone, which could easily record and report that behavior. Microsoft probably watches half the stuff you do on your computer, and could easily check the hashes of video files against a database of top torrents. My ISP probably identified that I use p2p file transfer protocols, and is probably aware of exactly files I've torrented. I don't think it needs to be said that the NSA is aware if you've ever violated a copyright. This list could go on forever.

Now, none of those groups have any reason to act on that information. My relationship with each of those groups involve money leaving my pockets and entering theirs. But what if that changes? I wonder what it would take for a failing ISP to sell out its previous customers? How much would the MPAA pay per pirate?

The solution to these problems is twofold. Firstly, the statute of limitations on civil copyright infringement in the United States is three years. If you stop all your torrenting for the next three years, there will no longer be a gun to your head. You will still be identifiable as a pirate, but as long as you are three years piracy-sober, you should be fine.

But I don't want to stop. Piracy exists because it is cheaper (lol) and more convenient that legally acquiring software. What do we have to do to keep our piracy private? Some might say universal encryption, encrypting the entire internet, could disguise our pirate traffic sufficiently. That only prevents middle-man eavesdropping attacks though.

My answer is this. We build our own pirate network. We use non-internet-networked machines as endpoints, so even if the files are identified, nothing can be reported. Then, we train pigeons. We build a network of carrier-pigeons and use high density SD cards attached to these pigeons to transmit all our illegal data. How long would it take to torrent a blu-ray copy of The Avengers? Probably the same amount of time it would take for a carrier pigeon to fly across New York City. The technology for this already exists. There is a standard for IP over Avian Carriers ( see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_over_Avian_Carriers ). To quote, "During the last 20 years, the information density of storage media and thus the bandwidth of an Avian Carrier has increased 3 times faster than the bandwidth of the Internet."

How could the MPAA respond? Probably the same way any military organization has responded to the use of message carrying pigeons (pigeons have been used in warfare as recently as 1957). They would train pigeon-hunting hawks to intercept and kill carrier pigeons. Unfortunately for my new avian friends, this means they are losing their jobs to machines, just like the rest of us. Combat-trained robots, disguised as pigeons would be developed, increasing the reliability and resilience of the network (work has already begun, see http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/11/army-maveric-microdrone/ ). It's difficult for a hawk to claw a pigeon out of the sky when the pigeon is actually a robot armed with a taser-beak.

Mockup of robo-pigeon, discussed above.

The MPAA's logical response to this is robo-hawks. As the battle continues to escalate, bands of mercenary robo-geese will form,  patrolling the skies and enforcing justice as defined by the highest bidder.

Fair use and Google Books

In a recent court ruling, Google's 'Google Books' project was ruled fair use of copyrighted material. The core of the case dealt with whether Google had violated copyright law by digitizing huge amounts of copyrighted literature. The Google Books project had been, and now will continue to, scan books and digitize their content using algorithmic text recognition combined with methods such as reCaptcha. Google uses this data to provide a searchable library of books to it's users. Search results provide a list of books related to a search and samples from these books to show how the search terms appear. Google profits from this by directing you to the Play Store page for the books in your results, as well as via their typical advertising channels. The Authors Guild (the organization suing Google) claimed that since Google was profiting because of unauthorized digital copies of the books, they deserved compensation.

In reading about this ruling, it seemed that the whole case revolved about the legal definition of fair use. For something to be legally considered fair use, various factors are considered. The purpose of using a copyrighted work is considered, whether it is commercial or non-profit. The amount of the original work copied is considered. Also considered is effect on the value of the original work.

Google manages to find itself in a grey area in every one of these categories. Clearly google intended to profit from this venture. The database they created provides profit for Google through multiple channels, but at the same time they created a free service that greatly facilitates research and education. Google created and used complete digital copies of the works it scanned, but only released small portions. By linking to the Google Play Store wherever possible, Google probably generated revenue for many authors.

This ruling, and what it means for future rulings, raises some interesting moral questions. It suggests that copyright infringement that has clear negative aspects (monetization, complete reproduction, propagation of copied materials) can be deemed fair use if there are positive aspects as well. Could a teacher torrent a movie to show a single scene in class? Could I get away with pirating every movie in existence, then use image recognition to create some crazy movie recommendation service, then monetize that service? The hypotheticals go on forever. It seems that this case has widened the grey area between obviously illegal copyright infringement and completely valid copyright use. Going forward, I suspect this ruling will be used in many copyright related suits to come.