Why moving to digital only is a Bad Thing: part 2 – Money

In part 1, I outlined my fears about a potential drive to abandon physical videogames and looked at the ways in which this will be bad for gamers (essentially, loss of control, higher prices, and the destruction of the second hand market).

But the intoxication with New Things and technological possibilities also means that some people want to abolish physical money altogether. And that’s far more concerning.

Why does that matter? Why does it worry me? Is it just because I’m so old-fashioned I have a mechanical calculator that computes using cogs?

Well, I am an old-fashioned man. And that helps provide context for why money came about in the form it did, and why shifting entirely (I don’t oppose electronic money, I oppose it being the only form) into so-called digital is drunken madness.

First off, why did physical money evolve? In the earliest days, wealth was essentially cattle. But imagine going to the shops with fifty oxen because you wanted some dresses. It’s not exactly convenient. Gold, however, is pretty, lasts effectively forever, and scarce enough small quantities are very valuable. Gold, silver, and electrum (a silver-gold alloy) coins soon came into being in Lydia, home of the fabled Croesus. They were easy to move, and if you’re selling wedding dresses it’s a lot easier to slip some coins into a pouch than to store fifty oxen in your pants.

The Chinese first brought about paper money, and a few centuries ago cheques (akin to paper money) came into being.

It was about the convenience of carrying, storing and transferring wealth, and shifted the concept of wealth from sheer physical property (oxen etc) to a more nebulous concept. However, the move to online only is a step away from control as far as wealth goes.

There was a report in the UK a year or two ago from some chap who had an interesting idea of a third employment category between employed and self-employed to cover the gig economy, and an idiotic idea about abandoning real money altogether and shifting purely to electronic.

If you get hacked or your bank goes down, it’s a pain in the arse. If you get that problem when physical money doesn’t exist, how are you going to pay for little luxuries, like catching a bus/train to work, paying for petrol or food? You can’t spend twenty pound notes when paper money isn’t legal tender any more.

Then there’s the control aspect again. Every time you spend, it’ll be logged. The time and location will be known. Perhaps more importantly, tax can be automatically deducted at source (this would be VAT [sales tax] in the UK). But the individual and the state aren’t the only players. Spending money this way requires a third party, perhaps a bank or an online cash-handling firm. They’ll take a slice. Maybe 0.5%. Maybe 2%. After all, they need to make enough to keep in business. If all their prices go up, what’s your option? You can’t go to cash because it doesn’t exist any more.

As mentioned to me on Chrons by Vladd67, this article is well worth a look. It’s about what’s happening in Sweden right now: https://www.techspot.com/news/77555-cash-has-almost-gone-extinct-sweden.html

“Digital currency is far more profitable for banks, as they get to profit from the fees attached to debit cards, credit cards and Sweden’s bank-developed payment app, Swish.”

“Sweden is also at the forefront of exciting new digital payment technologies, including microchips that have been implanted into 4000 peoples’ hands, enabling them to pay via high-five.”

Maybe you consider that ‘exciting’. I think it’s a dystopian nightmare.

Abolishing cash is a demented idea. People are sometimes so focused on what’s technologically possible they fail to consider the negative implications. Just because you could do something doesn’t mean you should do something, to paraphrase Jeff Goldblum.

Digital ‘goods’ and money are sold on convenience, but the cost is higher prices and loss of control. Don’t fall for the glib promises of a brave new world. It’s all about sucking the money out of your wallet, then burning your wallet so in the future you don’t even know how much they’ve gouged.

Thaddeus

Why moving to digital only is a Bad Thing: part 1 - Games

I’ve heard rumours on the interweb that Microsoft are thinking of having the next Xbox Random Number return to something that was slammed on the XBone: digital only media. As asserted by LoadingReadyRun’s Checkpoint, which reports such matters with a delightful mixture of competence, fairness, and humour and is well worth checking out, the world has moved on quite a bit. It’s entirely possible this approach will get little censure next time.

Got to say, I’m 100% against a shift to all-digital media. It’s part of changing games from being products to services, and in line with the madness of some who want to abolish physical money and only have it electronically.

Why Abandoning Physical Games is Bad for Gamers

I hang onto my old consoles. Planning on dusting off the PS2 and returning to some old favourites fairly soon, actually. With a physical copy, you can install or remove the increasingly large game download as much as you like, without worrying about it becoming defunct. You can give it to a friend, swap it with someone, or sell it second hand [NB I may be doing this with some books/games in the New Year so keep an eye out]. You cannot do this with a digital only copy.

But maybe that’s a small price to pay for the convenience of digital gaming. Assuming you don’t use your credit card only to have the details stolen, of course. Then it’s a large price to pay.

Browsing the Playstation store (I’ve got a PS4), it’s clear that the price of games there is higher than buying actual physical copies, possibly excepting pre-order periods and the first few weeks of a game’s release. There’s no gradual, natural decline as initial hype fades and shops want to get rid of their stock and reduce prices accordingly. The digital shop has zero physical space requirements and infinite stock. So the price stays high forever. Why would it decline?

And if everything goes digital, that will become industry-wide. Sure, you’ll be able to pirate games, as now, but those of us who don’t want to become criminals will be faced with the prospect of selling our kidneys to fund our increasingly expensive habit or going without Battle Royale: Money Gouger 3.

A related but different note is the move to microtransactions. I thought Fallout 4 was ok. It did make missteps. One of them was making settlement building so frequent. I liked the system itself but I didn’t need dozens of places. I also didn’t need basic items like a weapon rack hidden behind a paywall. If I’ve spent £40 on a videogame I don’t expect something basic like that to be ‘extra’ DLC.

Dead or Alive, the frisky fighting franchise, makes rather a lot from DLC of fruity outfits for characters, perhaps even more than from actual game sales. Similarly, there’s a push for microtransactions with lots of other videogames, whether that’s cosmetic silliness or pay-to-win Satanism. Sometimes this comes from games that seem to have no business having them at all (yes, Shadow of War, I’m looking at you, you greedy little grease princess).

There are great aspects to electronic cash and products. Delivery is faster than waiting for post. You don’t need shelf-space for countless games. But there are major downsides too. The price of games won’t ever fall. Spending physical money and electronic money feels different. It’s easier to get someone to spend numbers on a screen than it is to hand over pound coins (even the dreadful new pound coins that look atrocious). I’m not opposing digital versions of games, but I’m absolutely opposing the wholesale abandonment of physical games. Digital means you get convenience at a cost in money and control. If you’re happy to make that choice, cool. 

But if that’s your only option, it’s not a choice at all, just a mandatory move to line the pockets of companies at the expense of consumers.

In part 2, up in a few days, I’ll take a wider look at money and the desire of some to abolish physical currency in favour of a purely electronic system.

Thaddeus

The Curta Mechanical Calculator

And now for something completely different.

There was a time, children, when computers didn’t exist. And when they did exist (hello, Colossus) but were far from commonplace. People getting telephones at home, or even, gasp, televisions were new and exciting events. The radio was made of wood, and rather more listened to (perhaps due to the absence of TV, or because the people had better accents).

But what about calculators? Think of a calculator and you think of perhaps an app, or an electronic calculator, whether a simple everyday one or a swankier scientific version.

But what if those don’t exist? Well, you can work it out in your head.

Or you could use a mechanical calculator. The one pictured is the Curta, designed by Curt Herzstark. Born in 1902, he was an Austrian and son of a Jewish father. He’d completed the Curta’s design by 1938 but the Nazi annexation of Austria rather put the kibosh on production plans. He was ordered to make devices for the German army, until he was arrested in 1943 and sent to a concentration camp. Despite the less than ideal circumstances, Herzstark was able to redraw the designs from memory whilst in the concentration camp.

The mechanical calculator he created is similar in dimensions to a cylindrical deodorant can, albeit perhaps 2/3 the height and with a slightly larger diameter. It comes in an airtight two-part container.

I am not an engineer (the people who used the Curta perhaps the most), or a mathematician, but I must admit I found it to be not very intuitive (I’ve provided links to a few helpful Youtube videos at the end of this article). There is a series of movable switches running around the lower part of the cylinder. On the top is a handle that can be rotated either in the up or down position, with a separate ring that can be rotated (with the top part raised, this resets the device).

Turning the handle is curiously satisfying, like grinding a pepper mill full of numbers.

It turns out the switches on the lower part are for integers to add, subtract, multiply or divide. Turning the handle in the down position is for addition, in the raised position it subtracts. The number currently worked upon is indicated once an initial calculation (addition) has been made. So, the switches might be flipped to 1 0 2 4 at the bottom, the handle turned, and 1024 shows up on the top. A second turn adds the same again, yielding 2048. Multiplying small numbers is simply a matter of repeated additions.

For a larger multiplication, such as 2048 by 299, the upper part of the calculator is raised, and rotated so that the 2048 at the bottom (movable switches) is entered in the hundreds rather than units. This adds 204800 to 2048 (so, a multiplication by 101). Repeated twice is multiplication by 301. The top part is raised again and returned to the units, and the handle raised to the subtraction position. A double rotation removes 2048 twice, giving us 612352. As well as this, correct, answer, the multiplication factor (299) is shown on the upper part (in a silver rather than black area). [Experimentation reveals that if you subsequently alter the switches number, this is not taken account of. So, doubling to 4096 and adding once increases the count to 300].

Anyway, it’s an interesting little thingummyjig, and I thought people into engineering, history, or creative writing might be intrigued to learn about a calculator that doesn’t need any fancy electricity to get its business done.

Youtube links: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KomtGXzT3o

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loI1Kwed8Pk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhUfRIeRSZE

Thaddeus

Review: The Wonder Book of Aircraft

The Wonder Book of Aircraft is one of several older books that have been piled up, awaiting attention for some time. It was written in 1919, just over a decade and a half after the first powered flight, and a year after World War One came to an end.

It’s a book for children but easily the most adult (purely in the sense of maturity) children’s book I’ve ever read.

The writing style is completely grown-up, to the extent that if it hadn’t been specifically indicated as written for children I would never have guessed. It is also very of its time, both in assumed knowledge (parabola – a word every schoolboy knows) and general sentiment (there’s a picture of a German airship going down in flames with the caption “Just retribution”).

Mostly, this is rather engaging. It’s a charming, confident book filled with fairly simple but useful explanations of flight (there’s a strong leaning towards war machines which is natural given it came out right after the Great War), optimistic predictions for the future, the basics of aerodynamics, and a few daring stories of heroic deeds (some real, a few fiction stories). Also covered is a brief look at the history of attempted flight, airships, balloons, and how to make your own model planes.

The only bit that took me aback was the single instance, used in a story, of a term that today would definitely not be included in a children’s book (a six letter racial epithet).

The book is festooned with photographs, many from the air, and illustrations. Although the quality is naturally far less than that of cameras we have today, some photographs are nevertheless fantastic (I particularly enjoyed one showing a giant airship’s shadow alongside a steam engine). Whilst most images are of planes there are plenty of airships and balloons, as well as some other subjects (such as anti-aircraft guns).

Regular readers will be aware that this is not my usual sort of book, but I did find it fascinating nevertheless. With the exception of the model plane instruction (not my area at all) and the ‘old-fashioned’ language used on one occasion, it was thoroughly engaging and intelligently written. I tend not to write of F1 here, but the part on aerodynamics neatly applies (upside down, of course) to that motorsport, which was a nice bonus.

My own copy (a Christmas present to Ernest Wright in 1919 according to the handwritten note at the front) is in slightly tatty repair, but that didn’t stop me enjoying it a lot.

Thaddeus

Space Adventures of the Proximate Kind

There are plans already under consideration for the colonisation of Mars. Bases on the Moon, mining the asteroid fields, exploring Titan (Saturn’s moon) for life, all are on the horizon.

To be honest, it’s all quite exciting, both in real life and in terms of the sci-fi that can be written about such things. Scientific advancement, commercial gain and military advantage could all play a role in the near term exploration of the solar system.

On the scientific front, Mars and Titan present the most intriguing prospects. Mars is nearer, although getting there will still take months. Establishing a base will require substantial resources, but modern technology does offer some short-cuts that even a few years ago would have been impossible. For example, 3D printers mean that you don’t need every precise structure or tool to be carried with the human crew. Printing materials could be sent on ahead with unmanned or robotic expeditions, and future blueprints for improved structures could be sent from Earth and printed on Mars.

Any trip is believed to be one way, because of the lower gravity on Mars that would create health problems for anyone returning to Earth (not to mention prolonged exposure to zero-G on the way to Mars). For a long term settlement, a stable gene pool would be needed (which would also tie in neatly with the generally international approach towards space exploration). Of course, not everyone has to go at once. Farming would require internal agriculture (cultivating Mars would require it to be terraformed). Energy supply and other fuel sources is an interesting one. Solar panels could add some juice but I’m not sure if that’d be sufficient. Due to long flight times and the potential for mishaps, sustainability would have to be the goal. If the colony were reliant on fuel sent from Earth then it could easily find itself cut short.

There are diamonds the size of cars in Jupiter. Unfortunately, fishing them out is technically problematic. However, the delicious deposits contained within the asteroid belt are altogether more accessible.

In my short story Dead Weight (in Explorations: Through the Wormhole), I had to rework the early draft because I’d wrongly believed the Mars-Jupiter asteroid belt was some sort of Star Wars maelstrom. It’s not. There are big open spaces between the various rocks and, although you’d still need to be careful, mining them is eminently possible in the near(ish) future. The bigger problem is likely to be how you divvy up fairly, between either companies or nations, the resources of the asteroid belt.

An international company could be the way to go. So far, after the 1960s space race between superpowers, space exploration has generally been along rather friendlier lines than terrestrial politics. Whether that continues remains to be seen.

Mining could probably be done largely by robots, which would dramatically reduce the cost and complexity of operations. Humans are a pain in the arse to move through space. They need oxygen, food, water, psychological well-being (an increasingly important factor for longer flights), somewhere to get rid of the waste they produce daily, and if you land them too quickly they turn into meat paste (landing a robot too hard will break it, but they won’t leave behind upset relatives).

Titan is a moon of Saturn, and the only other place in the solar system where liquid water seems to exist. This presents the best possible chance of finding life in our near neighbourhood, which is very exciting until you remember that also means it makes an impending apocalypse a lot likelier. Leaving aside the Fermi Paradox and the Great Filter, life on Titan could also present a serious pathogen problem. It is, nevertheless, a fascinating prospect.

Any visit to Titan would be much harder than visiting Mars. For a start, it’s a lot further away. That means more time in zero-G and more time floating in a tin can, which will increase physical and psychological effects. Secondly, a mission would probably be about collecting samples and the like. Now, you could do this just with robots. That’s cheaper and safer. But humans are smarter than robots and more adaptable. The gravity, however, is less than half that of Mars. So, if you’re sending a human, that’s moving from prolonged zero-G to 0.14g. Very much a one way trip for something organic and squishy (it also raises the question of what happens if you actually found something advanced, say a space-donkey, and tried bringing it back to Earth. The affect would probably be the same as if you tried moving an Earth-donkey to a planet with 7g).

However, the Moon has surface gravity of 0.16g. That’s a seventh higher (akin to a human moving to a world with 1.14g). You’d notice, but it wouldn’t be horrendous. Species (or returning humans) could go to a lunar base for experimentation. No need to try and establish a permanent base on Titan, the gravity’s practically identical, and it’s miles (and then some) closer to Earth for fuel, communication, supplies and so on.

Most of the above assumes that we continue to have relatively friendly space adventures. However, the history of the human race is one riddled with conflict. Any nation that acquired dominance of space would have huge advantages. Asteroid-mining would give a resource and commercial advantage, access to the Moon, Mars and Titan would offer scientific progress denied to lesser nations, and the military aspect of near-Earth domination would be significant.

There are a number of existing or near-term weapons projects that operate from or in space. Tungsten rods operate by firing a rod of tungsten (as you may have guessed) at the Earth. The kinetic energy of it hitting the planet is immense, but also highly localised. It’ll annihilate a house, and the next door neighbour will be fine. (Sidenote, all ICBMs have nuclear warheads because a smaller payload would have less destructive potential than the kinetic energy of the missile itself).

Masers are also in development currently and would probably work in space. The problem with space warfare is that damage would commonly include explosive decompression and total destruction of the ‘enemy’. It’s hard to think of anything other than a war of annihilation (you might think of an EMP to knock out the electrics, but do that and how long will the oxygen and warmth last?).

Hopefully we won’t see military nonsense in space, but we’ll find out in the coming decades.

Thaddeus

The Fermi Paradox and the Great Filter

Word that water may well flow on Mars (periodically) was met with great excitement by many people. Water makes it easier to land and live there, as well as dramatically increasing the potential for life on Mars.

However, a few people were dismayed by the hugely significant discovery, which seems a little odd. Until you learn about the Fermi Paradox and the Great Filter [before yesterday, I knew of the former but not the latter].

Concisely, the Fermi Paradox wonders why we haven’t encountered any other aliens (yes, space is enormous, but species could have been developing for billions of years more than us, so where are they?). The Great Filter is a reference to a theoretical barrier that is very difficult to surpass, and prevents species reaching a certain technological height (hence why we haven’t encountered any).

A very interesting and lengthier explanation is available here [some fruity language so perhaps NSFW]: http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/05/fermi-paradox.html

The issue with the Great Filter, as well as potentially not existing, is that nobody knows where it is. It might be an extremely early evolutionary barrier, at the unicellular level, or it could be in our distant (or immediate) future.

The human race is inherently unstable, to some degree. It might be that high intelligence (which, on an individual level, has high co-morbidity with many psychological conditions) in a species naturally coincides with instability. It’s not hard to think of the numerous wars we’ve made on ourselves. If we keep doing that, the chances of nukes or biological agents (or weapons yet undeveloped) getting used on a global level will shorten (perhaps to a terminal extent).

We’re also very near the Singularity, a moment when artificial intelligence will exceed that of ourselves. This is significant because we could create a machine, which then designs a more intelligent machine, and so on. As this moment approaches, we’re also developing ever more effective robotic forms of death, which has led scientists to call for laws governing autonomous killing machines.

Inventing autonomous killer robots with superior intelligence to our own would be a very human way to commit species-wide suicide.

Drifting back to Mars and the Martians: if there is life on Mars, then that removes the earliest instances of the Great Filter, and makes it a bit more likely the Great Filter (which may well be an apocalypse of some variety) lies in our future, rather than our past.

Cheery thought. And all because some salty deposits were found several million miles away.

Thaddeus

Review: Schrödinger’s Kittens and the Search for Reality, by John Gribbin

Quantum mechanics is not my usual cup of tea, so it was with some trepidation that I began this book (a present).

After an initial summary of the general picture of quantum mechanics, and the best-known experiments/theories around it (including a cat which may or may not be alive, and may be both simultaneously) there’s a historical section.

I really rather enjoyed that. Concisely tracing scientific advancement from Newton to Einstein, and including numerous others who are perhaps less familiar, is a nice combination of history and science lesson, and allows the background to quantum mechanics to be gradually built up.

After this the book moves on to presenting competing scientific interpretations. It’s interesting to read how much room there is for disagreement, debate and new ideas in quantum mechanics, instead of one approach being depicted as The Truth.

In terms of writing style, it’s easy to read. Scientific terms are explained assuming little or no prior knowledge. It is worth noting the book is a little old now (coming out in 2003) so there will be new developments, one would hope, since its release. Whether those are included in a book of popular science may be another matter.

I’ve got to say that whilst I understood, superficially, most of what was described by Gribbin, who does a good job of explaining things in terms a layman might comprehend, here and there the science was beyond me.

Overall, I rather liked it. Diagrams are provided to help illustrate experiments or scientific principles (perhaps most useful when discussing whether the Universe is open or close).

Thaddeus

The Polygraph – a work of science fiction

Good news – Marvel's Agents of SHIELD has been renewed for a second season. In a later episode (no spoilers) the programme includes 'the most advanced polygraph in the world'.

Polygraphs are used in real life, and labelled (incorrectly) as 'lie-detectors'. It's easy to see why they're so popular in fiction (in Homeland, it's been used a few times), but a magic box that tells truth from deceit is just that: magic. It doesn't have a basis in science.

So, how is it meant to work, and why doesn't it?

The polygraph measure autonomic physiological responses. They actually vary quite a bit with some models being more advanced than others (if you're doing one, for fun, which has a belt around the chest try leaning back in your chair. It may alter the signals and make the tester think you're a chronic drug user). The basic operation, however, is identical.

Aspects measured include things such as how much you sweat, heart rate, and that sort of thing.

Initially, you'll be asked a couple of Yes/No questions. I believe (I did my research on this about a decade ago, so small errors are possible) that they'll be mostly truthful for the set-up phase, to establish a baseline of what your readings are when you're honest.

After this, they'll ask you a series of Yes/No questions about the matter at hand (have you been having an affair, do you know who stole the nukes, why did you watch Eurovision last night, and so on).

There's just one small flaw in an otherwise ingenious device: it doesn't work.

A report by an American intelligence agency (which, I hasten to add, was freely available when I was at university) found that the polygraph was barely better than tossing a coin, and that its only real value was to frighten idiot criminals who believe in magic into confessing.

We all know some people are better liars than others. Some people sweat more. Some are very calm. The polygraph can't tell between sweating due to nervousness because you're a serial killer and sweating due to nervousness because you've just had a shitload of wires attached to you and have been asked by a stern man in a suit whether you've killed several people.

There are also various ways to deliberately fool it. For example, entering a Zen Buddhist trance. That's quite tricky, but easier methods include a copper coin under the tongue, or a drawing pin in your shoe (just prick your toe when giving an honest answer. It'll cause your readings to spike, and then, if they do when you're lying, they won't look beyond normal).

This is actually a serious issue. Leaving aside the artistic licence of fiction writers to exaggerate the polygraph to make it something that actually works, it's used in the US and, sadly, has started to be used in the UK.

Paedophiles let out of prison undergo polygraph tests to 'prove' they have not reoffended. Brilliantly, paedophiles are up there with psychopaths as the best liars in the world. Terrifyingly, this gives a stamp of 'scientific' approval that they've not abused any children lately, even though the polygraph is worthless as a lie-detector.

The polygraph is a triumph of marketing over science. If policymakers paid more attention to science and a little less to fiction we wouldn't use the damned things at all.

Thaddeus

Review: Seven Elements That Have Changed The World, by John Browne

It's slightly unusual for me to read a science book, but this seemed fairly interesting. It looks at, unsurprisingly, seven elements (iron, carbon, gold, silver, uranium, titanium and silicon) and their impact on the world. The author, John Browne, was a bigwig with BP.

Each element gets its own chapter, which progresses more or less in chronological order of use (both within chapters and between them, so silicon, being the most 'modern' element is naturally last). There's an interesting mix of history, economics and chemistry.

I particularly found the gold and silver chapters interesting (especially the negative spiral of Bunker Hunt's enormous hoard of silver), but carbon dragged a little.

As someone born in the first generation to really have computer games, mobile phones and the internet it was also interesting to read about the hopes for uranium, with nuclear-powered cars and trains anticipated but never achieved.

I do feel certain bits were missed that could have been included. For example, Henry Ford gets a mention (fair enough), but Benz and Daimler do not. There was an interesting piece about glass-making in Venice and telescopes, but glass and its magnifying powers also had a huge impact on chemistry and biology. The ability to zoom in allowed for clearer images of very small things, and glass being chemically neutral enabled scientists to use it to experiment on other things, but neither of these aspects was referred to.

The author makes use of his own personal experience of and interest in various related matters. This is a double-edged sword. The Venice glass-making piece was worth reading, but a little more science and a little less personal interest would have made the book better.

I was also mildly amused to read in the conclusion the author criticise those who pollute [counting carbon dioxide as pollution], given he was a bigwig with BP. I'm not a green but that's a bit rich. On a similar note, too many of the photos were the author with a politician/businessman/scientist instead of relevant to the subject.

There was a lot of genuinely interesting stuff in the book, and I did enjoy reading it. More focus on the subject matter and less on the author would have improved it.

Thaddeus

Roads? Where we're going, we don't need roads.

In the original Star Wars film, A New Hope, there was a kind of hover-car that Luke used. Unlike an actual hovercraft it didn't have a physical air cushion and just floated above the ground. Such a thing as been the preserve of frequently re-edited science fiction… until now!

Well, nearly. The devices aren't commercially available and I imagine there are many teething problems with such an unusual type of transport but there is a working model which operates using two massive underside fans to generate lift. It's also unclear what the power source would be.

There are lots of obvious advantages to such a vehicle, if it were commercially viable. Roads would not be needed, and rivers/lakes and maybe even seas could be crossed. Unlike hovercrafts you would not need to worry about the air cushion getting punctured, and vertical ascent could even make it of use to mountain rescue (or particularly wealthy window cleaners).

However, the flying car has been something that people have been trying to build for years and years, without real success. The issues are numerous. For a start, a mid-air collision, unlike a land-based crash, involves both the incident itself and then plummeting to earth. Even if the cars are hovering rather than flying, the last thing you want after smacking into someone else is a 5' plunge to the ground (and if it's a long way you'll want a parachute). Secondly, the driving test is arguably too easy, but would you need a pilot's licence for a hovering car? It might be better, then, as a plaything for the rich and a practical tool for those whose working environment makes it worth the effort rather than as a popular vehicle to replace the car.

It does look rather more practical than one of my favourite vehicles, the bonkers but fun ekranoplan. The ekranoplan is a slightly mental creation. It's a cross between a hovercraft and an aeroplane with stub wings. It generates enough lift to raise itself off the ground (like a hovercraft without the physical cushion) but not enough to take off and fly. They're capable of moving at tremendous speeds over a flat surface (a frozen lake, for example). A Soviet-era ekranoplan (aka ground effect vehicle or GEV) hit speeds of 350mph whilst 20m above the sea.

Thaddeus

AI and Robotics

I watched Horizon last night, as I saw it was about artificial intelligence, which I find quite interesting.

There were a few examples of present robots and computers, varying from the incredibly knowledgeable but non-robotic Watson computer (which triumphed in a special edition of the US quiz Jeopardy) to more anthropomorphic creations.

The programme did pose some interesting philosophical questions about intelligence and whether AI can truly exist. The presenter, mathematician Marcus Du Sautoy, did a Chinese room experiment. He was in an enclosed room with a letterbox through which a fluent Chinese speaker posted simple messages. He then replied, despite knowing no Chinese at all and having no idea what he was saying, by posting back messages in accordance with a rulebook he had in the room. The Chinese speaker said that if she’d been speaking with him online she would have thought he knew it fluently and would have no idea he was utterly unaware of what he’d been saying.

The point of that is that we cannot know whether a robot is truly thinking as we do, or whether it’s blindly following instructions. Du Sautoy countered this by suggesting that humans themselves follow ‘instructions’ in the way we think (a view to which I’m inclined).

He also encountered a robot deliberately made to have many human structures, with a plastic skeleton, joints and thread doing the work of tendons. The scientist behind that creation thought that real intelligence was contingent upon having a physical form that interacts with the world. He pointed out that robots are phenomenally good at things we thought they might find hard (playing draughts) but very bad at things we thought they’d find easy (moving the pieces).

The final chap, a German, that Du Sautoy met had perhaps the most interesting robots of all. There were three of them, roughly 60% the size of a human and with a similar composition (2 legs, 2 arms). They invented their own language, giving a word to a gesture and then teaching it to one another and then Du Sautoy (who got it wrong at first). The German scientist suggested that robots really need to evolve in the same way that humans develop from infancy to adulthood, and the fascinating interaction between his creations seemed to back this up. It is hard to know, however, how much behaviour is simply programmed and how much is due to the robots ‘thinking’ for themselves.

For those Britons wanting to watch the programme, here’s a link to it on the iPlayer, which should be up for the next few days:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01fmbvb/Horizon_The_Hunt_for_AI/

There’s also an interesting moral question. If we created a robot species with roughly equal intelligence to our own, would they be free, or slaves? Would the abolition of ‘off’ switches become a political rallying point for robot rights activists?

Whilst we’ve had tremendous progress in computing power I’m not sure how long it’ll be before those questions become live issues. It’s worth mentioning, though, that mobile telephones were fiction not so very long, as was the internet.

In related news, I read a tweet by the lovely Miss Plato featuring a new video from those clever boffins at Boston Dynamics. This time they’ve made a little robust robot that can jump rather impressive heights:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6b4ZZQkcNEo&feature=youtu.be [For some reason embedding isn't working]

Thaddeus

The Robotic Cheetah

Military robots have long been desirable. They won’t ask for wages, won’t have qualms about doing unpleasant but necessary tasks and won’t even complain. It would also be nice if patriotic citizens didn’t get killed, and instead hardware got forcibly decommissioned.

Some time ago the dog (which is more of a mule, as it’s intended for weight-bearing primarily) was unveiled. It’s not, I think, finished, but it’s clearly pretty advanced. The robotic beast of burden has phenomenal balance, a steady pace and the ability to walk on pretty much any terrain.

Now the clever chaps at Boston Dynamics have created a robotic cheetah, which has recently broken the speed record for robots (now 18mph, having previously been 13mph).

Technological progress and non-human combatants have always been critical in warfare. Whether exceptional cases (Hannibal’s use of snakes in naval warfare or Wojtek, the Polish bear who fought in WWII) or more common ones (elephants, horses, camels) they can add a tactical or strategic advantage.

I think robotics could play a great role in logistics and intelligence (it’s not hard to imagine even more advanced surveillance robots as well as the dog or cheetah above), but I’m doubtful as to whether armed robots would be wise. They’d need to be able to differentiate between enemies and allies and I don’t know whether that will ever be possible, given the wide variety of context. If a robotic mule breaks then gear has to be carried by something else, but if a robotic velociraptor broke down it could pose a serious risk to civilians or its own side.

Thaddeus

Sci-fi: the speed of light problem

Sci-fi can vary from almost fantasy with lasers instead of magic to being very realistic indeed. However, the speed of light does pose a problem.

Essentially, travelling that fast is reckoned impossible because it's the maximum speed anything can travel. (And that’s disregarding the dilation of time, as described by Einstein and sung about by Brian May in ’39).

This matters because the galaxy is so widely spread out that travelling almost anywhere beyond the solar system requires a very fast system of travel. Voyager was launched in 1977, and only reached the edge of the solar system last year (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13704153).

So, there are a few options:

Ignore science: this is the simplest method of resolving the problem. Just use warp speed or hyperspace or whatever you want to call it, and don’t bother explaining how it works. The only potential problem is if you’re trying to make your sci-fi story as realistic (scientifically) as possible.

Alien technology: pretty similar to the above, but with a crucial difference. A system of gates (as used in the very enjoyable Stargate SG-1 series), for example, enables travel over huge distances but does not allow the human race to have a similar tech level in other areas. So, you get the travel options but can keep everything else more realistic and lower tech.

Don’t go that far: keeping the human race confined to the solar system, and perhaps one or two of the nearest stars reached by sleeper ships, can work perfectly well. Mining on other planets and moons (or the asteroid belt), wars over territory and so forth doesn’t really need a far flung empire.

The actual decision made doesn’t especially matter provided it doesn’t jar with the rest of the universe the writer’s created. Maximum realism of 27^th century firearms coupled with a magic box with Light Speed Engine written on it would rather break immersion.

I tend not to read as much sci-fi as fantasy. The last books I read were Toby Frost’s excellent Space Captain Smith series. This is probably because I prefer history to science, and find the general fantasy worlds (medieval England, Rome, Byzantium, Middle-Earth etc) more to my taste. That said, I think I might try hunting down some new sci-fi.

Thaddeus

Human species

Yes, it’s unusual, but today’s article is based on science (but there are some fantasy applications, which is why I chose this subject).

Right now human = homo sapiens. There are no Neanderthals running around, or Cro-Magnons or Homo Erectuses (Homo Erecti? And stop giggling). However, it wasn’t always so. Separate human species have not just emerged through sequential evolution but have lived side-by-side.

It’s quite hard to imagine, but not so long ago we shared Europe with Neanderthals for a prolonged period. On one island or other (I shall endeavour to remember where) people lived alongside a hobbit-like race of rather diminutive humans. These other people were apparently exterminated after causing serious harm to the local homo sapiens, who took rather serious and understandable offence.

There’s a region in South Africa that’s very secluded, and for a long time a group of homo sapiens there slowly began to evolve into a separate species (or perhaps subspecies). The key difference was language, with this isolated race developing a bird-like method of speaking utterly unlike the divergent but fundamentally similar languages with which we’re all familiar.

Could we, if we discovered them in a rain forest or cave system, live peacefully alongside another race of humans? I find it impossible to believe, sadly, given that we can’t even tolerate the same species of humans very well. It is, however, an intriguing thought.

Differing human species or subspecies also present fantasy writers with an alternative to the popular but not especially innovative standard of having humans, elegant elves and dumpy dwarves co-existing. Although modern humans have some racial differences (Chinese people have single eyelids, for example) we don’t have multiple species today, but it’s not too hard to imagine.

So, what differences could be used, and what differences existed between real world human species?

I remember watching a programme (Horizon, I think) about Neanderthals, which was fascinating and described in some detail the appearance, voice and other features of the extinct race. For a start, they had much longer rib cages, and didn’t have a waist. This made them sturdy but inflexible. In addition, their inner ear was different to ours, so they had inferior balance. Their voice would be nasal and high-pitched and I think that they would have better endurance/strength than us.

The hobbit race I mentioned above were, obviously, much smaller than us. In addition, they had a rather nasty habit of stealing things, which did not endear them to their neighbours.

A fundamental difference is whether a species is exclusively bipedal (like gibbons, or us) or can pick and choose (like gorillas or chimps). If a species were bipedal and quadrupedal then its eyesight might be worse and sense of smell better, and its arms and legs would probably have to be equal in length.

The three human species I use in the still untitled (I’m thinking of Bane of Souls, perhaps) book are quite similar. The Felarians and Dennish are almost identical, save that the former have darker skin, but the Kuhrisch are taller, stronger and somewhat resistant to the cold (but, unlike the other two races, they’re almost never magically gifted).

Thaddeus

Review: Bang!: The Complete History of the Universe, by Brian May, Sir Patrick Moore and Chris Lintott

Occasionally I veer away from my usual genres of classical history, fantasy and sci-fi and buy something completely different. One of my favourite science books is Bang!.

The three authors take the reader through the universe’s life, from its earliest beginning at the Big Bang to the present day, ending with the various theories regarding the death of the universe.

I’m not well-versed at all in this sort of thing, and was pleased to find that, with one or two minor exceptions, the contents were pretty easy to understand. It’s a good book for someone who isn’t an expert but might be interested in the universe and how it came about.

The book is hefty in size and festooned with excellent photographs and diagrams that either illustrate scientific principles or simply show how staggeringly beautiful the universe is.

The most interesting part of Bang!, for me, was the immediate aftermath of the Big Bang, which was something I had no idea about and enjoyed reading. The mind-boggling strangeness of the concepts involved (such as time not existing before the Big Bang and the huge loss of mass our sun undergoes every second) are a little bizarre, as is the strange truth that we can literally see the past when we look to the skies.

Over the course of the book the focus shifts from the Big Bang through the mass of the universe to our particular planet. It’s a little odd to read about history in this way, but the three authors do an excellent job of combining high science with simple and understandable writing.

The copy I’ve got is a hardback, second edition, as the writers updated it to take account of fresh discoveries.

It’s not my usual sort of fare, but Bang!: The Complete History of the Universe is an easy-to-read and enjoyable foray into the mysteries of the universe strewn with excellent photography. And one of the writers played guitar for Queen. What more could you ask for?

Thaddeus

Biopsychology: rare conditions

There are certain psychological conditions which are well-known and often used in sci-fi or fantasy, such as psychopathology or claustrophobia. Psychopaths tend to make excellent leaders (and/or criminals), after all.

However, there are a number of altogether rarer psychological conditions. I was staggered to read about some of them, so hopefully you’ll find this post quite interesting. For those after more information, I strongly recommend Biological Psychology: A Concise Introduction, by Andrew Wickens and Biological Psychology: An Introduction to Behavioral* and Cognitive Neuroscience by Rosenzweig et al.

*Apologies for the American spelling, but despite that it’s a fantastically interesting and rather hefty book.

Lots of people wear glasses, usually because they’re long- or short-sighted (I’m short-sighted). There are a few other problems that can diminish sight, but these tend to be confined to a flaw with the eye itself. Blindsight is quite different. Someone with blindsight has the physical ability to see, but the brain is, for some reason, unable to make sense of the visual information.

In short, a blindsight sufferer can see but does not believe they can. However, there’s a twist. If you were a rotter and threw a ball at them from their blind side they’d reflexively duck or catch the ball. This is because a reflex action is involved. There’s no real cognitive process (if you see a ball heading towards you, you don’t stop and have a think about what to do, it just happens). Even more bizarrely, people with blindsight may be able to point at things that they cannot see, when asked to. They have vision but without the awareness of possessing it. [This is mentioned by Wickens.]

An even more extreme and thankfully very rare condition is fatal familial insomnia. Everybody sleeps. There can be huge variety between sleeping patterns, longevity and how we fare when we skip a night or two, but sleep is literally essential. Fatal familial insomnia strikes the unfortunate sufferer when they’re well into adulthood. It’s a bit of a Ronseal disease: it does exactly what it says on the tin.

Anybody who has gone without sleep for, say, 24 hours knows that it has a pretty serious impact and can affect your behaviour. Prolonged lack of sleep goes far beyond that. After a certain length of time (7-24 months from onset) sufferers die. [This is mentioned by Rosenzweig et al.]

There’s also an interesting distinction between the genders. Women are more susceptible to both stress and depression (the two biggest causes of insomnia), whereas men are far likelier than women to be psychopaths. Anorexia is, of course, predominantly a female condition but there are rising numbers of men (particularly homosexual men) who have it.

It’s very good that there’s a lot more openness about psychological disorders and conditions. I do hope, however, that we don’t end up trying to pathologise every personality quirk and eccentricity.

Thaddeus

VR: Better than life?

There are a number of highly addictive games available online. Huge numbers of people love playing them daily, and sometimes they play them excessively so.

However, virtual reality may have an unexpectedly good use. A new 3D virtual reality, named SnowWorld and created by Professor Hunter Hoffman and Professor David Patterson, has been invented to try and help burns victims during rehabilitation.

I’ve only ever had a very small burn, but that’s all you need to realise that, unlike a small cut, the pain doesn’t disappear and it can hurt just as much hours later. Those who suffer extensive burns obviously have a hell of a time recovering.

That’s where SnowWorld comes in. Pain has a huge psychological component, and, as eyesight is the dominant sense for humans, by presenting an attention grabbing visual world a veil is drawn between the patients and their treatment. They also have noise-cancelling headphones to prevent sound interfering.

They don’t have to see needles and bandages and whatever else is needed for treatment, and this actually helps significantly.

SnowWorld is quite simple, with snowballs thrown at you by snowmen, and you can return the favour and similarly have a go at penguins and other creatures.

This sounds quite incredible, but it dramatically reduces the pain patients feel, basically by keeping their mind occupied and removing (both visually and audibly) them from their real world surroundings.

The treatment is part of a Horizon programme on BBC2 tonight at 9pm:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12297569

There have been a number of technological breakthroughs in recent years and decades in the medical sphere. This one’s pretty simple, as it just involves hooking up a basic VR world to someone during treatment, but sounds very effective.

The use of stem cells, genetic engineering and cloning also hold promise for the future (and some for the present).

Thaddeus