Wednesday, April 20, 2016
Wired has done a great job of presenting both a detailed view of the new "Magic Leap," "mixed reality" technology that's been pulling in huge sums of venture money of late, as well as a fairly comprehensive overview of what's out there now in both virtual and mixed approaches to what will undoubtedly be hot consumer items eventually. The article, "Hyper Vision" is a read that I recommend you take the time to go through. What's coming, along these lines could well be pivotal, assuming, of course a bunch of other bad things don't come along to show us exactly how good nature still is at special effects.
I am always of two minds when it comes to this sort of thing. On the one hand you simply can't have any geek credentials at all if it doesn't excite you to at least some extent. On the other hand, though, is a life worn old voice that reminds me that everything comes as a trade off; usually in ways we can't fully comprehend beforehand, when that first blush of excitement takes the blood away from where its need and makes us dash into the full embrace of whatever the new thing is.
Having read pretty much all of the VR, or MR, fiction ever written I have a keen sense of just how alluring this sort of thing can be. I also toyed with the idea of developing my own version of a VR system; in this case being more of an enhanced simulator than anything else. Think of a centrifuge like they use to train pilots and astronauts with. Then take and put the rotating arm on a vertical shaft, say, at least 30 meters tall so that the rotating arm can traverse up and down along the shaft as needed, while going round and round. Then make the rotating arm itself a traversable horizontal axis so that the modular vehicle cab (detachable so as to accommodate vehicles of any type) can move into, and out of, the center of rotation. And lastly, of course, make that cab be gimbaled 360 degrees in pitch, yaw and roll. Combine that with sufficiently hi res interior display systems inside, and suitably immersive controls and I guarantee you that you would then be left with is a motion simulator that would knock your socks off.
Whether that would be cost effective as a commercial piece of entertainment is another question altogether of course; possibly making it useful only for the military or commercial airlines, but I bring it up now because I never ended up actually wanting to develop it myself (I did try to give it to a certain large software company, when I was there, but they simply ignored the suggestion).
This occurred because of the ambivalence I have come to have for any form of augmented, or completely fabricated, experience systems (a topic I have covered before).
The problem here for me is not that such things would be inherently bad simply because they were engineered experiences. I do, in fact, believe that a great deal of good, and/or utility, may well come from such systems. What I do fear, however, is that they might be made to be so good that the temptation to use them exclusively would become irresistible, and in that will we come to understand just how problematic the tradeoffs already mentioned could become.
As I have said before, experience is experience. In the whole, neither nominally real, or engineered, will necessarily be better, or worse, than the other; either aesthetically or as a practical aspect of living. The main thing that we do need to keep in mind, however, is that both are quite likely to have intrinsic aspects to them that the other does not have. And in that, if we use one to the exclusion of the other, will we risk cutting ourselves off from something very important indeed.
What exactly you might ask? And to that I would have to admit that I don't know exactly what it would be. The thing is, however, it is exactly that kind of ignorance that can kill you, one way or another; especially when we rush to make the assumption that we already know all of what, let's call it natural, experience has to offer; quite an assumption even if we've been immersed in it for so long.
And to illustrate this point I would ask you to consider only one view of how our evolution has forged us into a sensory stance towards natural experience that was never intended, initially, to get all there is to get out of it. This is a a view that has been suggested by people like Robert Ornstein (as in "The Evolution of Consciousness") in talking about how our brains filter out a great deal of what we receive into the higher layers of consciousness. What happens here is that we have a host of what he calls "simpletons" of assessment that were set up to make quick, down and dirty, determinations of occurrence so that muscle memory actions could take place before any potential bad could happen; a circumstance that has certainly provided a good deal of adaptive advantage, but also left us with brains susceptible to all sorts of visual, and auditory, trickery.
The point here is that, even as we have moved quite a bit beyond the pre-social, and into the extensively cooperative social groupings we have now, we have put very little effort into understanding how that filtering may have limited us from fully understanding, or viscerally appreciating, all the energetic exchange that goes on around us; aspects of which may not only be of tremendous emotional, and cognitive enhancement, but also quite fundamentally imperative. Aspects of which, now that industrialization has abstracted, and segmented us out of formerly deep connections with each other, and the natural world, we have begun to feel as vague misgivings to both body and spirit.
So. Bottom line?
Its quite understandable to be excited by these new developments, and to look forward to enjoying them. Just take it all in with some caution. Try to remember that balance in what we do, and how we live, will still be of up most importance. Just as getting lost in the material world of work, money, and all that money can buy, hasn't been all that good for us, or where we live, getting even more lost in the imaginative made effectively real may well not do either any good as well.
The world’s hottest startup isn’t located in Silicon Valley—it’s in suburban Florida. KEVIN KELLY explores what Magic Leap’s mind-bending technology tells us about the future of virtual reality.
Sunday, April 10, 2016
...And space elevators are still a pretty cool idea. As the Kurzgesagt – In a Nutshell video linked here indicates, however, creating one presents some formidable engineering challenges, of which the material that the tether is made up of is only just one.
I have to admit that, even though I recognize the potential such an approach would have, I have never been all that enthused with their long term prospects for large scale, earth to orbit, throughput. It just isn't that efficient on a tonnage to time ratio (two days per traverse each way, with the lifter having definite limits on both size and overall weight each time up), which, given its initial costs, might be a negative when one thinks long term.
What has always amazed me, however, is the lack of consideration given to another possible approach: Using mass drivers to accelerate things into orbit.
I know, these face their own set of engineering challenges, as well as the primary consideration as to where you could possibly build one. To be able to launch large payloads into orbit it would have to be some combination of both a large diameter, as well as a lengthy acceleration barrel. And if humans were to be involved, not to mention any other cargo you don't want to compress into useless junk, or jelly, the longer it is the better as far as acceleration g loading is concerned.
How in the hell would you make such a long barrel, and still have it angled upward appropriately?
Well, as it happens, I have always had a pet idea for just such an approach. You do this by building the worlds first underwater, suspended tunnel, as the launch barrel. And you start by putting the launch base in the deepest ocean trench we can find at, or near, the earth's equator.
I know, recoil, suspension from what exactly, tremendous ocean pressures, just to name a few of the challenges, present formidable engineering problems of their own, but the thing is, going this route not only would be considerably safer long term (with no tether to worry about getting broken and falling back to earth, or whipping around it), it offers a better chance of more throughput over time. And best of all, if you were to pursue hydrogen production at sea with Tornado wind turbines you would already be producing the support platforms with which to suspend the barrel by. Not only that, but you would also be putting into place the production infrastructure to produce those platforms (the modular design of which lends them to mass production far beyond what the oil industry has managed so far) a great deal more cheaply, as well as great deal more rapidly than anything that has gone on before.
And let me just emphasize once more: Going this route also gives you the potential for throughput tonnages far beyond anything an elevator could ever achieve, popping multi hundred ton shots, say, every 10 to 2.4 hours.
I make the point of throughput repeatedly for a reason. This is so because we need to be very clear on the fact that we need launch infrastructure as big and robust as we can possibly make it. And we needed that some time ago. This, in turn, is so because the lead times involved here are tremendous no matter what approach you take and, with not only the list of things that we need to not be doing on planet, that we could do out there, growing, but the number of possible bad things that could happen down here also growing as well, not having options involving very large scales of ability is a prescription to our ultimate demise. And we would be fools indeed if we did not address this lack ASAP.
As always, just a thought.
Space elevators could drastically reduce long-term costs to space travel, and just sound really cool, but what are the obstacles to their construction?
Wednesday, April 6, 2016
There is no doubt about the fact that what ISIS does is not only brutally tragic, and destructive, but frightening as well. The fact that we get such mega doses of what they do as a part of nightly news all the time doesn't help in regards to the last part, especially as it pertains to the other pressing issues we, and the rest of the world face.
The Digg linked video linked here provides some much needed perspective on this. Perspective we need to keep in mind as we prioritize what we address as a part of national security issues. Obviously, an effectively strong military to protect us has to be one of those priorities, but it cannot, by any means, be the only one. Global climate change, for example, must be one as well.
The interesting aspect to this, however, is that taking coordinated actions to address global climate change could also serve to address some significant aspects of why we create enemies in that part of the world in the first place; as in our dependence on oil as a fuel. If we had a hydrogen fuel economy would we need to concern ourselves with that region nearly as much as we do now? And if we weren't as concerned in that manner, wouldn't it be a great deal easier to demand that other affected nations there do a good deal more in confronting what should be more their problem in the first place? I, for one, certainly think so.
Media reports and constant violence around the world make ISIS sound enormous and all-powerful. But how big is it really?