De omnibus dubitandum

Archive for the ‘technology’ Category

NASA’s biggest flaw illustrated

The latest edition of Wired’s UK magazine features a short article about a high tech record player designed and built by a former NASA aerospace engineer who was involved in sending spacecraft to Mars.

The record player, shown below, is superior to standard record players because it “allows only one degree of freedom, around the vertical axis. A film of oil — rather than the usual spring – suspends the bearing, eliminating unwanted resonance and distortions, and the drive equalises noise from the motor in the same way that noise-cancelling headphones work.

So, basically, it’s a maginally better turntable. It cost’s $150,000 plus shipping. Yes, that’s one hundred and fifty thousand dollars. And at that price, the creator says, he does not expect to make a profit on these.

That, for me, encapsulated everything that is wrong with NASA: redesigning something to be only marginally better for an exponentially greater cost.

That makes me wonder if, by forcing NASA to use primarily existing technology and not re-invent the wheel at 10,000x the cost, we could build a moonbase for under $10 million. We probably could.

$150,000 NASA-style redesigned record player

  • Filed under: technology
  • There is a lot I want to say about the current situation involving Oscar Pistorius – the double amputee athlete who’s competing in the athletics world championship right now, alongside the world’s best fully able-bodied athletes – but it would turn in to a very long and rather confused garble as I’m not entirely sure yet myself where I stand on the issue.

    So instead I’ll leave you with a selection of writings from people who spend a lot more time and effort thinking about these things.

    Is Oscar Pistorius the first Posthuman? – Ishan Dasgupta:

    “Whether one believes Pistorius should race with biologically intact men depends on how one feels about a variety of issues ranging from enhancement to the purpose of sport. Leaving this question aside I want to focus here on a broader question: Is Oscar Pistorius the first posthuman and what does this mean for the future of sport?”

    Is it fair for ‘Blade Runner’ Oscar Pistorius to run in London Olympics? – The Observer:

    “The reliably erudite Roger Black, our greatest 400m runner, was one of the first to speak out. No scientific consensus, he pointed out, had been reached on whether the blades provided Pistorius with a benefit and until that was clear we did not have the faintest idea whether he was “an amazing athlete or a very good athlete with an advantage”. Black also placed himself in the spikes of an athlete beaten – maybe even to a medal – by Pistorius. Would they think, perhaps even justifiably, that it was unfair?”

    When Will We Be Transhuman? Seven Conditions for Attaining Transhumanism – Discover Magazine:

    “As a movement philosophy, transhumanism and its proponents argue for a future of ageless bodies, transcendent experiences, and extraordinary minds. Not everyone supports every aspect of transhumanism, but you’d be amazed at how neatly current political struggles and technological progress point toward a transhuman future. Transhumanism isn’t just about cybernetics and robot bodies. Social and political progress must accompany the technological and biological advances for transhumanism to become a reality.”

    So Top Gear (a humorous entertainment show that some hapless morons confuse for a serious car programme) did a segment on electric cars, and a lot of people are very upset about it. (Exhibit A, exhibit B)

    “Big, mean Top Gear,” they say, “they always pick on electric cars! The segment wasn’t fair! It made electric cars look bad!”

    No, you whiney little twats, Top Gear didn’t make electric cars look bad. Electric cars do a spectacular job at sucking all on their own, they don’t need Top Gear’s infantile humour to make them look bad.

    Because, right now, in the UK, electric cars only make sense if you live in a big city and have shitloads of money. Let me explain:

    1. Electric cars have a range of, at most, 100 miles. Which makes them ideal city cars.
    2. Charge stations for electric cars are present mainly in big cities.
    3. That means that electric cars are not much use if you live in the country or venture out there much.
    4. Electric cars are about twice as expensive as their combustion-engine counterparts.
    5. If you own an electric car and you do want to venture out more than 100 miles without having to plan your trip around charge stations and nearby hotels (because charging an electric car takes time), you’re better off taking public transport.
    6. Public transport in the UK is ridiculously, mind-bogglingly expensive.

    All these factors combined means that rich inner city toffs are the only sensible demographic for electric cars. And guess who’s doing the complaining about Top Gear’s ‘misleading’ electric car segment? Exactly.

    The simple fact is that currently, as things stand, electric cars are not a valid alternative for cars with internal combustion engines. Electric cars only work in a limited amount of transport scenarios, and in nearly all of those public transport is probably a better option anyway (if only marginally cheaper).

    The ‘controversial’ Top Gear segment in question contains no lies and no falsehoods. A few self-righteous environmental campaigners have taken it upon themselves to create a huge fuss about the whole thing (makes you wonder exactly who has an agenda here, doesn’t it?), but the facts cannot be changed.

    On top of that, has anyone ever wondered where all that electricity powering those electric cars actually comes from?

    So – instead of trying to re-invent motoring, create a whole new transport infrastructure to facilitate those grossly inadequate electrical machines, and generally keep on ruining the environment whilst generating all this electricity – why don’t we just skip the electric car phase all together and instead focus our energy (pun intended) on the thing that will really take transport in to the next century, something that doesn’t require us to radically change the way we approach transport, something that will literally never run out and will power humankind for all eternity?


    I’d been reading several intriguing reviews of a new BBC documentary series: All Watched Over By Machines Of Loving Grace. Variously called ‘cerebral’, ‘bewildering’, and ‘intellectually challenging’, it seemed a very promising piece of television, so I caught it on BBC iPlayer to see it for myself.

    I was disappointed. Instead of an intellectually stimulating and thought-provoking documentary, the first episode of All Watched Over By Machines Of Loving Grace is a disjointed collection of vaguely related concepts and events, mixed up with cleverly edited visuals and sound effects in an attempt to paint a specific picture.

    To be honest it looked like its creator, Adam Curtis, had a specific point to make, and instead of testing that point against reality he decided to cherry-pick from reality in order to make that point. It reeked a bit of a conspiracy theory, truth be told.

    Having said that, I’m pretty comfortable with the economic aspects of the documentary, showing a small elite of financial power-brokers manipulating politics and the course of nations for their personal gain. That’s not a particularly new insight – anyone with common sense should know that.

    But when he makes the leap to information technology, when he tries to lay the blame at the increased interconnectivity of the world via computers, that’s when his argumentation falls flat and the whole thing comes crumbling down like a house of cards. It’s almost as if he’s trying too hard to position computers as the culprit of all this evil – while in fact it’s just human greed.

    The reviewers I mentioned earlier seemed to be overwhelmed by Curtis’s use of imagery and sound. But after you penetrate that façade, what remains is a fairly hollow intellectual argument. It has some merit, but it tries to make leaps and connections that are simply not there to make.

    I suppose the attempt to include the certified nutcase Ayn Rand and her deranged philosophy in his argumentation doesn’t help his case. Nonetheless I’ll probably be watching the other episodes of this series, if only to see what other logic-defying leaps Curtis is willing to make.

    Google is one of the biggest corporations in the world. When it was first founded it embraced a motto: “don’t be evil.” Google seemed to adhere to this motto very well for years, and people lauded the company for it.

    However, since the company went public in 2004, that motto has quietly and unceremoniously been dumped. Because, you see, a publicly traded company has certain legal obligations to its shareholders with regards to cost minimisation and profit maximisation. And these obligations could never, even by the most forgiving observer, be interpreted as anything other than evil.
    Don't Be Evil
    For example, take Google’s approach to paying taxes. Or, more accurately, to not paying taxes. This MSNBC article explains in plain terms how Google manages to pay only 2.4% corporation tax on average – despite earning most of its revenue in countries with vastly higher corporation tax rates.

    All this is fully legal, of course. The tax laws governing international business always have exploitable loopholes, and international corporations are quite eager to exploit these loopholes as much as they can.

    Because these corporations, as publicly traded entities, have a legal obligation to maximise profit for their shareholders. And that means paying as little tax as they can get away with.

    In this time of economic recession many governments are struggling with growing national debt and budget deficits. As legal entities that earn revenue and profit from doing business in these countries, international corporations should contribute their fair share of taxes and help support the local governments that allow them to operate and earn money there.

    For Google this is doubly ironic, as it benefits so much from government-provided services. Its first algorithms were invented by Larry Page and Sergey Brin as part of a research project for Stanford University – an establishment that receives quite a lot of money from the US government’s educational budget – and Google always aims to hire the best educated graduates it can find – whose education is also mostly funded by taxpayers’ money.

    So you’d think that companies like Google, which benefit so much from public systems paid for by taxpayers money, would be more than willing to pay their own fair share of taxes?

    But of course corporations will do no such thing. Paying taxes may be the moral thing to do, but it certainly isn’t the profitable thing to do. And when profit maximisation is a legal obligation, being evil comes natural.

    I’ve been eagerly emphasizing the point scholars and sceptics such as Nicholas Carr have been making: that the Internet is changing the way we think.

    Today it’s time to shed light on the other side of the debate. In today’s Guardian there’s a superb interview with Clay Shirky in which he explains why he believes the Internet is a force of good in the world.

    The interviewer, by her own admission, doesn’t really ‘get’ social media:

    Unfortunately, I am precisely the sort of cynic Shirky’s new book scorns – a techno-luddite bewildered by the exhibitionism of online social networking (why does anyone feel the need to tweet that they’ve just had a bath, and might get a kebab later?), troubled by its juvenile vacuity (who joins a Facebook group dedicated to liking toast?), and baffled by the amount of time devoted to posting photos of cats that look amusingly like Hitler.

    But Clay Shirky’s boundless optimism is infectious, to say the least:

    “If we took the loopiest, most moonbeam-addled Californian utopian internet bullshit, and held it up against the most cynical, realpolitik-inflected scepticism, the Californian bullshit would still be a better predictor of the future. Which is to say that, if in 1994 you’d wanted to understand what our lives would be like right now, you’d still be better off reading a single copy of Wired magazine published in that year than all of the sceptical literature published ever since.”

    Shirky also makes the point that new technology doesn’t create entirely new behaviour, but instead enables already existing motivations to be expressed in new behaviour:

    “Techies were making the syllogism, if you put new technology into an existing situation, and new behaviour happens, then that technology caused the behaviour. But I’m saying if the new technology creates a new behaviour, it’s because it was allowing motivations that were previously locked out. These tools we now have allow for new behaviours – but they don’t cause them.”

    On the debate about whether the internet is changing the way we think, he makes an interesting point:

    “But the alarmism around ‘Facebook is changing our brains’ strikes me as a kind of historical trick. Because we now know from brain science that everything changes our brains. Riding a bicycle changes our brains. Watching TV changes our brains. If there’s a screen you need to worry about in your household, it’s not the one with a mouse attached.”

    He also has some interesting thoughts on the ‘pay-for-news-online’ debate, but you’ll have to read the whole interview yourself for that. I recommend you do – it’s remarkably insightful.

    The hot news today is how a team of American scientists have managed to create a bacterial lifeform using nothing but synthetic genes. This is, essentially, artificial life.

    To say that this is a big deal would be a monumental understatement. We likely won’t be seeing any real world applications of this biotechnology any time soon, but the implications are mind-boggling: from cells that eat carbon dioxide and shit petroleum to customised cancer-eating bacteria, this technology has the potential to radically change our lives.

    Of course the technology has its critics. As usual the loudest voices come from religious organisations who, without a hint of irony, shout down the progress of science from the comfort of their air-conditioned homes with HDTV and broadband internet connections.

    And then there are the environmentalists denouncing everything even remotely reeking of biotechnology and genetic engineering. These are just as bad as the religious nutcases, because likewise their entire argument is based on disinformation and ignorance. If these eco-hippies were really serious about not using any artificial biotechnology, they’d all starve to death in a matter of weeks and die horribly of all kinds of diseases.

    Because, you see, the moment humans started cultivating crops and breeding animals, we started to artificially engineer life. From mixing stronger types of crops for better harvest yields, to breeding sturdier and more milk-producing cows, biotechnology has been around for as long as agriculture has.

    On top of that biotechnology has given us some monumentally important medicinal advances, from penicillin to aspirin, from vaccines to heart-transplants.

    So denouncing biotech is a pretty fucking stupid thing to do. Instead we should embrace it and ensure that whatever we end up doing with this type of new technology, it doesn’t just end up as the playthings of the rich and powerful. We should strive to make it benefit those who need it the most: the invisible masses of poor and starving people across the world that with their low-wage slave labour enable the privileged west to live its decadent lifestyle.


    Adamus is the online identity of Barry Adams. A Dutchman living in Northern Ireland, Barry / Adamus is an internet fanatic, skeptic, technophile, gamer, and geek.

    On this personal blog he provides his unpolished view of the world and its insanities.

    Identity 2.0

    • Twitter Facebook Google+ LinkedIn