Your Ad Here

A Shorter Path to Singularity

>> Monday, April 30, 2007

The coming technological singularity, defined by Ray Kurzweil as "technological change so rapid and profound it represents a rupture in the fabric of human history," is predicted in his book The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology to occur around 2045. But Marshall Brain (yes, that's really his name), founder of How Stuff Works, a noted author and a fan of robotics, says that it could happen a lot sooner than that, with one caveat: we have to really really try.

By "we," he means gifted computer scientists, coming together in a coordinated effort. Brain claims to have already "arrived at a detailed software design that is capable of giving rise to intelligence at the human level and beyond." But he needs a cadre of scientists to help with the implementation, testing and teaching. To this end he has started a small software company called Novamente LLC7.

I certainly wish Marshall God-speed. Stay tuned.

If you enjoyed this post, take a few seconds of your time to subscribe to our RSS feed. Barry's Best is updated daily.

Read more...

Today, Half Mouse Brain, Tomorrow Whole Human Brain

>> Sunday, April 29, 2007

BBC News (why them?) reports this weekend that US researchers have simulated half a mouse brain on the BlueGene L supercomputer. Called a "cortical simulator," the program simulated the equivalent of 8 million neurons, each of which can have as many as 8,000 synapses, or connections, to other neurons.

In other smaller simulations the researchers say they have seen characteristics of thought patterns observed in real mouse brains.
Some researchers believe that it will take until about 2020 before supercomputers are able to simulate a human brain, and another 5 years or so for personal computers to manage this feat. This achievement may seem modest when compared to simulating an entire human brain, but it seems to me rather analogous to the difference between the Wright brothers' first faltering flight and the power of today's jets. But because of the law of accelerating returns, the time between half a mouse brain and a whole human brain will be much more compressed than that.
On other smaller simulations the researchers said they had seen "biologically consistent dynamical properties" emerge as nerve impulses flowed through the virtual cortex.

In these other tests the team saw the groups of neurons form spontaneously into groups. They also saw nerves in the simulated synapses firing in a ways similar to the staggered, co-ordinated patterns seen in nature.

The researchers say that although the simulation shared some similarities with a mouse's mental make-up in terms of nerves and connections it lacked the structures seen in real mice brains.

Imposing such structures and getting the simulation to do useful work might be a much more difficult task than simply setting up the plumbing.

For future tests the team aims to speed up the simulation, make it more neurobiologically faithful, add structures seen in real mouse brains and make the responses of neurons and synapses more detailed.
Today, half a mouse brain. Tomorrow, ? Stay tuned.

If you enjoyed this post, take a few seconds of your time to subscribe to our RSS feed. Barry's Best is updated daily.

Read more...

Superintelligence: Point of No Return?

Many people at the forefront of artificial intelligence research and development are quite certain that machine intelligence will attain human level intelligence very soon, within two decades to be specific. They are also confident that, once that point is reached, and once machine intelligence has access to its own code and is therefore able to build upon it, it will quickly become superintelligent. Then all bets are off.

The blog Accelerating Future has an excellent article about superintelligence and how such an intelligence might view humanity. Consider how we view the technology of early man.

For example, consider the world from the viewpoint of a Homo erectus. They had tools - handaxes. These tools were of various types - pointed, cordate, ovate, ficron and bout-coupé shapes, cleavers, retouched flakes, scrapers, and segmental chopping tools. Flint, basalt, chalcedony, quartzite, andesite, sandstone, chert and shale were all used as raw materials to build these axes. Some were very large and probably just ornamental. Some were discus-shaped and possibly used as hunting weapons. It is thought they also had a social role, with enterprising Homo erectuses fashioning better tools for greater peer approval. From the viewpoint of one of these guys, they had command over a remarkable number of handaxe forms and designs, and put them to use for a variety of different purposes.

From the viewpoint of an intelligence smarter than us in the way that we’re smarter than Homo erectus, all our technology, from planes to trains to lamps to sinks to nanotubes to satellites to linear accelerators, probably looks like the same variants on the basic handaxe. Our descendants or future selves will not look back on us admiringly, and say, “golly gee, these guys were so clever that no leap in intelligence ever happened that bested the difference between them and their immediate predecessors!” They will not be genuinely impressed with what we are doing, any more than we are genuinely impressed by a pre-Neolithic hand axe. If we were to show them our greatest technological achievements, they might pretend to be genuinely impressed, so as not to hurt our feelings, but really, they’d probably be daydreaming on the side about mechanisms of such complexity that no aggregation of human beings, no matter how numerous or intelligent, could ever make sense of it all.
This is quite rightly a frightening prospect, is it not? As the article points out, comparing our intelligence to that of a self-improving superintelligence is not a matter of comparing yourself to Einstein. He was certainly smarter than most of us, but that's much too small a difference to be useful here.
I believe that a lot of Singularity skepticism derives from people who don’t get that we’re not the highest form of intelligence that the universe permits to exist. Being a computer science poindexter sometimes hurts more than it helps, because such people are accustomed to being the smartest ones in the room, making it all the more difficult to imagine an intelligence that not only blows them out of the water quantitatively, but can think thoughts they can’t think, even in principle. When people say, “oh, we’ll be able to fight the superintelligent AIs with our rebel guerilla group!”, or “we’ll nuke it to smithereens if it disobeys!”, they don’t get that, once it’s smarter than you, you’ve already lost. Once you’re dealing with something genuinely smarter than human, you have to rely on the hope that it doesn’t want to hurt you, not the assumption that your crappy “foolproof safeguards” will do a lick of good against a true superintelligence.
Again, a frightening prospect. But I see it a more benign future, if we are careful. As Ray Kurzweil explains in The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology, it does not have to become an us/them situation, because they will be us. Intelligent machines will be built using the architecture of the reverse-engineered human brain. Human minds will be instantiated into machine substrates. Human brains will be augmented with computer modules (they already are, cochlear implants are an example). All these factors imply that the superintelligences will be evolved human intelligences, and will not be inclined to suicide.

If you enjoyed this post, take a few seconds of your time to subscribe to our RSS feed. Barry's Best is updated daily.

Read more...

Peering into the Human Brain: Nanoscale Resolution MRI

>> Saturday, April 28, 2007

Reverse-engineering the human brain is the goal of many researchers in their quest to understand how it works and to construct machine equivalents. It is believed that supercomputers will achieve the computational power of human brains by about 2020, personal computers just a few years later, so figuring out the details of the brain's structure and functioning needs to keep pace. A major challenge in this has been the limits of MRI resolution, which is why the news of a major breakthrough has such significance.

physicsweb reports,

Researchers in the US have used an alternative form of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to visualize objects with a resolution of just 90 nm. The best conventional MRI microscopes, in contrast, typically have a resolution of about 3 µm. The researchers claim the technique, known as magnetic resonance force microscopy, could be used to map out the structure of nanometre-scale structures such as proteins and pharmaceutical drugs.
We can expect the power of MRIs to continue to resolve smaller and smaller structures, and the preternatural sagacity of Ray Kurzweil and others like him to prove correct. Reverse-engineering the brain and building conscious machines using that knowledge will certainly occur, and I'm thinking it'll be sooner rather than later. Stay tuned.

If you enjoyed this post, take a few seconds of your time to subscribe to our RSS feed. Barry's Best is updated daily.

Read more...

Nanotech & Food: The Coming Merger

>> Friday, April 27, 2007

What do you get when you put nanotechnology and food together? You get some pretty amazing things. First, we should understand that the longer term (decades) changes that are coming will include the instantiation of human minds (not the brain itself, but the pattern of information that makes up our personality) into man made substrates, in which case conventional "foods" will no longer be our source of energy or nutrition.

For the nearer term however, nanotech will be applied to several aspects of food creation, preparation, packaging and delivery. A highly informative and interesting article in Nanowerk's blog titled The promises of food nanotechnology describes some of these applications.

Let's start with where the benefits of this will be needed most: third world countries where food supply is often limited and the quality of available food leads to nutritional deficiencies and the quality of drinking water is a major contributor to disease. In a study by the University of Toronto Joint Centre for Bioethics from two years ago ("Nanotechnology and the Developing World"; pdf download, 220 KB), a panel of international experts ranked the 10 nanotechnology applications in development worldwide with the greatest potential to aid the poor. Number two on the list was "agricultural productivity enhancement", number three was "water treatment and remediation" and number six was "food processing and storage."
One of the first arguments against the feasibility of radical life-extension made by its detractors is the claim that there wouldn't be enough food for the increased population that would result. Besides the fact that populations have already increasing in many developed nations, there is the fact that technological advances have already resulted in an overabundance of food in developed countries. Whereas less than a century ago in the U.S., food was difficult to come by for many Americans, today there is too much. Admittedly food is scarce in some places in the world, but that is more a factor of political strife than anything else. As nanotech influences the food industries of the world, the abundance we enjoy in the west will be more common in poorer nations.

Another benefit of nanotech as applied to our food will be nutrition.
"The ancient Asian concept that 'food and medicine are one' has gradually also become accepted in Western countries" says Dr. Yun-Hwa Peggy Hsieh, a professor at Florida State University with a research interest in functional foods. "Foods no longer merely meet an individual’s basic physical needs, but are also expected to contribute to their health and wellbeing. Nutritional and epidemiological studies have provided strong evidence that many chronic diseases such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and cancer are linked to diet and the risks posed by these diet-related diseases can be reduced by the consumption of foods with extra measures of phytochemical antioxidants and with lowered fat content, especially saturated fat."

"Recent research, however, has begun to address the potential applications of nanotechnology for functional foods and nutraceuticals by applying the new concepts and engineering approaches involved in nanomaterials to target the delivery of bioactive compounds and micronutrients" she says. "Nanomaterials allow better encapsulation and release efficiency of the active food ingredients compared to traditional encapsulating agents, and the development of nano-emulsions, liposomes, micelles, biopolymer complexes and cubosomes have led to improved properties for bioactive compounds protection, controlled delivery systems, food matrix integration, and masking undesired flavors."

Nanotechnology also has the potential to improve food processes that use enzymes to confer nutrition and health benefits. For example, enzymes are often added to food to hydrolyze anti-nutritive components and hence increase the bio-availability of essential nutrients such as minerals and vitamins. To make these enzymes highly active, longlived and cost-effective, nanomaterials can be used to provide superior enzyme-support systems due to their large surface-to-volume ratios compared to traditional macroscale support materials.
When what we eat is nanoengineered to deliver precise and powerful anti-ageing nutrients, and remove those factors that cause obesity and disease, everyone will be better off.

If you enjoyed this post, take a few seconds of your time to subscribe to our RSS feed. Barry's Best is updated daily.

Read more...

New Computer Processor: TRIPS to the Future

>> Thursday, April 26, 2007

A revolutionary new general purpose computer processor called TRIPS (Tera-op, Reliable, Intelligently adaptive Processing System) has been announced by scientists at The University of Texas at Austin. The new processor has the potential of achieving trillions of calculations per second. That's one processor, not the hundreds or thousands used in today's supercomputers.

"The TRIPS prototype is the first on a roadmap that will lead to ultra-powerful, flexible processors implemented in nanoscale technologies," said Burger, associate professor of computer sciences.
The TRIPS processor relies on a new class of processing architectures called Explicit Data Graph Execution (EDGE) which, unlike conventional processors that process one instruction at a time, can process large blocks of instructions at once.
Current "multicore" processing technologies increase speed by adding more processors, which individually may not be any faster than previous processors. Adding processors shifts the burden of obtaining better performance to software programmers, who must assume the difficult task of rewriting their code to run well on a potentially large number of processors.

"EDGE technology offers an alternative approach when the race to multicore runs out of steam," said Keckler, associate professor of computer sciences. Each TRIPS chip contains two processing cores, each of which can issue 16 operations per cycle with up to 1,024 instructions in flight simultaneously. Current high-performance processors are typically designed to sustain a maximum execution rate of four operations per cycle.

This development demonstrates the historical experience of technological evolution: When a paradigm begins to reach its limits for further development, a new paradigm takes its place. Moore's law is safe. Stay tuned.

Original Article

If you enjoyed this post, take a few seconds of your time to subscribe to our RSS feed. Barry's Best is updated daily.

Read more...

Nanofrontiers: A Vision of the Future

>> Wednesday, April 25, 2007

The Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies is reporting on a recent NanoFrontiers Workshop, where Nanofrontiers: Visions for the Future of Nanotechnology made its debut.

Controlling the properties and behavior of matter at the smallest scale—in effect, “domesticating atoms”—can help to overcome some of the world’s biggest challenges, concludes a new report on how diverse experts view the future of nanotechnology. This event marks the release of Nanofrontiers: Visions for the Future of Nanotechnology, by Karen Schmidt. This is a new publication that highlights the findings of a Washington, DC meeting organized by the National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health, and the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies at the Woodrow Wilson Center.
A brief excerpt:
It seems that the sky is the limit on what might one day be accomplished with nanostructured artificial tissues and nano-enhanced prosthetic devices…Perhaps what now seems almost like science fiction will one day seem like a historic paradigm shift that helped us solve some of our most pressing and complex problems.
Relevant to nearly every industry, nanotechnology is considered a “platform technology,” the report says, because “it readily merges and converges with other technologies and could change how we do just about everything.” Today, nanotechnology is delivering promising methods for cleaning up polluted sites, monitoring water sources, and enabling new methods of drug delivery. Tomorrow, it could provide the technical means for new solutions to the world’s energy problems, to treat water at its point of use, and to make artificial tissues that replace diseased organs and even repair nerve damage.

Nanotechnology is still very much a work in progress—for example, while most first-generation nanomedicines are reformulations of existing drugs, farther down the road, experts predict the creation of novel nanostructures that could serve as new kinds of drugs for treating cancer, Parkinson’s, and cardiovascular disease.

The report will be released at an event featuring one of the contributors to the report, Dr. Samuel Stupp, director of Northwestern University’s Institute for BioNanotechnology in Medicine. He will present the findings from his latest research in applying nanotechnology to jump-start cell regeneration. Dr. Stupp will also share his predictions on the long-term potential of using nanotechnology to treat specific medical conditions.
If you read this carefully, and give it some thought, you will understand just a bit of the impact nanotech will have on our lives in just a couple of decades. It will be a genuine paradigm shift because it will change virtually every aspect of our society and culture.

(Featured on Carnival of Emerging Technologies)

If you enjoyed this post, take a few seconds of your time to subscribe to our RSS feed. Barry's Best is updated daily.

Read more...

Reality Ruled Out?

>> Tuesday, April 24, 2007

Quantum physics is baffling, not only to the general public, but for physicists as well. Richard Feynman encouraged his students by informing them that no one understands quantum mechanics. Erwin Schrödinger said, "I do not like it, and I am sorry I ever had anything to do with it." One of the most shocking ideas to come out of quantum mechanics is that all individual quantum events are innately random.

Proceeding from this idea is the strange but seemingly correct proposal that quantum particles do not fix on any particular state until they are observed. They are said to exist in a state of indecision until a consciousness observes them, at which point they settle into the form we know as reality. Niels Bohr said of these ideas, "Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood a single word." Well said.

Understandably upset by the idea that reality does not exist without an observer, many physicists have postulated the existence of "hidden variables" that could explain the mathematical and experimental data that give rise to these bizarre conclusions. But recently, as an article in PhysicsWeb describes, an experiment run in Austria appears to dash the hopes of the hidden variables crowd.

Some physicists are uncomfortable with the idea that all individual quantum events are innately random. This is why many have proposed more complete theories, which suggest that events are at least partially governed by extra "hidden variables". Now physicists from Austria claim to have performed an experiment that rules out a broad class of hidden-variables theories that focus on realism -- giving the uneasy consequence that reality does not exist when we are not observing it.

The details of the experiment, as one might expect, are complicated beyond the reach of laymen like myself. What the experiment claims to demonstrate, however, is mind-bending.

If you enjoyed this post, take a few seconds of your time to subscribe to our RSS feed. Barry's Best is updated daily.

Read more...

Nanotech Cures Paralyzed Mice

>> Monday, April 23, 2007

The Chicago Tribune today reports another step forward in the use of nanotechnology to grow new tissue in the human body. Northwestern University researcher Samuel Stupp, director of the school's bionanotech in medicine institute, "will present results showing paralyzed lab mice that have regained mobility through nanomaterial treatments."

The demonstration, set for Monday in Washington, is intended to underscore nanotech's potential as outlined in a new report, Nanofrontiers, sponsored by the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and the Pew Charitable Trusts. The report, which grew out of an earlier meeting of scientists sponsored by the National Science Foundation, is restrained, talking about results that may occur decades hence.

In Stupp's research, material designed to self-assemble was injected by syringe into mice with severed spinal cords. The nanomaterial grew into nanofibers that repaired damaged neurons, enabling the mice to again use their hind legs about 1 1/2 months after initial treatments.

The same work has implications for treating Parkinson's and Alzheimer's patients.

"This research provides an early glimpse into the new and exciting places where nanotechnology can take us," said David Rejeski, director of the Wilson Center's emerging nanotech project.

Some nanotech enthusiasts believe that medical applications will become available much sooner than the Nanofrontiers report predicts.

In his book, "The Singularity is Near," Ray Kurzweil, an inventor, entrepreneur and writer, argues that nano-based therapies to regenerate failing tissue will help extend the lives of Baby Boomers so most may live until more advances will enable them, essentially, to avoid traditional death altogether.

Stupp said he thinks that Kurzweil's optimism has some basis. Working with animals now, the Northwestern researcher said he hopes within three years, researchers will obtain regulatory approval to begin studies using nanomaterials to regenerate tissue in humans.

"Regenerating bone and cartilage are our first targets," Stupp said. "That would be very important to Baby Boomers who value their quality of life. We are also working with regenerating blood vessels to address damage from heart attacks. [Nanotech] will first aid in diagnosing illness, but it also will provide therapies to alleviate or cure."

This is such a brief, beneath-the-fold, story that most people will miss it, which illustrates why the rapid acceleration of technological evolution has not yet been noticed by the public. It's all happening below the radar. If you are paying attention, however, you will be able to watch as it comes into view. Stay tuned.

(Original Story)


If you enjoyed this post, take a few seconds of your time and subscribe to our feed! Barry's Best is updated daily!

Read more...

Study Proves: Sleeping on it Works

>> Sunday, April 22, 2007

You've probably used that expression at one time or another: I need to sleep on it. Perhaps you understood intuitively that there was really something to be gained by literally sleeping before making an important decision. Or maybe you were just postponing having to decide. In either case, it's now been demonstrated that sleeping on it really does work.

Researchers at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC) and Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH) have found that understanding the big picture, seeing connections between disparate pieces of information, depends very strongly on taking a mental break from learning, and even more importantly, getting a good night's sleep.

“Relational memory is a bit like solving a jigsaw puzzle,” explains senior author Matthew Walker, PhD, Director of the Sleep and Neuroimaging Laboratory at BIDMC and Assistant Professor of Psychology at Harvard Medical School (HMS). “It’s not enough to have all the puzzle pieces – you also have to understand how they fit together.”

Adds lead author Jeffrey Ellenbogen, MD, a postdoctoral fellow at HMS and sleep neurologist at BWH, “People often assume that we know all of what we know because we learned it directly. In fact, that’s only partly true. We actually learn individual bits of information and then apply them in novel, flexible ways.”

For instance, if a person learns that A is greater than B and B is greater than C, then he or she knows those two facts. But embedded within those is a third fact – A is greater than C – which can be deduced by a process called transitive inference, the type of relational memory that the researchers examined in this study.

Earlier research by Walker and colleagues had shown that sleep actively improves task-oriented “procedural memory” – for example, learning to talk, to coordinate limbs, musicianship, or to play sports. Because relational memory is fundamental to knowledge and learning, Walker and Ellenbogen decided to explore how and when this “inferential” knowledge emerges, hypothesizing that it develops during “off-line” periods and that, like procedural memory, would be enhanced following a period of sleep.
Hey, anything that justifies getting more sleep is fine by me.

If you enjoyed this post, take a few seconds of your time and subscribe to our feed! Barry's Best is updated daily!

Read more...

The Downside of Natural Selection: Cancer

>> Saturday, April 21, 2007

Most people don't really understand the point of natural selection and evolution. The common misconception is that natural selection's goal is the continuation of the species. In other words, we believe that traits that are advantageous to an individual will be propagated in order for the species to survive. In fact, natural selection doesn't care about the individual or the species. It cares only about the genes.

Richard Dawkins' 1976 book, The Selfish Gene, explained this concept.

The phrase "selfish gene" in the title of the book was coined by Dawkins as a provocative way of expressing the gene-centric view of evolution, which holds that evolution is best viewed as acting on genes, and that selection at the level of organisms or populations almost never overrides selection on genes. More precisely, an organism is expected to evolve to maximise its inclusive fitness – the number of copies of its genes passed on globally (rather than by a particular individual). As a result, populations will tend towards an evolutionarily stable strategy.

So what's the downside? According to Jarle Breivik, an associate professor at the University of Oslo, Norway:

“Cancer is a fundamental consequence of the way we are made. We are temporary colonies made by our genes to propagate themselves to the next generation. The ultimate solution to cancer is that we would have to start reproducing ourselves in a different way.”

Although DNA repair is favourable to the organism; it may not be favourable to the individual cell. The theory was developed in several science papers, including an invited Commentary in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, and may be illustrated as the effect of alternative strategies in a car race.

“Deciding when to stop for repairs and when to keep on going is a difficult challenge. Making repairs assures an optimized vehicle, but it also consumes valuable time and resources. At first thought, it may seem obvious that a damaging environment calls for more repair. Paradoxically, however, the effect may be exactly the opposite. Imagine that you are racing through a war zone with constant bombardment. Stopping for repair can then be a fatal strategy, and it is better to keep on going with flat tires and a screaming engine than to stop for repairs,” says Breivik.

This illustration thus explains why genetically unstable cancer cells are favoured in hostile environments—such as in the lungs of a heavy smoker. The model may also be described mathematically and has been experimentally confirmed in cell cultures and animal models by leading research groups in the field.

“Cells exposed to particular carcinogens die if they have the relevant repair mechanism, while genetically unstable cancer cells continued to grow,” Breivik explains.

But this hypothesis, that finding a therapeutic solution to cancer is impossible, doesn't mean that it can't be solved by any other means. In fact, Breivik suggests that the goal of radical life extension will simply have to find a better substrate in which to place ourselves:

He argues that cancer therapy is an attempt to counteract the natural decay of the body. If we think about it, however, it is not really the body we care about. After all, most people are more than happy to trade in a defect organ for a new one.

“It's the mind, our thoughts and consciousness that we desperately want to preserve. If we look at technological developments as a whole, that may be exactly what’s happening. The ongoing revolution in information and biotechnology may be interpreted as the mind’s liberation from the genes. It’s difficult to imagine the alternative, but if I could see a thousand years into the future, I would be very surprised if earth is still dominated by two-legged creatures with a limited life span,” says Jarle Breivik.

This will sound familiar to anyone interested in the coming singularity. I say onward, and let the devil take the hindmost!

(Via ScienceDaily)

If you enjoyed this post, take a few seconds of your time and subscribe to our feed! Barry's Best is updated daily!

Read more...

House, Heal Thyself!

>> Friday, April 20, 2007

The idea of a self-healing house, if such a thing would even enter the typical person's mind, would be a homeowner's dream. Come hell (global warming) or high water (hurricanes, floods, etc.), earthquakes or whatever, wouldn't it be wonderful if your house could repair itself?

Contractors would probably hate the idea, but they could concentrate on building the self-healing houses. In any case, just such a house is under construction on a Greek mountainside.

A "self-healing" house is under construction on a Greek mountainside. Leeds NanoManufacturing Institute will take the lead in a EU-funded project by developing special walls with nano polymer particles. The intent is that when squeezed under pressure (during an earthquake), the nano polymer particles will flow into cracks and harden to form a solid material.

This house will have more going for it than nanotech. The house walls will be built from unique load-bearing steel frames. But the house will also contain wireless, battery-less sensors and RFID tags to collect data over time—information about stresses and vibration, temperature and humidity.

Of course it may be a few years before you can order yourself a self-healing house, but perhaps it won't be as long as you might think.

Original Story

If you enjoyed this post, take a few seconds of your time and subscribe to our feed! Barry's Best is updated daily!

Read more...

Taking a Walk on Your Heart

>> Thursday, April 19, 2007

No, that's not the title of a country and western song. How would you like it if, instead of having to cut your chest open, or stick a long tube into your heart through a hole in your leg, you could get treatment for heart disease from a small robot that looks like a caterpillar? Inserted through what the Tom Simonite of NewScientistTech calls "minimally invasive keyhole surgery," the device would crawl along on the outside of the heart delivering the necessary treatment.

Sounds like science fiction, but a prototype of the device, called HeartLander, has been tested on live pigs, inserting pacemaker leads and injecting dye into the heart.

The 20-millimetre-long robot has two suckers for feet, each pierced with 20 holes connected to a vacuum line, which hold it onto the outside of the heart. By moving its two body segments back and forth relative to one another it can crawl across the heart at up to 18 centimetres per minute. This back-and-forth movement is generated by pushing and pulling wires that run back to motors outside the patient's body. The robot is being developed by Cameron Riviere and colleagues at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

The plan is to insert the HeartLander through an incision below the ribcage, and pass it through a further incision in the membrane that encloses the heart. Surgeons keep track of the device using X-ray video or a magnetic tracker, and control its movements via a joystick.

Traditional open-heart surgery requires a massive incision, and the heart usually has to be stopped to make it easier to operate safely. Though minimally invasive procedures on a beating heart are sometimes possible, some areas of the heart are out of reach to instruments inserted through the keyhole incisions, and the limited space in the chest cavity makes operating difficult.

"HeartLander can reach all parts of the heart's surface," Riviere says. And because it is stationary relative to the heart's surface, there is no need to interfere with the organ's movement.

Entering the body from a single small incision could even allow some heart procedures to be performed without a general anaesthetic, he says. "It avoids having to disturb the ribcage, or to deflate the left lung to access the heart."

"This device is certainly like nothing else I've seen," says Andrew Rankin, a cardiologist at the University of Glasgow in the UK. Many procedures can be performed by passing instruments into the heart through blood vessels, but this is not possible where damaged or diseased tissue is close to the heart's surface. "This device could be useful in those cases," Rankin says.

He suggests it might come into its own for future treatments such as stem cell therapies to encourage regeneration of heart tissue. "You can imagine this device moving around the surface of a scarred heart to deliver treatments."

The researchers are now working on adding a radio-frequency probe to the device, to treat arrhythmias by selectively killing malfunctioning heart tissue. They also plan to add a camera.


Click to watch a video showing the latest prototype creeping over the surface of a beating model heart (2.1MB, mpg format). Coming soon to a surgery near you!

If you enjoyed this post, take a few seconds of your time and subscribe to our feed! Barry's Best is updated daily!

Read more...

Closing in on Automated War

The Department of Defense wants to replace a third of its armed vehicles and weaponry with robots by 2015, the Economist reported today. As we've seen from the war in Iraq, the country will not support a war that brings lots of body bags home. The answer to this political reality, as far as the generals are concerned, is to take the men and women out of harm's way altogether. As the Economist correctly points out, "Nobody mourns a robot," although the generals may mourn the expense of a lost robot.

The armed forces already use unmanned vehicles, but they are still controlled remotely by humans. The Pentagon wants to give these robots increasingly greater levels of autonomy, allowing them to operate without human direction apart from the programming supplied by humans.

To achieve this, Ronald Arkin of the Georgia Institute of Technology, in Atlanta, is developing a set of rules of engagement for battlefield robots to ensure that their use of lethal force follows the rules of ethics. In other words, he is trying to create an artificial conscience. Dr Arkin believes that there is another reason for putting robots into battle. It is that they have the potential to act more humanely than people. Stress does not affect a robot's judgement in the way it affects a soldier's. His approach is to create what he calls a “multidimensional mathematical decision space of possible behaviour actions”. Based on inputs that could come from anything from radar data and current position to mission status and intelligence feeds, the system would divide the set of all possible actions into those that are ethical and those that are not. If, say, the drone from which the fatal attack on Mr Atef was launched had sensed that his car was overtaking a school bus, it may have held fire.

Will these developments make war much more palatable to the American public? And if so, will that make them more frequent? And the most important question of all is this: Will humans lose control of their robotic armies altogether. In my opinion, an inexpert as it may be, we will be able to prevent and defend against such an eventuality, and the fewer humans that have to die to protect us, the better. What do you think?

If you enjoyed this post, take a few seconds of your time and subscribe to our feed! Barry's Best is updated daily!

Read more...

An Old Folks Home or a Robot in the Home?

>> Wednesday, April 18, 2007

As the populations of many developed nations continue to age, their demographics are aging along with the populations. More elderly, fewer young, proportionately speaking. Not only are people having fewer children, but people are also living longer.

Within this context, many people around my age are facing, or will soon face, a heart-wrenching decision concerning parents who are finding it difficult or impossible to adequately care for themselves. Even as assisted living facilities become an inevitable choice, researchers are working hard on another option...a robot in the home.

While the concept may seem farfetched, it is coming closer to becoming a truly viable option. Researchers at MIT (as reported by Rachel Ross for MIT Technology Review) have built (created?) a humanoid robot called Domo who can "size up an object by shaking it in its (his?/her?) hand and then put it away in a cupboard."

It's the ability to deal with the unpredictability in the home environment, as opposed to a factory floor for example, that makes Domo's skill so important. Industrial robots deal with predictable objects, whereas the seemingly simple task of putting away the items in a bag of groceries is actually quite complicated by comparison.

Rather than programing Domo to deal with objects of specific sizes and shapes, the researchers have equipped Domo to size up each item before deciding how to store it.

Domo can also perform basic insertion tasks, such as placing a spoon in a bowl, and help with tidying up the house by carrying around a box in which the human can put clutter. "I can hand it a box of any size, and it can hold it between its two hands, track me, and keep the box nearby," Edsinger says.

Domo, which was created for research purposes, will probably never make it onto store shelves--or into anyone's kitchen. But the research that goes into Domo will likely be used by other roboticists in their quest to create the ideal domestic robot. For example, a robot's ability to find the tip of an object is extremely helpful for scientists developing robots that can work with household tools.

While some have suggested that a more efficient way to assist the elderly would be to incorporate robots into standard appliances "so that they disappear into the world around you," it seems to me that a humanoid robot would be able to provide for perhaps a more important than putting away groceries. It might provide for the need for companionship. What do you think?

If you enjoyed this post, take a few seconds of your time and subscribe to our feed! Barry's Best is updated daily!

Read more...

The Explosion of Intelligence

>> Tuesday, April 17, 2007

Here's a video of a speech delivered at The Singularity Summit by Eliezer Yudkowsky, a research fellow at The Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence. (Click here for more on the singularity.)

The speech is on The Human Importance of the Intelligence Explosion, and addresses the impact of the rapidly accelerating progress of AI as it approaches and eventually exceeds the capacity of human intelligence.

Mr. Yudkowsky has been working on the development of "friendly AI," a worthy subject of study, it seems to me. He discusses AI that has access to its own source code, enabling it to generate successively improved versions of itself.

He first discusses the concept of intelligence and what people understand it to be. Rather than seeing the spectrum of intelligence as going from low IQ to high IQ among humans, he suggests that we see it instead as a much broader range, from the lowest lifeforms to humans, in which the range of human intelligence is actually quite small.

He goes on to posit that intelligence is the most powerful force in the universe, shaping and manipulating its environment to suit its needs. It is also one of the last remaining mysteries in science.

A bit from the speech...

"In everyday life, we underrate the importance of intelligence because our social environment consists of only other humans, who as a species are far more intelligent than mice or lizards. The rise of human general intelligence enormously transformed the world. Yet we may have only begun to see the effects of intelligence. In 1965, the Bayesian statistician I. J. Good published a paper titled "Speculations Concerning the First Ultraintelligent Machine", in which he suggested that a sufficiently intelligent AI could redesign itself to make itself smarter, and then, being smarter, re-reinvent itself and become smarter still - a positive feedback cycle. Good labeled this the "intelligence explosion". An intelligence explosion could reshape the universe more than all human actions up to this point. It is the responsibility of this generation to shape the intelligence explosion."

Watch the video to hear more!



If you enjoyed this post, take a few seconds of your time and subscribe to our feed! Barry's Best is updated daily!

Read more...

Let Machines Target Machines - Let Men Target Men

>> Monday, April 16, 2007

This is the essence of a new set of robot rules suggested by John Canning, an engineer at the Naval Surface Warfare Centre, Dahlgren Division – an American weapons-research and test establishment, for governing the behavior of killer robots in warfare situation.

You will recall, I'm sure, Isaac Asimov's 3 Laws of Robotics, either from his seminal book or the movie of the same name, I Robot. They are:

  1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
  2. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
  3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
These laws, however, would not work for robots whose purpose is warfare. So Canning proposed some laws that would apply. According to Lewis Page, reporting for The Register,

"However, the new Canning Laws are certainly not a carte blanche for homicidal droids to obliterate fleshies without limit; au contraire.

Canning proposes that robot warriors should be allowed to mix it up among themselves freely, autonomously deciding to blast enemy weapon systems. Many enemy “systems” would, of course, be themselves robots, so it's clear that machine-on-machine violence isn't a problem. The difficulty comes when the automatic battlers need to target humans. In such cases Mr Canning says that permission from a human operator should be sought."

Canning has prepared a presentation called “Concept of Operations for Armed Autonomous Systems” which is available in pdf format here.

As Mr. Lewis aptly mentions, under the rules proposed by Canning one wonders if a killer robot would be allowed to destroy an AK47 (machinery) that happens to be in the hands of a human enemy. He very drolly concludes, "If the person holding it was thereby killed, that would be collateral damage and the killer droid would be in the clear. Effectively the robot is allowed to disarm enemies by prying their guns from their cold dead hands."

If you enjoyed this post, take a few seconds of your time and subscribe to our feed! Barry's Best is updated daily!

Read more...

A "Do-Over" for the Internet

>> Sunday, April 15, 2007

Consider the assumptions made by the researchers who laid the foundation for the Internet. They were a small group of scientists who trusted one another, so they weren't concerned about security. They all had computers that stayed put, so they weren't concerned about mobile connections.

They wanted to use it to send each other information that no one's life depended on, and if it didn't get to its destination immediately, no one would die, so the concept of mission critical functionality didn't enter their minds. One can't blame them for not anticipating the future of the Internet, and even if they had, the hardware they had available weren't up to the task.

The result? The Internet that we all know and love is built on a rickety and extremely limited framework of legacy hardware and software, and much of its present functionality is a cobbled-together hodge podge of work-arounds and duct tape fixes. That simply won't do.

Researchers are very sensibly suggesting scrapping the present Internet and starting over from scratch, this time building a structure that has the underlying robustness, security, functionality and speed that will take us forward into the next several decades.

The National Science Foundation is only one of several organizations currently working on experimental networks; theirs is called the Global Environment for Network Innovations, or GENI. The idea is to build a parallel network that would run alongside the current one and that would eventually replace it.

Another exciting bit of news concerns plans for the first Internet router in orbit, which will allow satellites to communicate directly with one another rather than having to go through ground-based routers. Sounds a bit ominous, I know, but the more distributed the Internet is, the less vulnerable it will be to attack. Hmm, that also sounds ominous.

As always, keep up with developments by visiting this site daily.

If you enjoyed this post, take a few seconds of your time and subscribe to our feed! Barry's Best is updated daily!

Read more...

Nanobots: Getting from Point A to Point B

>> Saturday, April 14, 2007

If you remember the movie Innerspace with Martin Short, Meg Ryan and Dennis Quaid, you'll recall that they shrunk down their submarine, got injected into Martin Short, and zipped around through the bloodstream with amazing ease. Like many other aspects of the movie, it just doesn't work that way. For a bacterium, moving around at the microscopic scale is like us trying to swim through something "thicker than molasses." So how do they do it?

Bacteria evolved the "highly sophisticated flagellum." A molecular motor that "pumps protons across the cell's membrane causes the helical filaments of the flagellum to rotate" at speeds up to 1,000 rpm.

So how are nanobots supposed to imitate this very effective method?

Researchers have developed a novel form of propulsion for microrobots that mimics the way bacteria zip about using corkscrew-like appendages called flagella. Tests show that the tiny rotating nanocoils--just 27 nanometers thick and 40 micrometers long--are capable of spinning at 60 revolutions per minute and that it is possible to propel an object at nearly 5 micrometers per second.

Such propulsion could be used as part of smart drug delivery systems, which are steered through the bloodstream directly to their target, says Bradley Nelson, a professor of robotics and intelligent systems at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, in Zurich, who led the research. And in the long term, the nanopropellers could be used to propel autonomous biomedical microrobots, he suggests.

Nelson's nanocoils generate their motion using an external rotating magnetic field which causes them to move in much the same way as flagella. The nanocoil was made by fabricating two very thin strips of gallium arsenide on top of each other, using photolithographic techniques; the bottom layer is laced with indium. "The indium atoms in the lower layer induce a compressive stress," says Bell. This causes it to curl up into a helix to release the stress, says Bell. "It's like a corkscrew," Nelson explains.



I'm telling you, there'll be nanobots in your blood sooner than you think. Keep up with the latest by coming to this web site every day.

If you enjoyed this post, take a few seconds of your time and subscribe to our feed! Barry's Best is updated daily!

Read more...

3-D Chip Stacking Comes Much Closer

>> Friday, April 13, 2007

I've told you before about Moore's Law, which says that the number of transistors on an integrated circuit for minimum component cost doubles every 18 months. People have predicted that Moore's Law will ultimately hit the limits of physics, but new paradigms under development will allow it to continue. One of those paradigms is 3-dimensional stacking. Currently chips are laid out in only 2 dimensions, and have been connected by relatively long wires. According to the International Herald Tribune, "The memory and processor chips are often spaced inches apart from each other, causing a lag in transmission as chip makers multiply the number and voracity of calculating cores on their processors. Slowdowns crop up when data-hungry processors cannot retrieve information fast enough from memory to perform their increasingly complex functions."

But the irrepressible folks at IBM have found a way to connect chips vertically, shortening those distances hugely.

In IBM's solution, two chips are sandwiched on top of one another, the distance between them measured in microns, or millionths of a meter. They are held together by vertical connections that are etched in silicon holes filled with metal. The vertical connections are referred to as "through-silicon vias," which allow multiple chips to be stacked together and for more information to flow between them.

IBM said that its three-dimensional approach creates the possibility of up to 100 times more pathways for information, and divides by 1,000 times the distance that information needs to travel on a chip.

"This is a big step, this is a really historic move," said David Lammers, director of WeSRCH.com, a social networking Web site for semiconductor enthusiasts and part of VLSI Research. "This has been studied to death, but it's the first time a company is saying, 'We can connect two chips in the vertical direction.' "

This development gives chip makers a whole new direction, literally, in which to take their future products. IBM plans to begin full production in 2008. Intel and others are sure to be hot on their heels. Look for computers to become thousands of times more powerful in the very near future.

If you enjoyed this post, take a few seconds of your time and subscribe to our feed! Barry's Best is updated daily!

Read more...

Watch Nanotechnology Take Off

I was a bit disappointed when I learned that the PBS documentary Nanotechnology Takes Off was not going to be aired in my neck of the woods back in March. OK, I was more than a bit disappointed. This was something I was deeply interested in, and I couldn't watch it. Well, it turns out I shouldn't have been so faithless, because it's now available for viewing online. In fact you can watch it right here on The Price of Rice! And if you're an educator, you can get the PDF Educator Guide here. A few excerpts:

A nanotech boom in the Bay Area has begun, but what will it bring? From Lawrence Berkeley National Labs to Silicon Valley, researchers are manipulating particles at the atomic level, ushering in potential cures for cancer, clothes that don't stain, and solar panels as thick as a sheet of paper.

Scientists have discovered that materials on an atomic and molecular scale behave very differently and have unique characteristics that differ from those of larger objects. In much the same way that magnets have positive and negative poles that are attracted to each other, the atoms and molecules of these nano-scale materials stick together because of charges that attract or shapes that fit together. It’s the unique properties of these atoms that let scientists create products like stain-resistant and wrinkle-free pants or sunscreen that blocks ultraviolet light.

Scientists predict that every aspect of our economy and lives will be affected by nanotechnology. Its biggest impact may be in the fields of computers, where nanochips could store trillions of bits of information; medicine, where nanorobots could be programmed to perform surgery or rearrange the atoms of your body; and the environment, where nanotechnology devices could remove contaminants in the atmosphere or oceans.





If you enjoyed this post, take a few seconds of your time and subscribe to our feed! Barry's Best is updated daily!

Read more...

God as Helpful Hunter?

>> Thursday, April 12, 2007

I'm going to take a minute to justify to you my irregular posts on religion and atheism. It is my intent to make this blog fit a single niche, rather than have it be a hodge podge of ideas. The unifying theme I have chosen, as you will see from my title, is transcendence, or going beyond our human limitations. What does that entail, in the context of this blog? It entails the idea of keeping up with the rapidly accelerating evolution of technology, which is becoming, in effect, human evolution. It is my view that those who make themselves aware of our non-biological evolution will be far better able to take advantage it than those who pay no attention.

So where does religion fit in? It is my sense that those who take solace in religion will, generally speaking, be less inclined to see the power of technological transcendence. Religion essentially welcomes human suffering and death as being somehow necessary and redeeming. It seem to me that religion was invented because we see suffering and death as inevitable and feel the need to give them some meaning. And so, every once in a while, I will write an article that challenges the validity of religion and its tenets. I certainly hope that, if you are religious, you will not be offended by these articles, but instead will find them thought provoking. Now, on to today's article:

I've been browsing a very popular book called The Case for Faith, by Lee Strobel. In it, he argues for the validity of faith in God by addressing what he calls the "toughest objections to Christianity." The very first, naturally, is the existence of suffering. If God is good and also omnipotent, why is there human suffering? Either God allows it and is not good, or he cannot rid the world of it and therefore is not omnipotent. You've heard this argument before, and it is a tough one for Christians to handle. Strobel relates a couple of analogies in his attempt to explain the existence of human suffering.

God as Hunter

His first analogy is to compare God to a hunter, and humanity to a bear. He posits a sympathetic hunter who comes across a bear that is caught in a trap. This hunter, in order to free the bear, must inject it with drugs, then push the bear further into the trap in order to release the tension in the spring of the trap. The bear, understanding none of this, feels that the hunter is attacking it. So is God trying to free us, and in order to do so he must cause us suffering.

What's the obvious failure of this analogy? Consider the word "must." The hunter, not being omnipotent, "must" confine his methods to those that obey the laws of physics and his own human limitations. He cannot simply wave his hand and make the trap disappear. Neither can he cause the bear's wound to be instantly healed. Thus he "must" cause some additional suffering in order to do good. But is God, being omnipotent, so constrained? Why "must" God cause or allow suffering in order to free humanity? An omnipotent God certainly could accomplish his redemptive goal without it, should he choose to do so. Back to the same problem.

God as Parent

The second analogy compares God to a loving parent who, in order to impart wisdom and character into his child "must" allow or cause some suffering, but it is always to a good end. And so the Bible admonishes us to accept suffering as God's loving discipline, which he uses to help us develop holiness and to refine our faith (Hebrews).

The problem? Again, the word "must." It is true that human beings must often learn and grow through adversity. And it is true that loving parents do not shield their children from certain types of challenges that will help them develop healthy qualities. But this is what we "must" do, because we have limitations. Would that I could wave may hand over my newborn and have it become instantly good and wise. Sadly, I cannot. But couldn't an omnipotent God? Certainly.

So these attempts, as right-sounding as they may initially seem, fall apart on further examination. Rather than seek the comfort of the idea of God in order to face the suffering and death that seem so inevitable, wouldn't it be better to face the world head on, and continue to seek the means of relieving, and eventually eliminating these things? Please let me know what you think.

If you enjoyed this post, take a few seconds of your time and subscribe to our feed! Barry's Best is updated daily!

Read more...

Spray-On Computers?

>> Wednesday, April 11, 2007

Yes, you read right and I typed right. Scottish scientists (do they all have Sean Connery accents? That would be very cool. They also invented golf!) have done it again, this time in the world of technology and health care. They call it "speckled computing," and it happens to be some of the most advanced tech in the world.

Entirely self-powered and self-networking, they are digital "specks" (matchstick head-sized) that are sprayed on to patients in order to collect huge amounts of important data.

Spraying them directly onto a person creates the ability to carry out different tests at the same time, for example muscle movement and pulse rate. This allows a complete picture of the patient's condition to be built up quickly.


According to Damal Arvind, leading speckled computing professor and director of the Scottish consortium,

"This is the new class of computing: devices which can sense and process the data they receive. They also have a radio so they can network and there's a battery in there as well, so they are entirely self-powered.

"You can do lots of interesting things with this technology. We are seeing this kind of technology in the Nintendo Wii and this is a very, very primitive form of what we will be demonstrating on Friday."

Here we have another step in the direction of nano-sized, networked computers that can roam about in the human body, fixing things and improving things and augmenting other things. The new world is coming. (From The Price of Rice! via MedGadget.com)

If you enjoyed this post, take a few seconds of your time and subscribe to our feed! Barry's Best is updated daily!

Read more...

Graphene - Thin is In

>> Tuesday, April 10, 2007

Billed as "the thinnest of all possible materials in the universe," graphene is a one-atom-thick sheet of carbon that looks like "molecular chicken wire." The latest in a series of carbon discoveries (after buckyballs and nanotubes), is easier and cheaper to make than its older brothers. The method for splitting carbon into thin sheets involves, of all things, sticky tape. It turns out that ordinary sticky tape is ideal for pulling apart layers of graphite until a single-atom layer is left.

Graphene has some very interesting properties:

Because of how the electrons flowing in graphene interact with the honeycomb chicken-wire structure, they behave as if they have no mass, always traveling at the same speed regardless of their energy, like particles of light. Dr. Beenakker at Leiden has proposed taking advantage of graphene’s unusual behavior in a new type of electronics that he calls “valleytronics.”

Independently, Dr. Geim and Dr. Kim at Columbia demonstrated a phenomenon known as the quantum Hall effect, where the electrical resistance perpendicular to the current and an applied magnetic field jumps between certain discrete values. The quantum Hall effect is usually seen just at very low temperatures in semiconductors, but it occurs in graphene at room temperature. A more recent paper by Dr. Geim and his collaborators describes a suspended graphene sheet as not flat, but wavy.

In a sense, nanotubes are nothing more than unrolled graphene. Will it be possible to overcome the difficulties of producing nanotubes of specific types and lengths by working instead with the flat graphene, which is simple to make and manipulate. I'll be watching the progress of this research closely, because as soon as nanotubes are ready for prime time, the applications will be astounding.

(Via The New York Times)


If you enjoyed this post, take a few seconds of your time and subscribe to our feed! The Price of Rice is updated daily!

Read more...

Mind-Machine Matrimony

>> Monday, April 09, 2007

Popular Science reports a breakthrough in the effort to join brains and binary in holy (or unholy, depending on your POV) matrimony. Many scientists and futurists have no doubt that the human brain will continue to be augmented by the addition of computer hardware. I say "continue" because devices like cochlear implants are already in widespread use. But the dream of being able to have the perfect and rapid recall of computer memory, along with the blazing speed of computer processors, is still in the (near) future. One of the challenges lies in the physical interface between brain and chip. That challenge in quite a few steps closer to being solved, thanks to work going on in wet lab 412C on the University of Southern California’s Los Angeles campus. As reported by Stephen Handelman:

“Watch this,” says Srinivasan, a design engineer working with USC’s Center for Neural Engineering. A thin wire runs between the needle and a tiny silicon chip hooked up to a boxy signal transmitter. He flips a switch, and a series of small waves shimmers across a nearby screen—waves that mean exactly zilch to me. Watch what? I wonder.

Srinivasan explains that the chip is sending electric pulses through the needle into the brain slice, which is passing them on to the screen we’re watching. “The difference in the waves’ modulation reflects the signals sent out by the brain slice,” he says. “And they’re almost identical in frequency and pattern to the pulses sent by the chip.” Put more simply, this iron-gray wafer about a millimeter square is talking to living brain cells as though it were an actual body part.

Ted Berger, Srinivasan’s boss and the mastermind behind the tangle of coils and electrodes, has arranged this demonstration to provide a small but profound glimpse into the future of brain science. The chip’s ability to converse with live cells is a dramatic first step, he believes, toward an implantable machine that fluently speaks the language of the brain—a machine that could restore memories in people with brain damage or help them make new ones.

Remedying Alzheimer’s disease would, if Berger’s grand vision plays out, be as simple as upgrading a bit of hardware. No more complicated drug regimens with their frustrating side effects. A surgeon simply implants a few computerized brain cells, and the problem is solved.

...researchers within the field say that even this small number represents a stunning achievement in the field of neuro-engineering. “It’s the type of science that can change the world,” says Richard H. Granger, Jr., a professor of brain sciences who leads the Neukom Institute for Interdisciplinary Computational Sciences at Dartmouth College. “Replicating memory is going to happen in our lifetimes, and that puts us on the edge of being able to understand how thought arises from tissue—in other words, to understand what consciousness really means.”

I wouldn't mind a memory upgrade. I may not be able to be one of the first adopters, you know, the rich guys who owned those first dresser-sized VCRs that cost several thousand dollars. But when they come down in price, if I'm still here, by golly, fit me out!

If you enjoyed this post, take a few seconds of your time and subscribe to our feed! The Price of Rice is updated daily!

Read more...

The Anti-Anti-Aging Crowd

>> Sunday, April 08, 2007

Thanks go to my friend Louie Savva from Everything is Pointless for pointing me to Aubrey de Grey and Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence (SENS). According to the SENS web site:

SENS is a detailed plan for curing human aging. SENS is an engineering project, recognising that aging is a medical condition and that medicine is a branch of engineering. Aging is a set of progressive changes in body composition, at the molecular and cellular level, which are side-effects of essential metabolic processes. Many of these changes are eventually bad for us -- they are an accumulation of damage, which becomes pathogenic above a certain threshold of abundance.

The traditional gerontological approach to life extension is to try to slow down this accumulation of damage. This is a misguided strategy, firstly because it requires us to improve biological processes that we do not adequately understand, and secondly because it can even in principle only retard aging rather than reverse it. An even more short-termist alternative is the geriatric approach, which is to try to stave off pathology in the face of accumulating damage; this is a losing battle because the continuing accumulation of damage makes pathology more and more inescapable.

Instead, the engineering (SENS) strategy is not to interfere with metabolism per se, but to repair or obviate the accumulating damage and thereby indefinitely postpone the age at which it reaches pathogenic levels. This is practical because it avoids both of the problems with the other approaches: it sidesteps our ignorance of metabolism (because it does not attempt to interfere with metabolic processes and their production of side-effects) but also it pre-empts the chaos of pathology (because it repairs the precursors of pathology, rather than addressing the pathology head-on).

Sounds like a worthy project to me. But what I found most fascinating was Dr. de Grey's comments on the anti-anti-aging crowd (my terminology), those folks who defend aging.

I have bitten my tongue and given earnest, sympathetic answers here to the many concerns I encounter when the prospect of defeating aging is raised - but I don't pretend that it has been easy to do so. I make no secret, here or elsewhere, that I have a low opinion of the reasons people give for defending aging - and an even lower opinion of the fear that people seem to have of thinking about the topic even faintly rationally. I think that apologists for aging are in a "pro-aging trance" - that they are victims of a mutually-maintained collective hypnosis on the topic, a flight from normal rationality that resembles nothing so much as the behaviour of participants in a stage hypnotist show. When I'm feeling charitable I remind myself that this is a relatively defensible coping strategy for putting the horror of aging out of our minds and getting on with our miserably short lives free of a preoccupation with how they will end. But let's remember that this logic makes sense only so long as aging really is inevitable for the foreseeable future. Today, now that we're at last able to embark on the rational design of strategies that may truly defeat aging - strategies that may succeed within the lifetimes of many people alive today - that attitude is an enormous part of the problem.

Dr. de Grey goes on to list and answer the most common reasons he encounters why curing aging would be bad. He divides these reasons into Societal Arguments; Biomedical Arguments; and Personal or Philosophical Arguments. I'll mention only a few.

The Overpopulation Argument

This is always the first one I hear whenever I bring up the subject of radical life-extension. First, de Grey points to precedent. Suppose you were the ruler of France in 1870, when Pasteur was proposing that if people started following a few simple hygienic practices, infant mortality would fall dramatically. Would you withhold that knowledge for fear of an exploding population? No. The most important thing in that case was to "end the slaughter" and deal with any population concerns separately.

Again, previous statistics clearly show that population growth slows as a society becomes more wealthy. The impetus for having many children (I am speaking very generally here) in less developed counties has a lot to do with a desire to be taken care of in one's old age. As this need is lessened, so does the need to have large numbers of children. In developed nations, people have generally tended to raise the standard of living they would have to achieve before having children. In many developed nations, the population growth has already stopped. (Most of the continuing growth of the U.S. population is a result of immigration.)

The "Only the Rich Will Get It" Argument

Our history of technological development has demonstrated time and time again the same pattern. When a technology is new, it is prohibitively expensive (the first-adopters are the rich and the powerful), and doesn't work very well. Later on, in its midlife, it is less expensive and works fairly well. In its mature stage, it costs almost nothing and works very well. Do you remember when TVs first came on the scene? How many did your family own? How many do you own now? We have 5. What about cell phones? Remember the movie Wall Street, when the Michael Douglas character, Gordon Gekko, walks on the beach talking to Sheen on his cell phone? The thing must have weighed 10 pounds an cost a fortune. You knew the man was wealthy just by seeing him on a cell phone. Today you can get them for nothing. That's how it will be with rejuvenation therapies.

I won't go on. You might do a bit of research on your own to see what's coming. But what gets my attention is the question: Why are some people so instantly against the idea of radical life-extension? OK, you see potential issues that need to be addressed. But why not address them? I'm not sure that I understand where these folks are coming from. If you can help me understand, I'd be grateful. Leave your thoughts in the comments. I thank you.

If you enjoyed this post, take a few seconds of your time and subscribe to our feed! The Price of Rice is updated daily!

Read more...

Artificial Intelligence: Past, Present and Oh Damn.

>> Saturday, April 07, 2007

I've been working on a research paper for my MBA class Management Information Systems, and by jove, I think I've got it. I'm going to share it with you, my beloved readership. Don't worry, it's not too long, and it's fascinating.

I. AI's Past

The timeline of AI's history and development begins in the 1950s (Figure 1). The term "artificial intelligence" was coined by John McCarthy (Figure 2) of Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Stanford University, winner of the prestigious Turing Award (1971) and Benjamin Franklin Medal in Computer and Cognitive Science (2003) (Wikipedia). Although a standard definition is elusive, according to D. Marr of MIT, it is "the study of complex information processing problems that often have their roots in some aspect of biological information processing" (Marr, 1977). AI, as defined by computer scientist Elaine Rich, is "the study of techniques for solving exponentially hard problems in polynomial time by exploiting knowledge about the problem domain" (Kurzweil, 2005).The most fascinating goal of AI development, however, is the achieving and surpassing of human intelligence.





Alan Turing, who is often given the title of "father of modern computer science," invented the "Turing test," wherein he proposed a test to determine a machine's capacity for human intelligence. As described in his 1950 paper, "Computing Machinery and Intelligence," he suggested that a human judge would participate in a natural language conversation with two other participants, one human and the other a machine. If the judge cannot tell the two apart, then the machine can be said to have demonstrated human-like intelligence (Turing, 1950).

Probably AI's most famous icon is HAL, the paranoid machine intelligence in the movie "2001: A Space Odyssey." Entering the public consciousness when this motion picture debuted in 1968, AI became a popular idea and subject of much media hype in the following years.

II. AI's Submergence

When the reality failed to live up to the hype due to the media's (and thus the public's) misunderstanding of the time frames involved, AI sank beneath the turbulent surface of public awareness, although never disappearing from the interest or pursuits of scientists and computer engineers, during the 1970s and 1980s. According to Rodney Brooks, Director of the MIT AI lab, "There's this stupid myth out there that AI has failed, but AI is everywhere around you every second of the day. People just don't notice it" (Talbot, 2002).

While the public lost sight of it, AI was being developed and refined. Programming languages and software were being designed and computing substrates and architectures were being built that would allow for powerful AI systems to be introduced in the fields of business, medicine, weather and the military. Slowly but surely, AI has been quietly establishing itself into human society to the point that it now provides benefits to virtually every person, even though we are mostly unaware of its ubiquity.

During its decades' long hiatus from the public consciousness, AI has developed into four distinct types of computing systems: Expert Systems; Neural Networks; Genetic Algorithms; and Intelligent Agents. (Ray Kurzweil calls these A.I. applications "narrow AI, as opposed to "strong" AI that exceeds human levels of intelligence, which he predicts will arrive in the 2020s, a technology that benefits from Kurzweil's "law of accelerating returns.) These systems are designed to perform in human brain-like or evolutionary ways, but with the massively-amplified speed and power of machine substrates.

Expert Systems: Expert systems mimic, in amplified form, the ability of human experts to make decisions and recommend courses of action based on answers to a large number of questions, and when there is not always a single "correct" answer. The most sophisticated systems are capable of performing evaluations based on real-world uncertainties. One of the most fundamental advantages of an expert system over a human expert is the relative ease with which its expertise can be transferred to other machines, when compared to the years for training necessary to "create" additional human experts.

Neural Networks: Neural networks are able to mimic the massively-parallel processing power of the human brain by modeling programs on the cortical structures of the brain. Just as the human brain is especially effective at pattern-recognition, so neural networks are useful in such fields as natural language and facial recognition.

Genetic Algorithms: Genetic algorithms imitate the power of evolution, but whereas biological evolution requires enormous spans of time to produce results, these systems are able to accomplish millions of iterations or recursions in the blink of an eye. They are able to try out millions of possible solutions to problems that have a large number of variables (for example, finding the most efficient configuration of a jet engine) and find the most effective solution much more quickly than could humans.

Intelligent Agents: Intelligent agents mimic the human brain's ability to adapt and learn. The more sophisticated of these programs are sometimes called autonomous intelligent agents, a term which gives a sense of its ability to act independently from human involvement. Intelligent agents learn from and adapt to their environments. One of the most commercially successful applications of IAs is data mining, in which software programs operate in data warehouses, discovering information and connections between pieces of information that might be useful for human managers to know about.

III. AI's Resurgence

Kurzweil laments that as soon as an AI application is successfully deployed, it is no longer called AI, but is "spun off as its own field." In spite of this phenomenon, AI continues to surge ahead and will resurface more and more into the public's awareness. Some of the most difficult problems currently being tackled by AI:

Protein Folding: Improperly folded proteins can be, an often are, fatal, because the shapes of proteins are intimately associated with their structure. The difficulty lies in the fact that simulating 3-dimensional protein folding is a massive processing task (IBM estimates that Blue Gene's level of performance is "sufficient to simulate the folding of a small protein in a year of running time") (Figure 3). According to the IBM Blue Gene Team, launched in 1999 as a five-year effort to build a massively parallel computer to study biomolecular phenomena such as protein folding: "The mission of the Blue Gene scientific program is to use large-scale biomolecular simulation to advance our understanding of biologically important processes, in particular our understanding of the mechanisms behind protein folding. Increased computational power translates into an increased ability to validate the models used in simulations and, with appropriate validation of these models, to probe these biological processes at the microscopic level over long time periods" (IBM, 2001).



Missile Guidance and UAVs: As our society becomes less and less tolerant of civilian casualties in times of war, precision targeting of warheads becomes more and more important to military organizations. Additionally, our culture is becoming less tolerant of military casualties among its own forces, leading to a high value being placed on systems that can send precisely targeted missiles from hundreds or even thousands of miles away and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) that operate autonomously. Included here is a chilling quote from Gary Chapman for generation5's artificial intelligence repository: "Autonomous weapons are a revolution in warfare in that they will be the first machines given the responsibility for killing human beings without human direction or supervision. To make this more accurate, these weapons will be the first killing machines that are actually predatory, that are designed to hunt human beings and destroy them."

IV. AI's Future

Ray Kurzweil estimates that machines will achieve and surpass the complexity, and the intelligence, of the human brain within a few decades (Kurzweil, 2002). Kurzweil envisions a near-term future that involves interfacing, or perhaps more accurately, merging biological and machine intelligence. In a very real sense, this is already happening with cochlear implants and devices that allow the blind to see.

With the addition of nanotechnology, he sees nanomachines being designed to interact directly with human neurons, augmenting human memory and processing capabilities and allowing for full-immersion virtual reality, wherein there would be no subjective difference between virtual and real experiences.

Shortly after strong AI is achieved, machines will, according to Kurzweil, take over their own development, at which point the progress of machine intelligence will accelerate drastically. Eventually, says Kurzweil, biology will give way to more durable and powerful substrates, until human intelligence will be machine intelligence. Will it still be called "artificial"?

If you enjoyed this post, take a few seconds of your time and subscribe to our feed! The Price of Rice is updated daily!

Read more...

Building Bridges to Forever

>> Friday, April 06, 2007

Please read the following quotation:

Most of my Baby Boomer contemporaries are completely oblivious of this perspective. They just assume that aging is part of the cycle of human life, and at 65 or 70 you start slowing down. Then at eighty you’re dead. So they’re getting ready to retire, and are really unaware of this perspective that things are going to be very different ten or fifteen years from now. This insight really should motivate them to be aggressive about using today’s knowledge.

These words, spoken by Ray Kurzweil in a 2006 interview with David Jay Brown, provide a pointed and vivid picture of humanity's acceptance of the inevitablity of physical and mental decline, leading to death, after four-score or so years of life. The so-called baby boomers, of whom I am one of the youngest to make it in, are now approaching retirement-age, and are having to deal with the effects of aging. But how many of us have any idea whatsoever that the next 2 decades will bring radical life-extension into full flower, and that this reality makes it that much more important for us to "be aggressive about using today's knowledge" to see that we make it into that era?

Ray's metaphor of the bridge is an apt way to picture his point. Bridge One is the aggressive use of available (and emerging) medical knowledge to reprogram your biochemistry in order to "overcome your genetic predispositions." He speaks from a very personal perspective, having done exactly that to cure himself of type-2 diabetes and avoid the heart disease that took his father's life at age 58.

We’re not saying that taking lots of supplements and changing your diet is going enable you to live five hundred years. But it will enable Baby Boomers—like Dr. Grossman and myself, and our contemporaries—to be in good shape ten or fifteen years from now, when we really will have the full flowering of the biotechnology revolution, which is ‘Bridge Two.’

Bridge Two, appearing 10 to 15 years hence, involves the maturing of drug development from its historical "hit and miss" phase to a time of "rationally-designed drugs that can precisely reprogram our biochemistry."

Now, this gets into my whole theory of information technology. Biology has become an information technology. It didn’t used to be. Biology used to be hit or miss. We’d just find something that happened to work. We didn’t really understand why it worked, and, invariably, these tools, these drugs, had side-effects. They were very crude tools. Drug development was called drug discovery, because we really weren’t able to reprogram biology. That is now changing. Our understanding of biology, and the ability to manipulate it, is becoming an information technology. We’re understanding the information processes that underlie disease processes, like atherosclerosis, and we’re gaining the tools to reprogram those processes.

Drug development is now entering an era of rational drug design, rather than drug discovery. The important point to realize is that the progress is exponential, not linear. Invariably people—including sophisticated people—do not take that into consideration, and it makes all the difference in the world. The mainstream skeptics declared the fifteen year genome project a failure after seven and half years because only one percent of the project was done. The skeptics said, I told you this wasn’t going to work—here you are halfway through the project and you’ve hardly done anything. But the progress was exponential, doubling every year, and the last seven doublings go from one percent to a hundred percent. So the project was done on time. It took fifteen years to sequence HIV. We sequenced the SARS virus in thirty-one days.

This will lead to Bridge Three about 20 years from now, the nanotechnology revolution, "where we can go beyond the limitations of biology. We’ll have programmable nanobots that can keep us healthy from inside, and truly provide truly radical life extension."

The golden era will be in about twenty years from now. They’ll be some applications earlier, but the real Holy Grail of nanotechnology are nanobots, blood cell-size devices that can go inside the body and keep us healthy from inside. If that sounds very futuristic, I’d actually point out that we’re doing sophisticated tasks already with blood cell-size devices in animal experiments.

So these technologies will be a hundred thousand times smaller than they are today in twenty-five years, and a billion times more powerful. And look at what we can already do today experimentally. Twenty-five years from now these nanobots will be quite sophisticated. They’ll have computers in them. They’ll have communication devices. They’ll have small mechanical systems. They’ll really be little robots, and they be able to go inside the body and keep us healthy from inside. They will be able to augment the immune system by destroying pathogens. They will repair DNA errors, remove debris and reverse atherosclerosis. Whatever we don’t get around to finishing with biotechnology, we’ll be able to finish the job with these nano-engineered blood-cell sized robots or nanobots.

If you'd like to find out more about these topics, check out Ray Kurzweil's book, Fantastic Voyage, by clicking the link below.



If you enjoyed this post, take a few seconds of your time and subscribe to our feed! The Price of Rice is updated daily!

Read more...

Begging the Question All Day Long

>> Thursday, April 05, 2007

(Picture credit to Propaganda Critic)

I'm not an expert on logical fallacies, but sometimes I know that one has been committed when I hear it. I heard a real fallapalooza the other day, and it's a great example of the kind of fallacy committed by millions of people every day. Want to hear about it? Too bad. You're gonna.

Listening to a radio preacher, just for kicks. He's discussing the truth of Christianity's claims. Jesus really was raised from the dead. How do we know that for sure? Well, because no one could have removed the body from the tomb, so it must have been accomplished by supernatural means, as the Bible says it did. How do we know that no one could have removed it from the tomb? Well, because the tomb was sealed and guarded; Pilate was concerned that some of the disciples might get up to some hi jinks and attempt to abscond with the body and then claim that their savior had been raised from the dead. He wasn't having any of that, so he made sure that a guard was posted outside the tomb.

Now, the preacher gave the appropriate chapter and verse reference to back up everything he was saying. And yes, those verses said what he said they said. But he had committed such an obvious fallacy that I was a bit stunned, until I realized that I used to do the same thing. And millions are still doing it today. Have you seen it yet? I'll give you a minute to read over the account if you need to.

Again, I'm no expert on these fallacies, but I believe the one I'm referring to is called "Begging the Question." This happens when the premises of your argument include the claim that the conclusion is true or assume (directly or indirectly) that the conclusion is true. Ray Kurzweil calls it "assuming your conclusion."

The preacher claims that Jesus must have been resurrected, as claimed by the gospels' authors. OK, how does he prove their claim? By using the very same authors' claims that the tomb was guarded by Roman soldiers. Sorry, but that just doesn't cut the mustard. That's like freeing Charlie Manson because he says he didn't do it. What the preacher needs are some independent sources that confirm the facts as described by the gospel writers.

At the risk of belaboring the point, reduced to its essence, what the preacher is saying is as follows:

Preacher: Jesus was raised from the dead.
Me: How do you know that?
Preacher: Because the Bible says so.
Me: How do you know that the Bible's account is true?
Preacher: Because it couldn't have happened any other way. You see, the tomb was guarded.
Me: Oh. But how do you know that the tomb was guarded?
Preacher: Because the Bible says so.

The general way this is done by millions today is as follows:

Friend: The Bible is the inerrant Word of God and has no contradictions.
Me: But what about this one, and that one?
Friend: Those only appear to be contradictions. There must be ways to explain them away.
Me: Why? Why can't they just be contradictions?
Friend: Because the Bible has no contradictions. It's the inerrant Word of God. Geez, don't you listen?

If you know more about the names of logical fallacies than I do and can more accurately name the one I brought up, please leave a comment. As O'Reilley likes to say, Where'm I goin' wrong? Thanks.

If you enjoyed this post, take a few seconds of your time and subscribe to our feed! The Price of Rice is updated daily!

Read more...

Is This the End for Dead Cell Phones?

>> Wednesday, April 04, 2007

There are two types of people in the world. Those who frequently forget to recharge their cell phones, and those who never forget to recharge their cell phones. Needless to say, the latter are constantly feeling annoyed by the negligence of the former. I am of the latter variety. I am fairly smug about it, too. That makes up for the aggravation I must endure when someone I need to reach has a dead cell phone. But dead cell phones could soon become a thing of the past.

Technology Review features an article describing "Flexible Batteries That Never Need to Be Recharged." Combining a thin-film organic solar cell with a new and flexible polymer battery produces a battery that can be fitted onto a round-shaped cell phone and will recharge itself when exposed to indoor light or sunlight. Result? A cell phone (or other device) that never needs to be plugged into a recharger. The developers say that the maturity of the battery technology and the imminent commercial release of the solar cells means that the solar-battery could be available as soon as 2008.

Now, I don't mean to be a pessimist, but I wonder if the first type of person will somehow manage to kill their cell phones even with this new technology, say by storing it in a dark dresser drawer for a week or so. We'll just have to wait and see.

If you enjoyed this post, take a few seconds of your time and subscribe to our feed! The Price of Rice is updated daily!

Read more...

The Singularity Hits Congress

>> Tuesday, April 03, 2007

What's a singularity? "Singularity" is a term invented in the field of physics, adopted in the field of cosmology, and adapted, in this context, to refer to the point in time when the rapidly accelerating pace of technological progress changes society in a radical way, to the point where it is very difficult to see beyond this point. Ray Kurzweil has estimated this point in time to be approximately 2045. Advances in three fields will participate in bringing about the singularity. Genetics; Nanotechnology; and Robotics, or GNR.

Amazingly, a report [PDF] has been published by Representative Jim Saxon (R-NJ), Ranking Member of the Joint Economic Committee, United States Congress, authored by Dr. Joseph Kennedy, Adjunct Professor at Georgetown University, titled Nanotechnology: The Future is Coming Sooner than you Think. Looks like someone in Congress gets it. Some excerpts from the report:

Enhanced abilities to understand and manipulate matter at the molecular and atomic levels promise a wave of significant new technologies over the next five decades. Dramatic breakthroughs will occur in diverse areas such as medicine, communications, computing, energy, and robotics. These changes will generate large amounts of wealth and force wrenching changes in existing markets and institutions.

In 1970 Alvin Toffler, noted technologist and futurist, argued that the acceleration of technological and social change was likely to challenge the capacity of both individuals and institutions to understand and to adapt to it. Although the world has changed a great deal since then, few would argue that the pace of change has had the discontinuous effects that Toffler predicted. However, rapid advances in a number of fields, collectively known as nanotechnology, make it possible that Mr. Toffler’s future has merely been delayed. In fact, some futurists now talk about an unspecified date sometime around the middle of this century when, because of the accelerating pace of technology, life will be radically different than at any prior time.

Every exponential curve eventually reaches a point where the growth rate becomes almost infinite. This point is often called the Singularity. If technology continues to advance at exponential rates, what happens after 2020? Technology is likely to continue, but at this stage some observers forecast a period at which scientific advances aggressively assume their own momentum and accelerate at unprecedented levels, enabling products that today seem like science fiction. Beyond the Singularity, human society is incomparably different from what it is today. Several assumptions seem to drive predictions of a Singularity. The first is that continued material demands and competitive pressures will continue to drive technology forward. Second, at some point artificial intelligence advances to a point where computers enhance and accelerate scientific discovery and technological change. In other words, intelligent machines start to produce discoveries that are too complex for humans. Finally, there is an assumption that solutions to most of today’s problems including material scarcity, human health, and environmental degradation can be solved by technology, if not by us, then by the computers we eventually develop.

The concept of the coming singularity may seem far fetched and difficult to grasp. But I believe that those of us who take the time to understand it and its implications for our lives will be better able to adapt and take advantage of what is to come. I hope you'll accompany me on this journey.

If you enjoyed this post, take a few seconds of your time and subscribe to our feed! The Price of Rice is updated daily!

Read more...

The Third Generation

>> Monday, April 02, 2007

First there was Web 1.0. Of course no one called it that back then, we were all too busy gushing over the fact that there was a Web to wonder about how it would evolve. The first generation web was AOL, CompuServe, Netscape, and dial-up Internet service. These were the heady days when the web was being built and commercialized. More recently, we've seen the development of the second generation, Web 2.0.

Web 2.0 has been characterized by broadband Internet access, social networking sites, Wikipedia, AJAX interactivity and web-based software, and mobile devices. Web 2.0 sites even have their own look, the colorful, rounded typefaces and the catchy little names like Jangle, Clipperz, and Ploud. Web 2.0 has made the web more useful and content rich, interactive and social. Now, get ready for generation three.

Web 3.0, as I predict it will come to be known, has no clearly defined boundary, but it will be the product of several different technologies coming to maturity at approximately the same time. These technologies will comprise what could be called "the intelligent web." Ubiquitous connectivity (meaning you'll be connected no matter where you are), network computing (distributed computing, grid computing, web services interoperability, cloud computing server farms), and the intelligent web (semantic web technologies, distributed databases, intelligent applications like natural language processing, machine learning, machine reasoning and autonomous agents), will all come together to make the web more powerful and useful (and fun) than ever.

According to Nova Spivac (The Third Generation Web is Coming), "Web 3.0, expected to debut in 2007, will be more connected, open, and intelligent, with semantic Web technologies, distributed databases, natural language processing, machine learning, machine reasoning, and autonomous agents."

For the first time in history, you will be witnessing the accelerating curve of technological progress, when you find that you haven't had time to become acclimated to one new technology before the next one crashes over you. Enjoy!

If you enjoyed this post, take a few seconds of your time and subscribe to our feed! The Price of Rice is updated daily!

Read more...

OK Nanotubes, Get in Line!

>> Sunday, April 01, 2007

Have you ever heard of Moore's Law? Gordon E. Moore, a co-founder of Intel, made the observation in 1965 that the number of transistors on an integrated circuit for minimum component cost doubles every 24 months. According to Wikipedia: "However, it is also common to cite Moore's Law to refer to the rapidly continuing advance in computing power per unit cost, because increase in transistor count is also a rough measure of computer processing power."

It is because of Moore's Law that we've been getting faster and more powerful computers, at the same price, at the rate we have enjoyed thus far. But people have been predicting, correctly, that Moore's Law will soon reach the limits of a set of more powerful laws: the laws of physics. Eventually, trying to pack more transistors onto a silicon chip will result in an untenable leakage of current. Intel speculates that that limit will be reached in 2015.

Don't worry though, because the history of the accelerating rate of technological progress shows that whenever a paradigm approaches its ultimate limitations, pressure increases (meaning more resources are invested) for the developments of new paradigms that will continue the exponentially growing pace of progress. And this is exactly what is happening with Moore's Law.

Several new paradigms are currently (no pun intended) in development. They are: 1. Optical Processing, which uses photons rather than electrons to transmit information; 2. Quantum Computing, which makes further use of quantum effects to radically increase processing speeds; 3-D Layouts, which uses the third dimension (building chips in the upward direction, rather than merely length-and width-wise; and 4. Carbon Nanotube Transistors.

Up until now, a major roadblock in the development of nanotubes for use as transistors has been getting them aligned. According to this article at MIT's Technology Review:

Until now, making transistors with multiple carbon nanotubes meant depositing electrodes on mesh-like layers of unaligned carbon nanotubes, Rogers says. But since the randomly arranged carbon nanotubes cross one another, at each crossing, flowing charges face a resistance, which reduces the device current. The perfectly aligned array solves this problem because there are "absolutely no tube-tube overlap junctions," Rogers says.

The research team makes the arrays by patterning thin strips of an iron catalyst on quartz crystals and then growing nanometer-wide carbon nanotubes along those strips using conventional carbon vapor deposition. The quartz crystal aligns the nanotubes. Then the researchers can make transistors by depositing source, drain, and gate electrodes using conventional photolithography.

Researchers have not been able to grow well-aligned nanotube arrays until now, according to Robert Hauge, a chemistry professor who studies carbon nanotubes at Rice University. Indeed, "alignment is no longer a showstopper," says Ali Javey, an assistant professor of electrical engineering and computer sciences at the University of California, Berkeley.

Making a well-ordered array in which parallel nanotubes are connected between the source and drain electrodes is a big achievement, says Richard Martel, a chemistry professor at the University of Montreal. The new work allows a true comparison between nanotube transistors and silicon transistors because an array of nanotubes gives a planar structure similar to silicon devices, he says. "They did exactly what needed to be done, and it's a significant step."

So, Moore's Law will continue to apply as these new paradigms come online. It's a beautiful thing. What do you think?

Read more...

  © Blogger template Skyblue by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP