Mind the Gap

Posted on April 21, 2012 by jrenstro

Futurama’s Tube Transport system, available in every city except Los Angeles, uses electromagnets and air pressure to propel passengers to their destinations. The Jetsons had a similar transportation system, as do worlds in sci-fi written by Robert Heinlein, Arthur Clarke, and Ray Bradbury, among others.

The tube system of transport, known as the “vacutube” or “bounce tube” in science fiction, resembles the pneumatic tubes used in drive-up banking transactions, and the postal service tubes that were used in the late 1800s. While it might seem that a tube capable of transporting is quite a leap from the tube that sucks up your savings account deposit, it appears that engineers are in the process of making this leap. In other words, perhaps the most unrealistic aspect of the Futurama tube transport system is that it’s free to use.

In 1812, George Medhurst proposed using a tube system for public transportation. While his vision wasn’t quite realized, a somewhat similar model, the atmospheric railway, was adopted for some time. The atmospheric railway is a lot like the air-propelled train that shuttles Guy Montag and others around in Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451.

The atmospheric railway uses air pressure for propulsion. Depending on the model, it either runs on a tube that sits between the rails which is connected to the train via a suspended piston, or the car itself acts as the piston with the tunnel acting as the tube. Engines set up along the train’s route leave a partial vacuum just ahead of the car, while pumping air behind the car, causing atmospheric pressure to boost the train. As the name suggests, atmospheric railways eliminate friction and jerkiness, and are nearly silent. In the mid-1800s, Dublin, London, Paris all operated these trains.

So why aren’t these trains all over the place now? It’s the same reason you and I don’t have jetpacks–cost.

A number of ambitious pneumatic railways have been planned, and in some cases, construction begun, but almost all projects have been shut down due to financial problems. Digging for a railway to run under the Thames River started in 1865 but stopped three years later for lack of financial support. In 1870, an engineer named Alfred Beach unveiled a prototype for a pneumatic train subway in New York City; his model could move 12 passengers, and demonstrated the possibilities of expanding such a system city-wide. However, the city politicos put the kybosh on the idea, as they were invested in developing an elevated train instead.

Nearly a century later, MIT and Lockheed looked into building a vacuum train system that would link together cities on the East Coast, but financial problems caused developers to abandon the project. Lockheed briefly pursued a gravity-vacuum transportation system that would supplement the Bay City’s BART system, but that project also was also…well, derailed.

Currently, Brazil and Indonesia use an updated version of the atmospheric railway called Aeromovel, which consists of elevated air-propelled trains that can reach speeds of 50 mph between city stops, are entirely automated, and are virtually silent.

A company called ET3, based in Crystal River, FL, has proposed yet another leap from Aeromovel trains—they’re developing a system called Evacuated Tube Transport (ETT).

This system would use maglev trains, which work on magnetic levitation, rather than mechanical parts involving wheels and bearings. High speed bullet trains used in Europe and Asia run on maglev systems, and while most run at about 300 mph, the top speed of maglev trains in Japan is over 500 mph.

As fast as they are, maglev trains still encounter air resistance, as well as sharp turns, both of which cap their speed. The ETT system eliminates that by permanently removing all the air from the two-way tubes that comprise the travel route.

Passenger capsules would be about the size of cars and able to contain roughly six passengers each. Initially, they would be accelerated by electric motors, but then could coast through the vacuum once a certain speed is reached. Stations would have airlocks which would allow the transfer of capsules and passengers without introducing air into the tube itself. While we have the technology to make these systems now, more challenging is the laying down of straight tracks, much like freeways, from destination to destination.

Prototypes of Evacuated Tube Transports have reached speeds of approximately 370 mph, and ET3 hopes to develop the system so that trains can eventually reach speeds of about 4,000 mph during longer rides. If they achieve this, a trip from New York to Beijing would take roughly 2 hours, and a trip from New York to Los Angeles roughly 45 minutes. It’s not quite teleportation, but I’ll take it!

Here’s a longer, more technical explanation of how ETT works.

ET3 projects that their systems would require roughly .05% of the material necessary to build high-speed rails and would cost 10% as much to build, and .25% as much as it costs to construct a freeway. ET3 also claims that their system would be 50 times more efficient than electric cars or trains. If these claims are anywhere near accurate, the ETT system could revolutionize transport and minimize environmental and economic impacts in mind-boggling ways.

Soon, we might be boarding the Tube in places other than London, sliding smoothly and silently to destinations that in the olden days only could have been reached with a boarding pass, a few screaming children, a lack of legroom, and an $8 bag of pretzels.

Posted in Could this Happen? | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Forget the Red Pill

Posted on March 26, 2012 by jrenstro


Tomorrow, I’ll be lounging in a hammock on a Thai beach drinking Mekhong whiskey, resting up for a Full Moon Party. On Wednesday, I’m scuba diving the Great Barrier Reef. On Saturday, I’ll be on Mars, peering up at Olympus Mons.

Or at least, that’s how it goes in my dreams. But what I’m talking about is better than a dream.

Given that I still don’t possess teleportation powers, the next best thing is virtual reality.

From Tron to the holodecks of Star Trek to the Matrix, science fiction has long been crazy about virtual reality. Now, science is too.

Virtual reality either recreates the existing world or creates a fantasy world into which the user can become immersed. With the help of headsets consisting of goggles–one monitor for each eye–and headphones, virtual reality programs recreate sights and sounds in 3-D. Everything you do, your avatar does.

Depending on the sophistication of the facilities, virtual reality labs might also include air nozzles and scent dispensers to enhance the sense of immersion. Sometimes, treadmills or other devices are used to create a bodily experience in virtual reality, though at this point, physical experiences such as climbing a tree or swimming don’t quite transcend realities.

Different virtual reality systems offer different ranges of interactivity, depending on speed, range, and mapping. Computer models incorporate the speed of a user’s actions and attempt to reflect them back to the user with minimal lag time, or latency. Range and mapping involve the “choose your own adventure” aspects of virtual reality–how many different outcomes your actions generate and how natural those responses are. For example, if I’m walking down a street, how fast can I go? Can I trip? Can I fall? Once I fall, can I get right back up, or can I roll around on the ground in pain? Can I sing Bob Dylan while I writhe around? A truly interactive virtual environment allows users to modify the environment, even if the modifications don’t seem logical.

Cave Automatic Virtual Environments project images on walls, the ceiling, and the floor of a room. Instead of wearing headsets, users wear special glasses that give them a wider field of vision, and often a greater sense of immersion. More than one person can participate in a virtual CAVE experience, though programs can respond to only one set of inputs from one person; the others are observers.

Still holding out for a holodeck? Be patient. Netflix the last couple seasons of TNG–it may be a while.

Body Immersion Environments are the next frontier of virtual reality. These don’t involve goggles or avatars–these involve a computer-generated total sensory environment that the user occupies. Unlike the more conventional virtual reality environments, these would produce realistic bodily experiences–you’d actually get tired swimming or climbing a tree. Of course, BIE don’t exist just yet, as scientists haven’t mastered the conversion of energy into virtual space and then somehow animating it, or producing the illusion that one is actually there.

Another kind of futuristic virtual reality is the Brain Stimulated Environment. This would involve creating an environment from within a user’s brain, rather than from an external device such as a computer. Neuroscientists believe that stimulation of specific brain cells in the cerebral cortex produces sensations such as sounds, smells, colors, etc. In other words, our sensory experiences likely don’t come from the external world—they come from our brains. If we can figure out how to evoke specific sensory experiences, there’s no end to the virtual environments we can create.

Virtual reality systems may seem like the cutting edge of gaming, but their uses extend far beyond recreation. Virtual reality can help treat patients with phobias and anxiety disorders; it is now a common treatment for PTSD and has been used successfully with Iraq and Afghanistan veterans. Virtual reality exposure or immersion therapy allows doctors to change the virtual environment in order to gauge the patient’s response to certain variables and triggers. Patients can enter a 3-D world in which they can see, as well as smell, hear, and touch, whatever it is that induces phobia or causes their anxiety or PTSD. Confronting these objects or scenarios repeatedly, and with the knowledge that they are at that moment completely safe, allows patients to overcome phobias and anxieties and score virtual victories that carry over into the real world.

Check out virtual Iraq, Afghanistan, and 9/11.

At New Zealand’s Auckland University, scientists are currently developing a computerized cognitive behavioral therapy technique for kids suffering from depression and anxiety. In the game, users’ avatars enter a fantasy world in which they fight negative thoughts and learn how to manage them.

If only that game had been available to Ender at Battle School!

Posted in Could this Happen? | Leave a comment

From Replicant to Replican

Posted on March 6, 2012 by jrenstro


Given that it might be awhile before we have functioning nanofactories and molecular assemblers, what are we supposed to do if we simply can’t wait to replicate things?

The answer involves an object most of you probably already own–a computer printer.

I’m not talking about your run of the mill desk jet printer, or even a fancy laser jet printer. I’m talking about a 3-D printer. Looking at your existing printer with 3-D glasses isn’t going to work, unfortunately (but hey, it might be fun!)

There are a number of 3-D printing technologies–the methods depend on the composition of the object one wants to produce–but they all use layers to create the finished project.

The process begins with a computer file. Using computer design software, users render an image or scan of the object they want to reproduce. The images can also be original, thus yielding a completely unique final product. The file is then sent to the printer, which contains a “build box” where the printed object is made. The build box is kind of like the tray that contains the finished printed paper on a conventional printer, only bigger. In another compartment, users dump a powdered version of whatever material they want to use, such as polymers, plaster, or resin. The printer spreads a thin (less than a millimeter) layer of material across the bottom of the build box. Then, depending on the technology used, the “printer head” either raises the temperature so the powder melts, or deposits a binding material in the exact design as the object being replicated.

3-D printer heads have tiny nozzles or spindles, which only heat or bind the desired individual grains of powder. The heated or bound powder is then pressed and solidified, and then the printer distributes another fine layer of powder and the process repeats again and again. At the end, the object is cleaned of any excess powder and then coated in resin, and voila! There’s your 3-D object—anything from a spare car part to a drinking glass to a bust of our favorite might-be Replicant.

Here’s a Wired.com video demonstrating a 3-D printer.

The finished products are fully functional and visually (if not practically, depending on the materials) indistinguishable from the original. Depending on the size of the object, printing may take anywhere from a few minutes to a few days. The cost savings depends on the material involved and the quantity printed, but is likely cheaper than producing the object using traditional manufacturing methods.

This technology, which has actually been in development for about 30 years, used to be available only to engineers, industrialists, and university students. While a top of the line 3-D printer can cost more than $100,000, semiprofessional versions cost half that, and recently some $10,000 semi-professional models have hit the market. Thanks to open-sourcing, 3-D printing technologies have developed and spread rapidly; there are now several companies developing personal 3-D printers that cost less than $1,000. Not all printers can handle all products, though, and products are expensive–usually $30-$50 per pound, depending on the material.

I’m sure the first question in most people’s minds is, now that we can print whatever we want, what are we going to make? Sure, we could reproduce objects to suit our most fanciful and ridiculous whims if we were so inclined; I’ve always wanted eleven identical monkey-shaped potato peelers. But those who think we ought to reproduce practically are in luck–3-D printers don’t pass judgment.

3-D printing, particularly a technique called rapid prototyping, is also particularly useful in the three-dimensional preservation and archiving of rare and/or damaged objects.

Recently, scientists have been working on 3-D bio-printers that have the capability to print skin onto burn wounds. At Wake Forest University, scientists have printed 10-centimeter skin patches onto pigs. At Cornell University, scientists printed an ear using silicone. Scientists are currently experimenting with printing bone and cartilage; no one has yet attempted to print organs, though it’s not hard to conjure up the image of a Frankensteinian scientist attempting to print a heart, brain, or eye for his experiments.

Perhaps the most satisfying use of 3-D printing comes from Cornell University and is currently being used at Manhattan’s French Culinary Institute. Their food fabricating printer uses the same basic technique as other 3-D printers, except that this printer head has a syringe that delivers sugar, frosting, chocolate, and other edible ingredients.

One of the advantages of using 3-D printing for food is precision; instead of painstakingly decorating a cake by hand, the printer can perfectly arrange frosting in complicated designs. The printer can also produce identical food products–no more fighting over the biggest cookie or the reddest rose on the birthday cake. The 3-D printer is also capable of producing textures and consistencies that are very difficult to achieve by hand.

Watch a 3-D food printer work .

I bet Arthur Clarke would’ve focused a little more on replicating technology if he knew that they could make chocolate. The minute 3-D printers are capable of making cheese, I’m in.

Posted in Could this Happen? | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Monkey See, Monkey Make

Posted on February 23, 2012 by jrenstro

In 1964, Arthur C. Clarke called the replicator “the invention to end all inventions.”

Just a few years later, the replicator became a staple on Star Trek, providing the crew with food, water, spare parts, and later on, breathable air.

“Don’t ask me exactly how the replicator would work–if I knew, I’d patent it at once,” said Clarke.

In theory, replicators, or “molecular assemblers” can arrange subatomic particles into molecules, and then arrange the molecules into objects. This means that the first step in the creation of almost anything would be for the replicator to form atoms like carbon or hydrogen, and then arrange them into cells, proteins, and other DNA or matter-composing molecules, and then put the particles together like a really complicated jigsaw with a billion tiny pieces that incredibly end up looking like a clock or a carrot, or a thousand-dollar bill.

Because these replicators would have to be able to produce any one of a number of materials at a given time, they would have to store a staggering amount of patterns. Because not even the cloud has enough room for all this data, replicators would have to store patterns in molecular memory. While that alleviates the space issue, it makes replicating more complicated objects, including people, impossible. Except when aliens replicate Picard, but that’s another story.

In 1992, nanotechnologist Eric Drexler proposed the idea of a “nanofactory,” a system in which nanomachines–the replicators–arrange certain molecules to catalyze reactions, from which larger atomic parts could be built and then eventually assembled into objects. Essentially, you feed bits into a nanofactory, and out pops an “atomically precise part.” Nothing could be easier.

Here’s a colorful demonstration of how this works.

Drexler’s theory has been expanded upon and refined by numerous scientists. In 2000, 23 scientists from 4 countries founded the Nanofactory Collaboration, which focuses specifically on the replication of “diamondoids” through a process called mechanosynthesis. Diamond mechanosynthesis involves catalyzing a chemical reaction in a molecule. Then, a mechanical device such as a computer adds or removes atoms from a surface to form covalent bonds. The computer control offers such precision that reactions can be caused one atom at a time all along a surface.

The construction of a nanofactory is thought to have four parts: molecular position fabrication, programmable positional assembly (the atomically precise assembly of the molecules fabricated in mechanosynthesis), massively parallel positional assembly (the assembly of not just one, but many—even trillions—of anatomically precise parts), and nanomechanical design (simulation, design and manufacture of the actual object).

Scientists have worked on all four aspects, but right now, most research is devoted to proving the theoretical and experimental feasibility of mechanosynthesis.

Ralph Merkle, a leading expert in nanotechnology, says that the replicator is coming. There is nothing in the laws of physics that would prevent us from arranging atoms in a particular way, and theoretical and experimental research supports this claim. All we have to do, he says, is “control the structure of matter” and “build molecular structures where everything is where you want it.” Well, that sounds easy, doesn’t it?

Scientists can arrange molecules on a surface, but haven’t yet mastered the ability to stack them or arrange them into 3-D objects. Merkle estimates that functioning nanofactories are anywhere from 20-40 years away, depending on how much scientists focus on their development.

I know what you’re thinking–as soon as we master replication, what’s to stop us from self-replicating? Why stop at one diamondoid when you can simply have a diamond self-replicate infinite times? How about a hunk of cheese that self-replicates so that we never have to settle for plain bread or naked crackers ever again? Why not populate the earth with dozens of smiling versions of ourselves?

While work on self-replicating machines is underway (and a topic for a forthcoming post), self-replication is much more difficult to achieve than replication. A self-replicator would have to build a system that could then build more systems by itself, with no human intervention. A self-replicator would have to be able to produce and reproduce every tool needed in the process over and over, which right now is a bit like putting the cart before the horse.

There are plenty of ethical debates about whether we should pursue nanofactories, and nanotechnology in general. Nothing would have much value, given that objects could simply be produced infinitely and presumably made available to anyone. The economic implications are mind-boggling, in addition to the moral ones—what happens to a society in which the emotional, situational, spiritual, and sentimental value of all objects is negligible?

“Cynics may doubt if any human society could survive an invention which would lead to unlimited abundance and the final ending of the curse of Adam,” says Clarke.

Only time will tell, but here’s one fact to set your minds at ease now: the trouble with Tribbles wasn’t due to use (or misuse) of a replicator–those little buggers multiply of their own frisky accord, which means that we’re safe. For now.

Posted in Could this Happen? | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Always Take the Weather with You

Posted on January 29, 2012 by jrenstro


Ever been to a baseball game on a rainy day? You check the radar over and over, hoping that when you refresh your browser, the big swath of blue covering the city will have disappeared. You check the team website, half hoping the game will be delayed or canceled, even though canceled games are usually rescheduled for incredibly convenient times such as 2:00 pm on a Tuesday. Finally, you bundle up in your prophylactic rain gear, grab your umbrella, and trudge off to the game only to find out that while you were in transit, the game was indeed canceled about 15 minutes before the opening pitch. So you trundle back, rain somehow dripping down the back of your shirt. If you paid $35 for parking, you feel particularly sodden, as there’s no such thing as rain reimbursement. This is the kind of situation that makes people want to do a rain dance, or an anti-rain dance–anything to coax forth the sunshine.

Science fiction writers know the power, both cataclysmic and restorative, of Mother Nature. The sun goes down and suddenly the night fills with vampires, demons, and other baddies. Various creatures skulk around under cover of darkness and the world doesn’t seem to belong to the humans. And when the sun comes up, there’s always a collective sigh of relief.

Science fiction writers also know the power of manipulating Mother Nature.

In the Avengers, mad scientist De Wynter (Sean Connery) produces natural disasters that target specific areas, such as a hurricane that almost wipes London off the map.

In the Six Million Dollar Man/Bionic Woman crossover, the evil scientist (hired by the Soviets, of course) plots to steal a weather-controlling device that can conjure up hurricanes and wreak untold devastation.

Robert Heinlein wrote about governmental weather control in his 1941 novel, Methuselah’s Children.

Even Underdog’s nemesis, Simon Bar Sinister, invents a weather machine that induces tornadoes, floods, and other natural disasters.

While it’s not possible to create a hurricane to conveniently rampage your least favorite city or the home town of your worst enemy, it is possible for humans to control the weather.

In Moscow, scientists drive rain away when there’s an important event or holiday. They do this by shooting silver iodide into rainclouds, either from planes or from the ground, in a process called “seeding.” The water attaches to the silver iodide particles, which forms a hole in the cloud. If the cloud is dense, the water then falls immediately as rain or snow, and if the cloud isn’t dense, it scatters.

And for a mere $6,000, people can hire private companies to ensure that their weddings or outdoor parties won’t get rained out.

Moscow’s mayor proposed using the technique to divert snow from the city to avoid the cost of clean-up and traffic snarls. Some environmentalists who generally don’t oppose seeding, especially for irrigation and farming, argue that diverting snow from Moscow could cause increased snowfall in neighboring towns that may not be equipped to handle it. Snow also helps vegetation survive the winter and cleans the atmosphere. Advocates of the idea, which was actually put into limited practice in the 1980s, say that they don’t want to eliminate snowfall in Moscow altogether, only reduce its frequency and severity. A snowless Russian capital would seem particularly unnatural–what would they do with all those furry hats?

China has also embraced the idea, especially for the 2008 Beijing Olympics, and spends approximately $100 million per year on weather modification. Beijing’s Meteorological Bureau contains a Weather Modification Office, the world’s largest weather control operation, which employs 37,000 people. In addition to preventing inclement weather, the agency also induces rain to relieve droughts and dust storms and to aid in firefighting. China has had the most success of any country in weather modification, with Russia close behind.

Eventually, scientists want to figure out how to prevent major storms from forming. One idea is to coat areas of oceans with biodegradable oil, making it impossible for hurricanes to siphon water; another is to use techniques similar to seeding to disrupt funnel cloud formation.

As much as I dislike biking in the rain or getting caught without an umbrella, I’m glad the U.S. is behind China and Russia in weather modification. Among other things, as long as I’m a teacher, I need the prospect of snow days in the winter.

And just think about the effects weather modification would have on small talk. If we couldn’t complain about the weather, we’d have to find something else to grouse about. Then the floodgates would really open, and who knows what might come out.

Posted in Could this Happen? | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Cheese Stands Alone, and Clean, Forever

Posted on January 22, 2012 by jrenstro

Ever thought about what superpower you’d have if you could choose one?

I’d always considered teleportation to be the obvious answer. But then I had a student who said his superpower would be the ability to produce cheese from his finger. How brilliant! Batman would cower in his Spandex.

Cheese is probably the most delicious food type there is. But it’s even more extraordinary than that. Turns out that it can consume spills and bacteria, leaving a surface cleaner than if Martha Stewart had gone at it with a toothbrush and bleach.

Remember the blob? It’s kind of like that. Except cheese comes from someone’s finger, not from outer space. And hopefully, it won’t eat diners (the people or the restaurants).

Scientists at the Institute of Technology in Zurich took a sample of delicious penicillium roqueforti and sandwiched it between PVC and a thin, porous polymer film. They then dropped a sugary potato broth onto the top layer of film. In two weeks, the cheese fungus had totally consumed the broth, leaving the top film completely clean. The fungus then entered a state of dormancy, in which it stayed until scientists spilled more broth onto the top layer.

They got the idea from the tough rind on cheeses such as Camembert, which fights off bacteria and helps the creamy insides to mature deliciously.

The fungus isn’t just tough on the outside. It continued absorbing the broth even after scientists doused it with soap and an alcohol-based disinfectant, which could eventually revolutionize sanitation techniques at places like hospitals.

Combining a living organism and a flat surface is a relatively new idea with myriad intriguing implications. Eventually, such a combination could produce a self-sustaining and self-sterilizing surface. If, for example, a substance such as mold was placed on (or already existed on) a flat surface, the fungus could live on the mold and take care of the problem.

I think the Aqua Teen Hunger Force tried an experiment similar to this one.

So a cheese-producing superhero would be even more powerful and awesome than I originally thought. I just hope he’s ready to take his fungus to Antarctica if it starts eating his finger.

Posted in Could this Happen? | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

An Apple a Day…Keeps Viruses Away?

Posted on January 8, 2012 by jrenstro


What’s scarier than robot soldiers and stealth drones?

The Borg Queen, grey goo, and spiders, for starters, but those are subjects for another time. I’m talking about viruses that can or will be able to infect militaristic AI.

Sometimes, viruses become the weapon of the good–in Independence Day, a bunch of computer geniuses lead by the Fly…er, Jeff Goldblum, develop a computer virus that allows the humans to defeat the big bad aliens.

But often in sci-fi, the enemy wields computer viruses. More often still, the robotic enemy. In addition to helping Baltar configure the Command Navigation Program to contain a backdoor that allows the cylons to render colonial vipers useless at the flip of a switch, the cylons also manage to infect the Battlestar’s computers. Even after the humans try to erase it, the virus replicates and compromises myriad systems on the ship, notifies the cylons of the weaknesses, and leaves the fleet open to attack.

Artificial intelligence is becoming an integral part of military operations, and it makes sense that computer viruses will become a focus of modern cyber warfare.

Last fall, unmanned U.S. drones were infected by a computer virus that contained software that recorded and transmitted typed instructions from the drone operator. Drones’ computer systems are closed, or offline, to prevent this type of attack. It’s likely the virus was installed or transferred from an external drive, but no one is completely sure. Similarly, it’s unclear where this virus came from or who may have masterminded it.

Last year, the Stuxnet virus set back Iran’s nuclear program by attacking its uranium enrichment facilities. Even though Israel never officially took credit for the virus, the commonly-held opinion is that Israeli engineers, likely with the help of U.S. engineers, built a perfect replica of Iran’s nuclear plant which they then used to develop the virus.

Iran’s nuclear facilities are also closed, and experts theorize that the virus traveled on a removable drive. Some think that the personal computers of plant personnel were infected first, and then those users unwittingly transferred the virus to the control system.

Back in 2009, the Conficker worm attacked Microsoft operating systems on approximately 10 million home, business, and government computers, including many in the Pentagon, in hundreds of countries (meanwhile, Mac users laughed and patted themselves on the back).

Viruses such as Conficker and the ubiquitous trojan horse worms marshal infected computers into a botnet, which then controls them. An evil, god-like supercomputer controlling all of the attacked systems sounds, at least to me, even more terrifying than a human supervillain.

Clearly, both good and evil geniuses will continue developing computer viruses that attack personal, business, and military systems. What I wonder is what happens if/when humans and machines hybridize. Could the humanoid of the future be susceptible to computer viruses just as we’re currently susceptible to disease?

Later in Battlestar Galactica, a virus that spreads both through the air and through the network causes the deaths of humanoid cylons, centurions, and even ships. One of the eeriest shots in the whole show depicts a convoy of cylon raiders drifting listlessly around an infected cylon basestar. The cylons pay for their hybridized status by being susceptible to both human and computerized virus transmissions.

In 2010, a scientist from the University of Reading in England implanted a tiny computer chip, much like the ones we use to identify animals, into his hand. The chip allowed him access into his secured building, and to his phone, among other things. He infected the chip with a virus that scrambled these links (but did not cause him any actual physical harm), and transferred the virus to a computer.

Theoretically, this means that viruses could spread from humans to machines, or vice versa. While most mechanical implants are currently self-contained, he believes that implants will become more like computers with networks, which means that someone’s pacemaker or cochlear implant could become infected and malfunction. There’s also the potential that at some point, someone with an infected device could infect someone else.

On the bright side, a future of computer viruses would provide welcome relief for needle-phobes. Imagine going to the doctor and instead of getting immunized or vaccinated, you plug in and download a new version of Norton or McAfee tailored to your exact physiology and needs. Those adds that pop up warning you that your system is susceptible to attack and urging you to renew your anti-virus subscription don’t seem quite as melodramatic or annoying as they did before.

Posted in Could this Happen? | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Worms Crawl In, the Worms Crawl Out

Posted on December 29, 2011 by jrenstro


The recent discovery of a habitable, earth-like planet has renewed buzz and speculation not only about the possibility of humans living on other worlds, but also about whom or what else is living out there.

Are there Vorlons out there somewhere? Tralfamadorians? Overlords?

Who knows? Regardless, I will cling to the hope of meeting a Tralfamadorian before I die. Or maybe after. So it goes.

What we do know for certain is that worms can live in outer space. Ender fans will immediately think of the Buggers, which appear to not be limited to Lusitania.

A study recently published in Britain’s Journal of the Royal Science Interface demonstrates that once established, worm colonies can thrive in space without anyone tending to them.

Weightlessness degrades muscles, particularly anti-gravity muscles, which counteract the force of gravity and keep joints and other body parts stable. Muscles that help us maintain upright posture, such as our abdominal/core muscles, quadriceps and glutes, and muscles that surround the spine, all weaken when in a state of weightlessness. Weightlessness also negatively impacts the heart muscle.

In addition to weakening from disuse, weightlessness also causes chemical changes to occur in muscles. Even intense exercise can’t stave off these effects; astronauts who spend extended periods of time in space don’t regain all of their muscle mass.

British scientists undertook the study of the effects of weightlessness and long-term spaceflight on worms, specifically the microscopic Caenorhabditis elegans. While these tiny invertebrates might not appear to have much in common with humans, they do. 2,000 of the c. elegans’ 20,000 genes affect muscle function, and scientists estimate that over half of those genes correspond to human genes.

The study began in 2006, when Discovery space shuttle’s crew included 4,000 worms reported to have come from a Bristol garbage dump. The worms spent six months living on the International Space Station before the Discovery brought the worm colony, 12 generations later, back to earth alive.

The worms lived and reproduced in liquid, rather than in soil or agar. The colony required no human tending; every month fresh food was automatically transferred to the colony. Scientists monitored the worms via camera to observe the effects of weightlessness, as well as radiation and other environmental factors.

Gravity is also essential in the development of many animals, particularly during fertilization. Uneven or improper weight distribution in eggs could lead to later deformities, among other things. While worms previously sent beyond the Van Allen radiation belt did return sterile, during this recent study neither radiation nor lack of gravity stopped or affected the reproduction of these worms.

Other studies have shown that worms can form the letter “Y” in space.

Scientists working on the study have concluded that spaceflight affects worms and humans in very similar ways. Thus, worms can be sent ahead on unmanned missions to the far reaches of the solar system and perhaps beyond, and then tested for biological effects before humans attempt the same.

If worms can live and reproduce in space long enough to reach other planets, scientists believe that humans will eventually be able to do this too.

Perhaps the Buggers are out there after all (or perhaps we’ll be the ones who put them there). Luckily, thus far there have been no reports that scientists intend on raising giant, trash-guzzling worms, but never say never. Let’s just make sure the Empire doesn’t get a hold of them first.

Posted in Could this Happen? | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Uncle Sam Wants…Who?

Posted on December 21, 2011 by jrenstro


Imagine meeting the Terminator on the battlefield. You might try and run–that is, if it didn’t kill you while you were pissing yourself.

What about an army of Terminators?

A common image in science fiction: massive armies of identical robots cutting down people and/or each other down with shiny silver weaponry. Like the legions of original cylons, and their progeny, the centurions. And like the skin-job versions, minus the angst and drama.

We know robots have begun replacing human prison guards, and that robots perform valuable functions such as information gathering and bomb diffusion. But what about clone wars? Or drone wars? Are robots ready to be soldiers?

While the U.S. Department of Defense has discontinued a program to develop enough robots to comprise a full third of U.S. fighting strength over the next twenty years, significant strides have been made in the development of ground and air military robots.

The stealth aircraft allegedly captured in Iran earlier this month is one of these robots. Such a drone can gather visual, electronic, and communication information, as well as detect radioactive isotopes and chemicals that might suggest nuclear development.

With funding from DARPA, Boston Dynamics has been working on a robot called the Alphadog, a stocky, four-legged robot that looks like a cross between a crab and a headless horse. Over the course of a day, this robot can cover roughly 20 miles with 400 pounds of supplies on its back.

See the Alphadog.

While the Alphadog can navigate logs and rocks and even stay on its feet when pushed by two people, making it effective in combat support situations, quadruped robots are a far cry from robot soldiers.

The biggest challenge remains creating a robot nimble enough to fight on the ground. Even successfully bipedal robots, like Asimo, still lack the fluidity, balance, and speed of a human. Rather, they tend to walk around carefully and awkwardly, as though stepping on a bed of nails or trying not to take a crap on the floor.

Armed Robotic Vehicles are one step closer to robot solders–they not only carry surveillance equipment, but also weapons. Although they currently look more like tanks than robots, they communicate with humans, especially regarding any observed movement or emergency, and receive scenario-dependent instructions.

Scientists expect these robots to become game changers. Some say they already have, and cite the Iraq War as a perfect example of how warfare will never be the same.

“Mankind’s 5000-year-old monopoly on the fighting of war is breaking down in our very lifetime,” says P.W. Singer during his TED talk on the role of robots in war.

While robots can respond to human direction and instruction in combat scenarios, some scientists are skeptical that robot soldiers or armies could act independent of human thought, direction, or consultation. Too many situations that require quick and careful decision making arise in battle. Right now, robots can’t decide military strategy, change their minds on the fly, or temper military decisions with compassion.

Or so we think, and will continue thinking until they prove that they’re better at fighting than we are (see: cylons).

Which brings us back to sentience, as so many science and technology discussions do.

And back we go to Kurzweil, and to his prediction that artificial intelligence will pass the Turing Test before 2030, and that by 2045, we’ll be completely cognitively outmatched by machines.

In which case, you can forget about camouflage.

So until then, let’s play nice. For starters, let’s not enslave our robots. Though maybe we should hide the weapons regardless.

And, this weekend, watch out for Santa. Santa has always transcended technology.

Posted in Could this Happen? | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Eye Eye, Matey

Posted on December 15, 2011 by jrenstro

Remember when Mom said she had eyes in the back of her head?

Next time, she might not be speaking metaphorically.

Scientists at Tufts University have found a way to develop cells into eyes. In a discovery reminiscent of Frankenstein (the movie, not the book), researchers figured out that if they give cells the right electric jump-start, they’ll grow into fully developed eyes. And not just that—these eyes can grow anywhere on the body.

You could have eyes in your hands, like the terrifying pale man from Pan’s Labyrinth.

You could have eyes on the insides of your elbows. You could blink by performing a bicep curl.

Yes, you could even have eyes on your ass. Though I’m not really sure why you’d want to.

While this particular discovery may seem a bit strange and not altogether practical, the implications extend far beyond growing eyeballs on random body parts. The experiment proves that cells change and grow not only in response to chemical or molecular factors, but also to physical ones, such as electricity.

Nerve and muscle cells in particular generate something called a “membrane potential” when there are a different number of ions inside versus outside of the cell. Cells control the flow of ions, which then generates an electrical charge. We’re talking millivolts here, but it’s enough to affect the way cells move and develop.

Researchers devised the experiment after observing the membrane potentials of cells in a fertilized frog egg. They noticed that the spots where the membrane potentials dropped roughly 20 millivolts were precisely where the tadpole’s eyes formed.

Then, because they wanted to prove that electrical impulses could initiate eye growth, they did something we’ve all dreamed of doing—they replicated the 20-millivolt drop by altering the flow of ions in cells on various parts of the tadpoles’ bodies. Every spot they did this grew eyes.

I bet those are some crazy looking tadpoles!

tadpole with eyeball in gut

I wonder whether the tadpoles reached frog stage. And if they did, what they looked like. They’d probably be pretty sweet at catching flies. They’d also look amazing in sunglasses.

I’m also thinking about how disgusting, but also awesome, it would be to do this experiment on one of those fish with the huge googly eyes.

Even more important than bringing out the freaky side of nature is that this discovery opens all kinds of doors in the field of organ and limb regeneration. Electrical stimulation of cells in a damaged organ or an amputated limb could induce regrowth.

Pretty soon, we’ll be like starfish.

And if it doesn’t work, there’s always mind-controlled prosthetics.

Or worse:

Posted in Could this Happen? | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment