http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/feb/20/is-this-the-start-of-the-second-dotcom-bubble
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/investors-beware-is-the-new-dotcom-bubble-going-to-burst-2287159.html
Saturday, May 21, 2011
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Incandescent Lightbulb Ban
So as you may (or not) have heard, due to legislation signed by President George W. Bush in 2007, incadescent light bulbs are to begin being phased out beginning January of 2012. Yes, our beloved incandescent light bulbs (well beloved to me anyway!) are being outlawed! Why? Well, basically because it's just another piece of government regulation in the name of being "green." The bill doesn't really "outlaw" incandescents so much as it raises the efficiency standards for light bulbs to the point that incandescent bulbs become illegal. The legislation starts in 2012 and gradually takes full effect up through 2014. In 2012, 100 watt incandescent bulbs will start being phased out. Already, California has taken this step, banning stores from stocking their shelves with 100 watt incandescent light bulbs. Then gradually lower-watt bulbs will be banned going through 2014.
Now I personally really don't like the federal government telling me I can no longer purchase incandescent light bulbs. They may be 100 year-old technology, but they are cheap, turn on quick, and produce nice quality light. The alternatives at the moment are the CFLs (compact flourescent light bulbs) and LEDs (light-emitting diodes) but there are some problems with these (especially the CFLs):
1) Cost - They cost one heck of a lot more than a regular incandescent (a 100 watt LED costs $50)
2) Light quality - The quality of the light from a CFL is not the same as from an incandescent
3) No heat - CFLs produce virtually no heat. This has proved problematic for some towns that replaced their traffic lights with CFLs lights, only to realize that in the winter time, the old incandescents melted the snow, whereas the new CFLs do not. Some people also like the heat produced by incandescents; this heat also can help in heating ones's home in the winter time. Yes, during the summer, it makes it tougher to cool the home as well, but if left with the choice, one could then switch the incandescents out for an alternative during the summer time.
4) Environmental - This one I am unsure of. Some say CFLs are unsafe and must be disposed of in a special way due to their mercury content, and require a special cleanup procedure if you break one, others say this is scaremongering. What's interesting is that the U.S. government seems to want it both ways on this: they tell us that CFLs are hazardous enough that they require a special cleanup process, but at the same time, they are also perfectly safe.
5) Time - CFLs take some time to fully light up (as opposed to the incandescent where you just flick the switch and it's on). I have read that they have CFLs that switch on instantly now, but they cost a bundle.
6) Won't save energy - this one is the major claim, that although the LEDs and CFLs cost a lot more, they last a lot longer, and will thus safe energy. That for example, if all 300 million Americans replace their 60 watt bulbs (the most widely-used light bulb) with 10 watt bulbs, the energy savings will be enormous. But there is no proof this will happen. What will likely happen is that the energy saved from the light bulbs will then be spent somewhere else. People's electricity usage won't decline from energy efficient bulbs, they'll just use more electricity elsewhere.
The reasoning behind the legislation is probably that of what you could nickname as "Nudge Regulation." Nudge regulation is regulation meant to nudge an industry a certain way, to incentivize it to do enough research and development to develop products that are significantly improved in a certain way. Sometimes, this works, sometimes it doesn't. Examples of nudge regulation could be the limits placed on how many gallons of water can be used to flush a toilet. Toilet companies had to go and design new toilets that flush with a lot less water. Or showers. Regulations were placed on how much water a shower head can flow. Which of course makes a shower have a less powerful flow. Some companies offer shower units with multiple shower heads, but this has attracted the ire of regulators as well. This company found itself in the crosshairs of a regulator back in 2006 for offering a unit with up to three shower heads. It is now 2011 and as the link shows, they are still in business, still selling the three shower head unit, so luckily legislation has not yet been passed outlawing multiple shower heads (or at least not nationwide). I am waiting for them to start trying to limit the size of water heater you can own, or the degree to which the water can be heated.
Anyways, the idea behind the light bulbs is by raising the efficiency standards for light bulbs, companies will spend money on research and development to develop alternatives that can match the old incandescents in performance, and eventually, price. The problem is that this does not always work. GE (General Electric) WAS working on developing what were called High Efficiency Incandescent Light Bulbs, basically incandescents that meet the new efficiency standards, but they decided to can the idea as they believe the new form of light bulb will be LEDs and OLED (organic light emitting diodes). The problem is that creating LED light bulbs is proving more problematic than originally foreseen. I would hope that the R&D will win out in the end and eventually LED lightbulbs come down to the same price as current incandescents and provide smooth, steady, clean light. Unlike CFLs, I believe LEDs also produce heat.
As recently as May 9th, 2011, South Carolina's Senate panel is introducing legislation to allow the continued sale of incandescents in their state. If it passes, as the article says, lawsuits will probably ensue. The lightbulb industry is invested heavily in making sure that incandescents remain outlawed, as they have invested a lot of money in creating the manufacturing plants to manufacture the LEDs and the CFLs. If the legislation were to be repealed, then essentially they will have wasted a bunch of money.
Now despite these regulations, there are certain ways individuals and even some companies can bypass them. For example, the shower company offering units with multiple heads, people also can "hack" their shower by removing the flow regulator themselves, and now onto the really neat part. One of the complains about incandescent light bulbs is that they waste about 90% of their enegy in the form of heat. Yes, incandescent light bulbs are technically little heaters that we use for light, not lights that happen to produce heat. Some light bulbs are even used as heaters, for example heating lamps. These are light bulbs that are used as little heaters. And here is a picture of a heater that uses a heating bulb:
So the question to be posed is, if companies can no longer sell incandescent light bulbs, could a company sell incandescent "heating" bulbs? (wink wink :) ). And as it turns out, in Europe, there is a company doing exactly this. Europe already outlawed incandescents, so this company sells light bulbs as "heaters." I am wondering if a company starts doing this in America, if the legislation will end up modified to try and outlaw the sale of incandescent "heaters" as well. On the one hand, the regulators won't like it, on the other hand, it might prove tough to get legislation passed to outlaw what would probably be a niche product.
Irregardless, I intend to start purchasing incandescent heaters once the light bulbs are no longer available and if the alternatives are too costly or lacking in quality. I also see a possible entrepreneurial opportunity here :)
Now I personally really don't like the federal government telling me I can no longer purchase incandescent light bulbs. They may be 100 year-old technology, but they are cheap, turn on quick, and produce nice quality light. The alternatives at the moment are the CFLs (compact flourescent light bulbs) and LEDs (light-emitting diodes) but there are some problems with these (especially the CFLs):
1) Cost - They cost one heck of a lot more than a regular incandescent (a 100 watt LED costs $50)
2) Light quality - The quality of the light from a CFL is not the same as from an incandescent
3) No heat - CFLs produce virtually no heat. This has proved problematic for some towns that replaced their traffic lights with CFLs lights, only to realize that in the winter time, the old incandescents melted the snow, whereas the new CFLs do not. Some people also like the heat produced by incandescents; this heat also can help in heating ones's home in the winter time. Yes, during the summer, it makes it tougher to cool the home as well, but if left with the choice, one could then switch the incandescents out for an alternative during the summer time.
4) Environmental - This one I am unsure of. Some say CFLs are unsafe and must be disposed of in a special way due to their mercury content, and require a special cleanup procedure if you break one, others say this is scaremongering. What's interesting is that the U.S. government seems to want it both ways on this: they tell us that CFLs are hazardous enough that they require a special cleanup process, but at the same time, they are also perfectly safe.
5) Time - CFLs take some time to fully light up (as opposed to the incandescent where you just flick the switch and it's on). I have read that they have CFLs that switch on instantly now, but they cost a bundle.
6) Won't save energy - this one is the major claim, that although the LEDs and CFLs cost a lot more, they last a lot longer, and will thus safe energy. That for example, if all 300 million Americans replace their 60 watt bulbs (the most widely-used light bulb) with 10 watt bulbs, the energy savings will be enormous. But there is no proof this will happen. What will likely happen is that the energy saved from the light bulbs will then be spent somewhere else. People's electricity usage won't decline from energy efficient bulbs, they'll just use more electricity elsewhere.
The reasoning behind the legislation is probably that of what you could nickname as "Nudge Regulation." Nudge regulation is regulation meant to nudge an industry a certain way, to incentivize it to do enough research and development to develop products that are significantly improved in a certain way. Sometimes, this works, sometimes it doesn't. Examples of nudge regulation could be the limits placed on how many gallons of water can be used to flush a toilet. Toilet companies had to go and design new toilets that flush with a lot less water. Or showers. Regulations were placed on how much water a shower head can flow. Which of course makes a shower have a less powerful flow. Some companies offer shower units with multiple shower heads, but this has attracted the ire of regulators as well. This company found itself in the crosshairs of a regulator back in 2006 for offering a unit with up to three shower heads. It is now 2011 and as the link shows, they are still in business, still selling the three shower head unit, so luckily legislation has not yet been passed outlawing multiple shower heads (or at least not nationwide). I am waiting for them to start trying to limit the size of water heater you can own, or the degree to which the water can be heated.
Anyways, the idea behind the light bulbs is by raising the efficiency standards for light bulbs, companies will spend money on research and development to develop alternatives that can match the old incandescents in performance, and eventually, price. The problem is that this does not always work. GE (General Electric) WAS working on developing what were called High Efficiency Incandescent Light Bulbs, basically incandescents that meet the new efficiency standards, but they decided to can the idea as they believe the new form of light bulb will be LEDs and OLED (organic light emitting diodes). The problem is that creating LED light bulbs is proving more problematic than originally foreseen. I would hope that the R&D will win out in the end and eventually LED lightbulbs come down to the same price as current incandescents and provide smooth, steady, clean light. Unlike CFLs, I believe LEDs also produce heat.
As recently as May 9th, 2011, South Carolina's Senate panel is introducing legislation to allow the continued sale of incandescents in their state. If it passes, as the article says, lawsuits will probably ensue. The lightbulb industry is invested heavily in making sure that incandescents remain outlawed, as they have invested a lot of money in creating the manufacturing plants to manufacture the LEDs and the CFLs. If the legislation were to be repealed, then essentially they will have wasted a bunch of money.
Now despite these regulations, there are certain ways individuals and even some companies can bypass them. For example, the shower company offering units with multiple heads, people also can "hack" their shower by removing the flow regulator themselves, and now onto the really neat part. One of the complains about incandescent light bulbs is that they waste about 90% of their enegy in the form of heat. Yes, incandescent light bulbs are technically little heaters that we use for light, not lights that happen to produce heat. Some light bulbs are even used as heaters, for example heating lamps. These are light bulbs that are used as little heaters. And here is a picture of a heater that uses a heating bulb:
Irregardless, I intend to start purchasing incandescent heaters once the light bulbs are no longer available and if the alternatives are too costly or lacking in quality. I also see a possible entrepreneurial opportunity here :)
Boeing VS National Labor Relations Board
So as has been being reported in the media for some days now, the NLRB has sued Boeing for its plan to build a plant in South Carolina to build 787 Dreamliners. The NLRB claims Boeing is seeking to retaliate against the workers and that this violates labor laws. I do not see how Boeing is retaliating at all though. It hasn't closed (or planned to close) its operations in Washington state and move them to South Carolina. All of those union jobs are remaining intact (and boeing has also expanded operations, and hence jobs, recently there as well). Boeing's plant in South Carolina will be in addition to its Washington state operations. I do not see how this is retaliating.
A commentor on the National Review article linked to in the article below made what I thought is an interesting point: "The Left want big businesses to operate like utility companies: unionized, highly-regulated, bureaucratic, and with cushy jobs for people from government." That does seem to be the case with this, the financial regulation which is probably going to bring the big financial companies on Wall Street into bed with the government to a good degree, also when looking at how the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) turns the health insurance companies into utilities. A hearing is planned for next month, I am hoping Boeing wins. Unions should not have that much power over private companies.
NLRB Plans Even More Aggressive Action
A commentor on the National Review article linked to in the article below made what I thought is an interesting point: "The Left want big businesses to operate like utility companies: unionized, highly-regulated, bureaucratic, and with cushy jobs for people from government." That does seem to be the case with this, the financial regulation which is probably going to bring the big financial companies on Wall Street into bed with the government to a good degree, also when looking at how the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) turns the health insurance companies into utilities. A hearing is planned for next month, I am hoping Boeing wins. Unions should not have that much power over private companies.
NLRB Plans Even More Aggressive Action
Sunday, May 15, 2011
Thoughts On How Robots Will Impact Our Lives In the Future
So I was thinking about the subject of technology and how many modern technologies we take for granted were taken as being science-fantasy as short as twenty years ago. Not science-fiction, as in possible, but just the technology isn't developed yet, but science-fantasy, as in we'll never develop such technology. Modern cellphones and things like the iPad are an example of this. In the 1980s or the early 1990s, if you had suggested that in twenty years we'd have such technology, you might well have been laughed at. Flat-screen televisions as well. I would imagine the next major "flattening" will occur to air conditioners. Right now, window air conditioners are big, heavy bulky things that you have to stick in your window. But give it some decades, and I bet air conditioners will become flat and light and probably become a form of interior design accessory to rooms in the way the modern flat-screen television has become (so much so that in pictures of rooms from the 1980s and the 1990s, the old big bulky CRT televisions look like a major eyesore).
So anyways, regarding robots, well there are generally two types of robots: practical and the non-practical humanoid robots. Practical robots are what are designed for uses in things such as manufacturing, the oil and gas industry, and military and law enforcement. These robots are not humanoids at all however. There are also some home robot designs, such as an automated vacuum cleaner and some others (iRobot makes these).
Humanoid robots are a robot that is not practical yet because there is no real need for them and the technology is not there yet. The Japanese however are infatuated with the idea of humanoid robots and continue to make major progress in this area of robotics. Despite not being practical at all now, I was thinking that in the future, once the technology gets developed enough, they probably will become very practical in quite a few ways. The technology and the software has to overgo some major hurdles of course, but I believe this will happen because so much of the technology we have now was considered utter fantasy as early as a few decades ago. So what may seem like fantasy capabilities for humanoid robots right now will probably become reality within a certain number of decades.
For example, a personal robot could help elderly people living at home. My grandma used to hire an aid, but usually these were underpaid older women who were crabby about life and their job and who also occassionally stole from my grandma. A personal robot wouldn't do any of that as it wouldn't have emotions. A personal robot could cook dinner for you, do your dishes, and your laundry, maybe even drive your car for you! Better yet, it might even be able to serve as a personal chef with the right programming. Many are aware how many of the things we enjoy today were luxuries not long ago. For example, in the 1980s, having a phone in your car made you a real big shot. And a television, super big-shot. Today, everyone and their grandma has a cell phone and an iPod and possibly an iPad or whatnot, where you can set the thing on the dash and watch a movie right in your car while waiting in traffic. You can carry an entire library's worth of music and books with you nowawdays quite easily. Automobiles now also are equipped with navigation systems and televisions with full entertainment system in them too. And these technologies will only keep becoming cheaper and cheaper, and thus working their way down into cheaper and cheaper automobiles. Cars without navigation systems today will probably get them in future and cars with navigation systems today will probably see them morph into full on-board computers that can do everything from navigate to allow surfing of the Internet to watch television on (some may already do this even).
Well currently, having a personal chef and servants is a luxury of the rich. Modern people, even the poor, have a lot of stuff that used to only be available to the rich (and quite a few things even the richest couldn't dream of), but servants and personal chefs still are exclusive to the wealthy. But personal robots could change all that. All of a sudden, just as with the car phone, something that was previously the domain of the wealthy will probably end up becoming something that every family in middle-class America has access to. This also raises questions of what else the personal robots might be able to do?
I had mentioned driving, but by that point, cars may well be able to drive themselves. We already have cars now with cruise control that can slow the car down and speed it up automatically in response to traffic, and also parallel park themselves. I would not be surprised at all if I was preserved somehow cryogenically, woke up in America in 2100, only to find personal robots are the norm with families, and all cars can drive themselves. As a side-note, I do not think we will end up with a society where all cars can only drive themselves, and humans can no longer drive (as often portrayed in movies about the future). Yes, self-driving cars may be a lot safer, but a lot of people still like to drive their own car as they please. I think it would be seen as too much of an intrusion on freedom if the government tried mandating all cars have to be self-driving by law and that people cannot drive them (and I would agree). Another reason I think this would/will not occur is because by that standard, the government already would probably have outlawed things like sports cars and motorcycles as well. Sports cars serve no practical purpose and can easily be deemed "unsafe." If you could mandate cars only drive themselves, then you could outlaw the production of sports cars and motorcycles altogether for the same purpose (traffic safety). But they are plenty legal. So I'd think people driving their own cars will remain. But it won't become unusual to see cars with their "driver" riding as just a passenger either. There would also be situations I imagine where you will need to drive the car yourself, such as when going to the grocery store, or mall, or a restaurant for example, where do you park? If you pull into a gas station, which gas pump do you stop at? Maybe you could direct the car by voice on these, but what if you have fallen asleep? Or maybe you are approaching a road that is an intersection with a stop sign, but the stop sign has been knocked down, so your car doesn't see it, and also can't see the car speeding down the intersecting road from a distance that you DO see, and thus doesn't know to stop? You'd want the ability to just hit the brakes on your own there.
I am rambling a bit there, but just interesting thoughts on robotic automobiles. Going back to personal robots, I wonder what else they might be able to do? Besides laundry, cooking, cleaning, etc...maybe even hop into the car and drive to the store and buy groceries? Will the personal robot hop into the robotic car which will then drive the personal robot to the grocery store and back? :D What additional industries and jobs will be spawned by this personal robot industry? As with many technologies, I am sure certain jobs and industries will be affected. Accounting software and the personal computer killed the jobs of a lot of accountants, the Internet killed some industries off, and I am sure personal robots will as well. BUT, whole new industries and jobs will likely be created as well.
This also brings up a few concerns, for example, how physically strong should such robots be? If helping elders, you'd need a robot strong enough to lift and help a human. On the other hand, you don't want something with too much strength either, because if something went wrong with it, it could hurt the person. You want the robot where if it tried to harm you for whatever reason (say it was chopping carrots with a big knife, then something goes haywire and you've all of a sudden got a knife-swinging robot in the kitchen), that you could just knock it down and subdue it. In the movies and animes, they oftentimes portray such personal robots as ultra-physically strong, or as having emotions, but it would be extremely foolish to give a personal robot such physical strength and also emotions (the whole point is that the robot has no emotions---and THAT is assuming they ever could have emotions, which no one really knows---software and computers that can replicate an animal brain and have emotions is waaaay down the line and also delves into religious issues as well (do animals and humans have a soul for exxample or are we just biological-chemical machines?)). So I do not believe robots would have such excessive strength or emotions. But even a robot with the strength of the average older person could still be harmful. The average older person could still stab a person for example. there could still be the risk of the robot having something go wrong. And what about bugs in the software? Imagine the Microsoft Windows equivalent of software in your carrot-chopping robot (NO THANKS!!)
Another interesting concern is, if the robot can link up to the Internet for additional software uploads and upgrades, what happens if a virus gets into it? Provided personal robots are developed and go to recharge each night, and also are linked up to the Internet for any software updates let's say, then you can probably be assured that there are folks who will start developing software viruses to infect the robot, and make it start doing things it shouldn't (like go get the kitchen knife and stab the people). Some might think of Isaac Asimov's "Three Laws of Robotics" here, but a virus might erase any such programming from the robot. An emotionless robot, afterall, is going to be just a machine with a computer system running on software in it. A highly, highly advanced piece of machinery with a highly-advanced computer system running on highly-advanced software, but still a computer following instructions within a machine. It will follow the programming in it. So if the programming says get the knife and stab the people, it won't know any better.
I have no idea in the slightest how society will deal with all of these issues as such technology is developed, but it is very interesting to think about.
So anyways, regarding robots, well there are generally two types of robots: practical and the non-practical humanoid robots. Practical robots are what are designed for uses in things such as manufacturing, the oil and gas industry, and military and law enforcement. These robots are not humanoids at all however. There are also some home robot designs, such as an automated vacuum cleaner and some others (iRobot makes these).
Humanoid robots are a robot that is not practical yet because there is no real need for them and the technology is not there yet. The Japanese however are infatuated with the idea of humanoid robots and continue to make major progress in this area of robotics. Despite not being practical at all now, I was thinking that in the future, once the technology gets developed enough, they probably will become very practical in quite a few ways. The technology and the software has to overgo some major hurdles of course, but I believe this will happen because so much of the technology we have now was considered utter fantasy as early as a few decades ago. So what may seem like fantasy capabilities for humanoid robots right now will probably become reality within a certain number of decades.
For example, a personal robot could help elderly people living at home. My grandma used to hire an aid, but usually these were underpaid older women who were crabby about life and their job and who also occassionally stole from my grandma. A personal robot wouldn't do any of that as it wouldn't have emotions. A personal robot could cook dinner for you, do your dishes, and your laundry, maybe even drive your car for you! Better yet, it might even be able to serve as a personal chef with the right programming. Many are aware how many of the things we enjoy today were luxuries not long ago. For example, in the 1980s, having a phone in your car made you a real big shot. And a television, super big-shot. Today, everyone and their grandma has a cell phone and an iPod and possibly an iPad or whatnot, where you can set the thing on the dash and watch a movie right in your car while waiting in traffic. You can carry an entire library's worth of music and books with you nowawdays quite easily. Automobiles now also are equipped with navigation systems and televisions with full entertainment system in them too. And these technologies will only keep becoming cheaper and cheaper, and thus working their way down into cheaper and cheaper automobiles. Cars without navigation systems today will probably get them in future and cars with navigation systems today will probably see them morph into full on-board computers that can do everything from navigate to allow surfing of the Internet to watch television on (some may already do this even).
Well currently, having a personal chef and servants is a luxury of the rich. Modern people, even the poor, have a lot of stuff that used to only be available to the rich (and quite a few things even the richest couldn't dream of), but servants and personal chefs still are exclusive to the wealthy. But personal robots could change all that. All of a sudden, just as with the car phone, something that was previously the domain of the wealthy will probably end up becoming something that every family in middle-class America has access to. This also raises questions of what else the personal robots might be able to do?
I had mentioned driving, but by that point, cars may well be able to drive themselves. We already have cars now with cruise control that can slow the car down and speed it up automatically in response to traffic, and also parallel park themselves. I would not be surprised at all if I was preserved somehow cryogenically, woke up in America in 2100, only to find personal robots are the norm with families, and all cars can drive themselves. As a side-note, I do not think we will end up with a society where all cars can only drive themselves, and humans can no longer drive (as often portrayed in movies about the future). Yes, self-driving cars may be a lot safer, but a lot of people still like to drive their own car as they please. I think it would be seen as too much of an intrusion on freedom if the government tried mandating all cars have to be self-driving by law and that people cannot drive them (and I would agree). Another reason I think this would/will not occur is because by that standard, the government already would probably have outlawed things like sports cars and motorcycles as well. Sports cars serve no practical purpose and can easily be deemed "unsafe." If you could mandate cars only drive themselves, then you could outlaw the production of sports cars and motorcycles altogether for the same purpose (traffic safety). But they are plenty legal. So I'd think people driving their own cars will remain. But it won't become unusual to see cars with their "driver" riding as just a passenger either. There would also be situations I imagine where you will need to drive the car yourself, such as when going to the grocery store, or mall, or a restaurant for example, where do you park? If you pull into a gas station, which gas pump do you stop at? Maybe you could direct the car by voice on these, but what if you have fallen asleep? Or maybe you are approaching a road that is an intersection with a stop sign, but the stop sign has been knocked down, so your car doesn't see it, and also can't see the car speeding down the intersecting road from a distance that you DO see, and thus doesn't know to stop? You'd want the ability to just hit the brakes on your own there.
I am rambling a bit there, but just interesting thoughts on robotic automobiles. Going back to personal robots, I wonder what else they might be able to do? Besides laundry, cooking, cleaning, etc...maybe even hop into the car and drive to the store and buy groceries? Will the personal robot hop into the robotic car which will then drive the personal robot to the grocery store and back? :D What additional industries and jobs will be spawned by this personal robot industry? As with many technologies, I am sure certain jobs and industries will be affected. Accounting software and the personal computer killed the jobs of a lot of accountants, the Internet killed some industries off, and I am sure personal robots will as well. BUT, whole new industries and jobs will likely be created as well.
This also brings up a few concerns, for example, how physically strong should such robots be? If helping elders, you'd need a robot strong enough to lift and help a human. On the other hand, you don't want something with too much strength either, because if something went wrong with it, it could hurt the person. You want the robot where if it tried to harm you for whatever reason (say it was chopping carrots with a big knife, then something goes haywire and you've all of a sudden got a knife-swinging robot in the kitchen), that you could just knock it down and subdue it. In the movies and animes, they oftentimes portray such personal robots as ultra-physically strong, or as having emotions, but it would be extremely foolish to give a personal robot such physical strength and also emotions (the whole point is that the robot has no emotions---and THAT is assuming they ever could have emotions, which no one really knows---software and computers that can replicate an animal brain and have emotions is waaaay down the line and also delves into religious issues as well (do animals and humans have a soul for exxample or are we just biological-chemical machines?)). So I do not believe robots would have such excessive strength or emotions. But even a robot with the strength of the average older person could still be harmful. The average older person could still stab a person for example. there could still be the risk of the robot having something go wrong. And what about bugs in the software? Imagine the Microsoft Windows equivalent of software in your carrot-chopping robot (NO THANKS!!)
Another interesting concern is, if the robot can link up to the Internet for additional software uploads and upgrades, what happens if a virus gets into it? Provided personal robots are developed and go to recharge each night, and also are linked up to the Internet for any software updates let's say, then you can probably be assured that there are folks who will start developing software viruses to infect the robot, and make it start doing things it shouldn't (like go get the kitchen knife and stab the people). Some might think of Isaac Asimov's "Three Laws of Robotics" here, but a virus might erase any such programming from the robot. An emotionless robot, afterall, is going to be just a machine with a computer system running on software in it. A highly, highly advanced piece of machinery with a highly-advanced computer system running on highly-advanced software, but still a computer following instructions within a machine. It will follow the programming in it. So if the programming says get the knife and stab the people, it won't know any better.
I have no idea in the slightest how society will deal with all of these issues as such technology is developed, but it is very interesting to think about.
Saturday, May 7, 2011
The Higher Education Bubble
Captain Capitalism linked to this in his latest blog post: LINK - make sure to read the articles linked to this article as well, it is fascinating.
Monday, May 2, 2011
Usama bin Laden Dead
And justice is served! Huge round of applause to all of the U.S. military and intelligence personnel who were instrumental in making this happen. And despite my many disagreements with his policies, credit to President Obama for having had the guts to go ahead with this as there was likely a risk it could have gone very wrong for him. It will be interesting to see how this affects his chances for re-election in 2012.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)