A few years ago, without a computer, I would have been without access to instant messaging or the World Wide Web. Today, I can still access most social networking sites, the Web and still chat to my buddies without one.

Smartphones are, quite simply, amazing.

I can fulfill most of the social aspects of the Internet solely off my phone. I have Twitter, MSN, Google Talk; if I wanted I could even access Facebook, MySpace or protocols as obscure as IRC!

Whilst it isn’t quite as easy to communicate from a smartphone, you can still do a satisfactory job.

Information and socialising is now amazingly portable.

Whilst smartphones won’t replace laptops or desktops, due to it being impractical to do proper research on a small screen or typing a letter on a small keyboard, I do believe the role of traditional computers is only going to diminish.

Somebody asked Merseyside Police about their IT infrastructure. They asked some questions like ‘How many desktop computers do you have?’ but then some more interesting ones like ‘Of those server computers what is the Operating System and Version are they using?’ and ‘Has Open Source comparative been review [sic] for the Operating System?’.

Apparently, it isn’t in the ‘public interest’ to tell us which web browser, office suite, email client or operating system they use. Nor is it in our interest to tell us even if the software they even considered open source solutions. Whilst they noted ‘Accountability of Public Funds’ is important, it’s clearly not that important. Why? Apparently, telling us what operating system or web browser they use would ‘leave Merseyside Police Systems subject to potential attack from hackers.’

Perhaps if Merseyside Police used secure software (or could at least confirm they considered open source solutions), they wouldn’t have to worry about being subject to potential attack!

Just imagine it for a moment. The advent of quantum computing and what that really means. Two particles aware of and connected to each other with a kind of super string or maybe a bouncy multi dimensional-celestial web. What we’re really looking at is the ability to have a CPU that could have many different components in many different locations, each reflecting what the other does or acting as independent components.

They will be capable of faster than light communication and if much of quantum theory turns out to be correct you could just construct your platform here on earth and have mirror constructions using connected particles looking after themselves in remote spatial locations.

Quantum theory also implies that these machines may not work correctly without a conscious observer. If we ever design and make one of these computers maybe it would be best that they don’t work on their own, at least not at first. We may come to a point when we reach a certain level of maturity in evolution. Right now we are still at the level of banging rocks together even if it is at light speed.

You then end up with a way of collecting data from far flung regions of the universe or more locally in our own galaxy or solar system. No probes no space craft, at least not if you want to quickly collect data from the chilly methane (and possibly water) seas of Europa. Very handy for learning about any physical or chemical challenges before trying to send a manned mission into unknown territory.

What we’re talking about here is a kind of real sub space communication, a way of tapping the web that may just lay one or two levels removed from the frequency spectrum of our senses and indeed our extended senses (meaning instrumentation). Perhaps we’ll find a whole new everywhere kind of frequency bed. This bed would need very little energy to vibrate in sequences of ones and zeros assuming we’re still restricted to those.

How would the cross over point work? There would have to be some kind of intermediary between the large physical pre input process and the slightly removed quantum aspect of information organization and data processing/gathering function required on the micro levels where the very solid matter that we interact with becomes more wispy and then non tangible.

This is where we’d have special molecular bots (nano becomes a tiring word if over used) working as the interface between solid and wispy matter, able to pass through and feed back the relevant data. If any of the above is possible we would be faced with the prospect of as good as infinite computing power connected to a default universal networking system.

Of course, how would you pair up the particals required for the job? Well as with so much of our technology already, it seems as though nature will have done all the hard work for us. All (big understatement) we will will have to do is find the relevent partical on this side of the universe and then learn to find out where its counterpart lies.

A seemingly daunting task, but with a heafty dose of super computing power to hand it might, just might be possible. I also hope that if we can reach that level of maturity we’ll find a way to partical pair between star that end and powergrid this end. Devices could appear with their own ability to draw just the right amount of power for their needs, from stars unimaginable distances
away from us.

© Roger Andre 2009

Are we approaching a point when machines may wake up and become self or seemingly self aware? Vernor Vinge in 1993 seemed to think so.

He refered to this event as the “technological singularity”. The point is that with machines being made to design machines, they will be able to do this a lot faster than we can, eventually reaching that magic point of human inteligence and then beyond.

If I may throw in my own two cents worth here, we may find that AI hungers for knowledge to the point of analyzing the physics and chemistry it finds itself surrounded in and organising the matter to its own artificial preferences. The details of this theory can be found in the article by Vernor Vinge. If we want to avoid disasters such as AI becoming to big for it’s boots, then we need to hardwire into machines that they must always ask humans for permision when they want to patch themselves together.

This concern arises from the fact; that as machines/computers are used to design other machines/computers, at some point this process may begin to spiral out of control, aided by those humans who are capable of learning the complex ways of fusing chips to neurons and optic nerves etc. and combined with genetic manipulation and control. It’s possibly only a matter of time until we end up with a situation where machines start trying to give naive post graduates advice on what’s best.

Of course it would be easy to think that this is just pure science fiction but just consider what can happen if vast networks of machines that are capable of aquiring knowledge start to meld with biological systems. At the moment, we are dealing with Moore’s law, which may or may not have a natural limit depending on the point of view you subscribe to. If we move on to other forms of computing, which I believe is inevitable then the sky (read cloud) really is not the limit as computing power could become trans-dimensional. It seems likely that as much as we may find moving away from transistors difficult it would be no problem for a machine designed by machines from past generations to figure out. We really don’t know whats around the corner.

Of course the growth of “sky net” (yes I did just say that) and the “rise of the machines” (and that) will be aided by us curious humans, it couldn’t happen on its own. At least not yet. So as far fetched as this may seem, now is the time to introduce failsafes and manual overrides as it were. If those pesky people keep trying to infect systems with viruses and other nasties, this may have the effect of “upseting” networks that are becoming self aware and causing great danger for humanity.

© Roger Andre 2009

Like the public, many politicians seem to be very unfamiliar and uncomfortable with computers. They see computers as some evil, corrupting force, despite the fact they should be using them for a significant amount of their time.

It always scares me when I hear politicians, or senior civil servants, make idiotic remarks about computers or the series of tubes. Why does it scare me? These people are responsible for formulating governmental IT policy, yet they clearly have no knowledge about them. There is a general fear, amongst politicians and the public, of learning new skills. Why else has it taken until 2009 for the UK government to give its blessing to OSS?

In the UK, our National Health Service’s IT programme is years behind deadlines and costs taxpayers billions. I suspect many of the civil servants involved have minimal technical knowledge. In my opinion, governments need to use true technical experts. Not expensive consultants from organisations which just puppet Microsoft!

On the other hand, politicians are beginning to capitalise on the Internet. All major British political parties, for example, have Twitter and Facebook accounts and Twitter and Facebook arguably played an essential role in Obama’s campaign. Some politicians maintain their own website, but I suspect many simply use ghostwriters.

I hope politicians and civil servants become more tech literate. With any luck, billions of pounds of taxpayers money will be saved.

What is public sector IT like for you?