... contrary to popular folklore, will invariably boil. An obvious statement, you may say, but so obvious is this statement that many people take it for granted.
I could go and praise the amazing work of Lord Weir and the existence of the National Grid, but this is a call to arms for Eco Warriors everywhere.
My green aspirations are nothing new and I have been through the dreadlocked-hippie-university-student phase. Nowadays I am less dogmatic about Green Living and will not scorn others at the drop of a hat for not recycling their paper (Shock, horror!).
However, recently I have moved to Brighton, a city popular with the Green vote. I am shocked at the number of the people I meet who are oblivious to their impact on the environment and still boil a whole kettle of water to make one cup of tea. I even live with a man who boils a whole kettle "so that whoever uses it next doesn't have to wait as long"!
I implore everyone with a scrap of common sense and decency to think very carefully about how you can help us make this world last a little longer. It is well documented that abusing the grid in the way mentioned above wastes a expletive huge amount amount of energy.
Do those of you who still boil a whole kettle for one mug of Ovaltine not feel the sting of guilt that you have slapped Mother Nature in the face every time you do this?
I remember the moment when I realised that although I may be a small fish in a 1,400,000,000 km3 pond everything I do has an effect on the environment. 'For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction'. Twisting Netwon's laws to fit my analogy may be a little pretentious but humanity must realise that we affect the world we live in. The laws of nature will not overlook the stray wrapper and she will count every single one as an act against her survival.
Can we not see that once Earth is made uninhabitable we have nowhere else to live?
So, please, make it your life's goal to protect our habitat in whatever you do. Recycle your paper, buy fair trade products, only boil as much water as you need. Vast and varied as our world may be, we only have one chance to get it right.
Thursday, 22 October 2009
Tuesday, 26 May 2009
The future of computing
For those of you unfortunate enough to have missed this morning's Inventions that Changed the World presented by my favorite over-patriotic journo-petrol head, Jeremy Clarkson, I'd like to relay some of the sentiments that I felt particularly affected by.
Who's heard of Tommy Flowers? No? I'm not surprised. I hadn't until this morning, or if I did his efforts weren't praised enough for me to appreciate them: He built the world's first code breaking computer - Colossus.
Now first of all, I'd like to say what a damn cool name for a computer Colossus is, I mean if a German informer had heard that the Brits had created a machine called Colossus that could break their Lorenz cypher in a matter of minutes I bet they'd have sheize'd their lederhosen! "Nein, eine Colossus komputer! Mein Furher, wir sind gefickt!"
Secondly, I'd like to say a personal thank you to Mr. Flowers for his tenacity to build the thing in the first place. Made out of nearly 2000 thermionic valves (vacuum tubes) it took only 10 months to build the first one (the British Army requested 8 more) and over £1000 of personal investment from Tommy himself. A post office worker by trade he used the same principle as the PO switchboard to run two messages simultaneously in perfect synchrony making code breaking a matter of minutes rather than months.
At this point I'd like to tip my hat to another fellow whose efforts we aught to recognize: Alan Turing. After being found to be a homosexual he was ostracised by the code-breaking community but his influence cannot be under emphasized. His Turing machine (or the principle behind the design) is the basis for pretty much all modern computing and his efforts not only on the bombe (a machine that sped up the breaking of an Enigma Machine encoded message) have undoubtedly saved lives. Alan is immortalised as a statue in Sackville Park, Manchester.
After waving the flag for British computing poineering it is unfortunate that our friend Mr. Clarkson has to head overseas to finish the story of the computer. The Americans took the idea of a programmable switching machine to new highs and build vast rooms filled with valves. Xerox, a New-York based company, were the poineers now and this group of mathematicians and hippies pushed forwards the potential for these machines. Originally set up as a company selling photographic equipment, mainly paper, they diversified in the 60s and started making paper copiers, the first named the Xerox 813 in 1963, before progressing onto computers.
In 1971 Intel created the first microprocessor: the 4004. Using two conducting layers separated by a semi-conductor, the state of which is controlled by an electronic current, the switching technology could be made incredibly small and efficient. With a clock speed of 740 kHz and 2250 transistors (which act as switches, the same as the valves in Tommy Flowers' machine) it was technically only a little bit more powerful than Colossus but it led the way for microprocessors becoming common fare.
Xerox built the first 'personal computer', called the Alto, in 1973 and it had features that are now commonplace: A cathode-ray screen, a GUI, mouse pointer and QWERTY keyboard. It was built around a processor based on Texas Instruments' 74181 chip, essentially a collection of logic gates but capable of 45454545.45 calculations per second (one every 22 nanoseconds). In 1981 the Xerox Star (with input from Apple) was the first commercially available system, but due to it's astronomical cost ($16,000) it still didn't sell well. By this time the internet was up and running (to a degree) and email was developed to take advatage of it.
Nowadays every electrical item in the home has a microprocessor that controls it's every function. Processor clock speeds topped out at just under 4GHz due to the heat emitted by the transistors changing state but faster machines have been built using a design that incooporates multiple processors on a single chip, which means that Moore's Law can continue unabated for the time being.
So, what lies ahead for computing? Mr. Clarkson's programme ends with a sarcastic run down of 80s science fiction suggestions: having conversations with computers, maids/butlers attending to our every desire, robo-pets that develop 'personalities'. Some of these are, on a basic level, already with us but the main thrust of his point, hidden and cryptic as it may be, lies in a comment he makes about half way through. On the subject of modern computers he points out obvious but not imediately comprehensible flaws in computer design: They will do exactly what we programme them to do, obediently and unquestioningly. The limit of computer intelligence is therefore limited to the height of human intelligence. This is, I believe, going to be the truth that computer scientists will have to mould to their whim if Artificial Intelligence is going to become a reality. In principle AI is therefore impossible because a computer is only as intelligent as it's programmer and no matter how many switches/transistors a computer is blessed with it will still only live in a world with electricity and humans to provide it with the 'food' and knowledge that it requires.
However, humans are, to a degree, also only a collection of switches (neurones) that relay electronic pulses to a central processing unit (the brain) which de-cyphers these pulses into what we see, hear, smell, feel and do. Is it so improbable that one day a computer/cyborg will be built that can take energy from it's surroundings (solar/wind power) with enough basic programming to learn how to make decisions based on input signals in various circumstances? I, for one, believe that it can be done and that the only thing holding us back is the lack of a unified international effort to combine the programming knowledge and learnt computer history of all AI projects across the globe. Whether I want this to happen is another matter entirely and for the time being I'd rather we didn't put too much funding into it. (Anyone seen iRobot?)
From another programme about the future, James May's Big Ideas, Mr. May explores the current level of bionics and robotics and is amazed to see how far we've come. One particularly impressive project is called Asimo, a Japanese robot that can walk, run and climb the stairs. Another project from the sme laboratory can recognise physical opbjects and will learn the name of a new or foreign object. It can only be a matter of time before the ability to interact with the physical environment and the ability to learn is combined to create what we could, I suppose, call AI. However, until I can't tell a human and a cyborg apart I will remain steadfastly asured that we are not threatened by a Hal that won't open the cargo-bay doors. That is, still, science-fiction.
Who's heard of Tommy Flowers? No? I'm not surprised. I hadn't until this morning, or if I did his efforts weren't praised enough for me to appreciate them: He built the world's first code breaking computer - Colossus.
Now first of all, I'd like to say what a damn cool name for a computer Colossus is, I mean if a German informer had heard that the Brits had created a machine called Colossus that could break their Lorenz cypher in a matter of minutes I bet they'd have sheize'd their lederhosen! "Nein, eine Colossus komputer! Mein Furher, wir sind gefickt!"
Secondly, I'd like to say a personal thank you to Mr. Flowers for his tenacity to build the thing in the first place. Made out of nearly 2000 thermionic valves (vacuum tubes) it took only 10 months to build the first one (the British Army requested 8 more) and over £1000 of personal investment from Tommy himself. A post office worker by trade he used the same principle as the PO switchboard to run two messages simultaneously in perfect synchrony making code breaking a matter of minutes rather than months.
At this point I'd like to tip my hat to another fellow whose efforts we aught to recognize: Alan Turing. After being found to be a homosexual he was ostracised by the code-breaking community but his influence cannot be under emphasized. His Turing machine (or the principle behind the design) is the basis for pretty much all modern computing and his efforts not only on the bombe (a machine that sped up the breaking of an Enigma Machine encoded message) have undoubtedly saved lives. Alan is immortalised as a statue in Sackville Park, Manchester.
After waving the flag for British computing poineering it is unfortunate that our friend Mr. Clarkson has to head overseas to finish the story of the computer. The Americans took the idea of a programmable switching machine to new highs and build vast rooms filled with valves. Xerox, a New-York based company, were the poineers now and this group of mathematicians and hippies pushed forwards the potential for these machines. Originally set up as a company selling photographic equipment, mainly paper, they diversified in the 60s and started making paper copiers, the first named the Xerox 813 in 1963, before progressing onto computers.
In 1971 Intel created the first microprocessor: the 4004. Using two conducting layers separated by a semi-conductor, the state of which is controlled by an electronic current, the switching technology could be made incredibly small and efficient. With a clock speed of 740 kHz and 2250 transistors (which act as switches, the same as the valves in Tommy Flowers' machine) it was technically only a little bit more powerful than Colossus but it led the way for microprocessors becoming common fare.
Xerox built the first 'personal computer', called the Alto, in 1973 and it had features that are now commonplace: A cathode-ray screen, a GUI, mouse pointer and QWERTY keyboard. It was built around a processor based on Texas Instruments' 74181 chip, essentially a collection of logic gates but capable of 45454545.45 calculations per second (one every 22 nanoseconds). In 1981 the Xerox Star (with input from Apple) was the first commercially available system, but due to it's astronomical cost ($16,000) it still didn't sell well. By this time the internet was up and running (to a degree) and email was developed to take advatage of it.
Nowadays every electrical item in the home has a microprocessor that controls it's every function. Processor clock speeds topped out at just under 4GHz due to the heat emitted by the transistors changing state but faster machines have been built using a design that incooporates multiple processors on a single chip, which means that Moore's Law can continue unabated for the time being.
So, what lies ahead for computing? Mr. Clarkson's programme ends with a sarcastic run down of 80s science fiction suggestions: having conversations with computers, maids/butlers attending to our every desire, robo-pets that develop 'personalities'. Some of these are, on a basic level, already with us but the main thrust of his point, hidden and cryptic as it may be, lies in a comment he makes about half way through. On the subject of modern computers he points out obvious but not imediately comprehensible flaws in computer design: They will do exactly what we programme them to do, obediently and unquestioningly. The limit of computer intelligence is therefore limited to the height of human intelligence. This is, I believe, going to be the truth that computer scientists will have to mould to their whim if Artificial Intelligence is going to become a reality. In principle AI is therefore impossible because a computer is only as intelligent as it's programmer and no matter how many switches/transistors a computer is blessed with it will still only live in a world with electricity and humans to provide it with the 'food' and knowledge that it requires.
However, humans are, to a degree, also only a collection of switches (neurones) that relay electronic pulses to a central processing unit (the brain) which de-cyphers these pulses into what we see, hear, smell, feel and do. Is it so improbable that one day a computer/cyborg will be built that can take energy from it's surroundings (solar/wind power) with enough basic programming to learn how to make decisions based on input signals in various circumstances? I, for one, believe that it can be done and that the only thing holding us back is the lack of a unified international effort to combine the programming knowledge and learnt computer history of all AI projects across the globe. Whether I want this to happen is another matter entirely and for the time being I'd rather we didn't put too much funding into it. (Anyone seen iRobot?)
From another programme about the future, James May's Big Ideas, Mr. May explores the current level of bionics and robotics and is amazed to see how far we've come. One particularly impressive project is called Asimo, a Japanese robot that can walk, run and climb the stairs. Another project from the sme laboratory can recognise physical opbjects and will learn the name of a new or foreign object. It can only be a matter of time before the ability to interact with the physical environment and the ability to learn is combined to create what we could, I suppose, call AI. However, until I can't tell a human and a cyborg apart I will remain steadfastly asured that we are not threatened by a Hal that won't open the cargo-bay doors. That is, still, science-fiction.
Thursday, 30 April 2009
Value
As those who are close to me (not too close, mind) will know I work in a school dealing mainly with sixth form students (that's 16-18 year-olds for you trans-Atlantic readers) who, one would hope, are organised, motivated, courteous and respectful. The quick witted amongst you might see where I'm going with this...
Having had monaural hearing for most of my life I value music, sound, air vibrations etc. very highly and the surrounding skills that are needed to produce a high quality product. This is a particularly busy time of the academic year because there are lots of coursework deadlines looming (next week, eeek!) and most students don't seem to have got their arse in gear yet. As a result stress levels rise and the true value that these students place upon their work becomes clear: in some cases, very little.
Anyone who teaches as part (or all) of their profession will know how frustrating it is when a simple concept doesn't sink in. Again, the value placed on this information/knowledge becomes clear. Those that take it on quickly and accurately, I believe, have placed a higher value on it than those students who don't take it on. Of course, this is a very complicated argument and there are more factors at play other than the 'value' that students place on knowledge that they can't yet see the purpose of, but the question must be raised: Where/how do students learn value? Is it from the parents or is it from their peers? In either case, is that the best place to learn values from?
No-one can deny that parental input, or a suitable substitute, is vital in bringing up a child but the role that peers play in the value argument is key also. As parents, or superiors, what control or guidance can we inspire in these young leaders of tomorrow (as inevitably they may turn out to be!)? The answer, I'm afraid, is very little although there is hope: young teachers/support staff that can bridge the age gap yet retain some authority.
The role played by these young professionals cannot be underestimated and must not be undervalued in itself. As a young professional myself I know the impact that my actions have on these young minds and, annoyingly, I've got to say that I don't feel as valued as I should be. Now, this is not meant to be a rant at my employers, merely an example of how the way children learn values relies not only on parents and trained professionals but also on people who may have not yet worked out their own values, which means that care must be taken when selecting who has access to our youngsters.
So, what can be done to help the situation? Well, as previously mentioned, parenting is vital in the decent upbringing of a child and it is therefore with the parents that the ultimate responsibility lies. However, there are too many other players in the vast experience of a growing child to lay the responsibility solely on them so, as will become more apparent in later posts, we all face a responsibility to each other to be an example of how we would like to be treated and the values that we uphold. Whether it's making sure that your recycling goes out on time or that your cheque book is balanced, we all hold values that define who we are and the only way that other people are going to know about them and, ultimately, respect them is by living by your own example.
Now, the very bright amongst you will have already realised that if everyone shows their true colours (however dark they may be) there'll be a cacophony of value flooding our experiences with other people and not all will be pleasant. Why is this? It's because we have different values to the people in the world around us, yet it is this that makes Earth such a vibrant and colourful world to live in.
In conclusion, then, values define who we are and showing them is the only way that we can expect others to know and respect them, but respect for the values of others is probably the most important value we should all learn to show.
Having had monaural hearing for most of my life I value music, sound, air vibrations etc. very highly and the surrounding skills that are needed to produce a high quality product. This is a particularly busy time of the academic year because there are lots of coursework deadlines looming (next week, eeek!) and most students don't seem to have got their arse in gear yet. As a result stress levels rise and the true value that these students place upon their work becomes clear: in some cases, very little.
Anyone who teaches as part (or all) of their profession will know how frustrating it is when a simple concept doesn't sink in. Again, the value placed on this information/knowledge becomes clear. Those that take it on quickly and accurately, I believe, have placed a higher value on it than those students who don't take it on. Of course, this is a very complicated argument and there are more factors at play other than the 'value' that students place on knowledge that they can't yet see the purpose of, but the question must be raised: Where/how do students learn value? Is it from the parents or is it from their peers? In either case, is that the best place to learn values from?
No-one can deny that parental input, or a suitable substitute, is vital in bringing up a child but the role that peers play in the value argument is key also. As parents, or superiors, what control or guidance can we inspire in these young leaders of tomorrow (as inevitably they may turn out to be!)? The answer, I'm afraid, is very little although there is hope: young teachers/support staff that can bridge the age gap yet retain some authority.
The role played by these young professionals cannot be underestimated and must not be undervalued in itself. As a young professional myself I know the impact that my actions have on these young minds and, annoyingly, I've got to say that I don't feel as valued as I should be. Now, this is not meant to be a rant at my employers, merely an example of how the way children learn values relies not only on parents and trained professionals but also on people who may have not yet worked out their own values, which means that care must be taken when selecting who has access to our youngsters.
So, what can be done to help the situation? Well, as previously mentioned, parenting is vital in the decent upbringing of a child and it is therefore with the parents that the ultimate responsibility lies. However, there are too many other players in the vast experience of a growing child to lay the responsibility solely on them so, as will become more apparent in later posts, we all face a responsibility to each other to be an example of how we would like to be treated and the values that we uphold. Whether it's making sure that your recycling goes out on time or that your cheque book is balanced, we all hold values that define who we are and the only way that other people are going to know about them and, ultimately, respect them is by living by your own example.
Now, the very bright amongst you will have already realised that if everyone shows their true colours (however dark they may be) there'll be a cacophony of value flooding our experiences with other people and not all will be pleasant. Why is this? It's because we have different values to the people in the world around us, yet it is this that makes Earth such a vibrant and colourful world to live in.
In conclusion, then, values define who we are and showing them is the only way that we can expect others to know and respect them, but respect for the values of others is probably the most important value we should all learn to show.
Monday, 27 April 2009
I wish I knew...
... how it would feel to be free. Many of us crave for "freedom" from our work but what does that actually mean? Surely the only reason we know about and can appreciate freedom is because of the drudgery that fills our days between the hours of 9 and 5 (adjust to suit)? Without work, we imagine, we'd be Lords of Leisure: sleeping all morning, eating all afternoon and drinking all evening. 'Sounds good doesn't it? However, how many days would go by before this too would become as monotonous as the work we've escaped?
The key, I believe, to a happy life (N.B. NOT a free life) is variety, and I'm not talking about the pathetic annual excuse for our unelected sponges to pretend they know what 'popular culture' means, I mean doing something different every day.
Take a different route from your house one morning to the bus stop; eat a different sandwich for lunch; try out a new restaurant for dinner and then onto a club you've never been to before. Being open to all that life has to offer will mean that you're never bored and constantly surprised at what you may find yourself enjoying! So, how does it feel to be free?
The key, I believe, to a happy life (N.B. NOT a free life) is variety, and I'm not talking about the pathetic annual excuse for our unelected sponges to pretend they know what 'popular culture' means, I mean doing something different every day.
Take a different route from your house one morning to the bus stop; eat a different sandwich for lunch; try out a new restaurant for dinner and then onto a club you've never been to before. Being open to all that life has to offer will mean that you're never bored and constantly surprised at what you may find yourself enjoying! So, how does it feel to be free?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)