JDR_1393.ZIP John David Rohner, Milwaukee, WI December 1993 CONTENTS Line Topic 컴컴 컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴� 32 EVERYTHING 34 Punctuated Gradualism 96 Misc. Technology 477 BATTLE 872 Flow 926 Scientific Induction 1064 Moon water 1068 Planetary Resources 1138 Misc. 1626 TRANSMUTERS 1687 I PREDICT 1689 Trends 1758 Potentials 1790 What you can see 1836 Questions 1883 Conclusion 1916 Final Comments 1959 Who am I 1992 BIBLIOGRAPHY 컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴� EVERYTHING Punctuated It's interesting that previously mostly my thinking was built Gradualism around common sense, logic, and philosophy. Lately, it's becoming evolutionary, incremental, and developmental based. That is, "That in all systems there exists a logical path to growth, and that at various points along that path extreme modifications are necessary to continue development." A punctuated equilibrium of systems. Problems with this include implied determinism, and perhaps a confusion with the ideas of development on my part. Examples include my expectations of human development: natural evolution dead, gene/bio-electronic/robotic development next, then energy. Look at output systems: LED's/LCD's to CRT's and back to LCD's again (flat screen). LED's/LCD's led to computers that led to improved CRT's that led to advanced LCD development. Same goal, varying between two technologies, each show evolutionary change, but the swapping between the two is punctuated. Categories with full evolutionary-type developments within them, but complete shifts to obtain the next level. Example: Holograms created using a single fiber optic wire-- works because light comes out at same angle goes in (therefore know how it will come out), number of beams is technology based (a beam for each pixel, an evolutionary development for the future: more beams=>more pixels), output relies on light fade (after a certain distance (probably based on power input, but possibly on next arriving light pushing) the ray dissolves into a fuzzy ball (a pixel), logically and expectedly (for a hologram) the center (closest to source) will be clearest and the farthest will be fuzziest (dispersion you know). Simulated Future History/Virtual Technology: One reason for this document is to encourage skipping intermediary steps in technologic development. If we can "virtually" investigate technology's and their effects through modelling we can go beyond that point. The real sticking point is confidence of the model and conclusions. Like automobile modeling, we know what future cars will be like, but we can't build them cheaply--because the necessary technique's are either unknown or too expensive. So I advocate taking the next step, model the techniques' development until the whole system is understood. Then build the future car, rather then building all the intermediary cars (eg. one brand has 4-wheel drive, another 4-wheel steering, another...). To some extent the US does this with jet fighters, while USSR evolves fighters, we prefer to make risky technological leaps. The key is to reduce the risks though computational power--in itself something that is evolving. Part of the solution is to be able to envision what a "future" version will look like. Anyone can design a car that looks like a rocket, but what about a car that looks like a sphere? Another example, a peace treaty. While being prepared someone notices that, "if events x, y, and z occur then something bad could happen some day." So they add a special clause to fix x. Then someone notices events y, z, and w leading to risk. So they fix that, and so on. Until finally they have something to sign. It's mostly experience that has made agreements more than simple "I promise not to invade everybody." Future history is the thing to hurdle. Misc. It seems Optoelectronics will be the next stage of Technology electronics. They are circuits and chips that use light instead of wires to transmit information. Much like the fiber optic telephone connections that are replacing the old copper wire. IBM has come up with 8,000 transistor-like opto-based devices on a Gallium-arsenide based chip. The chips have miniature lasers, photodetectors, and optical pathways.[77] A computer program that predicts the Properties of proposed designer molecules before they are created. After testing the program with known materials, Cohen and his graduate students are searching for materials with valuable new properties. Two that are particularly interesting" [A new superconductor made from hydrogen, and a carbon-nitrogen material that may be harder than a diamond.] Manufacturing the hydrogen superconductor would require pressures beyond what is now practical, but they may be possible in a few years. Superdiamonds, though, could theoretically be made now with so-called diamond anvils--squeezing the raw materials between two diamonds while a laser is fired through them. The program also predicts that it should be possible to harden diamonds. Next, Cohen hopes to prove his theory by making the superhard material, and three research laboratories, including Berkeley's, are interested in pursuing the project.[?] Kodak has a 14 inch optical disk that can hold 6.8 Gb.[78] Discovered that laser beams can. . .be 'photon glue' to hold tiny objects together. The scientists speculate that the process may be used to create materials with new properties for optical communications devices and even drugs. [Physicists] exposed tiny plastic beads to an intense laser beam. To their surprise, they saw that the light energy caused the spheres to suddenly reorganize and stick together in a layer a scat 1.5 microns thick. 'I don't think anyone suspected that you could organize random matter into material structures using only light,' says [a physicist]. The strength of the bonds between the atoms is controlled by the intensity and wavelength of the laser light. Even though the assembled material falls apart once the light is turned off, the scientists speculate that the technique might be developed to align molecules in novel ways, then apply chemistry to bind the molecules permanently.[79] Worn like a second skin, life suits were designed to be powered by the electrical charge inherent in the human body. In order to most effectively capture this current and use it to power the life-support systems, the entire suit was lined with a fine mesh made of gold wires no thicker than a human hair, separated by a space of one tenth of a millimeter.[80] Eric Kotani and John Maddox Roberts ~Delta Pavonis~ has an interesting idea: building with foam. They talk of "extruded foam construction" for buildings. You would have to take advantage of trapped air for rooms--and drill between the rooms for hallways. But other than looking exceeding ugly it is very practical. Extremely fast construction time. And naturally air-tight--making it ideal for space-based structures.[81] The key to physical attraction on its most basic level, claims physicist Arthur Freeman, is dancing. 'The dancers are spinning electrons that travel around atoms,' he says. 'Ordinarily they dance in pairs, spinning in opposite directions, one up and one down. But sometimes you get an electron spinning by itself, without a partner. Just like a guy or a girl on a dance floor dancing along, the oddball electron is very attractive to another one. And that attraction is magnetism. He has proved that a one-atom-thin layer of iron--a metal with a lot of lonely electrons--can have a more powerful magnetic pull than a piece of iron four times thicker. Freeman had developed a way to simulate a thin film of iron on a subatomic level. To do it he'd had to rely on the enormous power of a Cray supercomputer: every iron atom is surrounded by 26 electrons, and simulating their interactions--the dance--required solving several of what Freeman calls 'horribly, horribly complex equations' that describe the movement of electrons through a solid. These equations had to be solved over and over again for each electron on a multitude of atoms. But in the end the calculations told Freeman that a thin layer of iron actually had more magnetism than a thicker one. The strength of iron's magnetic field depends on how many of its unpaired electrons are spinning in the same direction. If there are five unpaired electrons spinning up and four spinning down, for example, the electrons spinning up create a small magnetic field that pulls on the fewer number of electrons spinning down. The field has to flip these electrons over so they too spin up, or they will generate their own field pointing in the opposite direction and the two fields will cancel each other out.[82] [perhaps use electron guns for "magnetic" force shields?] Polarizing is an optical trick that takes advantage of the peculiar anatomy of a light beam. Light moving through space is made up of countless individual waves; although all the waves move at the same speed and in the same general direction, they do not normally move in the same plane. One wave may speed ahead oriented parallel to the horizon--essentially lying on its side--while another racing alongside may be perpendicular to it. Other waves moving with them may assume a limitless number of angles in between. As light is concentrated to create a laser beam, however, all the waves end up squeezed into the same orientation; this is known as polarized light. One of the things that can change the polarity of light is magnetism. The new disks are made of a metal allow that, when heated, becomes especially easy to magnetize. Ordinarily the atoms in the alloy are arranged in one direction--say, with their north magnetic poles facing up. To record information on the disk, a laser beam heats a tiny spot on the alloy to about 360 degrees. While the beam is on, a nearby magnet reverses the orientation of the heated spot, pointing its north pole downward. When the laser is shut off, the alloy cools and the new orientation is frozen in place. The laser then moves to the next tiny spot, then the next, either heating it and flipping its pole down or skipping it and leaving its pole pointing up. Ultimately the entire disk is covered with these up and down spots, which can information just like the pitted and unpitted on an ordinary disk. [CD music/laser video disk] To play back this information, the laser is turned to a cooler setting and scanned back over the disk. When the beam hits a spot magnetized in one direction, it reflects back at a slightly clockwise angle; when it strikes a spot magnetized the other way, it reflects back counterclockwise. Detectors then read these shifts in polarity the same way they read the on-off binary code of an ordinary disk. 'It sounds like a lot of work to program information this way,' says Alan Bell, a physicist at IBM's Almaden Research Center in San Jose, California, 'but each spot on the disk takes only a few ten-billionths of a second to record.' To erase the disk and record new information, all you have to do is reheat the alloy and reorient its atoms in the same direction. It's then ready to be reprogrammed with a new pattern of up and down spots. So far, magneto-optical disks (MOs for short) aren't available in stereo shops, but they do exist--at hefty prices. Pioneer has developed an MO video disk system that sells for $38,500. Ediflex, a California company, offers an audio model for recording studios for $99,000. [note: this is video and audio systems--not data] The technological obstacles to making these products affordable for a mass market would not be difficult to overcome...[83] Virtual reality: first "extensions" (guns, suits) then electro-detect of muscles then electro-detect of brain. Culminating w/computer like creative/design functions. A television image is hard to take seriously. Trapped in two dimensions on the surface of a bulky piece of hardware, it insults the resolving power of your eyes. But what if you could banish the screen altogether and have the images beamed straight into your brain? At the University of Washington's Human Interface Technology Lab, research engineer Joel Kollin isn't far from doing that. His pet project is the virtual retinal display (VRD), a device that uses lasers to create pictures on the back of your eye. And if Kollin has his druthers, the VRD will someday render present television--including the much-vaunted high-definition TV--obsolete. The VRD was once just the dream of Thomas Furness, a pioneer in 'interface technology.' Its best-known product is virtual reality, which can transport you to alternate computer worlds when you strap on goggles with two miniature video monitors inside. In the mid-eighties at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Furness ran the Super Cockpit program, in which researchers tried to figure out how to let a pilot see panoramic computer images superimposed on the real world. Now that he's director of the Human Interface Technology Lab, Furness is still trying to realize his vision and has gotten Kollin to build a prototype. The VRD has a lot in common with an ordinary television screen. In the latter a beam of electrons sweeps back and forth across the screen, tickling a phosphorescent coating into emitting light. The VRD also uses a scanning beam: a low-powered laser that simulates photoreceptor cells on the retina. In each case the image created is composed of cells called pixels; the more pixels, the finer the resolution. Kollin's hardware has so far reached a modest resolution of 400 by 300 pixels, a little under that of normal television. The computer-guided laser can create 66 images a second, which is fast enough for realistic animation. Still, the VRD has a long way to go. The images all come in red, and they fill only 35 degrees of your field of view. If your eye wanders too far, the edge of your pupil cuts off part of the picture. Kollin plans to build a gaze tracker that will readjust the image based on where you're looking. That should spare images from amputation. Ans as laser technology gets more sophisticated, Kollin will be able to add more colors to his palette. Lasers peppering your eyeballs are a lot safer than they sound, according to Kollin. 'You could stare into this thing all day,' he claims. 'I have.' His laser puts out less than a ten-millionth of a watt, well below government-prescribed safety limits, and Kollin has developed a safety mechanism to clip off freak surges in light intensity before they cause any damage. Kollin's immediate goal is to get the resolution of the VRD up to 1,280 by 1,024 pixels. But that's just the starting point for him and Furness. They want to shrink the hardware--the lasers and the scanning mechanisms and other electronics--so that it can all fit on a single microchip. Then engineeers could put the chip into the earpiece of a pair of eyeglasses. The lasers would strike the lens and relect into the eye. Images might occupy just a part of your field of view, or, if you wished, block out the exterior world altogether. With a chip and lasers for each eye, the VRD could produce three-dimensional images. The plan is to push the resolution to 3,000 by 2,000 pixels, with a 120 degree field of view. Theoretically, the only limit on the VRD's sharpness is the resolving power of th human eye. And if all the equipment can be consolidated on a single chip, the manufacturing costs will shrivel up dramatically. Given healthy funding, Kollin and Furness believe a full-performance VRD is at least five years away. Should the lab's corporate sponsors pounce on this technology, the commercial potential is vast. 'We hope this will replace TV or video games,' says Kollin.[138] Gaal Fumbled for the coins. He said, "Where do I go?" "Follow the light. The ticket will keep glowing as long as you're pointed in the right direction." Gaal looked up and began walking. There were hundreds creeping across the vast floor, following their individual trails, sifting and straining themselves through intersection points to arrive at their respective destinations.[139] ...on the smooth, light brown surface of the desk. A round circle of light, with neat lettering that read: COMPUTER INSTRUCTIONS. Hesitantly Trevize placed a finger on the circle of light and at once the light spread out to cover the desk top. On it were the outline of two hands: a right and a left. with a sudden, smooth movement, the desk top tilted to an angle of forty-five degrees. Trevize took the seat before the desk. No words were necessary. It was clear what he was expected to do. He placed his hands on the outlines on the desk, which were positioned for him to do so without strain. the desk top seemed soft, nearly velvety, where he touched it--and his hands sank in. He stared at his hands with astonishment, for thy had not sunk in at all. They were on the surface, his eyes told him. Yet to his sense of touch it was as though the desk surface had given way, and as though something were holding his hands softly and warmly. Was that all? Now what? He looked about and then closed his eyes in response to a suggestion. He had heard nothing. He had heard nothing! But inside his brain, as though it were a vagrant thought of his own, there was the sentence, 'Please close your eyes. Relax. We will make connection.' Through the hands? Somehow Trevize had always assumed that if one were going to communicate by thought with a computer, it would be through a hood placed over the head and with electrodes against the eyes and skull. The hands? But why not the hands? Trevize found himself floating away, almost drowsy, but with no loss of mental acuity. What not the hands? The eyes were no more than sense organs. The brain was no more than a central switchboard, encased in bone and removed from the working surface of the body. It was the hands that were the working surface, the hands that felt and manipulated the Universe. Human beings thought with their hands. It ws their hands that were the answer of curiosity, that felt and pinched and turned and lifted and hefted. There were animals that had brains of respectable size, but they had no hands and that made all the difference. And as he and the computer held hands, their thinking merged and it no longer mattered whether his eyes were open or closed. Opening them did not improve his vision nor did closing them dim it. Either way, he saw the room with complete clarity-- not just in the direction in which he was looking, but all around and above and below. He saw every room in the spaceship and he saw outside as well. The sun had risen and its brightness was dimmed in the morning mist, but he could look at it directly without being dazzled, for the computer automatically filtered the light waves. He felt the gentle wind and its temperature, and the sounds of the world about him. He detected the planet's magnetic field and the tiny electrical charges on the wall of the ship. He became aware of the controls of the ship, without even knowing what they were in detail. He knew only that if he wanted to lift the ship, or turn it, or accelerate it, or make use of any of its abilities, the process was the same as that of performing the analogous process in his body. He had but to use his will. He found--as he cast the net of his computer-enhanced consciousness outward--that he could sense the condition of the upper atmosphere; that he could see the weather patterns; that he could detect the other ships that were swarming upward and the others that were settling downward. All of this had to be taken into account and the computer was taking it into account. If the computer had not been doing so, Trevize realized, he need only desire the computer to do so--and it would be done. How did he let go? And even as the thought entered his mind, his hands were released and the desk top moved back to its original position--and Trevize was left with his own unaided senses. He felt blind and helpless as though, for a time, he had been held and protected by a superbeing and now was abandoned. Had he not known that he could make contact again at any time, the feeling might have reduced him to tears. As it was he merely struggled for re-orientation, for adjustment to limits, then rose uncertainly to his feet and walked out of the room.[140] 22 [Texas Instruments] proposes to eliminate the picture 22 tube. In its place, the Dallas company has developed an 22 amazing silicon chip. Its surface is carved into 307,200 22 fly-speck mirrors, each of which can be individually 22 tilted to reflect a light beam to a specific point on a 22 video display. An official of [DARPA], which held a 22 February meeting for HDTV researchers it is funding, 22 terms the TI imaging chip "dazzling." But it's not ready 22 for prime time yet: Producing HDTV resolution will 22 require almost 7 million micromirrors. TI figures it can 22 get there by ganging up three chips, each with 2.3 22 million mirrors.[142] 23 What's the deal with those electric propulsion systems/micro- 23 rockets NASA has developed for satellites? What kind of 23 power? With the boom about to occur in battery powered 23 objects, I'm sure even a tiny boost would be greatly enjoyed 23 by skydivers. 25 Currently, with micochips a bit is represented electronically 25 with 500,000 or so electrons. A drive is on to reduce this 25 to a single electron. They've got it down to 50 - 100 25 electrons in the lab for super-cooled microchips. At one 25 electron scale, a half-dollar sized chip could handle aa 25 trillion bits (over a 100 gigabytes of RAM). They key 25 problem to solve is making it work at room tempature.[151] 25 Ah those marvelous "buckyball" (et al) cages. They are now 25 able to store a variety of things in the these molecular 25 cages. Including Helium (till now, no known compounds 25 existed), and lanthanum dicarbide--a substance that reacts 25 when in contact with air, but not when stored inside a cage. 25 To put stuff in buckyball's they create a bunch of empty 25 molecules, then heat them at a high tempature in a mixture of 25 what they want inside the cage until they break apart a 25 little. Then the material goes inside, they cool it down, 25 and as they cool it the cages close, trapping the material. 25 One use of the helium buckyballs is as tracers--since helium 25 doesn't exist on the planet except as a gas, putting these 25 tracers in something make it extremely easy to track. The 25 lanthanum dicarbide is stored is a much larger and more 25 complex cage. It releases it's contents when it receives an 25 electric charge. What they do is store the lanthanum atoms 25 in the cage, send the current which shatters the cage, and 25 the lanthanum and carbon atoms merge to form lanthanum 25 dicarbide--which then reacts with the oxygen in the air and 25 water and rapidly degrades. In other words, we know have a 25 way to ship and store substances we couldn't ship and store 25 cheaply before.[152] 25 They [buckyball thin films] may, for example, be btter 25 than silicon for manufacturing semiconductors.[153] 25 Diamond films may soon be turned into unbreakable 25 coatings and computer chips that can work at high 25 tempertues.[153] 26 Diamond coated stuff (such as electronics) could really 26 provide those "forever devices" SF authors use--you know, the 26 technology that still works long after a race has declined 26 back to feudal life. BATTLE I've come across some interesting battle techniques and would just like to note them here. To fight a computer: swarm it. The more objects attacking a computer, computer based defense, or AI, the slower these systems work. Basic ideas of multitasking. Nuclear dampers: Idea from~ Hammer's Slammer's~ series by David Drake. Emit some pulse that either damages the triggering mechanism or the process of a nuclear bomb. To fight logic (eg. computers) use confusion. Non-logical acts ruin calculated plans and force unpredictability to be considered (which isn't logical). Walter Jon Williams book ~Hardwired~ has convinced me that planetary life may be extraordinary hazardous. It seems that a single spaceship with a rail gun, and good sized projectiles, could easily devastate the target planet. The position of being in space also offers the advantage of more space for maneuverability and wait defensively for attackers from the planet to arrive. The advantages seem so staggering high that I doubt even a space base of interceptors offer much improvement. So, until a defensive parity can be found I must conclude that all really advanced races live in space and use planets only for supplies. By not packing a planet, a race that is scattered throughout the solar system has a much better chance of survival, simply by the number of places to hide or the extra time to detect and flee any attackers. The current popular theory for the destruction of dinosaurs is... I seem to recall that the best way to break down a material is to send the force/beam/whatever at it in oscillations (eg. launch a rocket every 30 seconds) versus random attack. The oscillating actions of the attack causes internal oscillations in the structure which has a detrimental effect (like hitting it from two sides at once.) I guess you try to set it up so that as each new wave hits, the internal waves should return at the same time. When two sides have similar technologies, the defense will have the advantage weapon-wise. That is, defense will have shorter supply lines. The attacker must come mostly prepared while defense can strengthen spots that weaken. Another example, if both sides have a laser weapon that can shoot x shots per charge. Then defense could re-rig it to produce x/2 double strength shots per charge (or somesuch). They can afford to do more bang with each charge, whereas the attacker must worry about supplies and limit their wasteful usage. Simply because defense can resupply so much faster. This is effective for planetary bases--but not for distributed space bases (unless at mining/manufacturing facility for weapons ingredients). This planetary advantage does not overcome the disadvantages of being on a planet. While not really battle, computers losing or corrupting data is always a possibility. Therefore, never entrust your life to a computer that's been running a long time. Since the longer it runs, the higher the accumulation of bad data, as well as faulty parts. It seems logical, but many SF stories have been done about computers that run everything. Geodesic spheres may be a perfect defense if they can work like the C60: They found that the C60s were hard to damage: only one small C2 molecule broke off at a time. C60 would become C58 and a little C2 molecule would go bugging off into space. If you pumped more light at it, that C58 would spit out C2 and become C56 and so forth. This C2- popping, however, continued only as far down as C32, at which point the molecule inevitably shattered. Concluded that the laser was just managing to evaporate a C2 molecule from the surface of the fullerene, which would then reseal itself to make the next smaller fullerene cage. When it got down to 32 atoms, the fullerene was under too much strain.[84] The key is that when the geodesic sphere lost 2 carbon atoms (a molecule), it restructured itself to create a smaller geodesic sphere--maintaining complete coverage and maximum strength. The molecular sphere would break earlier if an atom was inside the sphere (depended on the atom). There is a device under development to study comets. It is called the Comet Penetrator. It both looks and is the first space missile. It is launched from a spacecraft. Once the Penetrator does its job the defense department can just retrieve the plans and specs and declare that it has the first space missile. Rather than blocking or conducting current, the mirrors could absorb or reflect light. The binary code would remain the same, but the information would be carried by photons, not electrons. The problem was designing a mirror that would either reflect or absorb light on command. Discovered that if you hit very thin layers of semiconducting materials like gallium arsenide with an electric charge or with laser beams of specific energies, they become briefly transparent. [about S-SEED transistors (Symmetric Self-Electro-optic Effect Device)- -basically micro-laser based electronics.][85] ...when the first missile reached the edge of the dense mesh that surrounded Rama. At the moment the missile made contact, the impacted part of the mesh yielded, cushioning the blow but allowing the missile to penetrate deeper into the netting. Simultaneously, other pieces of the mesh wrapped themselves rapidly about the missile, spinning a thick cocoon with amazing speed. It was all over in a fraction of a second. the missile was about two hundred meters from the outer shell of Rama, already enclosed in a thick wrapping, when its nuclear warhead detonated.[86][This to protect a ship.] A movie, "Message From Space", had humans floating around in space and on planets with no apparent protection. Now, imagination says I should their technology had some of protective field about them at all times. However, it raised an interesting thought; how hard would it be to bring an entire solar system to "earth normal" oxygen levels? Also, from this movie, they had an invasion force attacking Earth. To set an example of their power, they blew up the moon. I would expect other conquering races to think along similar lines. Therefore, we have an important delaying "example" in the form of the moon. Without it, they may choose a continent instead. Strategy to dethroning an empire (or anyone stronger than you): One at a time. That's it. You need to take over ships one at a time. First you take a small ship. Then another, then another. Until you have enough small ships to take medium ship, then another, etc. Right up to the big ships. You must diversify. Take ships from all over the place. Don't group together--a single enemy you will become. A single enemy is defeatable. By breaking up and doing things throughout--separate from each other--you are just thugs--and if lucky they won't beef up their military as you increase your's--they'll think "raiders" are doing it. Also, by breaking up you become an idea--which is almost impossible to squash (warning: ideas do fade for lack of effort). Finally, the final battle may take two routes: you so overwhelm the others forces that simply loose ground everywhere and die out, or you mass your forces for a pinpoint attack where you're sure to overwhelm them (this technique can be used in general, but all it takes is one good trap to set you back greatly). You see, an empire needs to disperse it's forces. You can concentrate your forces because you know where you're going to attack. Hmm, possibly under these circumstances the defender does not have an advantage. Example: You and a friend get together and kill a cop by beating him to death. You surprised him, and overwhelmed him because he could not get his gun out. Now one of you have a gun. You do this to another cop--but instead of beating him you just surprise and shoot him. Now you each have guns. Now you split up. You each recruit new partners, you each shoot a cop, now all four of you have guns. Now you split into 3's, and do it all again. As you see, larger and larger cells are created, while maintaining a separation. The attack is on all fronts, so they don't know where to defend. 4 people with guns, get 2 cops, etc. The bigger your cell, the more defenders you can safely handle. What this example does is rely, and use to maximum potential, supporters. If you've a hundred supporters you want to do it this way. You don't want to organize your hundred at the start and go try to beat up cops--you'll be identified as an enemy too quick, and their overwhelming firepower will do you in before you have kind of survivable organization in place. Computer battle: always fight at the borders/boundaries of it's system--that's where the programming is the weakest. If it's a self-programmed system then the key weaknesses will be it's holes in it's knowledge--if nothing else, feeding it new information will slow it down. There are two point military points at which designs have trouble accouting for: Dying, and post death. Post death being the 'ole hidden grenade--roll over and it explodes. Dying--when we die, we have enough strength for one last "thing"--for some it's sitting and staring at the battle, or their wound, for others it's a firing of a gun, or a rush at the enemy. Not much is written about the concept of "overwhelming" your opponent. Perhaps because this points out, and makes use of, a battle problem; that of obliterating you enemy. You see, in battle, when being overwhelmed, you don't have time to "mop up". No matter what the enemy is: space ships, tanks, troops, missles when you hit one and it looks dead, you have to presume it is. Unfortunately, if it's just wounded, it just got past your lines. Without obliterating it completely, you never really know if it's dead or wounded. Send enough forces at a target, and sooner or later these wounded forces will get the job done. In a battle where time is critical, it's better to cripple the enemy, rather than kill them or destroy their ships. "Battle of the Planets" (movie) weapon idea: Weapon that suspends the planets gravity around an area on the planet. Example: an area the size of a space ship, thus everywhere the ship flies over, the ground rocks and breaks up and starts to rise. Here's an interesting point and question: Once we archive warp speed, can we go extinct if we don't want to? You see, if something threatens us, we pile into ships and fly off. Where we once again breed like rabbits. The more ships, the more confusing for the enemy. We could send thousands of robot controlled ships containing only a man and woman (if, for example, the earth got wiped out and all that remained was people on a couple of big ships). This would really give the enemy a chase. This method works for a single "packed attack". Obviously, if they come all once from all directions, we've got real problems. Being planet bound, or non-FTL bound, means defeat when attacked from space. Something interesting to look at: how atoms form into molecules and how molecules form into larger objects. It's really interesting, one can get ideas for defensible structures and networks by using some of these as the template to follow. I think it's in mankinds nature to wage war when the technology is available to do so--and not before. In fact, the pressure point seems to be just when that technology comes out, in the rush to make use of it/take advantage of it, or simply to stop the other side from using it. Of course, that doesn't include the "tiny" "emotional" wars-- where politicians stir the public to correct some supposed wrong. Reason's for delaying: 1. You hope for an incident that strengthens your position and lessons those of your opponents. 2. You get to keep taking advantage of the competitive advangtage. 3. You can put off the costs. 4. You can correct a wrong before it's declared wrong. The strategy of diversion and distraction. This is mostly used by politicians. It is done by by ignoring the issues that matter, and empasizing things that do not matter, but carry obvious truths or are emotional. Another way to play this is to just keep bringing up non-related issues, to keep your opponent occupied doing something else (harrassing them). To "double-team" an enemy (example: if at war, and want to stop war, you too attack): Attack from the exact opposite end of the territory that the other country is attacking/defending at. The defender always has the advantage. So two countries attacking in unison from one spot won't do it. By attacking from direct oppossite spots, the defender must defend two fronts, and will spend a lot of time shuttling equipment back and forth from each front depending on which front is in more trouble. The downside: both fronts will probably be supplied well--and the less congestion at one front could mean both are supplied quicker. However, this does mean that more resources for supplies are needed/used. 22 Defeating computers and other electronic devices. When 22 solving problems, it's useful to slow the devices time to 22 "human time". With computers, the way to do this is to give 22 it time-intensive tasks. With any electronics, the trick is 22 slow down the clock. The idea being to slow it down to such 22 an extant, that you can literally tell by it's reaction time 22 whether what you're doing is having success or failure (such 22 as solving a key-lock). This seems to me the only way 22 someone like Dr. Who can so quickly bypass electronic 22 security. 23 When are the territorial states going to learn that they 23 cannot possibly win against corporate states? Any 23 territorial state, even if it's Ell-Four or an asteroid, 23 is a sitting duck. But fighting a multinational is like 23 trying to slice a fog. Where's your target? You want to 23 fight IBM? Where is IBM? Its registered home office is 23 a P.O. Box number in Delaware Free State. That's no 23 target. IBM's offices and people and plants are 23 scattered through four hundred-odd territorial states 23 groundside and more in space; you can't hit any part of 23 IBM without hurting somebody else as much or more. But 23 can IBM defeat, say, Great Russia? It would just depend 23 on whether or not IBM could see a profit in it. So far 23 as I know, IBM doesn't own any guerrillas; she may not 23 even have agents saboteurs. She might have to buy the 23 bombs and missiles. But she could shop around and take 23 her own sweet time getting set because Russia isn't going 23 anywhere. It will still be there, a big fat target, a 23 week from now or a year. But Interworld Transport just 23 showed what the outcome would be. This war is all over. 23 Mexico bet that Interworld wouldn't risk public 23 condemnation by destroying a Mexican city. But those 23 old-style politicians forgot that corporate nations 23 aren't nearly as interested in public opinion as 23 territorial nations have to be. But now there will be 23 face-saving. Interworld will apologize and pay an 23 indemnity, then, with no fanfare, the Montezuma will cede 23 the land and the extraterritoriality for the new 23 spaceport to a new corporation with a Mexicano name and a 23 DF home office...and the public won't be told that the 23 new corporation is owned sixty percent by Interworld and 23 forty percent by the very politicians who stalled just a 23 little too long and let Acapulco be destroyed.[146] 25 Fast, complete penetration of new areas guarantees that 25 predators will inflict maximum ecological damage and that 25 they will meet the greatest assortment of new enemies 25 among the competitors and microorganismas native to the 25 lands they've invaded.[150] 26 Energy packets. Just like buckyballs. 26 Microwave or sonic guns--to turn brian cells to mush (like 26 they do kidney stones) . 26 Dogs strategy: hear something coming near: bark (volume 26 depends). It warns them that they (the dog(s)) are there, 26 giving them (the intruder) a chance to leave without 26 conflict. Also saves the dog the hassle/danger (although it 26 also exposes the dogs position). It also takes advantage of 26 the other pack members, warning them and letting the get in 26 on the action. Idea from Fred Saberhagen's Beserker Attack (Smasher story): besides computer time, fight computers by occuping their sensors--keeping it busy chasing ghosts/etc. 26 Trick to defeating super-powered beings: keep them busy while 26 you work towards your goal or their defeat. Since time is 26 the common battlefield, and something that cannot be 26 eliminated, reduced, or speeded up. 27� Fred Saberhagen invented Berserkers--machines who had the 27� goal of destroying all life. And pitted human kind against 27� them in many stories. 27� 27� But it was all flawed--and he knew it. You see, he had added 27� a human limitation: that we couldn't use machines (robots) 27� against the Berserkers because they could easily co-opt the 27� machines. 27� 27� But this need not necessarily be true. In fact, we have a 27� four-fold advantage over them. 27� 27� First, remember that technology will not be an issue for most 27� of the battles: when we or they introduce new technology, the 27� other guy will grab it as soon as it's put into battle. 27� This, of course, only matters when one side is not so far 27� ahead as to be able to utterly distroy the other in the first 27� few battles. 27� 27� Similarly with supplies (supplies of ships/etc.)--we can 27� build automated factories just like the machines can. 27� 27� Our advantange comes in during battle. The machines can only 27� fight one way: robot ships. 27� 27� We can fight 4 ways: robot ships, biological-brain ships, 27� remote controlled ships, and human piloted ships. "bio- 27� brain" just means a biological neuro-net rather than a 27� machine one. The machines can do robot ships and remote 27� controlled ships, but to the machine those are both the same, 27� to use it's two different things. 27� 27� Thus, we can put 3 layers of forces between us and any 27� battle. We have short lives, the machines live forever. It 27� can turn into a battle of time--who ever lasts the longest 27� wins--so these 3 layers are important. Flow With all the pogramming I've been doing recently, I've realized something interesting: Channelling. All programming really is, is me routing the computers' resources. Routing/channelling/piping/redirecting. I route the computer code to my own code, or if I really wanted to I could modifiy the computers code to route the same production. Its true of electronics too. This links with Dr. Who. He's always able to re-wire and and reprogramm things extremely quickly to get devices to do what he wants. The secret: to take a device that does what you want (but, perhaps, not the way you want it, or also does other things) and to change it so it does that in the way you want it. Thus, not "creating", but merely altering. Programmers alter the flow of the computers resources. Electronics designers create the computer's resources. Programmers create the interface between humans and the programmer's/software's routing orders. As we develop more object oriented languages, this will be more obvious. Now all we need is some smart compiler designer to realize this, and design a language less around "doing" things and more around "routing" things. A graphical language, point to an imput and click, point to an output and click. The human interface part would be handled by clicking icons for type of output (that is, these would, also, be output options). Example: Imagine a screen full of input icons. I select the comm port as the input. I then select a histogram icon. I finally select a console icon. Thus: input -> histogram, then input -> console. The first input being from the comm port, the second coming from the histogram routine. Thus, data formats, file formats, comm port formats, etc. aren't the operators concern. So, perhaps what this technique really requires is that we standardize our data formats (hint hint). Standarizing data files isn't that hard. Text files are pretty standard: text followed by a CRLF. But this is unacceptable. What we really need is a "file type" header for each file created--that describes the data fields that make up each record (eg. the text file would be defined as: 2 fields, 1 of unknown size, the second containing only CRLF). Scientific I'm always harping on the lack of the deductive methods' (ie, Induction the scientific method) ability to make great leaps at once because they don't utilize our imaginations. The inductive method, the method of ideas, is what we use every day when talking and negotiating with each other to find common ground. Traditionally, the method has relied on everyone throwing their ideas into a pot--and the most popular survive (although not always the best or correct idea). I offer the following method as a scientific method of inductive reasoning: a커 첼 b켸� 첼 c커납 쵬� d켸 � 쳐conclusion e커 � 첼� f켸납 쵬 g커� 쵬 h켸 . . . a, b, c, etc. represent individuals. a negotiates with b on the topic, either one wins the other over, or they agree to detail their differences and form together. Similarly for c and d, and the other pairs. Then ab negotiates with cd on the topic, either on wins the other over, or they agree to detail their differences and form together. Mind you, it's not "a and b" or "c and d" but the conclusions from the a and b, or c and d, interaction. Thus, it need not be a person, but perhaps a paper, etc. This then is repeated for abcd and efgh. And continues. Eventually, what you have in the end, is everything about the topic we as a species can think of. At this point I guess it's the responsibilty of the leaders to make use of it. The key to this method is that it's much more organized than, say, simply putting together a small group of experts and letting them hash together the conclusion. Much more representative too. It allows for ideas to flow in from all fields. As history has shown, it's often the insights from another field that helps progress a field. Now, this may not seem like a participatory system--no one vote per person. The key to remember that the goal isn't really to get a concensus, but to put every idea onto the table. Concensus gathering can be done by voting on the conclusions. A system similar is our representative system of government. But the current system excludes the losers at all levels--if 49% have one view, and 51% another, than the 51% rule with only their ideas. The technical problems of implementation are probably the most daunting--after all, a single idea could require volumes to explain. In truth, ideas themselves may require such depth as to have roots into all fields. I'm going to think about this more, and see if perhaps a limited version of it can't be put up onto my BBS. The key I think will be to keep descriptions of ideas very short, very obvious, and therefore very simplistic and very quickly understood. Even though "let's raise taxes" is short and easily understood, it has roots that can go through all fields. However, the highest likely roots will show up as concerns from the participants. However, that still leaves a lot of little ideas that won't get attention, for this, I would suggest another "sub tree" similar to the main branch that branches off from each primary concern. Example: Raise taxes ----------- Reduces Deficit Reduces wages 홶oorer people � 픟uy less � more hate towards government Improve government Well, as you can see it's a start. A "allowed" word dictionary would probably be useful. For example, don't allow "more" because it's abiguous, change all "more"'s to "increased". Thus making the tree more of a language, which can undergo analysis to find common and duplicative branches. "Improve" too could mean many things and should (at least) contain a detailed list of the improvements and their degree. So, while "Improve government" might be a good general category, it would have to contain a subtree of the form: Increased employee production 픦ncreased comfortable chairs Supplied cars 홢ssist's car makers 홫appier employee 픲sed cars 홳ewer cars in market 픩ess buyers of used cars And yes, one might say one could go on forever. But that's the purpose of this method--to be all inclusive. No question, it can only be done on computer. But when done, it could provide many uses and quicker analysis's of any situation. This does have similarities with expert systems. One final note: what would really make this method powerful is if statistical evidence is included at each stage (indeed, it's ability to add up statistics from all it's sub-branches might be it's best use). Thus when I say "less buyers of used cars" it should include some sort of statistical breakdown--trouble: one can statistical breakdown ad infinitum. 24 Is Scientific Induction just the refinement method? Moon water Just heat up moon rocks and one can make water (you can get a pint of hydrogen from each pound of moon dirt). Since the moon has much oxygen already, you get water.[49] 26 Planetary Don't worry about the rape of materials we're doing to the 26 Resources planet. Baring some method to access ocean floors or 26 asteroids, we can continue this pace for 50 years before we 26 start running seriously low of materials. I say don't worry, 26 because the solution is at hand. We'll simply use non- 26 existent materials. Information mostly. But also "virtual" 26 stuff--wall paintings, stereos, TV's, computers, etc. That 26 is, we'll create the stuff in our computers to give us a 26 sense of possession, but because they use no raw materials, 26 there won't be any determinal effect on the environment. 26 Thus, the planet will remain safe (at least from us in the 26 West--the currently poor countries might decide the rest of 26 the share is now theirs). 26 Mind you, I'm not talking about living through a simulated 26 computer world--like a game. Maybe in the far future, but 26 right now I'm talking about things we're seeing NOW. 26 Computer programs that work just like a stero, a TV, a video 26 mixer, a VCR, etc. As these become better, the real thing 26 becomes just a big bit of wasted junk lying about the home. 26 And if you turn your walls into huge LCD screens--well, heck, 26 no need to buy the big homes, you can simulate them just as 26 well. Along with the reduction in actual possesesions, comes 26 the corresponding reductions in things to hold the 26 possessions: furniture to hold stero's/TV's, warehouse's at 26 each step of the selling process, even stores specializing in 26 the possessions. 26 The same trend for printed material. Once enough people are 26 using electronic media for stuff, things like books, 26 periodicals, and junk mail becomae the expensive method of 26 production and advertising. 26 We humans possess a "need to possess" things. Historically, 26 this has always depended on wealth--the richer you were the 26 more you could possess. We've always accepted this price 26 limitation. But "virtual" possessions eliminate this 26 limitation for the virtualized stuff. 26 Picture the future wall of your living room: a giant 4x6 LCD 26 screen. That combines the functions of todays computers and 26 TV's and is voice controlled. It's all the same data, we're 26 just using different devices to access it now because it's 26 not standardized. 26 Look around. Bookshelves, tape libraries, electronics, and 26 loose paper of all sorts. All eliminated from your life, and 26 no need to produce in the future. 26 This may also be true on a much larger scale as well: the 26 elimination of the need to all be in the same place to do 26 something. A massive and cheap enough data network could 26 eliminate lots of business offices, government offices, and 26 "storage" locations like libraries and colleges. Only the 26 hands-on stuff (like college labs, or museums) would probably 26 be needed (but that's not guarenteed). This part of the 26 shock may occur suddenly. We're doing it a little bit now in 26 business, but not that much. And the whole population needs 26 access to the data network--but this should come through the 26 TV end (everyone likes big TV screens and HDTV). Once most 26 of the population is connected up, then the dominoes will 26 fall fast. Example: put the library of congress on-line, and 26 every library in the country instantly becomes obselete. 26 Take the Blockbuster Video company: they know when we have 26 select-a-movie cable all their stores will instantly go out 26 of business, but they're smart and are trying to make sure 26 they're a player in the new select-a-movie industry--and 26 their stores know they can make bucks until the new 26 technology is installed. Misc. The authors of the Robotech books have some interesting ideas concerning a "machine mind". At first I thought this was a cyberspace copy but it is both original and interesting. It has to do with linking brains with computers which intern enter "electronic space"--not just the simulated cyberspace. You travel the paths of electronics/communications/energy. What you are in is essentially a real alternate universe. In which you're conscious energy/electricity/etc. Sort of like a "machine space". It's also interesting because it's one of those things we couldn't have imagined without progressing this far technological-wise. After all, being surrounded by electronics could one day make us wonder if we hadn't fallen into a machine space.[87] We're starting to see a lot of "body input devices". Such as Nintendo's glove. Gloves and body suits that detect movements. Various devices for projecting 3D or "in-space" computer images. What we will see in the future is people spending lots of time in these things. It'll be an addiction, just like a drug. We get addicted to games now, when we become part of the game we'll be even more "into it". To the world we'll look like vegetables; hidden in a body suit, perhaps moving around a room, more likely jerking on a chair. It'll be an ugly sight. We should prepare, they'll suffer the same malady's drug addicts do (emaciation/etc.). This, of course, was "simstim" in ~Neuromancer~. Another name being bantered around is "virtual reality". A book ends, a computer game has an end, but increasingly games are becoming universes, where you could literally play forever. Some recent games include StarFlight II and Ultima VI--both of which allow you to set up a business and just keep operating it. People in "Happy Machines" as well, in which they're constantly fed their addiction. Can something be random if it contains a path to it, any path? Eg. I want to kill a person. But that person escaped to another city via the airport. He chose his destination (city) randomly. But because there are a finite number of routes (paths), one of which was his, I could eventually locate him without randomness. What's wrong with the word Hacker? It seems to be changing. You pick; Cyberpunks, Cybernauts, Comic-crazed Compjockeys. Aerogel's. Neat cloud like material that hold hundreds of times their own weight. [[picture to get]] Been around for 60 years. They look like patches of thick fog that have been frozen for easy handling. [Some uses include insulation in refrigerators and double-pane windows, and possibly to catch micro-meteoroids in space.][89] Powerful electronic gadgets are what watches will become. They just came out with the watch pager. With technology will come people who always look the same through the many years. Two books: ~Blood Music~[91], and ~Down The Stream Of Stars~[92] produce a good idea. ~Down The Stream Of Stars~ talked about "specks", micromachines (sand size) that built structures as well as did medical modifications. The interesting thing was that these machines would work together to produce macro structures such as space ships. ~Blood Music~, while using bio-logic molecules, did a great job of pointing out how massive groups of miniature workers would work together. ~Down The Stream Of Stars~ also did (I thought) an excellent job of presenting the "evil aliens", it was done through the eyes of an innocent dog-like being--very well done. ~Blood Music~ might be ~Neuromancer~ for the microbiologists. Don't think I mentioned it before, but math is just a model of the universe. A potential predictor, but by no means something you rely on as facts. What results would "fuzzy math" yield? Such as: 1+1=3 to 5, 1+2=3 to 6, etc. In which the "to's" themselves would be fuzzy (and perhaps fractal/random based). Make the "to" range a normal random curve--which depends on the factors producing it. Maybe instead of 1..infinity which the right-of-decimal numbers getting smaller by degrees, we used an absolute minimum-- width of an electron, quark, etc. I recommend whatever is smallest, after all, the goal is to model the universe. It also "fits;" without computers we wouldn't have been able to try something like this. I think it's time to computerize mathematics. As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality. --ALBERT EINSTEIN It seems IBM has created the world's smallest advertisement. Using their scanning-tunneling microscope, they wrote "IBM" using 35 xenon atoms onto a nickel crystal.[93] It's the first structure built one atom at a time. It measures 660 billionths of an inch in width.[94] The C60 carbon molecule is thought to be a geodesic sphere with the ability to hold other atoms within this stable structure.[95] Perhaps without interacting at all with the carbon atoms. Researchers at Bellcore have developed a new laser-based system that represents a breakthrough in using holograms as computer memory and holds promise for dramatically faster information access. The researchers have built a laser semiconductor array for retrieving holographic images, stored on a glass crystal, at speeds up to 1 gigahertz. Bellcore's research, aimed at changing the way holograms--recordings of light patterns that represent an image--are retrieved, has yielded a chip the size of a thumbnail that contains an array of over 1000 semiconductor lasers. The laser array replaces the single scanning laser beam currently used for retrieving holographic images. Single scanning laser beams require large and expensive optical equipment such as lenses, beam deflectors, and optical tables [the typical lab laser set-up]. Bellcore has tested its laser array by retrieving holographic images from a photorefractive crystal made from lithium niobate and gallium arsenide. A single crystal, measuring 1 centimeter on a side, can store [1 trillion bits]. Each 'micro-laser' in the array is associated with a single page of information and can retrieve it in less than a nanosecond. The information is recorded by dividing the light emitted from the laser into two beams of light and recording the phase and amplitude at their intersection in the photorefractive crystal. Only one beam from the laser, called the 'reference beam,' is needed to retrieve the information from the crystal. Each laser measures 40-millionths of an inch across, allowing arrays to contain thousands of lasers. Although the researchers have demonstrated the retrieval of several images with high fidelity, they have not been able to retrieve more than a few. They hope to retrieve 500 to 1000 images from a single crystal while maintaining high fidelity. Bellcore has not developed a way to store these images, but Microelectronics and Computer Technology...is using crystallite arrays rather than single crystals for storing holographic data. These crystallites eliminate crosstalk and signal weakening problems associated with large photorefractive crystals.[103] Alan Dean Foster had an interesting idea in ~Cyber Way~. He postulated a temporal computer, that was always there and everywhere. It responded to a combination of voice and body motions to activate it.[105] If you can manage to manipulate the actions of individual atoms over a distance you can create this computer--just have it use ever other millionth atom to do it's work. If quantum physics' uncertainty work proves true, then so may this idea. It may also be possible to do it with a part of DNA--again, linking us all [to each other or something else]. Hologram techniques might also prove to be useful for ideas for this area. I think we ought to re-work mathematics. Throw out everything except the real number system (things like fractions, negatives, imaginary numbers, etc.). Convert everything to base units: such as the know weight, the shortest known length. If we had 1 apple we could say "1 apple" or "it weights 10 trillion atoms" or whatever. If we had 1 and 1/2 apples, rather than say we have "1.5 apples" we would say "we have 1500000123134 atoms of apple". Similarly for length. Then when use shorter notation (such as 1 thousand instead of 1023) we will be actually working with a fuzzy number system. Computers can handle the number crunching. There is no need for us to be using inexact numbers when we don't need to. For daily "people" stuff, fuzzy numbers are fine. For computers and records always use the large numbers. Part of the reason computers have such trouble with numbers now is their inability to fractions correctly. As a solution they are now leaning towards representing the numbers as "1/2" rather than "1.5". But really, all that extra processing this requires--just multiply it by a million or so and then do the math. The whole universe can be defined using integer math. Mathematics, while aiding in our knowledge of the universe, has the fault that it is continum (or continuous) based. That is, that all objects, all matter, the universe, and space itself have a continuous surface. Lots of things feel smooth--but when looked at up close, at the atomic level, we see they contain large gaps--the distance between the atoms that make up the object. Thus, in any given object, there is a Real number of points. Not a continum of points. So, while we need the infinitesimal, the continuous curves can be changed to handle cases of breaks at the infitesimal level. Or maybe not--if you wish to use it to handle "macro" curves like real-world objects. A neat address extension I've seen: after name, address, city, state, zip; "U.S.A., Earth, etc." Very cute, think I'll use it too. Handed over a pair of decoded flimsies. ...Laid the first of the shimmering, gauzy message films over my head. Immediately, the gossamer fabric wrapped over my face, covering eyes and ears and leaving only my nostrils free. At once it began vibrating, and after a momentary blurriness, sight and sound enveloped me.[114] [An interesting communication medium, an invention I hope won't come about.] ...the probes are coated with chemicals that adapt to the local chemistry at the implantation site. In other words, once the probe arrives at its destination, it noninvasively samples its ambient biochemical environment and then exudes a thin coating for itself that is designed to be consistent with the chemistry of the host and thereby avoid rejection.[115] [Described an idea for an internal medical sensor, but the technique can be universal for lots of things.] To confirm/start communications with aliens: transmit a signal and see if part of the return signal was what you sent. Or, from their view, after receiving their signal, send it back with something like "hello" and a copy of what they originally sent. That way you both know you're at least communicating correctly--even though neither understands what the other said.[124] I've said previously, "insects and plants are machines". Think of it's significance. We're a mote of dirt, floating in the universe, and waited on by little robots. It is, therefore, not improbable that these creatures were created elsewhere, deposited here to terraform the planet, and then "life" set down to grow--not being able to eat rock, they could nonetheless eat the 'robots'. I consider microbes to be too small to be machines, like virus's, you can make them, you can make them do stuff, but they really just building blocks. Without these 'robots' we would revert to 'moonbase' type conditions. We have a tendency to think all writing must be situtated such that it can be read "across the line". Yet, written text is merely a bunch of small images. There is no reason, for instance when wishing to enhance a display, that text can't be set to be "read sideways and down" or "read sideways and up" or even in reverse or any other numerous positions. All it takes is a little practice with the interface--and the advantages may be much greater. For instance, given the right 10 columns to display text, a lot of interfaces would be forced to put one word on each line (well, two at most). Leaving a lot of unused space. By taking 10 lines of text and "rotating" it 90 degrees, you can fit far more data into the same space (240 characters max with method one, 800 characters with method two)--however, method two does require graphics. After the optical drives, I expect the next revolution to occur with devices that (unobtrusively) detect your movements. It's another cross-market product, not just useful in computers, but in lots of industries. In some cases (in space) couplings may be superior to welding. Since they'd be easier to put together and take apart--while providing the same holding strength. I am not talking about large modules, but simple stuff like walls. Using a sealent--that lasts, say 5 years, would be just as effective as welding, and a lot cheaper in the inital construction. The parts can be welded together (before the sealant's life is up) slowly--using energy from the sun, etc. The people in space will have lots of time--this will give them something to do, as well as provide a sense of security in what can be a dangerous environment (they'll know they can fix the "house" if it cracks/etc.). --- A Summary of my primary beliefs: 1. Concept of self. a) Start off by saying: I am ! Say it a few times. Now say: I am ! Get used to saying this. Eventually you'll be able to say: I am! And eventually you'll just "feel it". b) "I am the most important being in the universe." Who is more important than you? Nobody. When you're gone--what does the rest of the universe matter. You can't do anything in it, you can't enjoy it, it's worthless. A person holding a gun at you, holding your life in his hands, is not more important than you. Sure, he's in a better position than you, but given time, you to will obtain that position (please extrapolate this example as far as you are able). 2. Purpose of life. a) The purpose of life is to survive. Simple as that. There is nothing after your body decays, so it's best you do your best to survive. Nothing else matters. If need be, sacrifice the rest of the universe to keep yourself alive. If another being threatens your existence, it is your moral duty to eliminate the threat. b) What are you. You are a single being in the universe. A dot smaller than an atom. There are unlimited numbers of other beings, of all shapes and designs, thoughout the universe, and throughout time. You're just another one. Nothing at all special about you. Nothing at all special about any of the others. All beings, given time, can do, be, or have, whatever any other being does, is, or has. 3. Concept of others. a) The purpose and reason for the existence of other beings: to aid you in your struggle to survive. Yes, all others are worthless in comparison to you, to be sacrificed should they be endangering your existence. But you should be sure to know that they're efforts at survival can aid your own. Therefore, a cooperative effort is usually best--but never forget you are the most important. b) Aliens share the same purpose and drives you do. They of course exist, assume it. Having said this, I can only recommend a prolonged and careful "dance" to develop proper relations. In first meeting, you will have more success running and hiding behind a fort, rather than confronting and trying to make friends (which, without preparations, understanding, and knowledge, could easily backfire and find the two cultures at war). But they may contain the secrets as well to your survival. --- It really is like some damn game. Planets towards middle of galaxy get to space faster, and have shorter distances to go to other planets. Planets on the rim take longer to get to space. And because other planets are so far away, they need to develop long distance technology first--whereas the near planet could evolve into it (or not develop it at all). The near planet would therefore be more likely to have war's with it's neighbors. (Leading to decay or faster advancing technology--need to think about these implicatations). Freejack: after programming the person's image into a central computer: "If he even walks past a vidphone now, we've got him." (real) Intelligence test questions: "Suppose an alien gave you a 'good package' to help the human race. And this package turned out to be empty." "What just occured?" "Suppose an alien promised to let you use the biggest gun in the universe." "What does this mean?" I think Coke did us a service. They proved that if a new version of a product isn't a hit, you can always go back or produce the previous version as a new product. Thus we see more companies taking major risks to improve their product. Looking at a recent mapping of the universe [Scientific American Mar 92, p 52], I'm struck by something: that the universe really is big enough to not care. A single planet is meaningless. Thus, I now wonder if my thinking that "something" must stop light-speed and near-light speed projectiles from being fired to destroy planets is probably false. I've also decided that there are a whole lot more habitable planets out there than I figured (I figured 1 in 10 solar systems with planets would have a habitable planet--I now think it's like 1 in 2). There's absolutely no evidence to suggest that what happened to our solar system (life forming, etc.) isn't happening to every solar system. "The goal of technology is to eliminate itself." That lyproscetchmy (sp.) surgery is a good example of something simple appearing and changing a whole industry. This method of surgery provides "upgradability" that was more difficult under the old "knife" techniques. You see, the hard part about this surgery is getting used to doing it while looking at a monitor. In the future, they'll be able to sit down, in another room, and do this. Because it's easier to design a robotic/manderbal(sp.) system when there are only 3-4 hands/objects to manipulate. Also, even though costs and paper work for doctors has gone straight up, this is an example of some good. Since it is the insurance companies that are forcing doctors to switch faster than they might normally--since the new technology is much cheaper, and more safe. It has been the insurance companies that have been blamed for the higher costs and greater paper work. But this shows advantages as well. Personally, I feel it is the ambulance- chasing lawyers that responsible for the mess. The most famous molecule of the nineties, so far, is the buckminsterfullerene--the ball of 60 carbon atoms that is reminiscent of a geodesic dome. Early this year, however, researchers at Penn State found a new kind of molecular cage, one that incorporates atoms of metals such as titanium or zirconium alongside the carbon atoms and is proving just as surprising as the buckyball. 'We thought our next discovery would be that this molecule comes in a range of sizes,' says chemist Welford Castleman. But Castleman's 'metallo-carbohedrene' ('met- car' for short) is different from a buckyball: instead of simply expanding in size when more atoms are added, it self-replicates. The chemists found clusters to two, three, and four interlocking molecules.[132] On the Batman cartoon series, they found the combination of a keypad based lock by blowing some power on it and seeing where it sticks. It is not that simple. First, you need a powder that clings to the oils of the body. Second, it assumes the combination was not changed recently (a good assumption) and that the owner always gets it right (another good assumption, although you could try to rely on which keys have the most powder left). Third. you do not really know the number of keys, whether one is pushed twice/etc., or in what order they were pushed. The alternative solution being to video (or audio) record someone entering the data. I mention all this because we will probably be seeing more keypad entry systems for lots of stuff in the future. 26 Some scientists analyzed what occurs when you shake stuff. 26 They found that a convection occurs. The stuff on the sides 26 stays there because of the friction, the stuff in the middle 26 moves up--producing a void at the bottom--the stuff at the 26 sides slides down to fill this void. What also occurs is that 26 it becomes self-sorting, with largest items staying at the 26 top and sorting down to the smallest at the bottom. If the 26 container is made of near-frictionless materials, however, 26 than no convection, and no movement, occurs.[154] 26 There's a funny irony to the method in which we advance our 26 sciences and make our discoveries. That irony is that anyone 26 watching who already knows the correct answers will be able 26 to predict fairly exactly each of our steps--wrong or right, 26 as well as their effects. In their eyes, we're probably very 26 predictable. 27� Walt Disney World has a new ride. Its a bunch of spheres. 27� And it's the future of most rides. It's not really a ride-- 27� it's a bunch of simulators put together and called a ride. 27� Currently it's called Chameleon and it's currently a flight 27� simulator of some kind (the player has some control, and the 27� they promise that no two rides are ever the same). 27� Currently. It's just computers and a simulator and could be 27� converted to any type of ride. 27� Envirosafe: a nontoxic, Teflon-based barrier that is too 27� slippery for fire ants, roaches, caterpillars, and many other 27� kinds of insects to walk across. Is a safe alternative to 27� pesticides. It is available as a spray and in tap form.[155] 27� To be precise, it is not the metal itself that goes bang 27� in a microwave but the metal's free electrons, and it's 27� more of a zap than a bang. "The electrons accumulate on 27� the surface," says Barron. "So you get this big piece of 27� metal with a lot of charge on it. It wants to get rid of 27� the charge, so it looks around the microwave oven and 27� sees the walls and zap! You get a bolt of lightning 27� flying across your oven." But, Barron reasoned, if the 27� metal were ground into a fine powder, the lightning might 27� be suppressed, basically because powdered metal has a 27� much larger surface area than a solid block. Electrons 27� would still collect on the surface of each powder grain, 27� but since their charge would be spread over a larger 27� area, there wouldn't be enough of it in one place to 27� trigger a current arc in the oven. To their relief, no 27� lightning bolts zapped across the oven, and to their 27� delight, they had a nodule of chalcopyrite after less 27� than a minute. According to Barron, if the process can 27� be scaled up to industrial dimensions, it could become a 27� much more efficient way of fabricating an important 27� semiconductor. What's more, says Barron, heating things 27� quickly isn't the only advantage a microwave oven can 27� offer a chemist; it can also cool things quickly. A 27� microwave only heats substances that conduct electricity, 27� so as soon as they stop conducting they start to cool. 27� "For instance," explains Barron, "if you take a metal 27� with a nonmetal and you heat them and they form a 27� compound that doesn't conduct, as soon as they form th 27� compound th heating will stop instantly." since the 27� cooling rate has a big effect on the final properties of 27� a compound material, microwave ovens could allow chemists 27� to fabricate new materials--includine ones, as Barron 27� puts it, "that nature never intended."[156] TRANSMUTERS Star Trek doesn't use monetary currency. Their ability to generate most objects using the same technology as their transporter system (or is it vice-versa?) makes creating most any object easy (just define the specs in the computer). In the next 5 to 10 years we'll be hearing about machines that fabricate using the scanning-tunneling microscope technology. The key problem to overcome is to do a lot in a short time (like a million per second). Most likely it'll first appear in chip creation. Somebody somewhere needs to wake up. The development of fabrication processes using atom or even molecule manipulation technology should be a national priority. Or maybe the idea of turning lead into gold and paper into dollars, thus destroying the capitalist system, is too much to think about. Entertainment, education, and child care are fields that won't be eliminated/greatly reduced with the development of the transmuter. Doctors will be needed. The semiconductor industry really took off in Japan in the late 1970s after the Ministry of International Trade & Industry funded $200 million of a catch-up program called the VLSI Project. Well, MITI is at it again. The ministry has just unveiled plans for another $200 million push--aimed at nano-technology, or techniques for building ultratiny semiconductor devices, in some cases atom by atom. The cast of characters is mostly familiar: Among those that have already signed on are Fujitsu, Hitachi, NEC, and Toshiba. But this time, MITI hopes that they will be joined by Texas Instruments, Motorola, IBM, and other U.S. and European high-tech companies. That's because $200 million will just scratch the surface of the required investment. One goal of the Atom Technology Project is to develop methods for building a memory chip that can store 16 billion bits of data. That's 1,000 times as many as the latest 16-megabit chips, which most suppliers won't produce in volume until next year. Such chips will require transistors so small that it would take several thousand to span the width of a human hair. The R&D cost of a 16-gigabit chip could run $2 billion-plus, chipmakers estimate.[141] 22 Russian technology may help the U.S. oil and gas 22 industries overcome an environmental headache--and save 22 hundreds of millions of dollars. Russia's Kurchatov 22 Institute in Moscow has developed a way to use low-energy 22 microwaves to break down hydrogen solfide, a noxious gas 22 that is a waste product of refining and a contaminant in 22 natural gas. The process yields sulfur, which can be 22 recovered and sold, and hydrogen gas, which can be used 22 as a fuel.[143][While I'm sure this is useful, the more 22 important question: can microwaves be used to reduce all 22 substances to their constituent parts?] 컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴 I PREDICT Trends The 1990's will be the decade of the loss of the traditional office. Thanks to scanners, optical drives, faster computers, most everything stored in file cabinets will be scanned and stored. The key: store the data in two forms; a complete image of a paper, and a note-file containing the text on that paper. Those who have set up systems already are using terms like "can do more things with the data than before" (American(?) Airlines), and "I don't know how we did without it" (a talent agency). That's the exact thing they said about spreadsheets. When portable computers can record sound, it will be an excellent recorder for notes--then you later run it through a voice convert to get text of the talk. Voice computer interfaces will become popular. It will save on keyboard wrist injures and allow the hiring of people who can't type for Data Entry jobs. Ultrasonic testing of machines (like aircraft, cars) will become popular. Eventually for quality control on things like home electronics. I saw the team Battletech/Robotech simulator story on Beyond Tomorrow. For $6/30 min. you and others (4 total?) get to play against another team. Each person has their sit-down working arcade-like simulator. It looks great and if they decide to allow us to access it over the phone it could really become something. The simulator is somewhere in Chicago. It really would solve a problem of computer games-- we can't usually play against humans, since the really good games take too long. Current BBS games just don't have good enough graphics. "Derms" will be greatly used. Especially by the drug addicts. TV walls will become popular. Around 2000 we'll see credit card optical drives. In which a little optical disk is contained in a plastic credit card like package. Future w/digital TV: end of news: "we now take a minute to 'download' the newscast at high speed so you may record it to optical disk (versus analog now)." The twenty-first century will be the century of medicine. Gibson got it right when he said body parts will be grown in vats. The only thing keeping us from doing this is that we do not know how a baby develops given only the genetic code. Once we break this code, and understand the biomechanics's of the process, it will be simple to duplicate. It is, after all, just a biological device. Fetal tissue will also be greatly used. Evolution for the human race is dead. Genetic engineering and biomedicine will create/modify us. Evolution is just too slow now. Mutation may still occur (evolution on a single person). Only in a regressed society from where we are now will it occur. Holographic will become a way of life. Want a meeting: send your holograph to the theater then receive the holograph of what your holograph would see. 3D real life gaming. All sorts of problems with handling reality. Although wall TV's could cause similar problems. Potentials If somehow either a higher baud could be handled by the phone lines, or a better compression technique is found, then Gibson's Cyberspace will become a reality. Although it can be imitated now. If a color scanner can be created and sold at a low price, then images to will follow the path of regular office files. We can already print out onto film with the computer, we just cannot read it in right now. If we ever do develop faster than light travel, there will be a short(?) period in which everyone will be greedy wanting their own world--to create their own utopia's. The English language will be simplified. I think we will eliminate all punctuation except for sentence ending periods. I think its wordiness will also be reduced. First of the word to go will be words of double meaning, words duplicated by other words, and obscure or confusing words. The reason: computer voice technology. Computers do not translate punctuation, etc. Children will grow up speaking to computers, and will lose the minor voice inflections we use on some sentences (pausing for delays, lilting for questions) since a computer will not duplicate, nor translate, those inflections. The rest will occur because you cannot give confusing, or out-of-context, orders to a machine and have it understand you. This will lead to making the language less obscure. All this talking to computers will probably also shrink our language of long phrases. While these days might mark the high point of English as an imaginative language, the future language will be easier for aliens to translate. What you Movies often touch on a part of the future, while getting can see other parts wrong. They are still an excellent source for visualization, some of the best are: ~Max Headroom Story~. The hypermedia, computer hackers, cartographic displays, and scanned brain --> AI is correct. The nuclear war part is false. ~Runaway~. Life with little robots running around. ~THX 1138~. Life in institutions will be similar to the life in general seen here. ~Aliens~. All but the terraforming is possible. The terraforming takes too much time for their level of technology and would not be worth it. ~Dark Star~. The day-to-day life of people stuck with each other in space is accurate (without discipline). ~2010~. Again, the day-to-day life, and the work environment in space. ~A Boy and His Dog~. A robots life. ~Terminator~. Through the eyes of a robot. ~Blade Runner~. Mostly true. Only the regular people and the appalling living conditions were probably false. ~Predator~. The defense system of the alien is nearly perfect. The visual distorter, the eye-following blaster, the suit itself. Only the idea of a miniature nuclear reactor was way off (too advanced for that level of technology). ~Total Recall~. The good and the bad of implanted memories. As well as the technological implementation of the process. 26 "Nemesis". Bio-electronic/cyborg humans. It's possible we 26 could skip robots entirely and jump to cyborg's. The 26 scenario of the mostly robot humans wanting to kill off the 26 mostly biological humans, and vice-versa, is a possibility. 컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴� Questions 1. To any doctors reading this: What is the policy regarding highly dangerous drugs and dying people? If a person is on their deathbed and a drug comes along that will cure them. This drug will then give them intense pain, paralysis, and probable death in six months. Is this drug given? 2. Can CD-ROM data be transferred off the ROM disk? Erasable CD's will have an impact on us perhaps greater than that of the microcomputer. Since it will quickly become the media storage standard of all forms of data. We know it will supplant the current magnetic storage systems, what seems to be getting ignored is the effect on the traditional filing systems. It takes about one MB to store a perfect color duplicate of a sheet of paper. Even the current erasable drives can do 600 MB--a file drawer's worth of storage. What I'm curious about is the current storage methods. Do they use a DOS standard method or some unique proprietary system? 3. Intel is in an admirable position with its super risc and the image compression technology. Do any other companies, such as Sony, have plans to develop similar image compression electronics for erasable optical drives? 4. When chess computers finally destroy all human opponents should we modify/expand the game or abandon it as obsolete? Personally I prefer to abandon it and have the chess masters create a similar but much larger and harder game. It should involve spatial strategy, combatants, and generally be hard for computers to play using only brute force. Or maybe three-dimensional chess? I have never tried it. First tic-tac-toe, then othello, and now . . . 5. Asimov had an interesting weapon in one of his books: a microwave gun. It spewed microwaves at a living object and would literally cook it to death. If I took apart and modified my microwave oven could it be so dangerous? 6. What are some examples of conversion of energy to matter? 7. Would civilization collapse without radio and Television? 컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴� Conclusion What I really want the reader to get out of this paper is the following: 1) Gravity does not exist. 2) Time does not exist. 3) Math does not exist. 4) One God does not exist. All gods should not exist. 5) One's own life is the most important. 6) Convergent evolution among advanced races is probably the norm. 7) While not strongly pointed out here. Both science fiction and computer games provide vivid truths about the rise and fall of life. All life (like empires and governments) go through a long struggle to survive, and then at some future point go into a state of decay. Too many things are created by us and then thought to exist. Our perceptions become tainted by our expectations. Little thought has been directed to the fact that we control our own destiny's. It is the denial of this single thought that causes the fear of death, leading to hope that something must save us from death. We all choose to live or die, each moment opportunities exist for us to kill ourselves should we really want to. Many people are members of the living dead, longing for the past, or some better life--too scared to kill themselves, but still thinking that they are alive. If you are not going to change and help change then when you die you will have had X years of no change, once dead you cannot change anything, therefore you had died X years earlier. On the other hand, while you are alive the hope that you will experience change and growth is always a possibility. Final My immediate plans are to release a new version of this Comments document every two-months or so. I also would like to see William Gibson's ideas of Cyberspace begun. It can start with a simple autodialer that looks like a three-dimensional grid with boxes on it--in which each box represents some BBS (the grid should be overlaid on a state and LATA map). Then you just "fly" to the box you want--hit it, and the autodialer dials it. Eventually we can extend this to some BBS and a communication programs. I also would be interested in finding about companies that are preserving organic matter. This document was not meant to challenge your reading skills, but to challenge your imagination. I want you to find flaws in my arguments and tell me. I can be reached via: John Rohner US Mail: PO Box 340304 Milwaukee, WI 53215 Modem: (414) 643-1576 Immortality, my BBS. Modem: (414) 789-4210 Exec-PC, national archive. Death is murder. . . .how do you establish a possibility? By finding it impossible to eliminate a possibility, a beginning is made at establishing one.[125] When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. --Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, The Sign of Four Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known. --CARL SAGAN Who am I 28 years old. Attended Walker Junior High and Washington High here in Milwaukee. I am currently living in Milwaukee. I have a BS from the University of Wisconsin (Madison). My major was Cartography. I consider myself a Cartographer/Programmer. I enjoy, and hope to specialize in, the development of Geographical Information Systems. I find "conquer the universe" strategy games to be most interesting, including CRPG's. I believe in direct action. Earth First!, Greenpeace, animal rights, the anti-fur people, freedom of all forms of information, full space exploration/development, etc. If it's good I support it. I loath religion and those who believe anything is more important than themselves--your religion should be the sum of YOUR beliefs. My goal is immortality. I have complete faith in my own conclusions, but I am not so concrete that I wouldn't change them given sufficient counter-arguments. This document started out, and continues to be, an external memory source for me. Besides this, which is known as JDR_mmyy, I have also developed JDR_BBS (aka Juggernaut), the most powerful and flexible BBS software around. 컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴� BIBLIOGRAPHY [1] From an MTV commercial (6/26/90). [2] JANET ASIMOV, _Mind Transfer_, New York, The Berkley Publishing Group/Ace Books, 1989, p 217. [3] KAREN JOY FOWLER, "The Lake Was Full of Artificial Things," _Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine_, October 1985. [4] BOB SHAW, _Orbitsville Departure_, New York, Baen Publishing Enterprises, 1989. [5] BRIAN HERBERT, _The Race For God_, Ace Books/Berkley Publishing Group, New York, 1990, p 223. [6] HERBERT, p 7. [7] ROBERT KUNZIG, "Stardust Memories: Kiss of Life," _Discover_, March 1988, 68-76. [8] EDWARD O. WILSON, "Empire Of The Ants," _Discover_, March 1990, 44-50. [9] Update, "Monkeying Around With The Relatives," _Discover_, March 1988, 26-27. [10] JARED DIAMOND, "The Great Leap Forward," _Discover_, May 1989, 50-60. [11] Breakthroughs, _Discover_, June 1991, p 10. [12] JAMES SHREEVE, "Madam, I'm Adam," _Discover_, June 1991, p 24. [13] JAMES SHREEVE, "Machiavellian Monkeys," _Discover_, June 1991, 68-73. [14] MICHAEL MCCOLLUM, _Procyon's Promise_, Del Rey/Ballantine Books, New York, 1985, p 270. [15] GINA MARANTO, "Einstein's Brain," _Discover_, May 1985, 28-34. [16] From an episode of _Scientific American Frontiers Of Science_ on PBS. [17] Up Front, "Rabbit Punch," _Discover_, June 1989, p 12. [18] GORDON R. DICKSON, _Mission To Universe_, Tom Doherty Associates, New York, 1988, 91-92. [19] FREDERIK POHL, _The Annals of the Heechee_, New York, Del Rey/Ballantine Books/Random House, 1987. [20] BOB SHAW, _Orbitsville_, Baen Publishing Enterprises, New York, 1975. [21] GEORGE ALEC EFFINGER, _A Fire In The Sun_, Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, 1990. [22] ROBERT E. VARDEMAN, _Crisis At Starlight_, Ace Books, 1990, p 78. [23] ANNE MCCAFFREY, JODY LYNN NYE, _The Death Of Sleep_, Baen Publishing Enterprises, New York, 1990. [24] DICKSON, p 105. [25] BRUCE SCHECHTER, "Prodigal Particle," _Discover_, March 1981, 20-27. [26] Up Front, "A Negative Way To Get Positive Results," _Discover_, February 1987, p 7. [27] SAM FLAMSTEED, "Birth of a Pulsar," _Discover_, May 1989, p 26. [28] "Hubble's First Hurrah," _Discover_, February, 1991, 46-49. [29] ALAN LIGHTMAN, "Still Wanted: Black Holes," _Discover_, March 1990, 26-33. [30] TONY ROTHMAN, "A 'What You See Is What You Beget' Theory," _Discover_, May 1987, 90-99. [31] [I think this is from Kunzig's article - but check.] [32] Up Front, "Cosmic Cloud Without A Heart," _Discover_, April 1988, 10-12. [33] Up Front, "Seeing To The Edge Of The Universe," _Discover_, April 1988, 14-16. [34] MARCIA BARTUSIAK, "If You Like Black Holes, You'll Love Cosmic Strings," _Discover_, April 1988, 60-68. [35] ERIC J. LERNER, "The Big Bang Never Happened," _Discover_, June 1988, 70-79. [36] News, "Running Fast in Space," _Discover_, March 1981, p 18. [37] BRUCE SCHECHTER, "Capturing The Fire Of The Stars," _Discover_, December 1989, 16-23. [38] BRUCE SCHECHTER, "In Quest Of The Quark," _Discover_, July 1981, 26-32. [39] MARCIA BARTUSIAK, "Signposts In The Sky," _Discover_, July 1981, 56-58. [40] News, "A Quasar Ancestry?" _Discover_, March 1982, p 14. [41] GARY TAUBES, "Science In His Lab, Science In His Fiction," _Discover_, August 1983, 66-72. [42] DENNIS OVERBYE, "Is Anyone Out There?" _Discover_, March 1982, 20-28. [43] News, _Discover_, September 1984, p 9. [44] DENNIS OVERBYE, "The Shadow Universe," _Discover_, May 1985, 12-25. [45] JEFF KANIPE, "M-87: Describing the Indescribable," _Astronomy_, May 1987, 6-13. [46] DAVID FREEDMAN, "Beyond Einstein," _Discover_, February 1989, 56-61. [47] DAVID H. FREEDMAN, "Maker Of Worlds," _Discover_, July 1990, 46-52. [48] KAREN WRIGHT, "Catch the Wave," _Discover_, July, 1991, p 29. [49] Up Front, "One Small Drop For Man," _Discover_, March 1988, 20-22. [50] TONY ROTHMAN, "The Seven Arrows Of Time," _Discover_, February 1987, 62-77. Letters, _Discover_, April 1987, p 94. [51] JANET ASIMOV, p 134. [52] GARY TAUBES, "Ultrafast Physics," _Discover_, March 1990, 76-84. [53] Up Front, _Discover_, February 1990, p 11. [54] GLENN GARELIK, "Chilling Events On A Tropical Isle," _Discover_, May 1985, 64-70. [55] Up Front, _Discover_, February 1990, p 12. [56] Up Front, _Discover_, December 1989, p 14. [57] WILLIAM F. ALLMAN, "The Musical Brain," _U.S. News & World Report_, June 11 1990, 56-62. [58] LORI OLIWENSTEIN, "The Power of Plastics," _Discover_, December 1989, p 18. [59] JUDITH STONE, "Scents and Sensibility," _Discover_, December 1989, p 26. [60] MATT CLARK, "A Nose For Sex," _Discover_, September 1990, p 28. [61] Currents, _U.S. News & World Report_, May 14 1990, p 13. [62] SHAWNA VOGEL, "Rebirth of Blood," _Discover_, March 1990, p 34. [63] NATALIE ANGIER, "Storming The Wall," _Discover_, May 1990, 66-72. [64] Up Front,"Mind Over Matter," _Discover_, August 1990, p 16. [65] Up Front, "Death Takes A Holiday," _Discover_, August 1990, p 18. [66] FREDERIC GOLDEN, "Hot Rats," _Discover_, August 1990, p 24. [67] ROBERT M. SAPOLSKY, "Why You Feel Crummy When You're Sick," _Discover_, July 1990, 66-70. [68] DANIEL RUDEMAN of UW-Milwaukee, _MacNeil/Lehrer_ report, 7/5/90. About synthetic human growth hormones. [69] L. RON HUBBARD, _Dianetics_, Bridge Publications, Los Angeles, CA, 1986, p 239. [70] Breakthroughs, _Discover_, June 1991, p 18. [71] KATHRYN PHILLIPS, "Spider Man," _Discover_, June 1991, 48-53. [72] DAVID H. FREEDMAN, "Life's Off-switch," _Discover_, July 1991, 60-67. [73] PETER RADETSKY, "Reversing Leukemia," _Discover_, July 1991, p 24. [74] ISAAC ASIMOV, _Robot Dreams_, The Berkley Publishing Group, New York, 1986, p 30. [75] DAVID H. FREEDMAN, "Common Sense And The Computer," _Discover_, August 1990, 64-71. [76] ROGER MACBRIDE ALLEN and DAVID DRAKE, _The War Machine: Crisis of Empire III_, Baen Publishing Enterprises, New York, 1989. [77] OTIS PORT, "Developments to Watch," _Business Week_, September 11 1989, p 123. [78] Kodak advertisement, _Business Week_, October 9 1989, p 143. [79] Developments to Watch, _Business Week_, October 30 1989, p 157. [80] _The Fleet Book 5: Total War_, Ace Books/Berkley Publishing Group, New York, 1990, p 231. [81] ERIC KOTANI and JOHN MADDDOX ROBERTS, _Delta Pavonis_, Baen Publishing Enterprises, New York, 1990. [82] JOSHUA FISCHMAN, "Giant Moments," _Discover_, June 1991, 26-27. [83] CARL ZIMMER, "Erasable Disks," _Discover_, July 1991, p 30. [84] GARY TAUBES, "Great Balls Of Carbon," _Discover_, September 1990, 52-59. [85] TOM WATERS, "Light Bytes," _Discover_, January 1991, p 63. [86] ARTHUR C. CLARKE and GENTRY LEE, _Rama II_, Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, New York, 1989, p 452. [87] JACK MCKINNEY, _Robotech: The End Of The Circle #18_, Del Rey/Ballantine Books, New York, 1989. [88] PAUL HOVERSTEN, "Flying Defensively," _Discover_, April 1990, p 28. [89] ROBERT POOL, "Super Fluff," _Discover_, August 1990, p 26. [90] Up Front, "Give That Rat A Bud," _Discover_, September 1990, p 16. [91] GREG BEAR, _Blood Music_, Berkley Publishing Group/Ace, New York, 1985. [92] JEFFREY A. CARVER, _Down The Stream Of Stars_, Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, New York, 1990. [93] [same as 84] [94] "Physics 1990," _Discover_, January 1991, p 49. [95] [same as 84] [96] [same as 84] [97] Up Front, _Discover_, November 1990, p 18. [98] JOSHUA FISCHMAN, "Cutting Edge," _Discover_, November 1990, 54-60. [99] DAVID H. FREEDMAN, "Weird Science," _Discover_, November 1990, 62-68. [100] "Science and the Citizen: Far Out," _Scientific American_, December 1990, 20-23. [101] "Science and the Citizen: Beam of Hope," _Scientific American_, December 1990, 24-25. [102] KENNETH B. and JANET M. STOREY, "Frozen and Alive," _Scientific American_, December 1990, 92-97. [103] NICK BARAN, "Microbytes," _Byte_, January 1991, p 20. [104] BENNETT DAVISS, "Yikes! It's Al-i-i-i-i-ve!" _Discover_, December 1990, p 28. [105] ALAN DEAN FOSTER, _Cyber Way_, Ace Books/Berkley Publishing Group, 1990. [106] GARY J. FELDMAN and JACK STEINBERGER, "The Number of Families of Matter," _Scientific American_, February 1991, 70-75. [107] WALTER J. FREEMAN, "The Physiology of Perception," _Scientific American_, February 1991, 78-83. [108] Up Front, "Kamikaze Drugs," _Discover_, February 1991, 12-14. [109] SUSAN CHOLLAR, "The Nerves of Some People," _Discover_, February 1991, p 36. [110] EDWIN KIESTER JR., "A Bug In The System," _Discover_, February 1991, 70�76. [111] CHRISTOPHER WILLS, "Turning Over An Old Leaf," _Discover_, January 1991, p 78. [112] KAREN WRIGHT, "Slowing Down The Sands Of Time," _Discover_, January 1991, 84-85. [113] ROBERT SHECKLEY, _Isaac's Universe: The Diplomacy Guild (Vol. 1)_, Avon Books/Hearst Corporation, New York, 1990, p 129. [114] DAVID BRIN, _Isaac's Universe: The Diplomacy Guild (Vol. 1)_, Avon Books/Hearst Corporation, New York, 1990, p 60. [115] CLARKE and LEE, p 44. [116] CLARKE and LEE, p 106. [117] CLARKE and LEE, p 457. [118] Up Front, _Discover_, May 1991, p 11. [119] SUSAN KATZ MILLER, "Picking Up Parkinson's Pieces," _Discover_, May 1991, p 22. [120] ANDREW CHAIKIN, "Galactic Chimneys," _Discover_, May 1991, 24-26. [121] PETER RADETSKY, "The Roots Of Cancer," _Discover_, May 1991, 60-64. [122] ELISABETH ROSENTHAL, "One for the Heart," _Discover_, May 1991, 82-84. [123] WALTER JOHN WILLIAMS, _Angel Station_, Tor/Tom Doherty Associates, New York, 1989, p 104. [124] WILLIAMS, p 133. [125] ISAAC ASIMOV, _The Robots of Dawn_, New York, Del Rey/Ballantine/Random House, 1983, p 183. [126] YONDA N. MCINTYRE, _Transition_, Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, New York, 1990. [127] STEVEN CHU, "Laser trapping of Neutral Particles," _Scientific American_, February 1992, 70-76. [128] JOHN HORGAN, "Profile: Francis H. C. Crick," _Scientific American_, February 1992, 32-33. [129] An episode of _48 Hours_. [130] FRED SABERHAGEN/et al., _Berserker Base_, Tom Doherty Associates, New York, 1985, p 9. [131] "Breakthroughs," _Discover_, September 1992, p 11. [132] "Breakthroughs," _Discover_, September 1992, p 13. [133] "Breakthroughs," _Discover_, September 1992, p 14. [134] TIM FOLGER, "The year 1991 in science," _Discover_, January 1992, p 27. [135] DAVID LINDLEY, "A Fleeting Attraction?" _Discover_, September 1992, 20-21. [136] _CNN Science & Technology Week_, September 26 1992. [137] PETER RADETSKY, "Alzheimer's Stepchild," _Discover_, September 1992, 84-90. [138] GREGORY T. POPE, "The Beam in Your Eye," _Discover_, September 1992, p 26. [139] ISAAC ASIMOV, _Foundation_, Del Rey/Ballantine/Random House, New York, 1989, p 9. [140] ISAAC ASIMOV, _Foundation's Edge_, Del Rey/Ballantine/Nightfall/Random House, New York, 1982, 63-66. [141] "Developments to Watch," _Business Week_, December 21 1992, p 58. [142] "Developments to Watch," _Business Week_, March 1 1993, p 95. [143] "Developments to Watch," _Business Week_, December 7 1992, p 123. [144] "Developments to Watch," _Business Week_, February 22 1993, p 91. [145] RUSSELL RUTHEN, "Vexing Vortices," _Scientific American_, April 1992, 28-29. [146] ROBERT A. HEINLEIN, _Friday_, Del Rey/Ballantine Books/Random House, New York, 1982, 42-43. [147] JEFFREY A. CARVER, _Down The Stream Of Stars_, Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, New York, 1990, p 196. [148] "Breakthroughs," _Discover_, July 1993, 14-15. [149] MARVIN MINSKY, "Alienable Rights," _Discover_, July 1993, 24-26. [150] ROBERT BAKKER, "Jurassic Sea Monsters," _Discover_, September 1993, 78-85. [151] "Breakthroughs," _Discover_, September 1993, 18-28. [152] TIM FOLGER, "Cages Of Carbon," _Discover_, September 1993, p 32. [153] MICHAEL W. DAVIDSON, "The Flat Face Of Technology," _Discover_, September 1993, 72-77. [154] "Breakthroughs," _Discover_, November 1993, 20-28. [155] "Reaping The Wild Wind," _Discover_, October 1993, p 61. [156] "Breakthroughs," _Discover_, October 1993, p 20. [157] "Earth Sciences - 1993: This Battered Earth," _Discover_, January 1994, 32-34. [158] TIM FOLGER, "The Naked And The Bipedal," _Discover_, November 1993, 34-35. [159] "Environment - 1993: Our Fragile Climate," _Discover_, January 1994, 67-69. WILLIAM GIBSON, _Burning Chrome_, Ace Books/The Berkley Publishing Group/Charter Communications, New York, 1986. WILLIAM GIBSON, _Neuromancer_, Ace Books/The Berkley Publishing Group/Charter Communications, New York, 1984. WiLLIAM GIBSON, _Count Zero_, Ace Books/The Berkley Publishing Group/Charter Communications, New York, 1986. WILLIAM GIBSON, _Mona Lisa Overdrive_, Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, New York, 1988. L. RON HUBBARD, _Battlefield Earth_, St. Martin's Press, New York, 1982. ISAAC ASIMOV, _The Robots of Dawn_, _Robots and Empire_, _Foundation_, _Foundation and Empire_, _Second Foundation_, _Foundation's Edge_, _Foundation and Earth_, [in the order I think they should be read]. _Doctor Who_, _Star Trek_, _Space: 1999_, _Battlestar Galactica_, _Blakes 7_, etc., [television series and movies]. _Marvel_ comics.