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

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

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

The uses are interesting. Amplify is a good way to quickly express an opinion on a topical issue and to share lesser known news stories. These can then be posted to Twitter, del.icio.us and/or Clipmarks through the site: maximising exposure.

The site also has a social element. You can comment on others posts and allow others to post on your ‘cliplog’, so many are ground cliplogs for specific projects etc.

WordPress MU is used so when you log-in, you face a familiar WordPress admin interface and you manage comments and users in the same fashion you manage WordPress users.

I like Amplify because it allows me to easily run a political blog (which can be seen here). I can clip stories that I want to share or discuss and write a minimal amount of opinion, but sufficiently communicate my viewpoint. I’ve even had a few complete strangers comment on my clips, and they’ve then retweeted them! It also displays retweets on the clipblog under comments.

Amplify allows users to log-in through Twitter’s OAUTH or to get their own account. Amplify, like Clipmarks, is well worth a look and is actually a really enjoyable but easy form of blogging.

As communities grow larger, generally more disputes arise. As more disputes arise, ways in which to resolve them must develop.

With thousands of active (and highly vocal) editors, Wikipedia finds itself with a plethora of arguments.

Wikipedia’s dispute resolution process can be described as notoriously bureaucratic. There’s requests for comments, third opinions, a mediation cabal, a mediation committee and an arbitration committee. Complex, don’t you think? The arbitration committee is the highest source of authority on Wikipedia (bar Jimbo Wales and the Wikimedia Foundation Board, who barely ever give an opinion). They are currently dealing with 14 cases I believe, and remember these are only the most severe/important disputes on the entire encyclopedia.

Wikinews, a community with only 50 admins, also has an Arbitration Committee with a similar role. They, however, have only fully dealt with 2 cases since 2006. In fact, the last case they had to decide whether or not they would take on was back in 2008, when they made a proposal to abolish the committee. One editor described it as ‘nothing but bureaucracy… with exactly zero point’, as there’s so few disputes.

So, bigger communities argue more. Smaller communities like Wikinews seem to have no major feuds inside them and all of their users are working towards a common goal, whilst in Wikipedia I feel that different editors want different things out of the project.

Working in a small community is much more rewarding than working in a large community with a lot of in-fighting. Things are also done quicker; I know Wikipedia can take several years to tidy up articles whilst on Wikinews, they’re fixed in hours.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

© Roger Andre 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

© Roger Andre 2009