Carbon NanoTube Material for Submarine Hulls and Undersea Colonies?

There was once a Navy Scientist who wished to design and build a US Navy fleet of submarines out of glass. Of course these subs would not be made of your typical household glass. Perhaps a metal type glass, which could withstand the pressure or carbon nano-tube sheets, which I have thought of myself. I can remember some Sci-Fi writers discussing underwater villages of aliens under the sea with clear construction materials, fun stuff to think about indeed. Yet we are now entering a age of new materials which where it may actually be possible, even likely that humans will attempt to build such things. Colonies under the sea, you see?

Perhaps we could design vortex flows to keep the pressure off the surfaces of the hull of the sub or undersea colony. Indeed, vortex creation would pull water away from the surface; movement maybe required at all times to use this principle for submarines. And you would need to put the underwater colony in relative fast moving underwater flows with vortex creation apparatuses up wind of the structure to get the water swirling. A simple fixed formation could accomplish this.

For submarines the blowing of air bubbles out as it moves might also be incorporated into the process to decrease hull pressure, which would also increase speed. Perhaps adding a wave energy wave creation feature when using materials such as carbon nano-tubes might be used since making the surface electrified would be easy. If we used such a concept also special coatings, which provide a gel formation around the boundary layer could be used as well. I bet there are 20 ways to do this really? And so we need to invest more research monies in exploring the mastering of the seas. Think on this in 2006.

Artificial Intelligent Assistant Devices – And Future Big Government Surveillance

Today, people are debating who has the best artificial intelligent assistant. Is it Apple with Siri, Amazon with Alexa, or Google with Google Assistant (keep it simple, I guess)? Tomorrow however, the debate will not be who has the best artificial intelligent assistant, but rather which one spies on our privacy the least. Which ones are listening to our conversations in the background all the time, which ones use that information to better serve us, and which ones keep a record of all that was said? Yes, spooky isn’t it. Of course, in the future there will mostly likely be no false belief that privacy exists – something that makes us baby boomers cringe.

These AI assistants do need to learn from customer input how to answer all the questions and which types of questions they will be most likely asked – through this artificial intelligence learning, they get better, thus, more valuable to us and our endeavors – at some point they will be so valuable we won’t care that we are giving up our privacy – or will we? Ah ha, now I got you thinking. How soon will all this take place? Well, I’d say it is slowing happening right now, and if you are paying attention, I bet you’d be a little more alarmed at just how fast it is happening. In other words here is what I have to say: Tomorrow is becoming today and once it is here, it’s here to stay.

There was a rather telling article in CNET titled; “Police Request Echo Recordings,” written by Alfred Ng and published on December 27, 2016. This article stated:

“You have the right to remain silent — but your smart devices might not. Amazon’s Echo and Echo Dot are in millions of homes now, with holiday sales more than quadrupling from 2015. Always listening for its wake word, the breakthrough smart speakers boast seven microphones waiting to take and record your commands.”

Interestingly enough, a technology that can prove guilt, can also prove innocents, which is a fact I was reminded recently as I sat on Jury Duty. If we ever do get to Vannevar Bush’s concept of “recording a life” from cradle to grave; every song you heard, ever movie you watched, every sport you played, ever book you read, every place you went, every word you spoke – all recorded from the time you are born until the time you die – again a little spooky, but you can see we are almost there.

Just like Santa Claus, these devices will; Know when you’ve been good or bad, so be good for goodness sake!” What about the other verse of note: You Better Watch Out, You Better Not Pout, I Am Telling You Why! Okay so, think on that, and remember Be Great, Don’t Hesitate!

Video Games and Theories of Learning: Spotlight on JP Gee and Howard Gardner

Plenty of people in all stages of their lives are fascinated by video games. The games practice can be long, difficult, and challenging, yet the players consider it fun and inspiring. It is hard not to admit that playing games has social and cultural significance in our society. According to J. P. Gee (2003), there are learning principles (LP) that are built into good video games. But these principles do not necessarily boost learning. Several factors are necessary for learning to occur in games and perhaps develop intelligences in the semiotic domain of the daily life. Gee teaches that there are thirty-six learning principles possible to be found and developed in games.

To explain this, Gee defines games as semiotic domain (SD), which, in turn, is part of the wider SD of everyday life. So to speak, a SD is a certain division of the world (whether a location, practice, field of study, etc.) and it can encompass sub-domains. For instance, first and third-person shooter games are a well-defined sub-domain of the games SD. By introducing the concept of SD to games studies, Gee gives us examples of SD like rap, modernist paintings and games of the genre first person shooter. Gee believes that to achieve learning from a SD is necessary three things: 1) learn to experience the world in different ways, 2) learn to form affiliations with members of the SD, and 3) learn how to gain the necessary resources for future learning and problem solving in the domain, as well as in related domains. As we can see, Gee seeks to approximate games to a broader definition of literacy that involves different types of “visual literacy.” Following this notion of literacy, people are literate in a domain only if they are able to recognize and produce meanings in the field. Furthermore, Gee proposes that we think of literacy as inherently connected to social practices. In fact, in the contemporary culture, articulate language (spoken, gestural, or written) is not the only important communication system. Nowadays, images, symbols, charts, diagrams, equations, artifacts and many other visual symbols play a particularly important role in our daily lives. For example, it is important to learn visual literacy to “read” the pictures in an advertisement. Furthermore, words and images are juxtaposed or integrated in many ways: in magazines, newspapers, textbooks, software, etc. Images take more space and have meanings that can be independent of the words in texts. In this sense, games are multimodal texts. They combine moving images and music with language.

Given the various forms of human activity in the complex society we live in, it becomes necessary to develop a new model of intelligence that allows us to embrace a pluralistic view of intelligence. Howard Gardner’s (1983) influential definition of intelligence was developed by means of a model of seven basic intelligences known as the theory of multiple intelligences (MI). MI represents a broader and more pragmatic view of human nature. The eight intelligences are defined as the following skills:

1) to use language with competence (linguistic),

2) to use logical reasoning in mathematics and science (logical-mathematical),

3) to perceive details of the visual-spatial world and to manipulate objects in mind (spatial),

4) to understand, create and enjoy music and musical concepts (musical),

5) to use the body skillfully (bodily-kinesthetic);

6) to recognize subtle aspects of the behavior of others and respond appropriately to them (interpersonal),

7 ) to understand the one’s own feelings (intrapersonal), and

8) to recognize patterns and differences in nature (naturalist).

These categories or intelligences represent elements that can be found in all cultures, namely music, words, logic, paintings, social interaction, physical expression, inner reflection and appreciation of nature. Thus, unlike a learning style, which is a general approach that the individual can apply equally to any content imaginable, intelligence, to Gardner, is a capability with its own processes that are geared to specific contents in the world (e.g., musical sounds or spatial patterns).

From this perspective, Gee (2003) and Gardner (1983) value the interplay between learning and skills present in everyday life (culture) of people. So when we think about the SD approach, as developed by Gee, we realized that the interaction between both theories, the SD of everyday life, the largest existing set – where the intelligences are located – encompasses the SD of games. Note that Gardner points out that one of the goals of his endeavor is to examine the educational implications of a theory of multiple intelligences. Considering that, Gee listed thirty-six learning principles present in games, and considering the importance and popularity of games in contemporary culture, it seems interesting to begin to investigate how the learning principles can relate to the multiple intelligences. So we discuss here some possibilities of association between these theories. To accomplish this, the question we want to take up is this: What can the learning principles built into good games could do for the development of multiple intelligences, which are so important to everyday life? In other words: What is the relationship between these semiotic domains? To answer this, we have used the following research methodology: literature review, research on websites, observation of games, construction of the model of interaction between the two learning proposals, and analysis of the model.

Gee describes thirty-six learning principles which can be found in games. It is noteworthy that not all learning principles listed by the author are necessarily found on a single game – there is the possibility that a game conveys one or more of these principles. The analysis shows that to develop one or more intelligences, the learner must be immersed in one or more semiotic domains which have the conditions and qualities needed to facilitate its development. For example: there is no use to an apprentice of a sport modality to have access to only one modality for the full development of his Bodily-Kinesthetic intelligence, he needs to have access to various sports, namely various sub semiotic domains which are part of the larger semiotic domain of the sports. Besides that, there are other extrinsic and intrinsic factors (motivation, injuries, and appropriate training materials, etc.) that are important to succeed in the entire domain, like a sport modality. Examples of several prominent athletes demonstrate this fact: Formula 1 drivers, MMA fighters and Olympic athletes. In this sense, our research shows the existence of a binomial unexcelled: without learning principles, there are no good games, while without the valorization of a domain in the semiotic domain of everyday life there is no way forward within that domain. Thus, multiple intelligences cannot be fully developed in certain cultural contexts and the learning principles are worthless in these contexts

Moreover, the Interpersonal intelligence is very important in learning. We found that it is associated to thirty of the thirty-six learning principles. The Interpersonal intelligence clearly arises from cooperative work, community involvement, simulations of large groups, dedication to social issues, etc. Precisely the importance of Interpersonal intelligence, as Gardner notes, has been reduced in the contemporary educational scene: the sensitivity to other individuals as individuals and the ability to collaborate with others are increasingly less important now than it did in the past. Thus, we believe that the results of the comparison between these theories put into question the ways we design and manage education in its various spheres. For this reason, we believe that further analysis of the intersection of the theories studied here may help us in both the use of games as a pedagogical proposal and in thinking about education.

The association between both theories seemed productive for us to reflect on games and learning in general. Firstly, it should be noted that not all games can promote all learning principles. This is because there are many factors in the semiotic domain of everyday life that can hinder learning and development of multiple intelligences. And this occurs even when the game conveys the learning principle or the basic conditions to develop them, which demonstrates a close association between the principles and intelligences.

Secondly, the Interpersonal intelligence is associated to thirty learning principles. This demonstrates the complexity of learning and consequently shows the challenges that contemporary education must face. In fact, the study of the interaction between the theories can help us think about new ways of teaching and learning inside and outside of school. It seems that the relevance of Gee’s is in highlighting the importance of games culturally and for learning, while Gardner’s learning theory emphasizes the necessity of favorable conditions (environment, mentors, cultural appreciation, etc.) for the development of skills. We should remember that skills or intelligences are valued differently between cultures.

We believe that good video games represent, in fact, opportunities for direct and indirect learning of content and skills in the semiotic domain of everyday life, given its intimate link to the majority of the intelligences.

Work cited

Howard Gardner. Frames of mind. The theory of multiple intelligences (New York: Basic Books, 1983).

James P. Gee. What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy (New York: Palgrave, 2003).

The Future Of Human Cloning Cometh – Should We Prevent It?

Humans are making big progress in the bio-sciences and that’s all well and good, however we’ve also opened Pandora’s Box in a number of BioTech subsectors. Not long ago, our Think Tank was discussing the future of cloning, large cloned families, super families, cloned armies, human-like organisms for long-term spaceflight, and how that might affect the rest of the world – so much for diversity right? Well, there you go.

In our continued Think Tank dialogues on this topic, well, as far as cloning and those possible futures, I was merely taking current technology and throwing it into the future. We don’t know what will happen. I am not comfortable with outlawing cloning 100%, as there are many positives to it also.

Although, humans may in fact be ending their evolutionary process and taking it over for themselves. Can humans do a better job? Hard to say, wisdom would say NO, and if humans are in-charge of their evolution from here on out, they will make serious mistakes along the way, that I have no doubt, why just look at all the mistakes and dead ends of our evolutionary tree and those of other species – some of their predecessors with us today, most lines long extinct.

Cloning and controlling life in this way for humans will allow us to travel to the stars, live longer, and opens up a whole new set of possibilities, opportunities, problems and crisis – yes, all of that it seems. Re-cloning and cloning on cloning may lead to more problems – as a copy of a copy of a copy gets fuzzy, hard to say, clones may want to delete their mistakes and make a clone one-better, in their minds, choices.

Yes, religions will want to preserve the natural order of things and prevent progression into the future of cloning, but religion will not be able to stop it, not even science will stop it, so it will happen and if we don’t help brave into this future, others with ill-intentions will and that will be to mankind’s detriment.

It would be hard to keep cloning within a “Desired Framework” as we have no knowledge of where it is going. In the US they tried to prevent “Stem Cell” research and that may have caused decades delays in science to cure diseases. Harvard recently had a ‘closed meeting’ on some issues of Synthetic DNA: “After secret Harvard meeting, scientists announce plans for synthetic human genomes,” Washington Post Article, June 6, 2016. Not sure I trust a secret group to meet and make decisions for all humankind, but it’s probably better than a bunch of corrupt politicians and global socialist elitists – problem is most all of these people are of similar mindset – pretend I didn’t say that – but you know I am right – after all this meeting was at Harvard. Doesn’t take an MIT or Cal Tech rocket scientist to see the problem there.