CES 2017: Has technology reached ‘peak smart’?

According to Which? Pedal Bin magazine:

“All the bins in smart homes have a cheerful and sunny disposition. It is their pleasure to open for you, and their satisfaction to close again with the knowledge of a job well done.”

This comment was removed at the request of the user

I don’t think Douglas Adams was at CES 2017. 🙁

“I don’t think Douglas Adams was at CES 2017.”

Sadly true. As an early commentator on the very first digital watches (those that required two handed use) he would have had a field day.

He did, of course, predict the ultimate demise of unduly materialistic societies and the formation of distinctive archaeological remains from them, i.e. “the shoe event horizon”.

Given his views on cybernetic doors and drinks machines, I bet he would have enjoyed making fun of IoT devices and their advocates.

In his absence, we will have to make the fun for him. Our unduly materialistic society is still under development, but the marketing team is working on it.

That sounds handy, Ian, – kneely perfect in fact. Does it close itself after ten seconds or is manual effort required? I hope it plays “My Ol’ Man’s a Dustman” as it performs its magic tricks.

[PS : Don’t tell Alfa or she’ll want one in her new kitchen.]

🙂 I was hoping it would say something on the lines of ‘Whaddyou think of the show so far? Rubbish!” but sadly, no. It has assisted closing – a gentle nudge with the knee again and it closes. It’s actually an example of extremely useful technology, since I always worried about disposing of chicken wrappers without touching cupboard handles. That’s all now a thing of the past as I simply nudge the drawer, which shoots out, effectively knee-capping me, then allows the contaminated chicken giblets to land on whichever part of my anatomy is in the requisite spot as I crumple to the floor, muttering about Swedish innovation.

No, seriously – its a pretty neat idea and one that does allow disposal of nasties without extra contamination. Our tap has bars and the soap is dispensed electronically, so we keep possible food poisoning down to when we need it – usually if Great Aunt Griselda threatens to visit. Last time she came we had the mice throwing themselves on the traps…

I heard that 🙂

Pardon?

I agree, Malcolm. There is no doubt that modern technology can help give us the time to practise our skills and share them with others, but often that time is spent sitting in front of the TV or the computer. 🙁 I had better go and do something useful.

I’ve finally finished spreading 4 tons of cow manure and pruning the raspberries (a bit early) so exchanging brawn for brain for a few minutes. 🙂

I think I would prefer a little cream on my raspberries.

Hmmmm… Dung flavoured Mivvi, perhaps?

This comment was removed at the request of the user

For a LASER to take out orbital vehicles it would need two things: immense power and a nice clear day. Most of the tine their power is attenuated by clouds, smog and all sort of other atmospheric issues. Far cheaper and easier are the ground-based anti-sat missile systems. There are currently no feasible ground to space LASER systems.

There are, however, much nastier variants of LASER weapons which cause temporary blindness and use infra red, so you don’t even know you’ve been targeted. Seven Iraq veterans suffered eye damage from hand-held LASERs used by the US military.

On the orbital debris front, it’s not quite as bad as it sounds since a lot of the debris orbits in the same direction, so relative velocities are not as dangerous as you might think. However, it’s fair to say there’s a decent amount of garbage in orbit and even tiny pieces can penetrate shielding on the ISS.

The bigger threat comes for solar storms which can eliminate satellite function completely in seconds.

This comment was removed at the request of the user

No, that wasn’t a ground-to-space LASER, Duncan.

There are actually two things there: destroying satellites and destroying drones. All the major powers have LASER cannons and can destroy incoming drones and they’re attempting to ensure they can do the same with Exocet-type missiles. That’s proving tricky, in fact, because of the high rate of atmospheric attenuation, which reduces the LASER to a mild warmth over any sort of significant distance.

The Satellite LASER test is a different beast. None of the three tests the Chinese did involved LASER destruction from the ground. In each case they launched a missile and, although the precise method they used to destroy their satellite hasn’t been determined, it’s thought to be a kinetic kill warhead, similar to what the US and Russia possess.

In fact, space offers the perfect environment for a LASER weapon, since there’d be little to no attenuation, unlike Earth’s atmosphere. So you can sleep easy regarding LASERs, but there are equally as efficient missile systems that can do far more harm.

I bet by now they’ve got “a laser capable of emitting a beam of pure anti-matter” 😉

🙂 I believe the current interest is in finding out whether anti-matter falls upwards. Gravity’s an odd force, because it only operates one way. Most other forces operate both ways – attraction and repulsion,. but there are several groups interested in finding the fabled ‘anti-gravity’.

This comment was removed at the request of the user

Lasers for target ranging or target designation are somewhat more feasible than lasers for target destruction.

And are being deployed currently in both sniper weapons and guided missile systems. However, LASER ranging is very different to using a LASER as a weapon, Duncan; the main problem about getting a workable LASER weapon into orbit is the sheer mass of the thing.

This comment was removed at the request of the user

I don’t think people are “propagandized ” at all, Duncan. Many people follow trends in Physics and offensive technology rather keenly, but if I might remind you how this started: you stated “high power lasers have been constructed by China/USA /Russia to shoot down opposing military satellites” and the phrasing you used (“shoot down”) implied that these were ground-based LASER systems, which simply don’t exist or are utterly infeasible at the moment.

Now, all the major powers have invested heavily in researching weaponised LASERs, and they’re all roughly at the same point: they work best for targeting kinetic energy weapons but not as the ‘death ray’, much beloved of ’50s SciFi. A 1w LASER is quite powerful: but you need to understand how LASER power is arrived at. A 40w LASER can be bought on eBay, and at its best it can burst a table tennis ball. What you’re talking is 40kw or above to do any serious damage. And then it doesn’t work through atmosphere.

Now, the Germans have demonstrated a 40kw LASER, and they argue that’s still insufficient for taking out airborne targets, such as Drones or Fighter planes, so there’s a long way to go.

I have no doubts that the military of all countries will continue developing bigger and better ways of wiping out humans and their technology; they always have. But they’re not there, yet, and they’re nowhere near building “high power lasers… to shoot down opposing military satellites”

Finally, Duncan, talking about “secret” technology makes people wonder how secret it can be, if you know all about it.

Let’s not forget the lasers now being used in the field of medicine and eye surgery in particular.

It’s a sad state of affairs when humans still find it necessary in the 21st century to develop technological weapons to defend themselves against each other. The ever increasing threat of terrorism should be enough to encourage the richest countries to unite and work together to combat the evil indoctrination of young teenagers whose brains are still in a developmental stage.

We now have world leaders engaging in petty squabbles about intelligence claims that serve little purpose other than satisfy each other’s inflated egos while terrorists are busy planning their next assault on their innocent victims. A modern day version of Nero fiddling whilst Rome burnt I guess.

This comment was removed at the request of the user

Hmmm…the ZUMWALT -DDG-1000 class destroyer doesn’t actually host a tactical LASER weapon, Duncan; it does host the latest incarnation of the much discussed Railgun which does use LASER targeting – as do most missile systems. The Railgun, BTW, isn’t a “shock-horror” secret weapon, either; it was originally proposed by Jules Verne, so hardly recent, even. And its range is around 80 miles, not 125 and it travels – optimally – at around Mach 6, not 7.5.

But no; I don’t agree that we have to become the aggressor first. This is the ugly side of technology. I suspect some in the Military are a little too concerned with job creation, frankly.

Popular Mechanics (are they a reputable source?) “reports” on this http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a21174/navy-electromagnetic-railgun/ . It needs a huge amount of power to work and that gives a very limited use – at present. One advantage claimed is that explosive propellants are not required on board ship (assuming no conventional armaments are carries which seems unlikely).

Laser weapons are described for example in Wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_Weapon_System. Useful for dazzling, disabling electronics and motors, exploding warheads on incoming threats for example. Energy saving devices compared to other defences – must be better for the environment. 🙂

LOL!

I suppose the reason that little of this subject gets exposed in the mass media is because for a huge percentage of the population it is a total turn-off.

Railgun research is far from secret. Regular conferences are held on the technology in the USA, but a few years ago their conference was held in China. (I believe it has also been hosted in Scotland on at least one occasion, back when the UK was a major player in the field.)

I think that tells me that both sides are keen to research this technology but the publication of much open literature shows that the railgun is far from being a useful weapon.

When you mentioned the pollution continually appearing on our TV screens, Beryl, I realised you meant the programmes and have to agree with you. I have a smart filter who sits next to me on the sofa and instantly reacts to the slightest evidence of anything covered in smut, filth, or dirt, any over-exposure, impurity or general nastiness, and anything that might contaminate the mind. I just hope this sensitivity isn’t catching.

You need to be more acutely aware of potential contamination John in order to activate your fight or flight responses 🙂

This comment was removed at the request of the user

As soon as a film or programme is advertised as containing sex, violence or language that can offend we usually turn it off. If “entertainment” can only use this to hold attention then I’d do without it. Problem is so many films and programmes do; I cannot accept that exposing people, particularly the young, to gratuitous violence, including video games, does not desensitise some of them or, even worse, “inspire” them.

This comment was removed at the request of the user

Interesting view, Malcolm. I’m only asking, but hw do you apply your criteria? When you say you refuse to watch anything that might contain ” sex, violence or language that can offend “ there are two potential issues: firstly, what can ‘offend’ one person might not for many others. By refusing to watch anything with that warning on you might be depriving yourself of some interesting material.

Secondly, however, how would you class these, all of which contain “sex, violence and language that can offend”: Macbeth, King Lear, Romeo and Juliet, Othello, most operas, many Ballets and Lord of the Rings, The Bible… I could go on, but I think you get my point. The Arts are about discovery, imagination, mirrors to society and so much more.

On the point about desensitisation, that’s a really tricky one. There’s a wealth of research on it, with no clear findings at all.

I said “usually” not “refuse” Ian. And my remarks were framed in the light of more modern films, video games, whose focus seems to be on what I referred to, gratuitous and regular.
I am no prude and do not object at all to the sex and violence we see in normal life being used in a way where it is needed to illustrate a story. Just my personal view – I’m not imposing it on anyone.

A complex subject but to simplify, there are individuals who are by nature under stimulated and lead unfulfilled lives who are more likely to receive a certain buzz, a kind of negative shock therapy if you like, who enjoy as opposed to endure, the kind of “entertainment” described above. If you couple that with a bad past experience or environment, you may already be in a way desensitised and be able to enjoy the sort of stuff handed out on the media and which may be classified as ‘normal’ to some.

Add to all of that a creative mind then you have a recipe for the kind of stuff which is sometimes disguised as the creative art we are exposed to on our TV sets and in the cinema. Even real life enactments, as we are all too aware, can be over sensationalised in order to attract box office attention. If you are able to make money from it and get away with it, what’s to stop you dishing it out?

Most of this unwelcome and somewhat undesirable stuff is mind created based on personal experience. On the other hand, I would question the need for anyone to shy away from the reality of some of the shocking events we see on the news that are happening in the real world today. Modern technology now enables us to witness events occurring minute by minute in all parts of the world. Could this be considered a step too far or a ‘peak smart’? Maybe for some.

Beryl – I wouldn’t want to become so sensitive that I turned into a pessimist.

[Edit : This comment was in response to your 11 January post preceding the one above (a threading detail!)]

I have no doubt John, as a regular contributor to the Convo, you are very capable of finding a right balance to suit 🙂

I take your point, Malcolm; sorry to have mis-quoted your initial post – mea culpa. I wondered if you were only thinking of current TV ‘guidelines’ and I do sympathise broadly when you noted – in the current Gardening topic – that you dislike regulations apparently framed for those with low intellect.

As an aside I object to any form of censorship by those who feel they know far better than I what’s good for me. Probably stems from childhood, working up chimneys…