OutCampaign.org
10th May, 2007

Smart dust?

Imagine that there were thousands of tiny computerized sensors the size of dust-specks floating around in your body, constantly scanning for infection, viruses, or even cancer? Well, researchers have predicted that this sort of situation could be a possibility in the near future.

Currently, networks of matchbox-sized sensors are being used to analyze a wide variety of variables, from the movements of wildlife to the trajectory of bullets in military testing. Even more complex networking technology is currently in development, including cheap sensors the size of dust particles. However, the use of such networks has created an array of complications, namely errors in multiple sensors tallying changes in the same variable. This issue has led to two distinct solutions……

1) Shapes =)

Using topology, the qualitative study of shapes, sensor-network engineers will be able to develop sensors that can recreate the structures of what’s being monitored to differentiate between what they’ve already tallied and what they haven’t, or at least according to mathematician Robert Ghrist (University of Illinois).

2) A Compute Game!

Known as the “Minesweeper Approach”, this process involves analyzing how many “bombs” are adjacent to each corresponding sensor and, by griding the layout of the sensors, collecting an accurate physical count of the variable being tracked.

The technology is still in its premature stages, and researchers are giving no promises in regards to the extent of what this technology will be able to accomplish nor any timetables for the developments. However, according to Ghrist, topological sensor-networks are “right around the corner”.

Responses

“Topological sensor-networks” is actually based on some pretty trivial mathematics, but implementing it in a useful manner is still a while away.

I have played around with “learning patterns” doing game evolutionary game theory, so the algorithms used are generally not too complicated - but they are probabilistic. The challenge is to refine these subroutines to optimize the pattern as in as few tries as possible.

hmmm…imagine the ramifications if it were used against humanity…

You really see the negative in everything, don’t you Brad?

To me, your views are typical of today’s fear of progress and advancement in science and in knowledge.

Every new announcement - even at a conceptual stage - is met with dire warnings about how this is all going to kill us, or how we humans have no business in “meddling” in a certain area.

Imagine the ramifications if it were used FOR humanity. We know there may be dangers, but we just have to guard against them and weigh that against the huge possible benefits.

Risk plays a big part in human advancement - it always has done. Fear of hypothetical dangers leaves us stagnant and backwards, it’s not something we can afford to do.

I’m not saying it’s going to kill us all lmao…I just said imagine the bad possibilities, you can’t just look at the good possibilities you know…

yk5jelkeypjcjxq1

Leave a response

Your response:

Check Spelling
Activate Spell Check while Typing

Categories