Skip to main content

Featured Post

We Should Have Already Had This: The Lithium-Ion Battery With Built-In Fire Suppression

  On October 22, 2020, yesterday, Dexter Johnson posted The Lithium-Ion Battery With Built-In Fire Suppression . Within this topic, Dexter Johnson regards a Stanford University research team and the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory (its former name was the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center [1] ). Johnson stated: Now [Yi] Cui and his research team, in collaboration with SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, have offered some exciting new capabilities for lithium-ion batteries based around a new polymer material they are using in the current collectors for them. The researchers claim this new design to current collectors increases efficiency in Li-ion batteries and reduces the risk of fires associated with these batteries. [2]   Johnson was saying this: fires are a current Li-ion battery threat that has been realized, but a new design can secure client use-case safety, and this required this battery redesigned. As this technology approaches marketplace entry points, this shall c

Information, Technology, and the Virtues of Ignorance


Information Technology and Ignorance


In 1986 AD, Daniel C. Dennett wrote Information, Technology, and the Virtues of Ignorance (link). When Dennett was ten years old, he read Robinson Crusoe. When Dennett read Robinson Crusoe, he loved technology. Dennett loved technology so much: Dennett claimed technology is good; Dennett did not rationalize his devotions. Dennett stated we control technology unlike magic. Dennett claimed that technology that exists: is true. Dennett claimed his technology is convenient, for its blessings: his technology group has received provisions.

Put an end to Tradition


Against troubling technology traits, Dennett gave a proposition. Dennett claimed: his peers should leave tradition behind, or else information technology can ruin his peers' and his lives. Dennett believed we all want our lives good. Dennett stated: we want lead lives interesting. Also, Dennett stated we want lead lives good. Dennett described these things useful and a right difference. Next, Dennett called his work might possible inedible. Dennett defended himself: Dennett claimed new technology knowledge sources, against old technology sources are the replacements.


Do not love the world or its items


In the Scriptures, there is writing: do not participate in world-love and technology love. 1 John 2:15 (BSB) stated, "Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him." I believe this means the world itself and the items rather than certain people should be loved, but be careful not to offer you all players’ pants to a man demanding them in addition to your coat and shirt because that is too much. The point of accepting Jesus Christ is survival rather than accepting a permanent bodily and spiritual defeat: in Christian doctrine, the fire (Matt 10:28), and in some scientific groups, universal entropy, with the second scenario based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics (link). However, the solution to stopping the universe from heat death is opening the system, and this might be possible with wormholes because a wormhole passageway is open on both ends.

Do not love technology that is practically anything


In the world, including with Man vs. Wild with Bear Grylls (link), technology is practically any thing: do not love it. Dennett loved technology, so he did not rationalize his love, for he claimed technology-love is an affair; but technology is not good. For Dennett, good is an edible love affair. Toward hell, adultery is a trajectory (Ezekiel 40), and this is not a joke for food. Instead, I believe good is my one true ABBA, Jehovah Jirah (Matt 19:17, Mark 10:18, Rom 3:4).


Image by Pete Linforth from Pixabay

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

In response to the Institute of Industrial Science, the University of Tokyo’s Circular Reasoning: Spiral Circuits for More Efficient AI

Circular Reasoning On June 14, 2020, the IIS (Institute of Industrial Science) at the UTokyo (University of Tokyo) wrote  Circular Reasoning: Spiraling Circuits for More Efficient AI ; but a Press Release from this institute is giving a synopsis on this topic. On this press release, the IIS wrote, “Researchers from the Institute of Industrial Science at the University of Tokyo designed and built specialized computer hardware consisting of stacks of memory modules arranged in a 3D-spiral for artificial intelligence (AI) applications” (IIS, June 14, 2020). The IIS continued on, saying this research is allowing a singular way work can be done regarding the next generation energy efficient AI devices (Here is a current generation, but energy efficient, AI device, Android Pie: link ) shall be implemented into production.             The Fundamentals of Machine Learning                On this press release, the IIS is explaining the fundamentals of ML (Machine Learning). The IIS wrote, “Mach

IS the Future of AI “Women?”

Interdisciplinary Campus Culture On April 14, 2020, Katy Rank Lev wrote the Carnegie Mellon University’s (CMU) news article The Future of AI is Female . Since artificial intelligence’s (AI) initial measurement, wrote Lev, CMU built AI. Lev wrote that each of the colleges CMU is representing contribute to make AI a new field, describing this AI as a frontier, humanity can democratize: from healthcare, the eventual goal area is education. In a rush, Lev cut the conversation short, and Lev mentioned CMU’s interdisciplinary campus culture as the source of the effective AI women, but this is despite women historically not represented as scientists, technologists, and engineers, and math (STEM), worldwide. But CMU is spotlighting undergraduate students and highly honored faculty members, and Lev is including these women because she agrees with the Women in Tech movement as far as the East is from the West: CMU is the best Computer Science University with AI, and this is IT at this point in

Drone Uses AI and 11,500 Crashes to Learn How to Fly

Learning to Fly by Crashing On 10 May, 2017, Evan Ackerman wrote the IEEE (Institute for Electricians and Electrical Engineers) SPECTRUM article Drone Uses AI and 11,500 Crashes to Learn How to Fly. In Ackerman’s article, Ackerman used a block quote by Carnegie Mellon University roboticists Dhiraj Gandhi, Lerrel Pinto; and Abhinav Gupta, the writers of a paper, “Learning to Fly by Crashing” (Gandhi, et. al., 27 Apr 2017). From Ackerman’s block quote from Gandhi, et. al., “[T]he gap between simulation and real world remains large especially for perception problems” (Gandhi, et. al.). Ackerman contrasted known motion from unconfirmed motion without identifying the pre-existing condition called Schrödinger’s cat in the case that the crashes shall eventually happen without outside help: a continuing crash failure, and in security terms this is interned as a false positive because this helps Schrödinger’s cat stay alive or rest buried in the soil. In this case, this drone detects these t

Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *