Friendly IoT or Daemon of WarGames

Is the Internet dangerous? Well, yes, we know all the hazards of spending all the work hours behind monitor screens, browsing the web at home, doing social networking, playing online games, watching YouTube, staring at smartphone little displays, or for whatever reasons we sit above our keyboards most of the time every day. That's indeed what we first think of—all the negative aspects of the mighty global network—but today I am not referring to all the potential medical issues inherited from sitting too long on the chair or looking every day into the LCD screen. I also don't mean the obvious social and/or physiological outcomes from letting the virtual world take over the real one for more and more people every day. No, I mean the real danger. Did the Internet overcome the pure network system and become a tool for mass destruction or a background tool for criminal activities? Can someone use the internet to hurt somebody or to perform a murder? Either directly or indirectly? Can some organization, country, or corporation use it to start a war? I mean, wars in the past began by more trivial things than by one global network. There was one war in the year 1969 between El Salvador and Honduras, initiated by a football game. True story. Google it.

You can relax. The Internet is still far from being a player. Or a rifle. It is getting sophisticated by the day, but currently it is still lacking two things to become something more than just a network. Two things are in development as we speak. And yes. You can stop relaxing now. The Internet IS going to be potentially capable and very dangerous when these two things become reality in the future. Very near future, if you ask me. And one of those two doesn't even have to be perfect. Like any other internet thingies, they have cool acronyms. AI and IoT. The first one will provide internet to be self-aware... or... in simple words, to start thinking. It means 'Artificial Intelligence', of course, and even though current development is far away from creating a real replacement for a human mind, some sort of NAI (near AI) will be sufficient to act independently on many occasions. NAI is not real AI. It is rather a complex logic that emulates thinking behavior in some spatial scenarios with predefined and predicted all or most of all directions and events. For example, the current two operational robotic rovers on Mars, Curiosity and Opportunity, are capable of driving on their own with their operating software. Or here on Earth, many metro systems in large cities are operated by complex control and are fully automated, without humans behind train controls. Something like in this embedded video was unthinkable only a couple of decades ago.

To be honest, true AI is not really a real threat. Even if science and technology build an AI entity tomorrow with certain doses of emotions and reason, it will be just another child in the neighborhood. True danger in the background of the global worldwide web is only the programmer's anticipation and powerful IF-THEN-ELSE command. And we have both today. AI being a mad mastermind of the future is not needed. The only thing preventing the Internet from being dangerous today is the still-early phase of IoT. "Internet of Things". Think of it like this: if you have brains and no body or senses, you are as good as a conductor without an orchestra. This is the inevitable part of the future Internet. It will get a body and a wide variety of sensing abilities. Basically, until now, IP addresses were reserved for devices with brains, or CPU units if you will. Home computers, business servers, phones, tablets, smart TVs, and microcontrollers are happy units today with internet access and proud owners of IP addresses. The trend is for tomorrow that all technology-based devices get online too. Remote controllers, motion sensors and any type of sensing converters, home and kitchen appliances, cars and any type of vehicle, industry tools, medical sensors, 3D printers, clothing items, and literally anything at all will be able to get a 'smart patch' and be allowed to be monitored or controlled over the internet. Think of this futuristic network from today's Google and Android smartphone perspective.

If you are a user of Google networks and devices (like I am, and this is just an example; the same goes for other providers and internet giants), from their databases (and I am not saying that they are doing it), it's possible to know what you are browsing to the simplest detail by your usage data in searching the net and the history of your browser, who you are following on social networks by which timeline or wall pages you are opening the most, what you like and dislike, what your watching habits are by your YouTube statistics, how your life looks in writing by your usage of Blogger, and all your whereabouts of your Android smartphone by Google Timeline. Not to mention that they have access to all of your online photos, videos, and files through your usage of all of their services and cloud storage. Oh, yes, and they have all your passwords you typed on various websites. Google is not even on the top of potential 'smart' providers with access to your, well, everything. If you are a user of, for example, Microsoft or Apple and their operating systems, then they are able (and again, I am not saying they are doing it) to know and have access to your localized data that is not clouded online. The story continues into the business environment further. If you are the proud owner of a rack of servers in some cool data storage building and you didn't write all the software and used so-called 'third party' code, the simple fact is that you are not the only one with potential access to all of your racks. And you are not the only one capable of monitoring all the network traffic. Those who manufactured network cards can do it too. Again, I am not saying that big internet corporations are doing all those spying and sniffing of people and other entities online, just that if they wanted to, it would be technologically possible.

Anyhow, all the worries of today's digital world end with privacy concerns. If you are a villainous criminal or a mad hacker, all you can do is steal somebody's identity data and log into other people's accounts for whatever malicious reasons you would do that, but you can't physically and directly harm somebody. In the past I have had these encounters with online thieves, and one of them cracked my password, logged into my dial-up account, and used free internet for a while until I went physically to the internet provider and overrode him for good. After that experience, I am creating complex passwords, and on a couple of occasions, they are so complex that even I forget them after a few weeks. I guess now is as good a time as any to thank all those "Forgot your password?" links standing timidly next to login forms.

However, the Internet of Things will have the power to end all of those 'benignities' of today's online world. Smartphones will not be the only systems with a 'smart' prefix. I am imagining all the varieties of SmartHomes, SmartCars, SmartShips, SmartRoads, SmartOffices, SmartFields, SmartTraffic, SmartEnergy, SmartPolitics... Ok, let's not push it. Some things will never happen. Nevertheless, and seriously speaking, even though this post looks like I am against the future breakthrough in the Internet size and means, many of the IoT-based gadgets will be extremely helpful. Think of the future SmartForest with many embedded fire sensors and intelligent surveillance cameras or SmartHealth gadgets actively monitoring your health signs and alarming anything potentially hazardous, either from within your body or by sensing bad food or air or any type of toxin in your near proximity. Surely every bright medal has the opposite side, and with the possibility of accessing all the gadgets online and controlling them from a distance, I am more than positive that we will be facing SmartViruses as well, and still, just people's passwords to access their mailboxes or bank accounts will be completely dwarfed by the online crime of entering somebody's house system and starting to leak gas while everybody is sleeping.

I am not quite sure that the Internet of Things will exactly be "The Fourth Industrial Revolution", but in one way or another, after a decade or so of transition years, it will be our everyday reality, and the next generations will embrace it and take it for granted just like we do with our current technological surroundings. Or our fathers and grandfathers and their lives within old-fashioned telegraphs, radios, and CRT television sets. Or their fathers and grandfathers with newspapers and books.

Anyways, we will be dealing with IoT when it happens, and I am sure I will be writing about it in general or in specifics on this blog or elsewhere in the future, but today I only want to end this story with a recommendation of one great related novel. About thirty years ago, I was watching WarGames on one of my first VCRs, and it instantly became one of my favorite films. I was more or less the same age as Matthew Broderick back then, in the middle 80s, when he played the lead role in the movie, and needless to say, I spent numerous hours watching it again and again and even read David Bischoff's book based on the original screenplay and enjoyed it all the same. At least for me, it was definitely an influential book of the decade. Every now and again in the previous thirty years, after WarGames, I was wondering why no decent book or movie was made to represent the real successor of the original story only in the realm of nowadays' Internet instead of WarGames' military background. And after three decades, finally, last week, on a friend's recommendation, I purchased Daniel Suarez's "Daemon". In the 'book' thread of the blog, I reviewed many titles without much of a spoiler, and to continue in the same fashion, all I can say is that it's one of those books you hate to leave, and as I am very close to the end, I don't see what would happen to force me to not give it a full five stars. "Daemon" is exactly what I was expecting after WarGames. I read that Walter F. Parkes, co-writer of the original WarGames screenplay and producer of the Man in Black movies, was interested in producing the movie "Daemon" and its sequel, "Freedom" (or "Darknet" in some editions), but this is still in "the clouds", probably due to the extremely technical plot and twists. Perhaps "Daemon" is more suitable for a mini-series or sci-fi TV show... Time will tell.

As for me, my time in the near future is locked and reserved for "Freedom", eagerly waiting in my Kindle's memory. With the same enthusiasm, I am embracing a not-so-near future full of "Internet Things" and what they will bring to our technocracy.

Image refs:
http://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/iot-brings-potential-security-threats
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/WarGames-Blu-ray/47282/
http://www.amazon.com/War-Games-David-Bischoff/dp/0440193877
http://www.amazon.ca/Freedom-TM-Daemon-Daniel-Suarez-ebook/dp/B002VUFKDY
https://3dprint.com/113502/iot-2015-person-of-the-year/

Refs:
https://re-work.co/blog/embrace-the-iot
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_automated_urban_metro_subway_systems
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobmorgan/2014/05/13/IoT
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_of_Things
http://www.amazon.com/War-Games-David-Bischoff/dp/0440193877
http://www.amazon.ca/Daemon-Daniel-Suarez-ebook/dp/B003QP4NPE/

Why Do We Age?

Did you know that there are certain species on the face of the Earth that are truly and literally immortal? Yep. They never die. Of old age, that is. I am not talking about some microscopic bacterial life or stubborn viruses in existence. No. Real animals. Take these two: turtles and lobsters. They literally don't age. When it comes to first one, I can't resist not quoting article in below refs* I read online—to the logical suspicion of endless turtle lifespan and why in the aftermath they don't crawl everywhere we look today, they answer, "Of course they die; otherwise we'd be swimming in turtles, but the weird thing is, they never seem to die of old age. It's always a disease, or a falling boulder, or Master Shredder". And this is a real truth, actually, including 'Master Shredder', who might be just a metaphor for us killing turtles for food or purses and belts or whatever we do with dead turtles. Joking aside, the very research of big turtles shows no evidence that their bodies change or mature after they pass their teenage years. They are literally capable of sexual reproduction until the end of time. And again, the glimpse from the noted article stating the obvious: "They can breed and lay eggs until the day they drop dead, and that means that, technically, a turtle can live and have sex forever". The same is with lobsters—well, I am not sure about the sex thing, but they don't age either. Just grow bigger and bigger and bigger until they finish their lifespan in the kitchen of some fancy restaurant. When they got so big that their shell couldn't sustain them anymore, they just got out and started growing a new one. I am sure somewhere out there in the bottom of some sea or ocean there are lobsters today old enough that they are actually living witnesses of Darwin's "Beagle" sailing out for her historical voyage around the world in the early nineteenth century.

I am sure by now you already started growing an ultimate regret about why on Earth you weren't born on one of the Galápagos Islands, hatched out from some egg, and spent eternity practicing martial arts—and instead ended up being a human. But seriously, the title's question is real and open for scientific discussion. And for theatrical purposes, let me repeat it: "Why do we age?" And ultimately die? Surely, if we find out why, the next question is, of course, can we cheat it? Expand it? Live forever? If we find out that is possible, the third question in the row imposes. Should we do it?

But, before we dive into deeper thoughts and evaluate leading theories and hypotheses, I remember when I started with a blog, one of my early small posts in the humor thread was a couple of famous quotes about life itself. As far as I remember, many of them were really plain and intelligent jokes, but the one said by Ronnie D. Laing, a Scottish scholar who dedicated his life to research of mental illness and psychosis, was probably hitting the target in the bullseye. He said, "Life is a sexually transmitted disease, and the mortality rate is one hundred percent." If we extract the humor from this one-liner, what we really get is, perhaps, the ultimate truth. Reaching your or my old age, or death itself, might be nothing else than a genetic disease, in a stretched form of the definition of the word 'disease', and we might be able to do something about it.

Well, contrary to lobsters and turtles (and some other 'immortal' species like certain types of whales, seashells, sponges, hydras, etc.), we are mammals, pretty different kinds of anim... ahem, species. We are different in many ways, genetically speaking, and compared to, for example, reptiles, we cannot regrow our teeth or entire body parts as well, and our DNA, as it seems, has limited regeneration ability that fades with years and ultimately gets exhausted the moment before death. For those lucky to die of old age.

Two leading theories have been posted until today. First, it was proposed that living organisms have some sort of genetic expiration time, written in DNA. In other words, we are all combinations of genes of our parents and their parents and parents before them, all the way back in the history of our families, and this lucky mixture of genes, written in all of our cells, is built to last only a limited period of time. Even though this theory seems so unbelievable and far-fetched, it is actually hinted at in labs. In some genetic research of worms, altering their genome and some specific genes 'produced' the worms who actually lived four times longer than their unaffected peers.

If those genes with encoded expiration dates really exist, finding and rewriting them might be able to increase our lifespans. However, the second theory is much more appealing and easier to understand. It simply says that our cells die at the end of the cycle due to too much damage they suffer over time. To simplify it, there are two types of DNA in our cells: nucleus DNA, which defines us, located in the cores of cells, and mtDNA, residing outside the nucleus and in special parts of the cells called mitochondria. While nucleus code is used during the cell's division to produce another cell with the same DNA, mtDNA is there mainly to produce energy for the cells from the food we consume. And both DNAs can be damaged over time due to various factors, and as time passes over years and decades, the damages become more severe, and at the end of the process, which we know as aging, the entire organism dies. If we focus on mtDNA first, it's logical that these 'power plants' of our cells endure way more pressure than their fellow DNA in the nucleus, as they are in the first front lines hit by influences of the food we eat. From that food they produce energy and, in the process, a very bad byproduct called ROS, 'Reactive Oxygen Species', which are a variety of oxygen-based molecules that are very dangerous for the power plant itself and very capable of ultimately damaging the cell and mtDNA to the point of full destruction in the process of unwanted mutations. Basically, if you are now thinking that a special sort of diet or simply eating less food would give you a longer life, think again. In fact, if you do so, it is logical that more DNA in mitochondria will survive over time in their intact form, but on the other side, restricted diets in lab animals show that they grow slower than normal, reproduce less than normal, and have more endangered immune systems than usual. We need food. It is essential. So, don't stop eating, but try to do it properly and in the most healthy way possible. But the theory of lifespan directly related to the healthy mtDNA is proven in poor lab mice in which scientists encoded a faster genetic mutation of mitochondrial DNA, which resulted in faster aging and a shorter lifespan—they actually lived three times shorter than their 'normal' friends and cousins. So oxygen is bad and ultimately kills you. And yet we cannot live without breathing, can we? A paradox of creation, especially if you are a believer.

What about nucleus DNA in our cells? Are they also causing aging in the process of mutation? Yes, due to mutation of the nucleus, DNA cells end up in a cancerous or non-cancerous state, which is pretty much a defect and the cell's death. During an organism's growth, cells divide in the process called 'mitosis'—one 'cell, by using code in the nucleus, DNA, divides into two new cells, which are exact replicas of the parent cell. Even after an organism has fully matured into its adult stage, cells still continue to divide for the purposes of reproduction and replacement of lost or dead cells. However, as it seems, both resulting cells are not really and exactly the same as their predecessor cells. Yes, the code in chromosomes is the same, but the ending caps of the chromosome structure are getting shorter after each division. These caps are called 'telomeres', and their main purpose is to protect the end of the chromosome from connection with other chromosomes. After numerous divisions of the cells, telomeres run out, and this is pretty much the end of it. The cells are after that doomed. But this is not the end of all the ways of the one-cell doomsday scenario. According to Aubrey de Grey, one of the leading scientists in biogerontology, the scientific subfield of gerontology concerned with the biological aging process, over the years the cells accumulate various molecules that are no longer useful and potentially harmful. And not just within the cells, but also in the space outside cells. Those molecules are scientifically called 'intracellular and extracellular aggregates', but their real names are 'junk molecules', and, like the name suggests, the more of an accumulation of junk, the more dysfunctional the organism becomes. Dr. Aubrey de Grey proposed even more processes, on the cell level, influential in aging, and thanks to his research and the entire scientific mainstream, which is still ongoing research, we definitely understand it more than ever.

Benjamin Franklin once said that in this world nothing can be said to be certain except for death and taxes. I, for one, would definitely like to see the end of death and taxes for sure, and even though it is very hard to imagine a world without taxes, death, after all, might be a very different story. Well, understanding aging is one thing, and finding the cure for it is surely another, not to mention manufacturing a 'cheating-death' pill is not really in the realm of possibility anytime soon. Even the 'genetic pill' that will be able to slow down aging or the one capable of reverse engineering that would replace the mythical fountain of youth (or Lazarus Pit from the DC Comics franchise) is far away from the horizon. However, what is on the horizon and even much closer is the effort and research. Last year Google announced a plan to invest lots of money into California Life Company, aka Calico, and if you go to their website, the first thing you will see is their motto, "We're tackling aging, one of life's greatest mysteries." If you dive into the current stage of IT-leading entrepreneurs and futurists, it seems they all are sharing the same enthusiasm in the "curing death" realm, and I can't help but state the similarity with A.G. Riddle's new novel called "Departure", which pretty much influenced me to write this post, even though I was planning it for a while. I will not spoil the reading for you, but in a nutshell, one of the background stories in it is dealing with immortality, which, in one way or another, resulted in the end of civilization as we know it. I am encouraging you to read the book; it is definitely one of the best novels of the year in the sci-fi realm. In short, in the aftermath related to immortality, one of the leading characters from the novel, Sabrina Schröder, was portrayed giving a TED talk about cheating death and why we should avoid it on a large scale. That's all I would say. Sorry, but you would have to read the entire book to understand everything. I will just say that I hope Riddle's 'Titans' are not predictions for 'Googlers' or 'Applers' or 'Calicos' or whatever the name they come up with in the upcoming breakthroughs in aging research.

As for me, I am sure I wouldn't mind prolonging life a bit, or a little bit, or a 'frakking' long bit, but avoiding death is raising lots of other dilemmas in morality and everything else. It could be handy on long interstellar voyages, though, but it is not far from the truth that reproduction and further evolution of humans would be in real danger if everybody took the immortality pill and if we were stuck in the current stage of evolution without offspring of any kind. Morality issues of a potential cloning of a human being and making it immortal might not be too different.

Extending the lifespan is a very different story. I would always take the red pill and jump into the rabbit hole without hesitation. Life is way too short. After all, lifespan is something nature and evolution have been working on for centuries. If we learn to push and help a little with science, I would definitely be aboard.

Refs:
http://www.calicolabs.com/
http://www.medicaldaily.com/cure-aging-google-plunks
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/.../trying-to-cure-ageing.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._D._Laing
http://genetics.thetech.org/original_news/news10
http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2014/05/age/
http://www.agriddle.com/departure/sabrina
http://www.agriddle.com/Departure
* http://www.cracked.com/animals-that-are-immortal.html
http://www.aboutdarwin.com/voyage/voyage03.html

Image credits:
http://nocamels.com/2013/12/stop-aging-to-prevent-alzheimers/
http://nocamels.com/2015/06/genetic-sequencing-evolution-cancer-brca1/