Book Review - The Speed of Air

The Speed of Air-The Story of Willard Custer and His Channel Wing Aircraft, by Joel C. Custer and Robert J. Englar, tells the story of mechanic/inventor Willard R. Custer. How, one who was neither an 'aerodynamicist' nor an aircraft designer, developed and successfully flew a new and very novel aircraft concept. That is, force an airflow over a stationary wing to create lift, and it can takeoff or land vertically. Once airborne, it can fly like any other plane. But, there was no commercial success, government scientists, evaluators, and commercial aircraft builders/operators declaring it too unconventional to succeed. What follows is the history of these obstacles.
The initial chapters tells about first aircraft he built, which looked like, and was named, bumblebee. How he lost out when the patent application was examined side by side the one from Sikrosky. And his prolonged struggles with different patent offices and judges.
The book chronicles a large number of demonstrations of a full-size aircraft, lifted by air pressure from a complete standstill, and achieve the slowest speed ever flown by a fixed-wing airplane. Of course, at least a few suspecting some sort of subterfuge.
The narration is thrilling, I used to have a peek at the next page, well before I could complete the current one. It is also factual, the book gives a chronological review of all that took place. Also with sympathy, and Custer comes out as one with unyielding perseverance. There is also hope for further research. Possible drawbacks or shortcomings of the present design are analyzed in this book. I would have enjoyed thoroughly, if a few diagrams or engineering drawings were there to illustrate this revolutionary idea.
 

A New Look at Teaching

 Teaching is an activity, the 'elders' of all forms of life do. And, one can comfortably say, no difficulties have ever been observed in teaching the arts, each of those is a master of. But, it is a big challenge, as far as humans go, if the proliferation of teaching aids be taken as an indication. We humans are taking no note of this, saying, all species of life (except human!) have nothing much to teach. And we have no problem in accepting happily, the rather incongruous conclusion that a superior species, who possess greater capacity to learn, will need a lot of teaching. Why is it that we have to teach a lot. Is there no other way?

Let us see, how do we teach, presently?

We decide, what one should learn, how, when, etc. (Or we choose someone to decide things like these)

Then we formulate a plan to have it done in an appropriate manner. Like, choosing a suitable time to teach, deciding who will teach, what, and how. Now, almost all choices in this regard are more or less the same as that of the earliest of times, except for timely variation of the same.

As time went by, much changed.  We have been adapting ourselves to those changes, as and when they occur. (Of course, patting ourselves for instituting the change!)

Are we teaching optimally? I do not think so. In fact, wherever we can afford, we are still living in a geocentric universe. So, unless it is impossible, we continue with the old.

Once again, look at the way we confront the issue of teaching. It seems, we have not at all deviated from whatever was the earliest style of teaching, we have been following. The salient features of which, perhaps was a good fit for the society, then. People would not have been having a good idea about the outward show of things, and almost nothing about its internal make up. They could overcome such a shortcoming by resorting to large collections of abstractions. Accordingly, a style of teaching would have evolved that mainly consisted of making the wards able to identify and describe the abstract concepts and ideas of whatever is chosen to learn. At a much later stage, or perhaps as necessary or convenient, they would have been familiarizing with all those, in actual use. Now, we are sticking to the same style, even though, we have a totally different idea about things and ideas. We are more familiar with real things and functional ideas than the abstract equivalents, unlike the past.

If we use the same style of teaching, as one can easily see, those at the receiving end of a lesson are not likely to be, naturally ready to pick up the lesson. All those concepts and other abstract ideas will be totally new to them, and also of little relevance to the chosen area of study. We are very much aware of it, and we realize the need to have different styles of teaching for various subjects. Now, rather than examining the aptness of teaching in this age old style, we go on a spree to invent and fabricate different mechanisms or aids to turn this mode of teaching into an interesting and fruitful activity. Yes, we think, we have been succeeding in this. So, as centuries go by, and, perhaps with some changes in hardware, we continue to remain with the same style of teaching.  

Should it be so? Are we as successful as what we would have been, had our style of teaching been keeping with the times? (Logically, human race, everywhere, would have been keeping with the times. But, their propensity to abstract, did the damage. In doing so, they could easily redefine the hardware in their life to absorb much of the changes without making a hardware change. As a consequence, none of them realize the mismatch that existed between the nature of reality and their appreciation of it. That is why, though even from the days of the early Greece, much of reality is appreciated well enough, human race had a long wait to industrial revolution, to reap its benefits.)

What am I getting at? We can learn one thing from our experience of teaching the young. Abstraction is of great help, especially to make things that are otherwise unclear, clear. And, it can explain the proliferation of abstract musings in whatever literary gems of the past, we happen to uncover. Quite understandably, the thinkers of the past, just like everybody else of those days, were unclear about almost everything. But, now, the situation is different. We are clouding the atmosphere of knowledge, when we abstract. Keeping this in mind, we can arrive at a new pattern of teaching, where, all that is abstract is kept for the last.

My book, Hubs that Provoke discusses such ways of learning

Stare at the white dot on the woman's nose on the left for 15 seconds, then look to the right of the image at the blank space. You should see a flicker of the full-colour photo of the woman.

 

What will happen then?

Thinking, another Rethink

Think of human race. Unlike others, today, compared to early days, they are living in better comfort. This, thanks to, the rather undisciplined exercise of mental faculties by our forefathers. For, it resulted in a burgeoning society with a forward outlook, who constantly conceptualized, searched, found, practiced, and established, very many new ideas and thoughts. In fact, what is making a good life is nothing but the cascading effect of all these. And, if the flow of fresh ideas get disturbed, our good life too, shall come to a halt.

How did it all begin?

Our forefathers, for no rhyme or reason, continued to extol and celebrate all that was new. And were quietly living with whatever inconveniences, like the Red Flag rule, it caused.

But now, when I think of our future, things are not the same.

Presently, we give a lot of credence to objective, disciplined, approach to things, and mould ourselves in to be in line with these, while discouraging forcefully and reprimanding, all those who deviate. We are also finding more and more ways of defining ourselves as just another form of life, where, discipline is an integral part. For example, lately I have been reading about the grand success, we have achieved in transplanting animal organs and parts to human bodies.

But, one area that is remaining solely human is language. We use it mainly for two purposes. One, to communicate whatever we want to. And two, to originate whatever we want to communicate, an activity generally termed reflection. Presently, one and the same language is meeting both the needs. Towards this, we add or formulate new words or phrases or other such elements, if possible, by borrowing from other languages.

Over time, mainly owing to the technological revolution, very many innovative gadgets have been newly introduced, extending the reach and desirability of a language, especially for communication. As a result, now, there is large scale involvement of the whole of human race in all aspects of communication, leaving nothing much for enjoying the other features of a language.

Due to this, reflection is taking a back seat, and even there, it is constantly under threat from AI. Here, words or expressions that does not evoke a sensible image, meaning, or any parameter that cannot make a link with something in existence, stands to be removed from the vocabulary. ( Unless it attracts or kindles a fresh thought, instantly!) As time go by, much of the words of such a genre shall be getting removed from dictionaries itself. Thus, in a not so distant future, reflection may even stop to exist as a human attribute.

In my hub, ‘A True Unity in Diversity’, I proposed bifurcating language, and all our activities that go along with it, into two separate paths, namely, communication and reflection. We can then resort to using tongues for communication and a language for reflection.

If we do not do so, what will happen?

Firstly, let us see what is happening now. Language change, the phenomenon that results in permanent alterations to the elements and features of its use, is constantly taking place. We collate all those and issue corrections and additions at various times. We further dictate modifications that reflect our current priorities.

However, such changes, like addition of new words or deletion of a few, are focused on the use of language for better communication, while exploiting the avenues opened by technology that is always on the move. Slowly, natural, individual human processes like contemplation or reflection will fade away, specific, irreplaceable elements of those activities being taken over by AI.

Why is that none of us has taken note of such a possibility? I think, so far, those activities were keeping us engrossed, or rather we chose to engage in such things, while we were on the look out for answers to random questions. Now that we are heavily discouraging all that do not align with our current priorities, such questions itself shall come to a halt.

What will happen then?

How to Be At Ease, Think at Ease

There is nothing wrong with human society, except that it is not a calm one.

If human is a thinking animal, and if one is not at ease, 'thinking' should be the first suspect. I think, we looked everywhere else, perhaps from time immemorial. For, since long, all religions, philosophies, or nowadays governments, have been busy, instituting additions and alterations to those features of the society that look relevant. Yes, a few of those result also in manipulating the way we think, and there are some instances of success, like introduction of a new system of governance. But, we are yet to arrive at a happy state, as far as violence go. I think we have always been off the mark.

If there is something wrong with 'thinking', knowledge, its result, should be hiding a clue. So, let us think about knowledge.

Knowledge is a product, as well as a side effect, of all that we do while we are busy with activities like viewing, listening, learning, creating, appreciating, or altering, things around us. Examining critically, I think, it can be broadly classified into two.

One, which is always within the constraints of relationships or laws or something else that is logically consistent, or that do not lead to unanswered questions. Here, of course, one can make or subscribe to changes, but, only within such constraints. These changes might be adding new laws or relationships or other abstractions, or altering the existing ones. Mathematics is the best way to express and manipulate such constraints. In simple terms, mathematics is nothing but an expression of certain features of interest, of such entities. Where, features are shown by the relationship between the LHS and the RHS of a unique symbol, when we change only one side at a time. And the unique symbol reflecting our current aims or priorities. The same also stands good, as far as any statement that can make sense.

However, assimilating the matter of interest, or what we call as acquiring knowledge, do pose a challenge. Things, even though are logically conclusive, may be asking for certain measures of simplification or other kinds of manipulation that could be taxing the brain.

Two, which is not constrained by mathematical relationships or laws, and remains so, while adding new laws or relationships or other abstractions to support or justify whatever. We however treat this also as logically consistent. And here, to make it logically sustainable, we quietly redefine mathematics as well as logic at every juncture.

I think this was not our original approach, the one we entertained since time immemorial. The desire for logical consistency is something that occurred to us later, after we experienced a little, the world around us. The earliest of our ancestors wouldn't have been facing such constraints. In fact, their approach also can be projected as a relationship between the LHS and the RHS of a unique symbol. But here, both the LHS and the RHS stand to change simultaneously, and that too at the will and pleasure of the narrator.

Naturally, here, assimilating knowledge is not at all a challenge, except where we do not happen to submit to the idea put up by the narrator.

In one instance, knowledge includes all that falls in a large multitude of classifications, like science and some parts of arts, fiction, philosophy, etc., which lie as part of the former. Here, not only that everything falls within the purview of something mathematical, but also those do not do so are not taken into consideration. In the other instance, where, it has all that lie as part of the latter, like most parts of philosophy, its variants like spirituality, fiction, and some parts of science, arts, etc., nothing can be made to satisfy a mathematical law or logic. Also, here, the more, it deviates from such kind of a connection, the greater, the value we accord to it.

When we use the word knowledge in both the above instances, we are clouding whatever we happen to learn. Meaning conveyed by the word knowledge becomes rather inconsistent, being closely linked to the current disposition of the narrator, whether it is towards the former case, or aligning with the latter one. Consequently, there will be a gap between what we say, and what others think or assimilate from it. Each such gap then acts as a spark, raising many questions and other transactions that eventually add something human specific. Now, rather than wondering about the unending supply of new and different (human specific) features, we celebrate each of those, making such questions remain happily unanswered. And the seal of knowledge, in this domain, acts as a shield for those unanswered ones.

As a result, our expectations and inferences do not gel with the reality, unless we introduce abstract terms or ideas that can make it do so. Naturally, now, we hold all those terms and ideas at the highest pedestal. But, since we forget that such abstract terms are of volatile nature, being valid and active only for a particular instant, we have our society, a hotbed of transactions, its outcome, and a whole lot of repercussions, both desirable and otherwise. (Had we realized this long back and took corrective measures, we would have been living in a serene society now.) Since we do not hold or control a repository exclusively for entities that result, the outcome is absorbed by knowledge itself. This routinely introduces new ideas or conventions that grab our attention in full, and, though look dignified, does not convey much. In this manner, it continued for long, and now, we have come to compound it further. How? By 'rationalizing' the situation by terming the human, an imponderable one.

It is not difficult to wriggle out. We only need to redefine knowledge into two separate entities. One relating to the former, and another one dealing with the latter. To avoid possible confusion, I think, better is to introduce two new words, one for the former case or material stream, and another one for the latter or all that is not material stream. As one can make out, in such a scenario, what we get and what we expect shall more or less be in sync, for all our transactions, and in both the above classifications.

We are certain to hold both these words at high esteem. Naturally, the activity that leads to each shall also be named uniquely. And if one is not at ease, the relevant instance of 'thinking' would become the suspect, and since there is no likelihood of a mix-up, our society shall be a calm one for ever.

Book Review: DUST NET, The Future of Surveillance, Privacy, and Communication

DUST NET, The Future of Surveillance, Privacy, and Communication

by

David Dvorkin

The book is a short discussion about a scary future, as far as surveillance go. It begins with a review of the state of the art, where, governments and corporations had the advantage regarding both control of electronic channels of communication and surveillance of individuals. That’s about to change, the book says. The growing availability of cheap, tiny surveillance devices will usher in a revolution. Already we see it in the use of drones.

Moreover, The United States Air Force is developing drones that will mimic the appearance and behavior of insects, which would have microchips that could eventually make it possible for smart phones to take pictures through walls. Technology is in the making, where equipment can detect such changes, people can cause to wifi. Further, making an image of the body that caused the change is not a big deal. The book goes into further possibilities, like citizens using drones to catch politicians betraying public trust, and governments using the same to spy on each other.

As the book puts in the end, this is not an exciting world. It is, however, the world that is coming. We’d best prepare ourselves for it. We need to think of the ways we can benefit from free, worldwide communication in its future incarnation of the dust net world.

A well written book, and it made me think a lot.