Category: Systems Theory


Logic Gates In Your Tablet -Part 2

We’ve seen that nearly all computer systems including one adopted on tablets – work by translating user actions in the application layer, or the Operating System, into what the Central Processing Unit or CPU does. Most of this translation happens because applications are written in higher-level programming languages that are designed to be human-readable, whereas CPUs can only understand machine (‘assembly’) code. The translation is performed through a number of layers, and happens mostly at the kernel, which is the ‘heart’ of any Operating System.

So how does the CPU in your tablet unit work? We’ve said that the CPU only understands machine code. Would you like to see some? Here it is:

[  op  |        target address        ]

2                 1024               decimal

000010 00000 00000 00000 10000 000000   binary

What on earth does that mean? Actually, very few people would be able to understand it. The 1s and 0s on the bottom line are the instructions to feed to CPU. In the line above – what we might call an abstraction layer – we’ve converted it in to a human decimal number, and in the line above that (another abstraction layer, perhaps), we’ve explained what each of those numbers refers to.

So what’s actually inside your CPU? This is where ‘logic gates’ come in. A CPU will perform operations based on a 1 or a 0. We could think of that as being ‘open’ or ‘closed’. In the example above – that is target address (CPUs contain many millions of logic gates) – we’ve told a particular set of logic gates to be ‘closed, closed, closed, closed, open, closed’. This will correspond to a particular function that the CPU could do, for example managing where some memory is being stored.

These logic gates don’t contain the whole story. Each gate is constructed out of a number of transistors. These tiny components in your tablet are very similar to switches; with only a tiny input of electricity, they can switch between open and closed, or between 1 and 0. The best bit for the people who discovered them (Shockley, Bardeen and Brattain, in 1947 -for which they were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics, in 1956) is that once a transistor is in one state, it stays like that until it’s changed, with no extra required energy (known as the hysteresis effect). So, despite the fact that the tiny CPU (which could be only a few millimetres across in your tablet) contains millions upon millions of these things, the whole affair can run on relatively small voltages. That means your tablet uses its battery more efficiently, and you get a longer battery life.

So, that was a whirlwind tour through the role of logic gates in your tablet PC. Along the way, we’ve taken a look at some serious Computer Science concepts; including abstraction, machine code, and the role of the kernel. The most amazing thing is that these concepts are ubiquitous. Whether you go with iPad or Lenovo’s Android tablet and it’ll run in the same way. So what makes the difference? These real come in the kinds of applications and programs that run in the Operating System layer, as well as the way the Operating System kernel communicates with the hardware layers below it. If you’d like to know more, take a look at some of the CS courses on iTunes U, which go in to far more detail on all of the concepts we’ve introduced here.

Logic Gates In Your Tablet – Part 1

Any Computer Science student will start their course by learning about logic gates: what they are, how they work and why they’re indispensable inside computing devices. What’s special about logic gates in your tablet? In this pair of articles, we’ll take an in-depth look at the technology behind the magic.

Our story starts from the user, and drills downwards. What you see on your tablet screen is the result of many components inside working together to visualise software. You usually interact with a program – which is a series of specific instructions for the Operating System to interpret. Your Operating System is the software that runs everything else on your tablet. For example, the operating system ‘Android’ – what is found in an Android tablet, the most popular tablet devices – converts user input in a program to what the machine actually does inside.

At the heart of your tablet is the Central Processing Unit, or CPU. This is an extremely highly-tuned brain that is very good at completing specific, usually mathematical, tasks. CPUs in most devices, from tablets to laptops, only understand one, very simple, language. This language is called ‘machine code’, and it’s virtually unreadable by humans. In fact, it has been said that the US Patents Office cannot determine if a program written in machine code is original or not, so complex is the language. Most programmers, who write programs for computers, write in more ‘human-readable’ code languages which are then compiled by a program designed to ‘translate’ it in to machine code.

At the heart of the Operating System is something called the ‘kernel’. The kernel interprets between user commands in applications, such as clicking ‘send’ on an e-mail, and the CPU. A CPU would not be able to understand ‘click here and send my e-mail’, unless the kernel was there to translate that in to machine code. The kernel contains libraries which help it to do the translating, as well as containing things like drivers, which allow it to translate between things it wouldn’t normally understand. Without drivers, for example, the kernel would not understand whatever code the movement of a plug-in mouse would provide.

The kernel speaks to the hardware through a number of abstraction layers. These are layers designed to help code move quickly between the user interaction with the operating system, and the CPU’s execution of the relevant code. They also make it easier to build applications for users, as each abstraction layer ‘hides’ or ‘summarises’ some of the more complicated things that machine code does at the basic level. The programmer can then use these ‘summaries’ to write programs, which are translated back as they pass from the Operating System to the CPU.

In the next article, we’ll take a look at CPU architecture in computing devices including tablets; how they are designed, and what role logic gates have to play in how they work.

The mobile technology sphere is progressing rapidly, and becoming increasingly complex. Which elements of systems theory can we apply to try and predict the course of the laptop market over the next year?

First, we’ll try to categorise the dominant forces in defining the future of the device. Next up, we’ll consider how those dominant forces are likely to interact. Finally, we’ll think about how the interaction of those forces is likely to influence the development of the laptop market as a whole.

Following a traditional Keynesian theory of economics, there are two main forces at play – consumer demand, and manufacturer supply. Each of these can be broken down further.

Consumer demand for laptops is a source of huge concern for laptop manufacturers at the moment. Why? Because it’s hard to predict. Consensus is that consumers are engaging more deeply with devices that emphasise mobility and connectivity over raw power. The diminishing of power’s role in consumer desire is likely due to the remarkable effort industry-wide to supply machines with high-power processors. Processors are nowadays unlikely to be the ‘bottleneck’ – constricting component – in consumer machines. As a result, raw specifications – the ‘GigaHertz effect’ – are becoming rarer as a marketing tool. Consumers expect responsiveness and adaptation to purpose, instead of large numbers.

This trend – which has been developing steadily since around 1999, at Microsoft’s pinnacle, has resulted in the tremendous surge in popularity of devices oriented around purpose. Apple is a key example here – specifications are swept under the carpet, and the user experience given prime position. The development of the cloud, in cooperation with the evangelising of ‘thinnish clients’ – such as low-powered tablets and Google’s Chromebook line – are likely to see this trend continue. Component manufacturers have focussed on ancillary matters – such as efficient use of power and dissipation of heat – in the place of pursuing higher clock cycles.

The consumer laptop market, then, is going to continue to move away from specifications as a marketing focus. Instead, those features emphasising mobility and responsiveness – use of Solid-State memory, larger batteries and higher-resolution displays – are likely to dominate.

On the supply side, there is significantly higher competition for components than there ever has been. Regulators have been slow to react to monopoly-esque moves by larger corporations – for example, Apple has effectively cordoned off the LG and Sharp high-resolution display manufacturing industry for their own. This could impede other manufacturers’ abilities to carry innovation through to end products. At the very least, expenditure required to manufacture products containing constrained components is likely to become prohibitive.

The likelihood here is that laptops’ price point will shift upwards. The dual forces of tablets and thinnish clients – as well as Apple’s surge in industry domination – will likely push laptops towards the higher end of current offerings. The tablet has seen unprecedented consumer adoption – outstripping the pace of adoption of more widely-used technologies like the Internet and electricity – and this is increasingly turning budget-minded consumers towards tablet PCs as viable alternatives to laptops.

Part of ensuring the survival of the laptop market will be the success or failure of Windows 8. Productivity suites still require a fixed, physical keyboard – and there are no technologies on the horizon which look to displace this. Laptops hereby carry an inherent advantage. The progress of the ultrabook category has been disappointing so far, but this could in no small sense be mitigated by the success of Windows as an OS.

So what conclusions can we draw? Unfortunately, simply that the laptop market is too fluid to make any coherent predictions. Certain features are a given – a focus on mobility and a push towards laptops as more premium devices – but these are far from the sum total of innovations likely to occur within the next year. Laptops as a whole will certainly endure, but the category may find itself subsiding in to other similar market offerings – as evidenced by the focus on both tablet-bearing and non-tablet-bearing ultrabooks.

Most futurist experts believe that Artificial Intelligence (AI) is going to play a key role in the development of technology. Some of those believe that AI will ultimately provide the quickest route to a ‘technological singularity’, past which no further technological innovation will be possible. This article will use the rich picture we have built, as well as some of the considerations we have made in previous articles, to assess the possibilities for the future of AI.

AI in virtual personalities

We’ve asserted previously that virtual personalities enable users to interact in a contented manner with multi-function devices. Critical to the development of virtual personalities is the evolution of AI. To accurately simulate anthropic entities, these virtual personalities require a degree of autonomy similar to human personalities. That is, if asked a question, the virtual personality must be at least capable of replying in a similar variety of ways.

This is a trickier problem than it might seem. Though most questions asked of people are guided in to restrictive ‘answering frames’ that limit the number of possible responses by individual’s emotional reference points, the nature of selecting the right ‘frame’ is complicated. So, AI must be developed not only as a logical engine running a program to discriminate human from non-human responses – the quickest route to effective AI seems to be in simulating the human brain itself.

Futurist Ray Kurzweil believes this will be achieved by 2020. That’s eight years’ time. At that point, what can we expect?

Individual AIs 

As we discussed in the previous article, companies will need to develop ‘avatar personalities’ that represent the characteristics of their corporate ethos. In doing this, then, they will need to really get to grips with the human psychology behind developing ‘human’ AIs. So, I anticipate a boom in research fields around neuroscience, cognitive psychology and, eventually, ‘machine psychology’ – the art of coding the human brain in to a logical device. Through careful study, corporate entities will be able to create machine personalities that are representative of their defining characteristics. Governmental entities may also pursue this line of thinking, but (as evidenced historically) on a slightly less progressive timeline.

Cross-communication 

Recall that consumers are, in general, driving towards a single unified ecosystem of content and procedures. This is mirrored in various global drives for integration and ‘end-to-end’ control.  A company that produces its own printer now make its own paper. It’s possible to run your whole life using only products and services from Virgin.

What does this mean for the development of AIs? There are two clear paths here: a singular common ecosystem is established before the development of ‘human-level’ AI, or a singular common ecosystem is not established at all. In the second case, one could imagine cross-compatibility to be of little relevance: any cross-functionality will be achieved via interactions of high-level AI, consolidating the need for various communication frameworks in a common, natural, language. The first case is, to my mind, less likely (given the timescales involved). We have seen that there are multiple large entities pursuing the R&D dream – and all are succeeding to various extents. Market competition prevents them from collapsing together to form a single entity, and patent protection prevents their innovation from following identical lines. So, it is this author’s belief that the future is one of multifarious and multipersonalitied AIs communicating via a common, natural, language. At that point, I suspect the distinction between ‘real’ and ‘virtual’ personalities to be much, much less of an issue.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 45 other followers

%d bloggers like this: