Cloudscape

When we see what humans have achieved, we are inclined to overestimate the abilities of the average human. The truth is that the average human never achieves very much. Humanity has always been divided in two groups, one that created change, and another that merely underwent it, be it that they profited from it or suffered it.
Despite the fact that we show more genetic similarity than most species, the psychological differences among humans are far greater than in any other species, because as our intelligence is multiple times greater, so the range in intelligence is likewise multiplied.
The creative and the passive have lived in increasing separation as civilization evolved, because civilization unlocked possibilities that the creative were more willing to seize than the passive. Among these possibilities were those that would further set them apart, such as those of knowledge, art, spirituality — things that allowed them to further improve themselves, whereas the passive remained largely unimproved. Those that choose to change evolve ever faster, while the passive remain normal. As the separation between the two groups increases, the two become more and more socially isolated, which further increases the differences between them through sexual selection.
Even now, the differences between these groups increase, and this trend will accelerate the further technology evolved. Right now, the only methods of self-improvement we have are more or less natural, learning being the foremost, and these differences are but subtle. If, however, we will one day be able to improve ourselves through nanotechnology, biotechnology and informatics, the differences between the passive and creative will become so dramatic that the two will split up into two altogether separate species.
Any form of self-improvement will require work, even it is effected through technology, for although technology may improve our abilities, it can't do the work for us of dealing with those abilities. Intelligence requires consciousness, and to improve one's intelligence, it is therefore inevitable that one's consciousness becomes expanded in the process, at least, if the right brain half is included in the process.
The expanded consciousness brought about by an increase of intelligence invariably causes upheaval, and it takes time, effort, patience and endurance to deal with this upheaval. This is one reason why passive people will be unlikely to wish to improve their intelligence, with the result that they are left behind on the evolutionary ladder as a separate species while the self-transcendant group will by far surpass them in intelligence.
The rift between the apathetic and the self-transcendant will grow until humanity is torn apart in two. It is only a matter of time. As and when this happens, this will cause tensions between the two groups, and there is no telling where this will lead.

Perhaps heat could itself be a source of energy. Heat could be collected in ferromagnetic metals which could then be brought to irradiate their thermal energy through magnetic refrigeration, upon which the process would be repeated. This released heat could be used to boil water or another fluid with a lower boiling point to rotate a turbine. This is not a perpetual energy machine because the energy is collected in the form of heat from the environment.

Some futurists predict that, just as evolution was able to create conscious brains, we might, by emulating evolution, be able to create conscious computers. Since evolution has already done this, there seems no reason to assume that we can't. Evolution has no intelligence. We do, and because of this, we are able to evolve billions of times faster than anything else in nature. Moreover, since there are already conscious computers, all we need to do is to reverse-engineer it.

It may seem far too much work for us to decode every signal in our brain, but we must remember that our computers can already do a lot of work for us. The USNO-B1.0 catalog, for instance, cataloged a billion stars in 3 billion observations — far too much for a human, but not for a computer. Likewise, we might one day be able to program a computer that will decode the signals of the brain for us.

Some futurists go so far as to say that we will be able to build computers that  will be similar enough to our brain that we might be able to transfer our consciousness into it, a process called "uploading" or "mind transfer." The most important issues with this today, however, are philosophical: what causes consciousness, and therefore, how can we know how to transfer it?

It seems, somehow, that our consciousness is spread across all our neurons, and the continuity of that consciousness seems to be formed through the connections between them. Somehow, it therefore has to be possible through some technology to channel consciousness from one conscious computer (such as the brain) into another, since our own brain possesses this very technology. Somehow, our brain can channel our consciousness through a great number of neurons at the same time, even though those neurons are wide apart, so that our consciousness can be present in a great number of neurons at the same time.

Yet, if we connected a computer to our brain, like one neuron is connected to another, our consciousness would apparently be left behind in our own brain: while we could be conscious of information the computer would interchange with our brain, we could not be conscious of any information in the computer itself. Thus, if we would connect a billion computers with our brain, it would apparently not be possible to be conscious of all information being processed in all these computers, since not all this information could be contained in our brain. Or would it?

We are ourselves little more than this, billions of computers which are our neurons, connected to form our brain. How can we be conscious of the information processed in all those computers at once? How can we be conscious of our entire brain? If our brain could not be conscious of a billion computers connected to it, how does our brain manage to be conscious of the billions of computers within itself? How is one neuron conscious of the information being processed in other neurons? Most of these neurons aren't even directly connected. It appears that an indirect connection is enough.

If an indirect connection is enough, then if our brain would be connected to a network of billions of computers, like one neuron is connected to a network of billions of other neurons, would that also be enough to become aware of those billions of computers and every bit of information being processed in them, even though our own brain would have no direct connection with them, nor contain that information?

When two conscious computers (such as brains) are connected and then disconnected, what determines which way the consciousness of the two computers goes anyway? Or does it remain in both? If consciousness is determined by connections, then what determines when there is a connection anyway? As said, most neurons are not directly connected. Why is an indirect connection enough? Does consciousness permanently spread to another computer as soon as it connects with it, even if the connection is itself not permanent, and will the consciousness remain in both computers even when the two are disconnected (though neither of both can still be self-conscious of the part of their consciousness ? And if not, then in which of the computers will it end up, and why?

Either how, if our brain were connected to a computer which imitates our brain, then whatever is connecting the consciousness between our neurons will also connect the consciousness between the brain and computer, even though we don't understand how it works.

The only thing we therefore need to do to is to make a computer similar enough to our own brain; how similar it needs to be is hard to say, but suppose that we made a computer more and more similar to the brain step by step, and tried to connect it to our consciousness all the while, we might eventually make the right step.

The irony is, however, that even if our consciousness would flow into the network of computers, our brain would itself still believe that this would not be the case, and because of this, there could be no objective way of knowing whether it would work; the only way you could find out would be to try it for yourself.

Once connected to the network, it is unlikely that the brain would still have a consciousness of itself, because that would mean that, by analogy, our neurons would also have a consciousness of their own, and, what is more, so would any combination of neurons. Yet, of the infinitely many possible combinations of neurons I could be, I happen to be conscious of the entire brain, or, more accurately, I am the entire consciousness of the brain. This apparently proves that consciousness automatically spreads across the entire computer it is in, like gas spreads over the entire space it is in.

Also, as soon as the brain would connect to a network, any information it would process would be part of a greater processing of information, so that it would have little or no meaning of itself. Because of this, the brain would cease to be an individual, as it would be part of something greater.

Again, note that by the word "computer," I may also refer to the brain, and the network of computers with which the brain would connect could include other brains plugged in to the network. In fact, through this network, all brains in the world could be connected.

If a brain were then disconnected from the network, the same thing would happen as there would happen if a neuron was disconnected from the rest of the brain: a separate consciousness would form in the brain, but the original consciousness, which had once been in the brain, would now remain in the network, as the network is far greater. After all, we do lose neurons from time to time, yet our consciousness remains in our brain, rather than being lost with the neuron. The question remains what happens to the consciousness of people with split brain, in whom the corpus callosum has been severed. Probably, the consciousness of these people ends up in the dominant brain half, and a separate consciousness is formed in the other. It can be seen as an extreme case of dissociation.

Once connected to the network, the body would still be valuable and should not be disposed of, so that issues such as those met in "uploading" are avoided: if the brain's consciousness were simply duplicated into another computer, then the consciousness would not be transferred into the computer because the two are not connected.

The idea of uploading goes from the principle that consciousness is caused by patterns, but this principle (by some called "patternism") causes problems. For instance, suppose that rather than one, two duplicates of the pattern are made, upon which the original is destroyed. According to patternism, the consciousness should now transfer into the duplicate — but which of the two? The consciousness cannot be transferred into both duplicates, since the two cannot interact, much as the consciousnesses in people with split brain cannot interact, thus the consciousness should be transferred into one of the two. But if consciousness is determined by patterns, then the transfer cannot be random, as this would mean that it would be determined by randomness and not patterns, and in that case, the consciousness might as well be transferred to an entirely different brain. There must be something which determines to which of the two duplicates the consciousness is transferred, as the determination of consciousness would otherwise be acausal. If it would have no cause, it would have no reason to be what it is, rather than something else, which is unscientific.

Consciousness is caused by patterns, but location is one aspect of those patterns. Producing a copy of one's brain elsewhere does not produce a complete copy of its patterns.

Another problem would be that this would mean that consciousness is not bound to anything physical, as it would automatically be transferred across the distance between the the original and duplicate, which once more poses the problem of acausality. Also, being non-physical, the consciousness could then also instantaneously travel an infinite distance. However, if the universe is infinite, there should already be an infinite number of duplicates in the universe because of ergodicity, meaning that we should already be transferred from one duplicate to another at random. Since there are an infinite number of duplicates, probabilities would break down (every probability would be infinity by infinity, therefore, undefined), and since everything still happens according to well-defined probabilities, this cannot be the case, unless the universe is finite.

Whatever causes consciousness, it cannot be patterns. However, it does seem that consciousness, although not caused by it, is determined by connections. But why can only the connection between one neuron and another make use conscious, and not the connection between one atom and another? In other words, why can only the patterns of our neurons produce consciousness, and not the patterns of random atoms? Why does consciousness attribute a specific meaning to those patterns, rather than one entirely different?

Perhaps consciousness could be compared to the interpretation of a book, the book we are reading being our brain. Though it is possible to write a book out of random strings of letters, such books could not have any meaning, even if a meaning were attributed to every string of letters. In order for it to be possible for a meaning to be attributed to it, there has to be a pattern in it.

If, in trying to decipher a book written in an unknown language, we would attribute a meaning to every string of letters, there would only be one, or at most a few, possibilities for most words, since most words will be repeated throughout the book in different contexts, each of which eliminates certain meanings. The longer the book is, the more words and phrases will be repeated, and so the fewer possible interpretations there are. If the book is of virtually infinite length, then only one interpretation makes sense.

Perhaps consciousness is an interpretation of patterns, and not so much the patterns themselves; ie, consciousness is the translator, the pattern is the language. If consciousness were patterns, after all, there would have to be a universal language for consciousness, as there would otherwise still be infinitely many ways in which the same patterns could cause different consciousnesses.

But if consciousness is the interpretation, then this should actually be the case: every pattern would be interpreted by consciousness in infinitely many ways, and therefore there should be infinitely many consciousnesses beside those of living beings, as there are, after all, infinitely many patterns in nature. Most of these consciousnesses, however, would be simple, random, meaningless, and irrelevant. Many of these patterns could also overlap, and almost all of these patterns could have multiple meanings.

Either how, these consciousnesses would be irrelevant to us, as we could never observe them. Moreover, they would have no connection to reality, nor a will of their own. They would be just like the dead matter that causes their consciousness.

Most patterns would produce a very chaotic kind of consciousnesses, and any pattern that would produce consciousness that has any order would have been organized for this purpose (through evolution), possibly with the exception of very rare coincidences. Therefore, the only consciousnesses with a will of their own would be consciousnesses that would have been organized with a goal (such as keeping the organism alive). All the rest would be little more than a whirling soup of random qualia.

I wrote my hypothesis of a brain connecting to a network as though I expect that people will do this overnight, but I actually think this will be a gradual process, in which people will gradually expand their consciousness both through informatics and neurology. As this happens, both elements will continue to grow, and we will keep having use of both.

I do not expect there will be a world in which we all be computers, as some say, but I do expect that computers will be part of us — as will our organisms — and that, through computers, we may all become part of one another, united into one superorganism. This does not, however, mean that we should lose our individuality to do so, as the fact that we could connect with one another fully does not mean that we would have to do so.

As machines become more advanced, more and more humans lose their jobs as machines replace them, until only creative jobs will be left, but there will likely also be a time when machines may also become creative. However, as and when our computers become creative, they will become part of ourselves and so of our own species, for either we will already have found a way of uniting them with our own brain, or we would set these computers to the one task of finding a way to do so until they would, since this would be the most important thing we would need at this point.
There might be a chance that by this time, many people who remained unemployed would have become so decadent that they would no longer care to set these computers to any other task than to find better ways of stimulating the pleasure centers of their brain, but, fortunately, they would be in the hands of the scientists that invented them, and they would certainly choose otherwise.
Thus, even if humans and computers will not yet have united by the time that computers become creative, humans will still be needed for creativity until then, and, because creativity gives meaning to life and our need for meaning is so great, then as soon as they are more creative than we are ourselves, they would be fully focussed on the task of enabling us to have their creativity by unifying them with our brain.
As long as computers are not conscious, our own lives as humans could still have meaning, and as soon as they would become conscious, we would become one with them. In a time when the only work that is left is creative, everyone could likely achieve an equal level of creativity through cognotechnology, as the creativity of someone altered through that time's cognotechnology would be vastly greater than that of anyone who has ever lived anyway. This does not mean that everyone would become identical, however, as there are infinitely many ways of being creative; these need not be scientific or artistic, as they can also be social.
By the time when man and machine will become one, both will be quite different from what they are now. Machines will no longer be the contraptions we see today, as their machinery, just as our own, will entirely have advanced to molecular levels, whereas men will no longer be the animals that we are now, as our abilities will have advanced to cosmic levels. Machines will become more like organisms in structure as they achieve nanotechnological levels, as they will then make more use of analogous media like chemistry, rather than relying only on black-and-white digital media as they do now. Meanwhile, men will also become more like machines in power, as they, as well, integrate aspects of their mechanical counterparts into their bodies. Our computers will become subtler and more complex, whereas we will become stronger and more skillful.
It would seem that a unification of man and machine would make society shift further towards the material and away from the spiritual, but the opposite is true. Our spiritual as well as our material world will grow, but they will also grow toward one another. It's just that spiritual evolution comes more subtle than material evolution.
Moreover, when man and machine will become one, we will still have use for our biological aspects as well as of our electronic aspects, as both have their own unique qualities. Both man and machine will keep evolving, and either evolution will help the other, but both evolutions will themselves unify.
The unification of man and machine is only one aspect of a greater unification, that of mind and matter. Our power to change reality becomes so great that reality becomes like a dream, while virtual reality become so immersive as to become like reality.

When communism rose in the previous century, as is now clear, it was much too early for the world to be ready for it, and thus it remains to this day. The failure of communism has shown that people are too self-centered for it to work, and unless people change, it can never work. People work out of necessity or out of greed, but not out of love, at least for now.

Communism is bound either to fall or turn into despotism as long as it is not the choice of the people themselves, and because of this, the communism we have seen so far has little to do with its actual ideals. Nonetheless, it is probable that communism will be the next step in the evolution of society, though in another form than is seen today. However, today, it is still too soon for us to take that step.

Every kind of government has its place in the evolution of society, and when it is time for one to succeed the other, this happens almost spontaneously, not through revolution. There was a time that democracy could not have succeeded, or even republicanism. When a nation tries to get ahead of itself in this evolution, it is bound to turn either into despotism or into anarchy, and so evolution is usually the best way of change.

In the beginning of this evolution, despotism is the only viable government: at this time, republicanism cannot or barely succeed, as there is too little cooperation between people for it to work. At this point, cooperation must be imposed by a despot. It is crude, but the only thing that works at this point. Without a single ruling power, everyone would become a despot. There is, fortunately, the mercy that the worst despots are often the quickest to be overthrown by the people.

Every society begins in anarchy, and, if it lives long enough, it eventually ends in anarchy, in much the same form, but on a larger scale. Anarchy is viable in the beginning of the formation of a society, when people still live in small clans, which are much alike to a large family. Sometimes, these clans are communistic. Superficially, it seems that these clans are more cooperative than most societies, but this is only so because they are so small; so small, in fact, that every or almost every member of the clan usually knows every other. As these groups grow, this level of cooperation is no longer possible, because although they may be cooperative towards people they know, they are quite uncooperative towards strangers. The people of a clan are so little used to strangers that they will often kill them on sight. Wars between neighboring clans are frequent. If the people of ten clans were put into one tribe overnight, most would be dead before long.

There is a lot of cooperation in early societies, but little cooperativeness. The cooperativeness in societies grows as they evolve, until they eventually achieve the level of democracy and eventually (though this has never happened so far) anarcho-communism. So far, however, anarcho-communism is not feasible, as people have yet to achieve the level of unity for it to work.

However, we live in a world were everything is being automatized through robotics and informatics. This is already posing problems in many developed capitalistic countries as more and more people become (or remain) unemployed as they are being replaced by computers. Because of this, many countries already find themselves to be forced into a compromise between capitalism and communism, in which unemployed people receive benefits during the time they are unemployed.

As work in the primary and secondary sector continues to be automatized, and not everyone can or wants to work in the tertiary sector, more and more people will become unemployed. Eventually, the rate of unemployment will become so high that it can no longer be resolved in any sensible way, forcing the government into offering people benefits in order to help them survive.

With the trend of robotization, it is only a matter of time before we achieve a state where our necessities are provided for automatically or largely so, and so become almost free. Eventually, it will be possible to produce anything through software, and since software can be duplicated freely, this will mean that all necessities will be available in sufficient amounts without any work being done. In such a society, it would be nonsensical to still pay for software, as everyone could as well have all software there is if no one asked money for it. In a society where everyone has enough to survive and where software offers so many possibilities, many people will see software (which by then would encompass all art, science, and culture of civilization) as being more important than money. It only takes a certain percentage of the population to believe this before the system collapses, all the more because many of these people would themselves be artists and programmers. The more people would believe spiritual values to be more important than material ones, the more the capitalistic system would be subverted, and software would be hacked and shared illegally. Moreover, artists and programmers who would be of this view would release their works for for free, so that, eventually, those who would still charge for their works would be likely to be ignored, all the more because their work would be motivated purely out of greed, rather than out of love, and therefore be seen as being of lower quality. It is therefore inevitable that, at this stage, software would become free or practically free.

The need for socialism will increase with unemployment, and eventually, artists, scientists and social workers will be the only people left to be employed. Most scientists, many social workers and some artists (in some countries) are already being paid by the state, but in future, all will depend on the state for payment. For now, scientists, artists and social workers are still required to work in order to be paid, but this is only because much of their work is not fully creative and involves routine. However, as the routine component of their work will eventually be done by computers (robot scientists already exist for genetic research, for instance, as do computer programs for educations), only the creative and social components will be left, and neither can be done on demand. Ideas come best when they are not forced, which is the only thing scientists (and, of course, artists) will still be needed for, and the same counts for compassion, which is what social workers will still be needed for. When I say creativity, I'm not talking about the ability to remember the right idea at the right time, but the ability to think of new, unique ideas that have never been used before, as anything less can be done by computers. With compassion, I'm not talking about commitment, patience or politesse, but genuine and heartfelt sympathy, as, again, anything less can be done by computers. Attempting to enforce creativity will lead to loss of inspiration. Attempting to enforce compassion will lead to detachment (as is seen in many psychologists and psychiatrists today). Either how, the best ideas will come from people who seek them because of their passion for the idea, not from people who seek them because they must. The same counts for compassion. The true scientists, social workers and artists of the future will not need money as an incentive to work. Those that would, would be incompetent anyway.

Obviously, the unemployment would also put many people before the problem of finding meaning in their lives, or rather, it would confront them with that problem which was already there, now they could no longer seek distraction in vacuous mind-numbing routine. By and by, people would learn to find meaning either in love or some form of creativity.

Uncreative people who would want to become more creative could be made more creative through cognotechnology (technology applied on cognition). Because of the significance cognotechnology will have on humanity, it is extremely important that everyone be given equal chances, and here, we are once more faced with a need for socialism: the means of cognotechnology should be equally allocated among those who desire it, for if this does not happen, a disastrous technological divide will result which is so great that, over time, humanity itself would actually split up into two separate groups, one being vastly more intelligent than the other. The intelligent group would become more successful, so acquire increased access to cognotechnology, and so forth. Of course, the more intelligent group would eventually realize the necessity to give the other group equal chances.

In the past, communism has failed because the interests of the individual are capitalistic. In future, capitalism will fail because the interests of the individual will be communistic.

The reason why illegal downloading is so common, aside from the fact that it is very easy to do, is that there is little or no moral inhibition against it. This is not only because the chance of being caught is smaller, but also, and mostly, because the thief does not take anything away from the owner, but merely refuses to give them anything for their work: the owner remains unaffected by the thief. This is worsened by the fact that most software products are sold by large firms, so that if the individual does buy the product, it makes no difference to the firm, as the payment is spread over a large number of people, so that each receives only a very small sum, and only the payment of an equally large number of people will make a difference to them; whereas, if it is paid to another individual, it does make a difference to him or her. Also, because the payment usually happens via Internet, it is made not through a person, but rather to an impersonal website. The firm is a mere concept to the thief, and does not concern him or her at all.
Meanwhile, because they can be duplicated freely, more and more people program freeware applications, which replace the vast majority of non-freeware applications programmed by individuals, so that only the applications programmed by large firms remain unavailable as freeware. Because people become used to getting software for free, they will be all the more reluctant to pay for other software.
Also, the laws of software ownership are also becomes more and more ambiguous, causing people to regard them as irrelevant. For instance, one can legally watch most popular movies and listen to most popular music on a large number of websites, including Youtube and Megavideo, and one can even legally record music from the Internet using legal applications, such as Audio Hijack or SoundFlower, or record videos using applications which are also legal, such Windows Media Recorder.
. Meanwhile, one can also legally upload or download books or articles.
Illegal downloading is becoming so prevalent that it becomes very hard to take measures against it, and even would we succeed in bringing all illegal downloaders to justice, this would mean that we'd have to imprison one third of the population and ruin another third with fines.
Perhaps this means that it is time we find another system, which pays designers and artists fixed regular sums based on the quality of their work. On the other hand, one might also argue that this is unnecessary, as only popular software is readily available for illegal downloading, and the producers of that software have already earned a lot of money with that software anyway, and so all artists and designers still have a chance of earning enough money.
If, however, illegal downloading continues to become more popular, it will soon become unmanageable. Unfortunately, it is very hard to control illegal downloading, as anyone who possesses software can also duplicate it. The only way anything can be done about this is by protecting the software, though this is only feasible for applications. Most "killer applications" have effective protections, but for most of these applications, and almost all of the popular ones, this can relatively easily be surmounted through "cracks," especially for the Windows operating system.
However, for music and movies, it is probably already too late, since YouTube is far too popular to be closed down, and closing it down would result in general outrage among the population. Eventually, it will likely become possible to upload entire movies in full resolution, so that, aside from philanthropism, the only reason people might still prefer to buy the movies would be because it might feel more quaint. The money earned through cinematography would be reduced mostly to the revenues of movie theatres, and the money earned through music would be reduced mostly to the revenues of life performances. Obviously, if we allow this to happen, then artists will need to depend on subsidies. Only applications might still have a chance of escaping the same fate.

"The first step was covering the subject: first of all, [the nanorobots] layered themselves thickly on the surface, in the case of a person leaving only the eyes uncovered; then, they extended their outer walls; then, they connected them, so that they blocked out all light. The second step was scanning: first, they scanned the ambient light; then, they calculated where the light would go if it were unhindered; then, they transmitted the information of the ambient light to right nanorobots. The final step was invisibility: first, the outermost layers of nanorobots filled the interior of their outer walls with a special chemical; then, they caused it to luminesce with a certain hue and brightness. This hue and brightness was the same as that of the background, so that the surface could become almost invisible.

This was much like the chameleon effect, but the camouflage was perfect. The main problem with this was that this was observer-dependent: from different angles the camouflage had to look different as the background also looked different. This required a technique known as integral imaging. This allowed different images were sent in different angles, sometimes up to dozens, so that from whatever direction one looked, the subject would be invisible. Because the nanorobots were so small, this was not a problem if one had enough of them."

From Tempest II: The Novans

This is, of course, science-fiction, and therefore rather extreme: still, I believe that in reality, integral imaging might still possibly be used as a means of achieving invisibility, although perhaps not on a cloak made entirely of nanorobots.

"The exterior of the nanorobots could consist partly or entirely of compartments which could be flipped, so that either side could face either the inside or the outside of the machine. In this way, the exterior of the nanorobot could rapidly be changed to another material present in the storage of the nanorobot (if such were present): the plates of the material were deposited on one side of these compartments, which then flipped, upon which nanomagnets guided it to their appointed position. If the material was already magnetic, only one was needed, on the inside of the wall. Otherwise, the material was itself equipped with a second nanomagnet.
This process was then repeated at such extreme rapidity as is typical of such small scales, so that the nanorobots could change their exterior surprisingly quickly in this way. Other nanorobots had their exterior made entirely of these "doors," so that the process could be instantaneous."

From Tempest II: The Novans

Perhaps police in pursuit of vehicles could employ small parachutes to break the momentum of the criminals being pursued, storing the parachute in a projectile attached to a kind of harpoon, which would be fired at the vehicle and open the parachute as soon as its barbs are attached into the vehicle.

Alternatively, the harpoon could be attached to a crank on the top of the pursuing vehicle, which could then brake or drive in the opposite direction to stop the vehicle, so that it would act somewhat like a winch. In analogy with the system of a retractable leash, the winch could then still be retracted, but not lengthened, so that, should the pursued vehicle brake or slow down, the pursuer would not lose control over the vehicle while driving in the opposite direction. Obviously, someone else should be present to arrest the criminals. Should they exit the car, the cable could be detached through a remotely electronic cable joint, so that the pursuing car could continue to pursue them.

Envision microscopic permanent supermagnets dissolved in water, coated with a material which adheres to water and having a microarchitecture which furthers its absorption of water: perhaps it could then be possible to quickly repel the water itself with a larger magnet. This could be used to dry something or, perhaps, to remove the water from an area around the magnet so as to do something beneath where the water surface had been.