I've written a LOT of posts on AR that I don't post, but I'd like to briefly discuss a slightly advanced reason that AR will change everything.
AR is, at least in early stages, almost entirely about tagging. This is what everyone thinks about. People tag restaurants with reviews, billboards with party plans, street corners with historical info, whatever they want. This is all well and good, and it could evolve into some extremely useful stuff, but the killer app for this kind of tagging is tagging people.
The difficulty with tagging people is that people tend to move around. So you can't simply record the tag as being at a specific spot: you have to assign the tag to a specific person and it has to somehow follow them around. If you don't mind limiting tagging to other AR-users, you can probably set up some kind of ident broadcast, so you can look up tags attached to their identity. There are other methods, but they're a lot clumsier.
Anyway, the point is that you can tag people.
This is a whole lot more useful than tagging places or things. It's an instant reputation, first off: you can look at someone and see what people think of them. Second off, it's great way to know what people's interests are... because I can easily tag myself.
If I'm walking down the street with a "let's have lunch!" tag, everyone on the arnet will see that I'm looking for lunch and would probably be happy to have it with them. Furthermore, they might see tags like "science geek", "go-go-gadget-genome!", "www.projectperko.com", "who wants custom ARt?" (That's, um, augmented-reality art. ARt. I just pawned it!)
This can be further strengthened by having contextual tags. For example, I might limit the "let's have lunch!" tags to only people I've met... or only people with some of the same interests, or only people with more green tags (like) than yellow tags (dislike). This means that if someone sees my "let's have lunch!" tag, they can feel fairly confident that I will, in fact, be happy to have lunch with them specifically. Talk about an ice breaker!
Those kinds of tags, mixed with the reputation tags, allow a far higher rate of connection between people than otherwise possible. People can easily connect to me, but they also connect to anyone who's ever had an opinion on me, via my tags. They may also have opinions on some of the people who have opinions about me, and that might diminish or strengthen the tags those people have attached to me: it can be a very complicated situation, but it's made completely transparent, and the end result is that anyone looking at me will know who I am. Not just my name, but what I act like, what kind of circles I move in, what kind of accomplishments I've had...
I think that would change the nature of community!
Saturday, November 08, 2008
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
For Love of Radiation
To call me a fan of nuclear power would be an understatement, but I find that most people have hideous misconceptions on both sides of the debate. Talking about "green power" is difficult when people on both sides don't have a clue what they're talking about!
To me, the biggest misconception that anti-nuclear people have is that nuclear power is unsafe. I won't go into detail, but it's not. It's completely safe.
My side is misinformed, too. We seem to think it's economical. It's not. Virtually every other form of power - green or otherwise - is roughly equivalent or cheaper. It's not really nuclear power's fault, but WHY it's true is irrelevant: nuclear power is expensive.
I like nuclear power, primarily because it's a very pretty process, using the untapped energy in the depth of the atom to power whole cities. It just feels more efficient, more scifi. I think a lot of people feel the same way. It's a beautiful solution that never came into its own.
To some extent, I blame the fact that nuclear power isn't the best solution on Jane Fonda. Panicky responses to nuclear power have let it linger behind other options as fewer dollars to go research and refinement of the technique.
But the truth is the truth, regardless of how pretty I think nuclear power is. It's just not the best alternative.
The best alternative is solar, although I won't argue against as much use of other green methods as is plausible.
Although solar panel production produces lots of heavy metal runoff and scads of CO2, it is a scalable solution whose technology is advancing rapidly. I don't think it's too much to assume that there will be a "solar panel paint" by 2040. Unlike wind power, it's useful in both places where we ARE and places where we AREN'T, and it isn't noisy.
However, that's really answering the wrong question. The question isn't "what's the best green energy source?". The question is "how rapidly will our energy requirements drop once we start thinking in those terms?".
New monitors use a fraction of the electricity of old CRTs. There's a breed of low-energy computer processor already on the way, and more in development. Many of us use energy efficient lighting, and it's already a generation and a half out of date.
I don't expect us to "solve the energy crisis" by producing more energy of any sort. I expect us to "solve the energy crisis" by building a computer that uses ten watts of power and an air conditioner that uses twelve.
Yes? No? I'd like to hear your opinion, so long as it isn't a fanatical support or hate of nuclear power. That's not the point of the post.
To me, the biggest misconception that anti-nuclear people have is that nuclear power is unsafe. I won't go into detail, but it's not. It's completely safe.
My side is misinformed, too. We seem to think it's economical. It's not. Virtually every other form of power - green or otherwise - is roughly equivalent or cheaper. It's not really nuclear power's fault, but WHY it's true is irrelevant: nuclear power is expensive.
I like nuclear power, primarily because it's a very pretty process, using the untapped energy in the depth of the atom to power whole cities. It just feels more efficient, more scifi. I think a lot of people feel the same way. It's a beautiful solution that never came into its own.
To some extent, I blame the fact that nuclear power isn't the best solution on Jane Fonda. Panicky responses to nuclear power have let it linger behind other options as fewer dollars to go research and refinement of the technique.
But the truth is the truth, regardless of how pretty I think nuclear power is. It's just not the best alternative.
The best alternative is solar, although I won't argue against as much use of other green methods as is plausible.
Although solar panel production produces lots of heavy metal runoff and scads of CO2, it is a scalable solution whose technology is advancing rapidly. I don't think it's too much to assume that there will be a "solar panel paint" by 2040. Unlike wind power, it's useful in both places where we ARE and places where we AREN'T, and it isn't noisy.
However, that's really answering the wrong question. The question isn't "what's the best green energy source?". The question is "how rapidly will our energy requirements drop once we start thinking in those terms?".
New monitors use a fraction of the electricity of old CRTs. There's a breed of low-energy computer processor already on the way, and more in development. Many of us use energy efficient lighting, and it's already a generation and a half out of date.
I don't expect us to "solve the energy crisis" by producing more energy of any sort. I expect us to "solve the energy crisis" by building a computer that uses ten watts of power and an air conditioner that uses twelve.
Yes? No? I'd like to hear your opinion, so long as it isn't a fanatical support or hate of nuclear power. That's not the point of the post.
Silliness
Everyone's so cheerful today. In the city of Boston, thousands of un-protesters have joined an anti-riot and cheerfully gone about their daily business.
Analysts are concerned that this manic good-will could result in radical, crippling changes to city traffic patterns. Police have been dispatched to major intersections to heckle the drivers into resuming their customary massholery.
Analysts are concerned that this manic good-will could result in radical, crippling changes to city traffic patterns. Police have been dispatched to major intersections to heckle the drivers into resuming their customary massholery.
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
The Mandatory Political Post
Every blog's gotta have one, I suppose.
Personally, I don't like politicians. Even Obama. BUT, there is a lot of good to come out of this election, the least of which is that he'll do much, much better than the alternative.
Still, to me, the biggest thing about this election is that Obama is not just black... he's a halfbreed. All the racists I've met think that's even worse.
It seems like a long, long time to the human eye, but when you think about it: only 44 presidents went by. At the beginning, black halfbreeds were treated so terribly that it boggles the mind. Slavery at best! Now, we've got one as our main leader.
That's hopeful, don't you think?
To me, racism is one of the strongest examples of human faults. It's been with us since the beginning of time, an instinct that other peoples - even just another tribe - are not people. Inferior, animals, etc.
That we've come so far towards negating that fault gives me a lot of hope for the future. We have a lot of other faults I'd like to see gone. If it only takes 200 years to fix a fundamental human fault... well, let's get to it!
Personally, I don't like politicians. Even Obama. BUT, there is a lot of good to come out of this election, the least of which is that he'll do much, much better than the alternative.
Still, to me, the biggest thing about this election is that Obama is not just black... he's a halfbreed. All the racists I've met think that's even worse.
It seems like a long, long time to the human eye, but when you think about it: only 44 presidents went by. At the beginning, black halfbreeds were treated so terribly that it boggles the mind. Slavery at best! Now, we've got one as our main leader.
That's hopeful, don't you think?
To me, racism is one of the strongest examples of human faults. It's been with us since the beginning of time, an instinct that other peoples - even just another tribe - are not people. Inferior, animals, etc.
That we've come so far towards negating that fault gives me a lot of hope for the future. We have a lot of other faults I'd like to see gone. If it only takes 200 years to fix a fundamental human fault... well, let's get to it!
Monday, November 03, 2008
The "Science" Section
I stopped by Borders today on my way somewhere and looked at their "science" section.
I was a little bit proud of them. Last time I'd seen a "science" section, it was full of blatantly non-science and anti-science books, such as books on aliens, crystal healing, young-earth creationism, etc.
This time there was less of that. But instead of replacing them with SCIENCE BOOKS, they replaced them with biographies of scientists, primarily Einstein. Literally 1/3 of their entire "science" section was biographies of scientists. Most of the rest were popular not-quite-science books falling somewhere between coffee-table books and light reading. They had more picture books (space pictures, mostly) than actual science books.
I don't mean text books. I just mean books with some level of scientific rigor. Some level above zero, to be more specific.
Well, it's better than before. Baby steps, as Bob would say.
I was a little bit proud of them. Last time I'd seen a "science" section, it was full of blatantly non-science and anti-science books, such as books on aliens, crystal healing, young-earth creationism, etc.
This time there was less of that. But instead of replacing them with SCIENCE BOOKS, they replaced them with biographies of scientists, primarily Einstein. Literally 1/3 of their entire "science" section was biographies of scientists. Most of the rest were popular not-quite-science books falling somewhere between coffee-table books and light reading. They had more picture books (space pictures, mostly) than actual science books.
I don't mean text books. I just mean books with some level of scientific rigor. Some level above zero, to be more specific.
Well, it's better than before. Baby steps, as Bob would say.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Howl's Moving Castle
This is your pointless review of the month...
I saw Howl's Moving Castle last night, and it was odd. The story was largely charming, the imagery was very interesting... but the animation was extremely erratic, and some of the plot just didn't make much sense. Not "not much sense" in a kind of fairy-tale vagueness, but "not much sense" as in "NOT MUCH SENSE". I can only presume the English dub skips a lot of the Japanese plot, because I've never seen a Ghibli movie make so little sense.
Who was that little kid living with Howl? WHY IS HE LIVING WITH HOWL? What's up with the prince? "Hi, I came out of nowhere! I'm in true love with you!" "Oh, I'm in love with someone else." "Oh, that's okay, I'll just come back in a few weeks." WTF?
Probably my least favorite Ghibli film (some of the animation was just flat-out BAD), but it's still better than most things out there.
I saw Howl's Moving Castle last night, and it was odd. The story was largely charming, the imagery was very interesting... but the animation was extremely erratic, and some of the plot just didn't make much sense. Not "not much sense" in a kind of fairy-tale vagueness, but "not much sense" as in "NOT MUCH SENSE". I can only presume the English dub skips a lot of the Japanese plot, because I've never seen a Ghibli movie make so little sense.
Who was that little kid living with Howl? WHY IS HE LIVING WITH HOWL? What's up with the prince? "Hi, I came out of nowhere! I'm in true love with you!" "Oh, I'm in love with someone else." "Oh, that's okay, I'll just come back in a few weeks." WTF?
Probably my least favorite Ghibli film (some of the animation was just flat-out BAD), but it's still better than most things out there.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Safety and Genetic Engineering
So, the Brits finally approved the human-animal genetic experiments.
These experiments are very interesting, but not terribly dangerous or crazy. I think the people who don't understand it are having visions of something between Manga-style catgirls and stitched-together "Island of Doctor Moreau" horrors. The truth is, even if you tried to bring these experiments to term, they wouldn't make it: this genetic mixing is too primitive, too damaging. Even if we had the capacity to combine them in a way which could be brought to term, we would focus on basic human improvements first, no animal traits involved.
I think that a lot of people are stuck on this idea of a fifties-style mad scientist in a lab coat, cackling to himself and building monsters. I have a sneaking suspicion these people might even imagine it in black and white.
The truth is that individuals cannot accomplish projects of any reasonable scale, at least not yet. These kinds of projects (new foods, theoretical genetics research, etc) require large teams with hugely expensive equipment. We're not talking about a man with a lab coat, cackling. We're talking about a room full of people with lab coats, cackling. It's time to stop thinking Doctor Moreau and time to start thinking Doctor No: in order to release some new genetic monster on the world, it would require almost unlimited funding and hundreds of scientists, every single one of whom must be willing and able to keep it secret.
IE, living on a volcanic island surrounded by sharks with laser beams on their heads.
The only entities able to fund that kind of development are major corporations, major militaries, and any of the people who founded Microsoft. Of those, major corporations are the only ones that can be reasonably stopped with laws, and I'm not sure it makes sense to make the laws about specific kinds of genetic research. There are always other kinds of research, and corporations have a surprising knack for doing horrible things within the letter of the law. It might be better to focus on laws about corporate BEHAVIOR, not RESEARCH.
The people who are more or less above the law - militaries, who can simply ignore it, and the very rich, who can simply do it in a more permissive nation. In those cases, there is no immediate worry: the potential for giant scorpions or horrible mutant humans is simply not there. Effectively, in order to do that kind of thing, it would require something on par with Los Alamos... and I guarantee you that it could not be kept truly secret. Even Los Alamos wasn't particularly secret among physicists, and in this era, everything's a hundred times better connected.
There is a danger from smaller projects, such as weaponized diseases. These are technically within the scope of today's science. In fact, there are plenty of researchers engaged, right now, in breeding ever nastier tiny biological things. They don't do this to provide us with weapons of mass destruction, they do this to provide us with better protection against the continued march of tiny biological things to get ever-nastier on their own.
See, in this day and age, no government would be willing to release a weaponized biological agent. Although the atom bomb is stuck in our minds as a horror, the truth is that everyone who knows better is far more scared of biological stuff. If you killed 400 Serbians with a customized disease, every first world country in the universe would come down on you as if you had just nuked a middling-sized city.
That leaves only private individuals as significant threats.
Maybe they are, maybe not. Excessively rich people often have strange wishes. But one thing is for sure: prohibiting something will just make them do it quieter, or farther away.
Personally, even if none of this were true, even if there was a impending risk, I would still support extensive genetic experimentation. That's because, out of all the scientific fields there are, out of all the scientific fields there have EVER BEEN, modern genetic research has the greatest potential to improve life.
And science improves life.
Even when it starts off on the wrong foot, going the wrong direction, it doesn't take long to turn around and improve life.
So huzzah for genetic research! And huzzah for any nation that approves it.
These experiments are very interesting, but not terribly dangerous or crazy. I think the people who don't understand it are having visions of something between Manga-style catgirls and stitched-together "Island of Doctor Moreau" horrors. The truth is, even if you tried to bring these experiments to term, they wouldn't make it: this genetic mixing is too primitive, too damaging. Even if we had the capacity to combine them in a way which could be brought to term, we would focus on basic human improvements first, no animal traits involved.
I think that a lot of people are stuck on this idea of a fifties-style mad scientist in a lab coat, cackling to himself and building monsters. I have a sneaking suspicion these people might even imagine it in black and white.
The truth is that individuals cannot accomplish projects of any reasonable scale, at least not yet. These kinds of projects (new foods, theoretical genetics research, etc) require large teams with hugely expensive equipment. We're not talking about a man with a lab coat, cackling. We're talking about a room full of people with lab coats, cackling. It's time to stop thinking Doctor Moreau and time to start thinking Doctor No: in order to release some new genetic monster on the world, it would require almost unlimited funding and hundreds of scientists, every single one of whom must be willing and able to keep it secret.
IE, living on a volcanic island surrounded by sharks with laser beams on their heads.
The only entities able to fund that kind of development are major corporations, major militaries, and any of the people who founded Microsoft. Of those, major corporations are the only ones that can be reasonably stopped with laws, and I'm not sure it makes sense to make the laws about specific kinds of genetic research. There are always other kinds of research, and corporations have a surprising knack for doing horrible things within the letter of the law. It might be better to focus on laws about corporate BEHAVIOR, not RESEARCH.
The people who are more or less above the law - militaries, who can simply ignore it, and the very rich, who can simply do it in a more permissive nation. In those cases, there is no immediate worry: the potential for giant scorpions or horrible mutant humans is simply not there. Effectively, in order to do that kind of thing, it would require something on par with Los Alamos... and I guarantee you that it could not be kept truly secret. Even Los Alamos wasn't particularly secret among physicists, and in this era, everything's a hundred times better connected.
There is a danger from smaller projects, such as weaponized diseases. These are technically within the scope of today's science. In fact, there are plenty of researchers engaged, right now, in breeding ever nastier tiny biological things. They don't do this to provide us with weapons of mass destruction, they do this to provide us with better protection against the continued march of tiny biological things to get ever-nastier on their own.
See, in this day and age, no government would be willing to release a weaponized biological agent. Although the atom bomb is stuck in our minds as a horror, the truth is that everyone who knows better is far more scared of biological stuff. If you killed 400 Serbians with a customized disease, every first world country in the universe would come down on you as if you had just nuked a middling-sized city.
That leaves only private individuals as significant threats.
Maybe they are, maybe not. Excessively rich people often have strange wishes. But one thing is for sure: prohibiting something will just make them do it quieter, or farther away.
Personally, even if none of this were true, even if there was a impending risk, I would still support extensive genetic experimentation. That's because, out of all the scientific fields there are, out of all the scientific fields there have EVER BEEN, modern genetic research has the greatest potential to improve life.
And science improves life.
Even when it starts off on the wrong foot, going the wrong direction, it doesn't take long to turn around and improve life.
So huzzah for genetic research! And huzzah for any nation that approves it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)