Science/Tech

You are currently browsing the archive for the Science/Tech category.

A “professional namer” for a branding agency, who was on the teams that came up with Bing and Cingular, among other corporate names, just did an Ask Me Anything on Reddit. A few exchanges follow.

______________________

Question:

Care to name my johnson?

Answer:

Tiny.

Question:

Well, this backfired.

______________________

Question:

What makes a name a good name?

Answer:

A good name should either say what the thing is (or what benefits it offers) or it should at least be memorable somehow–it be easy to say and talk about. There’s a lot more than that, but that’s a big one (and even that one has some exceptions…Haagen Dazs anyone?)

Names tend to change from horrible to awesome based just on people’s perspectives of the brand though. Imagine you were on the board at what is now Google, and one of the board members says, “OK, we’ve narrowed it down to 2 potential names for our company: WebSearcher or Google.” I’d say at least 9 out of 10 people would’ve gone with “WebSearcher” and said “what a ridiculously stupid name!” about Google. Admittedly though, we have heard some names that just leave us speechless…usually those are names that people have come up with themselves for their own business/product.

______________________

Question:

So how do you come up with new names?

Answer:

Lots of things: brainstorming sessions, interviews, focus groups, thesaurus-mining, Excel tables, magazines, scrabble–you name it. Every once in a while though, the perfect answer really does appear to you out of nowhere, which can be very nice.

______________________
 

Question:

How much does a job like this pay?

Answer:

Starting pay at most agencies is around 30-35K. If you’re the CEO at a big agency, you could be making 8-10 million a year–everyone else is somewhere in between.

______________________

Question:

What would you name a man with no arms and no legs floating in the ocean? 

Answer:

I’d call him f**ked, but that’s my non-professional opinion.•

At Rob Walker’s Yahoo! blog, he interviews technology critic Douglas Rushkoff about his new book, Present Shock, an updating of sorts of Alvin Toffler’s Future Shock. An excerpt about adaptation strategies in our brave new world:

Qusetion:

The book addresses what you’re calling ‘present shock,’ referencing Alvin Toffler’s idea of ‘future shock,’ and (if I can oversimplify) suggesting that we’re now living in Toffler’s future, and we’re not coping all that well. How might we respond to ‘society without narrative context’?

Douglas Rushkoff:

Present Shock is the panicky reaction to this always-on, real-time society in which we have found ourselves. But there are definitely ways to adapt and thrive in a ‘presentist’ world. So, take the collapse of narrative. We live in a world where it’s really hard to tell a story. People don’t have patience, they have interactive devices that encourage them to break up or leave a story in progress, and they don’t really think about things as having beginnings, middles and ends. We are in the now, and not looking forward to long-term goals anymore. This is as true for kids playing endless adventure games like World of Warcraft as it is for derivatives traders hoping to make money not off long-term investments but on the trades themselves. 

So on the one hand, we get the scary stuff: movements with long-term goals are increasingly unpopular. Political parties are hated. The notion of a career path or a commitment to (and from) an employer seems ludicrous. On the other hand, we begin to see some people attempting to live in a more ‘steady state.’ We don’t have to fight and win wars so much as deal with our problems in a more ongoing way. Global warming is not something we fight against and ‘win,’ but a chronic problem we can only face with sustainable solutions. We don’t need to yearn for endings—unless of course we really want to bring about the apocalypse. Instead, we must grow beyond the simple stories on which we were raised, and learn to live in a never-ending kind of story, in which we are the living players. 

This is what Occupy was groping toward, in its own way. They don’t have demands or goals so much as approaches. They are attempting to model a way of living. When asked how the movement is supposed to ‘end,’ they say, “Why should it end?'”

Tags: ,

Nolan Bushnell, the Atari founder who famously nurtured Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak, has published a new book, Finding the Next Steve Jobs. An excerpt from an interview Eric Johnson just did with him at All Things D:

Question:

Just how close were you to Steve after his brief involvement with Atari?

Nolan Bushnell: 

We’d talk on the phone infrequently, but he’d come up to [my house in] Woodside about once a month, usually on a Saturday or Sunday morning, and we’d go up on the hill and talk. Occasionally, I’d go down to his place, but a lot of the time it was him coming up to my place.

Question:

Why are we even looking for the ‘next Steve Jobs?’

Nolan Bushnell:

Steve took a failing computer company — and they probably would have never brought him back if they weren’t at the end of their rope — and turned it into the highest-market-cap company in the world. People were always aware that innovative solutions are good for your company. I think this just underscored it in a really powerful way. It wasn’t just through cutting costs or innovative marketing. Though Steve was a pretty good marketer.

Question:

But that was when he returned to Apple in 1997. Most of the time when people talk about the ‘next Steve Jobs,’ they’re using that phrase to refer to entrepreneurs who are still early on in their careers. So, are those people really that hard up for work?

Nolan Bushnell:

I believe there are Steve Jobses all around us. Really, what is happening is that they’re being edited out of importance. Right now, Google is doing some great things, but Hewlett-Packard is trying to commit suicide. Every company needs to have askunkworks, to try things that have a high probability of failing. You try to minimize failure, but at the same time, if you’re not willing to try things that are inherently risky, you’re not going to make progress.”

Tags: , , ,

The first step to reducing our reliance on carbon-choking fossil fuels is realizing that we’re not reliant on them. In case you missed Elisbaeth Rosenthal’s “Life After Oil and GasSunday Review piece in the New York Times, an excerpt:

“A National Research Council report released last week concluded that the United States could halve by 2030 the oil used in cars and trucks compared with 2005 levels by improving the efficiency of gasoline-powered vehicles and by relying more on cars that use alternative power sources, like electric batteries and biofuels.

Just days earlier a team of Stanford engineers published a proposal showing how New York State — not windy like the Great Plains, nor sunny like Arizona — could easily produce the power it needs from wind, solar and water power by 2030. In fact there was so much potential power, the researchers found, that renewable power could also fuel our cars.

‘It’s absolutely not true that we need natural gas, coal or oil — we think it’s a myth,’ said Mark Z. Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering and the main author of the study, published in the journal Energy Policy. ‘You could power America with renewables from a technical and economic standpoint. The biggest obstacles are social and political — what you need is the will to do it.'”

Tags: ,

We modify ourselves for aesthetic pleasure, but should we do so with our pets? The answer may be dubious, but it’s sort of beside the point because it’s happening and it will become commonplace. We’ve only just begun playing with genes. The opening of “Beauteous Beasts,” Emily Anthes’ new Aeon essay about manipulating DNA to make pets more presentable: 

“Among the reeds and roots of India’s flooded rice paddies lives a small, freshwater fish. It is covered, face to fin, in horizontal black-and-white stripes, giving the minnow its name: the zebrafish. The fish are striking — and hardy — which has made them popular pets. Over the decades, the fish have spread beyond the shallow, silty waters of the Indian subcontinent to show off their racing stripes in living rooms around the world.

But today, these fish — at least, the original, black-and-white model popular among generations of aquarium keepers — are beginning to seem like relics from a simpler, bygone era. Thanks to biotechnology, the zebrafish has gotten a modern, Technicolor upgrade. By plucking pieces of DNA from jellyfish, sea coral and sea anemones, and popping them into the tiny, tropical fish, biologists have created zebrafish that glow in electric shades of red, orange, green, blue, and purple. In late 2003, a small Texas company called Yorktown Technologies began selling these animals, which they dubbed GloFish. They became America’s first genetically engineered pets.

GloFish are now available at pet stores throughout 49 American states (all but California), selling for $5 or $6 a pop. Two years ago, I bought six of them, along with a special tank designed to bring out their vibrant colours. I was enchanted, watching the fish dart around the aquarium in a neon blaze. But I also found myself confronting some thorny ethical and philosophical questions.”

Tags:

From Wired UK, a report about a Carnegie Mellon robotic snake that can perch itself on poles and branches: “The Biorobotics Lab is something of a specialist in robotic snakes. Given a snake’s lack of limbs, feet and any additional appendages, their unique take on propulsion is an ideal one to replicate in robots designed to explore hard-to-reach locations. “These highly articulated devices can coordinate their internal degrees of freedom to perform a variety of locomotion capabilities that go beyond the capabilities of conventional wheeled and the recently-developed legged robots,” reads the lab’s site. ‘The true power of these devices is that they are versatile, achieving behaviors not limited to crawling, climbing, and swimming.'”

From a debate called “Making Better Babies,” a passage in which Oxford ethicist Julian Savulescu argues that is not just an option but an obligation that we genetically modify our descendants:

“So if we accept that we should treat diseases and use genetics to prevent disease in our offspring, my argument is that we should also value those traits and the genetic contributions to those traits which affect how well our lives and our children’s lives will go.

Now I have in the past controversially argued that we have a moral obligation to do this. Currently it’s legally impermissible to select these sorts of traits in Australia, and I think this is profoundly wrong. However, more strongly not only do I think that people should be able to do it, they should do it.

Why do I say that? Well, if I said to you, people should protect their children from disease, it’s uncontroversial. But if disease is only important because it makes our children’s lives worse, so too parents should choose those genes or choose those states which will promote a better life for the child. 

We have many obligations. We have an obligation to provide good diet and education to our children, to stop climate change, to alleviate global poverty. We have obligations to ourselves and our families. We have many competing obligations. One of those obligations is to try to ensure that our children have the best lives possible and the best advantage when they start life.” (Thanks Practical Ethics.)

 

Tags:

Rob Walker, who wrote some of the best New York Times Magazine articles of recent years (like this one and this one), has a new piece in the Atlantic about a man who decided to sell shares not in a company but in himself, giving crowdsourcing a human face. The opening:

“Mike Merrill was thinking of pumping up his workout regimen with mixed-martial-arts classes and boxing lessons. The scheme would involve seven and a half hours a week at various gyms—a big commitment. So he put the matter before his 160 shareholders. They, after all, had previously determined that he would not get a vasectomy, that he would register as a Republican, and that he and the woman he’d been dating could enter into a three-month ‘Relationship Agreement.’

From microfinance to crowd-funding, tools that rely on the support of large groups have grown familiar, bordering on overexposed. Merrill’s approach to harvesting the power of the marketplace, however, is singular: he has essentially sold shares in his own life. Which raises two questions: Why on Earth would somebody offer others the right to vote on his basic life decisions? And, even more inexplicably, why would anybody pay for that right?”

Tags: ,

Instruction in chess in now mandatory for third and fourth graders in Armenia the same way that obesity and texting are in American schools. From Al Jazeera:

Yerevan, Armenia – Little Susie Hunanyan attended her favourite class in school last week, and it wasn’t drawing, crafts or sport. The seven-year-old sat studiously through an hour of chess lessons.

In Armenia, learning to play the grand game of strategy in school is mandatory for children – the only country in the world that makes chess compulsory – and the initiative has paid dividends. Armenia, a Caucasus country with a population of just three million, is a chess powerhouse. …

The chess initiative is not only meant to scout young talent but also build a better society. Armen Ashotyan, Armenia’s education minister, told Al Jazeera the project is aimed at fostering creative thinking.

‘Chess develops various skills – leadership capacities, decision-making, strategic planning, logical thinking and responsibility,’ Ashotyan said. ‘We are building these traits in our youngsters. The future of the world depends on such creative leaders who have the capacity to make the right decisions, as well as the character to take responsibility for wrong decisions.’

Tags:

The opening of Gautam Naik’s new Wall Street Journal article about replacement human body parts created in vitro:

MADRID—Reaching into a stainless steel tray, Francisco Fernandez-Aviles lifted up a gray, rubbery mass the size of a fat fist.

It was a human cadaver heart that had been bathed in industrial detergents until its original cells had been washed away and all that was left was what scientists call the scaffold.

Next, said Dr. Aviles, ‘We need to make the heart come alive.’

Inside a warren of rooms buried in the basement of Gregorio Marañón hospital here, Dr. Aviles and his team are at the sharpest edge of the bioengineering revolution that has turned the science-fiction dream of building replacement parts for the human body into a reality.

Since a laboratory in North Carolina made a bladder in 1996, scientists have built increasingly more complex organs. There have been five windpipe replacements so far. A London researcher, Alex Seifalian, has transplanted lab-grown tear ducts and an artery into patients. He has made an artificial nose he expects to transplant later this year in a man who lost his nose to skin cancer.”

Tags: ,

In a customarily cogent and paranoid post, the BBC’s Adam Curtis blogs about what he calls the “fake objectivity” that obscures where the real power in society rests. An excerpt about H.L. Hunt, a wing-nut Texas oilman whose view of journalism presaged Fox News by many decades:

“The first is an odd story – with a very strange character at its heart. It is about how in the 1950s the richest man in the world, an oil billionaire in Texas, invented a new form of television journalism. It pretended to be objective and balanced but in fact it was hard core right-wing propaganda. It was way ahead of its time because, in its fake neutrality, it prefigured the rise of the ultraconservative right-wing media of the 1990s – like Fox News, with its copyrighted slogan, ‘Fair and Balanced.’

The billionaire was called H. L. Hunt – Haroldson Lafayette Hunt. He made his fortune in the early 1930s by getting hold of one of the biggest oil fields in America – in the pine forests of East Texas. He was a ruthless, driven man and from early on he became absolutely convinced that he had superhuman qualities that made him different from other humans.

From the 1920s onwards Hunt was a bigamist. He married two women and raised two families that were oblivious of each other. He told his second wife, Frania, that he was called Major Franklyn Hunt. There was a rocky moment when his picture was on the front page of all the Texas papers because of his spectacular oil deal. Frania asked Hunt if that was him – he told her no, that it was his uncle who had been so clever.

Hunt was part of a group of extreme right-wing oil men in Texas who had enormous influence because of their wealth. There is a brilliant book written about this group – The Big Rich by Bryan Burrough. Burrough describes how they had first risen up in the 1930s because they loathed President Roosevelt – ‘a nigger-loving communist,’ as one oil man called him. They were convinced that Roosevelt’s New Deal was really run by Jews and communists – or ‘social vermin’ as they politely put it.

A Texas congressman called Sam Rayburn summed up this group of right-wing oil men. ‘All they do is hate’ – he said.

After the Second World War H L Hunt did two things. He added another, third, family to his bigamist’s collection. And he also turned to the new medium of television to promote his ultraconservative views.”

Tags: ,

Stewart Brand, the Whole Earth Catalog editor who knew what the Digital Age would bring decades before it arrived, is today heavily invested in the de-extinction movement. He just did an excellent Ask Me Anything on Reddit. A few exchanges follow.

________________________

Question:

What species do you think would be the most valuable to bring back and why?

Stewart Brand:

“Most valuable” is an essential question, evolving as we speak. For some it would mean “most loved” or “most missed.” The ivory-billed woodpecker ranks high there. I’m interested in “most ecologically enriching.” That often means “keystone species” or “ecosystem engineer.” High ranked there is the woolly mammoth, maker of the “mammoth steppe” in the far north. Also the passenger pigeon, who enriched the entire eastern deciduous forest.

________________________

Question:

What proportion of these species will face a major habitat problem when they’re brought back? I imagine that at least a few will be back under display-only circumstances.

Stewart Brand:

Thanks for this question, because it comes up a lot, usually in Tragic mode—“The poor passenger pigeons will suffer because their old habitat is gone!” In most cases habitat for revived species will as good as ever or much improved from when they went extinct. The eastern woodlands have grown back ferociously since the late 1800s, when they were most deforested and the passenger pigeon was hunted to death. The north Atlantic has plenty of fish for the great auk, when it returns. Woolly mammoths will relish the boreal forests of the north, and commence turning them back into more biodiverse grasslands.

________________________

Question:

What will you do with the animals once you bring them back to life? Put them in the wild? Zoo?

Stewart Brand:

The sequence is: lab, zoo, wild. You need the zoo for captive-breeding to generate a large enough population, with enough genetic variability, to be able to prosper in the wild. The tricky bit is that zoos are cushy for animals compared to the wild. Managing a toughening-up boot camp for lazy passenger pigeons will be interesting. “Listen up, bird. This is a falcon. He is not your friend.”

________________________

Question:

What are the possible negative effects from your research? Has anyone/any group expressed concern regarding possible negative outcomes?

(Not looking for negatives, just wondering. I’m personally stoked about the research you all have been doing!)

Stewart Brand:

I think one valid negative is the question of whether species-revival technology can be used for species-creation. Suppose someone wants to create a duck-sized horse, for example. Or a one-eyed, one-horned flying purple people eater. Norms will emerge, I suppose. 

I should add that horse-sized ducks are out of the question—mechanical problems. A horse that quacks, maybe.

Tags:

The military contractor Lockheed Martin is speeding ahead into the world of quantum computing, which packs the potential to rewrite the rules of what such machines can do. From Quentin Hardy in the New York Times:

“Ray Johnson, Lockheed’s chief technical officer, said his company would use the quantum computer to create and test complex radar, space and aircraft systems. It could be possible, for example, to tell instantly how the millions of lines of software running a network of satellites would react to a solar burst or a pulse from a nuclear explosion — something that can now take weeks, if ever, to determine.

‘This is a revolution not unlike the early days of computing,’ he said. ‘It is a transformation in the way computers are thought about.’ Many others could find applications for D-Wave’s computers. Cancer researchers see a potential to move rapidly through vast amounts of genetic data. The technology could also be used to determine the behavior of proteins in the human genome, a bigger and tougher problem than sequencing the genome. Researchers at Google have worked with D-Wave on using quantum computers to recognize cars and landmarks, a critical step in managing self-driving vehicles.

Quantum computing is so much faster than traditional computing because of the unusual properties of particles at the smallest level. Instead of the precision of ones and zeros that have been used to represent data since the earliest days of computers, quantum computing relies on the fact that subatomic particles inhabit a range of states. Different relationships among the particles may coexist, as well. Those probable states can be narrowed to determine an optimal outcome among a near-infinitude of possibilities, which allows certain types of problems to be solved rapidly.”

Tags: ,

The opening of Bill Gates’ self-published multimedia, slide-show piece,The Future of Food,” in which the technologist and philanthropist is encouraged by in vitro alternatives to protein-rich meals:

Meat consumption worldwide has doubled in the last 20 years, and it is expected to double again by 2050. This is happening in large part because economies are growing and people can afford more meat. That’s all good news. But raising meat takes a great deal of land and water and has a substantial environmental impact. Put simply, there’s no way to produce enough meat for 9 billion people. Yet we can’t ask everyone to become vegetarians. We need more options for producing meat without depleting our resources.

Over the past few years I’ve come across a few companies that are doing pioneering work on innovations that give a glimpse into possible solutions. To be sure, it’s still very early, but the work these companies are doing makes me optimistic. I wanted to share with you a look at their work on creating alternatives to meat and eggs that are just as healthful, are produced more sustainably, and taste great.”

Tags:

In a 1950 Popular Mechanics article, Waldemar Kaempffert predicted what American life would be like in the year 2000. From a passage about the kitchen and living room of the future:

“This expansion of the frozen-food industry and the changing gastronomic habits of the nation have made it necessary to install in every home the electronic industrial stove which came out of World War II. Jane Dobson has one of these electronic stoves. In eight seconds a half-grilled frozen steak is thawed; in two minutes more it is ready to serve. It never takes Jane Dobson more than half an hour to prepare what Tottenville considers an elaborate meal of several courses.

Some of the food that Jane Dobson buys is what we miscall ‘synthetic.’ In the middle of the 20th century statisticians were predicting that the world would starve to death because the population was increasing more rapidly than the food supply. By 2000, a vast amount of research has been conducted to exploit principles that were embryonic in the first quarter of the 20th century. Thus sawdust and wood pulp are converted into sugary foods. Discarded paper table ‘linen’ and rayon underwear are bought by chemical factories to be converted into candy.

Of course the Dobsons have a television set. But it is connected with the telephones as well as with the radio receiver, so that when Joe Dobson and a friend in a distant city talk over the telephone they also see each other. Businessmen have television conferences. Each man is surrounded by half a dozen television screens on which he sees those taking part in the discussion. Documents are held up for examination; samples of goods are displayed. In fact, Jane Dobson does much of her shopping by television. Department stores obligingly hold up for her inspection bolts of fabric or show her new styles of clothing.”

Tags:

From “Creating the All-Terrain Human,” Christopher Solomon’s New York Times profile of Kilian Jornet Burgada, an ultra-athlete whose body operates more as machine than human:

“Kilian Jornet Burgada is the most dominating endurance athlete of his generation. In just eight years, Jornet has won more than 80 races, claimed some 16 titles and set at least a dozen speed records, many of them in distances that would require the rest of us to purchase an airplane ticket. He has run across entire landmasses­ (Corsica) and mountain ranges (the Pyrenees), nearly without pause. He regularly runs all day eating only wild berries and drinking only from streams. On summer mornings he will set off from his apartment door at the foot of Mont Blanc and run nearly two and a half vertical miles up to Europe’s roof — over cracked glaciers, past Gore-Tex’d climbers, into the thin air at 15,781 feet — and back home again in less than seven hours, a trip that mountaineers can spend days to complete. A few years ago Jornet ran the 165-mile Tahoe Rim Trail and stopped just twice to sleep on the ground for a total of about 90 minutes. In the middle of the night he took a wrong turn, which added perhaps six miles to his run. He still finished in 38 hours 32 minutes, beating the record of Tim Twietmeyer, a legend in the world of ultrarunning, by more than seven hours. When he reached the finish line, he looked as if he’d just won the local turkey trot.” (Thanks Browser.)

Tags: ,

In 1726 England, a servant woman claimed she’d given birth to a litter of bunny rabbits–and managed to convince a large swath of her nation that the fantastic tale was true. The first two paragraphs from Niki Russell’s fascinating Public Domain Review article about the sensation:

“In September 1726, news reached the court of King George I of the alleged birth of several rabbits to Mary Toft (1703-1763) of Godalming, near Guildford, in Surrey. Mary was a twenty-five year old illiterate servant, married to Joshua Toft, a journeyman clothier. According to reports, despite having had a miscarriage just a month earlier in August 1726, Mary had still appeared to be pregnant. On September 27th, she went into labour and was attended initially by her neighbour Mary Gill, and then her mother in law Ann Toft. She gave birth to something resembling a liverless cat.

The family decided to call on the help of Guildford obstetrician John Howard. He visited Mary the next day where he was presented with more animal parts which Ann Toft said she had taken from Mary during the night. The following day, Howard returned and helped deliver yet more animal parts. Over the next month Howard recorded that she began producing a rabbit’s head, the legs of a cat and in a single day, nine dead baby rabbits.”

Tags: ,

Futurists have a need to always live for tomorrow, enjoying their predictions that come true for about as long as a child in enraptured by a new toy. It’s nice being right, sure, but what about the next tomorrow? From Veronique Greenwood’s new Aeon essay, “I Grew Up in the Future“:

“In 2004, the year I went to college, one of Forbes’ top tech trends was that consumers were beginning to buy more laptops than desktops. I took a laptop with me, of course — we’d had one or two around the house for years, and I think we bought three more that summer — but I also took a video phone. It was a silvery chunk of plastic with a handset on a cord, a dialpad, and a four-inch screen on a hinge on which I could see my family every week or so. It was the way of the future, and my mom wrote an article about using it to keep up family ties across long distances. The next year, when my sister went away to college, she did not take one. That fateful Skype release had occurred in the intervening 12 months, and the days of dedicated hardware were through.

Strangely enough, after the video revolution came, it no longer seemed to interest my mom. I had not fully grasped it until that point, but her interest was in premature things — full of potential, hampered by bizarre deformities, in need of her talents. Unlike almost every consumer of technology, for her, and for a few others like her, the sleek final product held much less interest, except as a sign that their instincts had been correct.

The bugs, in other words, were more than just bugs. They were opportunities. And without people who have this affinity for the half-formed, we might not get anywhere much at all.”

Tags:

One of this week’s guests on Marc Maron’s WTF podcast is 87-year-old Dick Van Dyke. The guest discusses his career, especially his amazing run during the 1960s (Bye Bye Birdie, Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, the Dick Van Dyke Show, Mary Poppins), but he also mentions something I had never heard: Before his great success, in the mid-1950s, he was the host of CBS national morning show (as Charlie Rose is today), and his news reader was Walter Cronkite and one of his writers was Barbara Walters. It’s a fun listen if you get the chance, though Maron’s show always is.

Here Van Dyke is joined by Lucille Ball on his 1976 variety show for a skit about human augmentation, which is still only in its infancy. Not quite as dark a take as John Frankenheimer’s Seconds, as you might imagine.

Tags: ,

Last week I put up a post about Steven Pinker’s assertion that violent video games have become popular in an era when we’ve seen a marked decrease in violence perpetrated by young males, the group most devoted to them. But is it possible that such fare encourages a particular type of shocking violence (mass shootings) that gets lost in the larger statistics? Perhaps blood-soaked video games have little effect on the average youth–maybe it even helps him work through impulses virtually that would manifest themselves actually without the games. But it’s possible the most damaged among us are inspired by such bloody visions. Even if it’s so, do we want to live in a society in which our culture is governed by a very small minority of crazies? There was long the thought that pornography would encourage viewers to become sex criminals, but the preponderance of online pornography has coincided with a steep decrease in sex crimes. Just correlation? Perhaps, but I would guess causation. Violent culture may serve the same function (for most of us).

Orson Welles briefly talking about the supposed link between violent entertainment and actual violence.

Tags:

It’s a scary world and everyone wants a brother–even if it’s Big Brother. So we’ve opened up our hearts and minds (and smartphones) in a way that allows government and corporations unparalleled access into our habits, our desires. No military intervention, no daunting dictators are necessary if we all willingly transform from citizens into consumers. But something tells me that a decentralized media and the people using it are too difficult to control–and will only grow more so as time goes on. From Damien Walter’s new Guardian article, “Future Tech: Big Brother, Big Data or Creator Culture?

“Today we perhaps have less to fear from the iron fist of Big Brother (although force is never far out of the picture) than from the insidious manipulation of big data. Viktor Mayer-Schonberger and Kenneth Cukier’s new book (Big Data: A Revolution) cracks open one of the most revolutionary aspects of modern technology – the huge amount of data on our behavior it gives us access to. Technology that we take for granted, from smartphones to social networks, harvest a vast array of data on the minutiae of our lives. What we buy. Where we go. Who we talk to. What we believe. Why we believe it. And the bulk of this data is delivered, unquestioningly, in to the hands of a just a few technology providers – Google and Facebook being the market leaders.

Big data has many positive applications, but the potential for oppressive uses is undeniable. Whether it’s manufacturing consent for an election campaign to deliver the right candidate, or developing consumer products so perfectly targeted to our psychological weaknesses that we can barely resist buying them, the data is now there to facilitate unparalleled levels of control over the public. And it’s for sale, an explicit and ever more profitable part of the business of modern technology companies.”

Tags:

When autos “speak” to one another and to the highways, what will it mean? From Fredric Paul at Readwrite.com:

“Intelligent stoplights, for example, would know if there were 10 cars waiting in one direction but only 1 in the other, and adjust light timing to keep traffic moving. Along straight routes, [Maciej] Kranz said, they can build ‘green waves’ of traffic signals to keep lanes flowing efficiently.

There’s also the idea that if one car knows what other vehicles. traffic lights and other road infrastructure are doing, they can all adjust more efficiently. For example, if your car knows that the car in front is about to make a turn or start braking, it can begin reacting even before it actually senses the action.

Cisco estimates this could lead to 7.5% less time wasted in traffic congestion and 4% lower costs for vehicle fuel, repairs and insurance. The benefits are particularly obvious in fleet settings, Kanz said. For example, a company with 10,000 delivery trucks would find it very valuable to be able to use connected technology to schedule preventive maintenance.

As for preventing accidents, vehicle-to-vehicle communications could enable a connected car to alert you if you get too close to the vehicle in front of you. If you don’t respond, Kanz said, ‘at some point the car will make a decision to hit the brakes and avoid the accident.’

Cisco estimatd 8% fewer accidents, 10% lower road costs and a 3% drop in carbon dioxide emissions.”

Tags: ,

Can there truly be a monopoly in the unfettered, ever-changing online world? Can anyone really control anything? Are monopolies still possible but with remarkably brief lifespans, as disposable as hardware now is? From “Will MySpace Ever Lose Its Monopoly?” a 2007 Guardian article:

“Aristotle distinguished between friendships based on communal interests and those of soulmates who bonded out of mutual affection. The vast majority of people signed up for MySpace, Rupert Murdoch’s phenomenally successful networking site, fall into the former category. But on present showing that won’t stop its continuing expansion which, as the MySpace generation goes into employment, could eventually extend Murdoch’s influence in ways that would make his grip on satellite television seem parochial.

It was said at the time of purchase that if Murdoch tried to mess with MySpace’s ‘sharing’ culture by commercialising it, punters would simply switch to one of the dozens of clones it has spawned from Bebo.com to the upwardly mobile Cyworld.com, which has taken South Korea by storm and is now taking the battle into MySpace’s backyard in the US. Cyworld points to research showing that MySpace is a ‘rites-of-passage’ site that kids will grow out of while Cyworld is a ‘real you’ experience. It is an interesting, almost Aristotelian, distinction but some argue it may already be too late for competitors to dislodge MySpace, except in niche markets.

John Barrett of TechNewsWorld claims that MySpace is well on the way to becoming what economists call a ‘natural monopoly.’ Users have invested so much social capital in putting up data about themselves it is not worth their changing sites, especially since every new user that MySpace attracts adds to its value as a network of interacting people.”

L.A. 2013,” a 1988 Los Angeles Times feature that imagined life in the future for a family of four–and their robots–dreamed too big in some cases and not big enough in others. An excerpt:

6 A.M.

WITH A BARELY perceptible click, the Morrow house turns itself on, as it has every morning since the family had it retrofitted with the Smart House system of wiring five years ago. Within seconds, warm air whooshes out of heating ducts in the three bedrooms, while the water heater checks to make sure there’s plenty of hot water. In the kitchen, the coffee maker begins dripping at the same time the oven switches itself on to bake a fresh batch of cinnamon rolls. Next door in the study, the family’s personalized home newspaper, featuring articles on the subjects that interest them, such as financial news and stories about their community, is being printed by laser-jet printer off the home computer–all while the family sleeps.

6:30 A.M.

With a twitch, ‘Billy Rae,’ the Morrows’ mobile home robot, unplugs himself from the kitchen wall outlet–where he has been recharging for the past six hours–then wheels out of the kitchen and down the hall toward the master bedroom for his first task of the day. Raising one metallic arm, Billy Rae gently knocks on the door, calling out the Morrows’ names and the time in a pleasant, if Southern drawl: ‘Hey, y’all–rise an’ shine!’

On the other side of the door, Alma Morrow, a 44- year- old information specialist. Pulling on some sweats, Alma heads for the tiny home gym, where she slips a credit–card-size X–ER Script–her personal exercise prescription–into a slot by the door. Electronic weights come out of the wall, and Alma begins her 20-minute workout.

Meanwhile, her husband, Bill, 45, a senior executive at a Los Angeles–based multinational corporation, is having a harder time. He’s still feeling exhausted from the night before, when his 70-year-old mother, Camille, who lives with the family, accidentally fell asleep with a lighted cigarette. Minutes after the house smoke detector notified them of a potential hazard, firefighters from the local station were pounding on the front door. Camille, one of the last of the old–time smokers, had blamed the accident on these ‘newfangled Indian cigarettes’ she’s been forced to buy since India has overtaken the United States in cigarette production. Luckily, she only singed a pillow- case–and her considerable pride. Bill, however, had been unable to fall back asleep and had spent a couple of hours in the study at the personal computer, teleconferring with his counterparts in the firm’s Tokyo office. But this morning, he can’t afford to be late. With a grunt, he rolls out of bed and heads for the bathroom, where he swishes and swallows Denturinse–much easier and more effective than toothbrushing–and then hurries to get dressed. As he does, the video intercom buzzes. Camille’s collagen-improved face appears on the video screen, her gravelly voice booming over the speaker. Bill clicks off the camera on his side so Camille can’t see him in his boxer shorts, then talks to her. She tells him she wants him to drive her downtown to finalize her retirement plan with her attorney. Knowing this will make him late, he suggests that Alma could drop Camille off at the law firm’s branch office in the Granada Hills Community Center. Camille reluctantly agrees– much to Alma’s chagrin–then buzzes off. When the couple heads for the kitchen, they leave the bed unmade: Billy Rae can change the sheets.”

Via Amber Williams at PopSci, daunting news for those who wish to use DNA to reanimate dinosaurs, so that they can kill us all:

“DNA is a sturdy molecule; it can hang around for a long time in fossilized plants and animals. To find out just how long, an international team of scientists decided to determine its rate of decay—the length of time it takes half of its bonds to break.

First, the scientists extracted and measured the amount of DNA in 158 tibiotarsus leg bones of extinct moa, 12-foot, flightless birds that once roamed New Zealand. Next, they used radiocarbon dating to calculate the ages of the bones, which ranged from about 650 years old to 7,000 years old. With that data, the scientists calculated the hereditary molecule’s half-life: about 521 years.

The rate, however, isn’t slow enough for humans to take blood from an amber-encased mosquito and clone dinosaurs, like in Jurassic Park.”

Tags:

« Older entries § Newer entries »