Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

French Politician Uses Hologram To Hold Meetings In Two Cities At the Same Time (reuters.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the two-places-at-once dept.

neutrino38 writes: The French presidential election is approaching fast. One of the candidates, Jean-Luc Melenchon, used a hologram to hold two public meetings at once. With a political program that is mostly socialist and very left leaning, some people pointed out that he used private innovation to stand out from the crowd. Reuters notes that this is "not the first politician to employ such technology," adding that "in 2014, then-Turkish prime minister Tayyip Erdogan used a huge hologram of himself to attract wider support, while India's Narendra Modi trounced the opposition with a campaign that included holograms of his speeches in villages across the country." You can watch part of one of Melenchon's virtual meetings here.

6 of 101 comments (clear)

  1. WTF Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    some people pointed out that he used private innovation to stand out from the crowd.

    Somebody please explain the significance of selected statement here. Does being a candidate of the Socialist Party mean that one should be coy like a little princess? Isn't that equivalent to using alien technology for a politician?

    1. Re:WTF Time by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Funny

      Does being a candidate of the Socialist Party mean that one should be coy like a little princess?

      Please help me Obi Wan Kenobi, you're my only hope.

    2. Re:WTF Time by zijus · · Score: 5, Informative

      More similar to Lepen. In fact they are close on many subjects, Lepen being extreme right and Melenchon being extreme left.

      Nope.

      To coin it simply : beyond Le Pen on the right side there is... nothing. No other party. So, technically Le Pen is indeed extreme right. Yet the main reason why to tag Le Pen "extreme right" is its fundamental views : ethnic, xenophobic, anti-semitic influences, islamophobic, rather incompetent regarding public policies. These points will be vehemently disputed by this party and Marine Le Pen worked hard to soften the picture. Yet, fundamentally it is correct to state it is extreme-right : it is conceptually and historically. It is also little known yet well analysed this party actually picked-up many political concept from left movement. Yep : you see it is the other way around, Front National try to look acceptable and credible by diverting ideas from the left. Nice tactic isn't it ?! Classic.

      Mélenchon (his movement is currently named "La France Insoumise" or FI or Greek symbol Phi) is a all together different story. Many have a strong interest into shaping this politician as an "extremist" : it would so much easier to discredit him. Yet he is not. At all. That would be as bold as stating Berni Sanders is a dangerous extreme left. Bold and... incorrect. Indeed he severely questions EU and globalisation as also do some... centre party, not only extreme right. That does not make him extreme.

      First item : beyond Mélenchon on the left side in France one can find at least 2 groups : NPA (Nouveau Parti Anti-capitalist) and LO (Lute Ouvrière). So, simply put : no Mélenchon is technically NOT extreme left. Second and more important item : these two party (NPA and LO) are anti-republican (they do not believe in the concept of Republic as a collective type of organisation). They promote armed revolution. Their view is very much labour-class centric. These party (NPA & LO) are technically and conceptually really extreme left. On the other hand Mélenchon promotes an "extreme-republic" (his words) view. He calls for pacific drastic changes in the form of a 6th republic. He cares not only for the labour-class but more importantly for the human-class : the one that is being shredded by necro-liberalism and environmental lunatics. He for example explicitly calls for legalisation on long-term-illegal-workers. He is not maniac about Muslims or other religions (He calls for a clear state-church split. He thinks citizen should believe what they want at home and at church. (He also stresses in France more than 50% is agnostic or atheist)). And so on...

      So Dude wake up ! You may not like Mélenchon or left or far-left or or extreme-left or socialists or your auntie or you name it : fair enough. Yet, you cannot just go banana and disseminate random idiocies. I also notice that for me to give a little context, it takes... this. While for you to libel it is as easy as a one-liner idiocy. This is classic malevolent rhetorical technique : dump a crap-load and force your opponent to waist energy and time on the clean-up. Did that for you.

      Sorry, I don't buy your bullshit.

  2. Who else used holograms? by colinrichardday · · Score: 4, Funny

    Has anyone ever seen this guy and Palpatine in the same room together?

  3. Pepper's Ghost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Can we go easy on the word 'Hologram'? This is likely a pepper's ghost effect; as is 90%+ of what's being called a 'hologram' these days.
    It's a neat effect, and the Reuters image reveals a great reference for the setup (particularly interesting lighting rig), but lets reserve the h word for real examples of the phenomenon.

  4. Not a hologram by Solandri · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Marketers seem eager to abuse and misuse establish terms for advertising purposes. First "hoverboard", now "hologram".

    As best as I can tell (TFA is devoid of details), this is a glorified version of the system used at Hatsune Miku" concerts - a simple rear projection onto a glass screen. A slightly more sophisticated version uses multiple cameras surrounding the person whose image is being broadcast, and switches between them depending on where the observer camera is positioned. That creates the illusion that the observer can move around the image in 3D, but the illusion only works for the observer being tracked. Anyone else sees a 2D image which rotates depending on where the designated observer moves, not based on where they themselves move.

    A true hologram is not conveyed as an image. It is conveyed as an interference pattern created by taking a Fourier transform of a 3D light field. When you take another Fourier transform of that interference pattern (e.g. shine onto it coherent light equivalent to the light that originally created the pattern), it reconstructs the original 3D light field - a hologram.