The real star in this movie is Jennifer Connelly. She's beautiful, talented, a great actor, beautiful, she's been in a lot of great movies (Dark City, Requiem for A Dream, A Beautiful Mind, Waking the Dead and - Labyrinth (!) to name a few) and last but not least... did I say she's beautiful?
The 3G model is based on two permanetish assumptions -- one, that users have an unlimited demand for data while traveling, and two, that once they get used to using data on their phone, they will use it everywhere. Both assumptions are wrong.
Now they are, yes, but augmented reality (AR) could change that. AR is pretty much the killer app for mobile internet. When HUDs are small enough to clip on a pair of glasses, you'll want constant internet access.
Of course, this doesn't automatically make 3G the winner but it weakens both of Shirkys assumptions.
"plans to bring a product based on the design to market within two years."
Ericsson showed similar devices years ago, and most other producers have had concept products similar to these ones. Lets just hope they start showing up in the stores for real this time. 2 years is a long time.
Don't get your hopes too high for this invention. The process overall is very, very cool, but the fact that they don't understand how the hippocampus works, they just worked out a neural net model of imputs and outputs in rats, leads one to believe there will be a lot of bumps down this road
You're right, but just as a thought experiment, replace the word "hippocampus" with "neural tissue" or "brain cell" or "brain cell molecule".
My point being, there is always a lower level which you might not understand completely. That doesn't mean you can't successfully mimick the behaviour and achieve the same result.
Since this is a software program running on a chip, I suppose they could update the chip after it's been implanted. The patient herself could even modify it as it is running, for example by telling the program/herself when it/she forgot something or remembered something.
Yeah, but there are currently 40 million users online on Kazaa ae I'm writing this. Now, 40 million times a couple of GHz per user distributed all over the net do add up to a couple of clock cycles that ILM could use to create Jar Jar Binks' grand children in Star Wars VII or whatever they like.
Plus, they can buy it on demand when they need it and don't have to invest in hardware that gets useless after a couple of months.
1. The data isn't public. They have the entire "open" web indexed and archived, but OK, anyone can still do that. But they also have their own blogging community, and the largest (AFAIK) database of news postings in the world. Add to that a news index and a product search and you wouldn't be surprised if soon enough you start googling for your lost car keys.
2. Mind share. "To google" has become a verb. It's the same thing as "searching the web" or just "searching" to a lot of people. If Google can keep their position in peoples' heads as the number one search engine, they're gonna remain the number one search engine. Even if someone else is a bit better. Cruel, but market logic.
3. Developer lock-in. They have open SOAP-API:s that you can develop your own search-engine towards. I don't know how popular this is, but it clearly is part of the strategy to make other companies dependant on the Google API:s.
...and before Microsoft it was WordPerfect and OS/2 and VisiCalc. What was it that Microsoft had that they hadn't?
Most people here would probably say something along the line of "viciousness", but I think it was rather a clear and precise vision of what they wanted to do. A goal that went beyond just word processors or spread sheets.
I didn't say Google _will_ become Microsoft 2.0, but I do think they seem to have that same kind of clear and precise vision. Altavista didn't have that. Yahoo! maybe did, but it was the wrong vision.
Name one other company right now except for Google that even has the slightest possibility to become the Microsoft of the first decade of this century?
As every slashdotter know, they are rapidly taking control over the internet search market. Pretty soon just about everybody may be dependant on Google for internet exposure. If Google doesn't find you, you don't exist. Now that's power in the internet age.
Google may very well end up being for the internet what Microsoft was for the PC.
Yes, you're right. Also remember that recorded music is not the only way to make money for a band. With a good name you can sell t-shirts, coffee mugs or some cool action figures. You can tour and with some nice equipment on the road you can sell recordings of your shows directly to the audience being there.
This is the attention economy. There's more ways to make money in that then selling little plastic circles in record stores. Far from all of them requires a record company.
Apple is a strong brand, and they're also about more than computers. The iPod is not the last Cool Portable Device (tm) we'll see from them. There's been going some rumours around regarding Apple and Sony Ericsson or just Sony in general. Anyway, I'm waiting for the iPhone.
Apple and Java could also become a strong combination on the desktop. The Apple isn't rotten yet!
So think of the most intelligent human possible today. Now give that human a good computer. There's your singularity.
Not quite. Not unless that person and its computer manages to create another intelligence with a greater intelligence, or improve their own combined intelligence. Then, that new intelligence must create an ever greater intelligence or improve itself even more, and so on.
The singularity is about the acceleration of intelligence, not its' current top velocity.
And of course, licking the *ss of your boss is the only thing that really matters. Especially when getting an assignment on where to take the human race for the coming century.
This is why the bad reviews say so much more about the product than the good ones. Of course, it might be a competitive company trying to write its competitor down, so you never know.
I'd actually say: our world, the present or possibly the near future. We are not far from major technological breakthroughs and we are already living in a world which would seem very much like science fiction only 20 or 30 years ago.
We've got pet robots, instant communication, speech recognition software, genetic engineering, cybernetic implants and satellites in space. The first manned Mars-mission is being planned. Space tourism is beginning to take off.
I could go on like this for a while. The list is long. You don't need 8-legged tentacled monsters to have science fiction. All you need to do is read the technology news in your favourite paper. It's there. It's happening. Now.
Uhm, you obviously didn't have Commodore 64 back in the 80s, like the 6 million other owners of that machine.
Now, it's the robots
on
Electronic Life
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
The development of robots is very similar to that of the personal computer in the 70s and the 80s. In 20 years we will remember this time as the last years without a robot assistant.
If this thing was a bit taller and remote controled, it could actually be really useful. For example, it could go shopping for you. You would sit in your comfy chair at home and steer the robot, seeing what it sees, to the nearest grocery store. That would require a lot less intelligent software. Heck, it could even go on a vacation for you, and you wouldn't have to leave the sofa/home/fridge.
Re:Americans waste what they have got.
on
Generation Wrecked
·
· Score: 0
In other news... Microsoft is planning a major campaign in the Venus atmosphere. "If there is life, it must run Microsoft.net." says a spokesman for the company. "Plus, it allows us to get closer to Sun."
Slashdot Mirror
The real star in this movie is Jennifer Connelly. She's beautiful, talented, a great actor, beautiful, she's been in a lot of great movies (Dark City, Requiem for A Dream, A Beautiful Mind, Waking the Dead and - Labyrinth (!) to name a few) and last but not least... did I say she's beautiful?
*sigh*
The 3G model is based on two permanetish assumptions -- one, that users have an unlimited demand for data while traveling, and two, that once they get used to using data on their phone, they will use it everywhere. Both assumptions are wrong.
Now they are, yes, but augmented reality (AR) could change that. AR is pretty much the killer app for mobile internet. When HUDs are small enough to clip on a pair of glasses, you'll want constant internet access.
Of course, this doesn't automatically make 3G the winner but it weakens both of Shirkys assumptions.
"plans to bring a product based on the design to market within two years."
Ericsson showed similar devices years ago, and most other producers have had concept products similar to these ones. Lets just hope they start showing up in the stores for real this time. 2 years is a long time.
sounds boring. when i go to the zoo, i want to see the real thing
There is no zoo.
Don't get your hopes too high for this invention. The process overall is very, very cool, but the fact that they don't understand how the hippocampus works, they just worked out a neural net model of imputs and outputs in rats, leads one to believe there will be a lot of bumps down this road
You're right, but just as a thought experiment, replace the word "hippocampus" with "neural tissue" or "brain cell" or "brain cell molecule".
My point being, there is always a lower level which you might not understand completely. That doesn't mean you can't successfully mimick the behaviour and achieve the same result.
Since this is a software program running on a chip, I suppose they could update the chip after it's been implanted. The patient herself could even modify it as it is running, for example by telling the program/herself when it/she forgot something or remembered something.
Yeah, but there are currently 40 million users online on Kazaa ae I'm writing this. Now, 40 million times a couple of GHz per user distributed all over the net do add up to a couple of clock cycles that ILM could use to create Jar Jar Binks' grand children in Star Wars VII or whatever they like.
Plus, they can buy it on demand when they need it and don't have to invest in hardware that gets useless after a couple of months.
Yes, but:
:o)
1. The data isn't public.
They have the entire "open" web indexed and archived, but OK, anyone can still do that. But they also have their own blogging community, and the largest (AFAIK) database of news postings in the world. Add to that a news index and a product search and you wouldn't be surprised if soon enough you start googling for your lost car keys.
2. Mind share.
"To google" has become a verb. It's the same thing as "searching the web" or just "searching" to a lot of people. If Google can keep their position in peoples' heads as the number one search engine, they're gonna remain the number one search engine. Even if someone else is a bit better. Cruel, but market logic.
3. Developer lock-in.
They have open SOAP-API:s that you can develop your own search-engine towards. I don't know how popular this is, but it clearly is part of the strategy to make other companies dependant on the Google API:s.
Now... where can I buy Google-stocks?
...and before Microsoft it was WordPerfect and OS/2 and VisiCalc. What was it that Microsoft had that they hadn't?
:o)
Most people here would probably say something along the line of "viciousness", but I think it was rather a clear and precise vision of what they wanted to do. A goal that went beyond just word processors or spread sheets.
I didn't say Google _will_ become Microsoft 2.0, but I do think they seem to have that same kind of clear and precise vision. Altavista didn't have that. Yahoo! maybe did, but it was the wrong vision.
Name one other company right now except for Google that even has the slightest possibility to become the Microsoft of the first decade of this century?
I'd sure like to know...
PS.
"Microsoft" doesn't count.
Nice read, but he forgot one company: Google.
As every slashdotter know, they are rapidly taking control over the internet search market. Pretty soon just about everybody may be dependant on Google for internet exposure. If Google doesn't find you, you don't exist. Now that's power in the internet age.
Google may very well end up being for the internet what Microsoft was for the PC.
Yes, you're right. Also remember that recorded music is not the only way to make money for a band. With a good name you can sell t-shirts, coffee mugs or some cool action figures. You can tour and with some nice equipment on the road you can sell recordings of your shows directly to the audience being there.
This is the attention economy. There's more ways to make money in that then selling little plastic circles in record stores. Far from all of them requires a record company.
Apple is a strong brand, and they're also about more than computers. The iPod is not the last Cool Portable Device (tm) we'll see from them. There's been going some rumours around regarding Apple and Sony Ericsson or just Sony in general. Anyway, I'm waiting for the iPhone.
Apple and Java could also become a strong combination on the desktop. The Apple isn't rotten yet!
So think of the most intelligent human possible today. Now give that human a good computer. There's your singularity.
Not quite. Not unless that person and its computer manages to create another intelligence with a greater intelligence, or improve their own combined intelligence. Then, that new intelligence must create an ever greater intelligence or improve itself even more, and so on.
The singularity is about the acceleration of intelligence, not its' current top velocity.
--
Erik
Let's not forget the Sony Ericsson 3G phone announced today.
It'll be quite interesting to see if and how Sony merges their PDAs with their cell phones. Perhaps this one hints at their future strategy.
Anyone has pictures of one of these beauties...?
And of course, licking the *ss of your boss is the only thing that really matters. Especially when getting an assignment on where to take the human race for the coming century.
This is why the bad reviews say so much more about the product than the good ones. Of course, it might be a competitive company trying to write its competitor down, so you never know.
Read'em with open eyes, I guess.
"Turing machines as far as I know can't solve the halting problem."
Neither can humans.
I'd actually say: our world, the present or possibly the near future. We are not far from major technological breakthroughs and we are already living in a world which would seem very much like science fiction only 20 or 30 years ago.
We've got pet robots, instant communication, speech recognition software, genetic engineering, cybernetic implants and satellites in space. The first manned Mars-mission is being planned. Space tourism is beginning to take off.
I could go on like this for a while. The list is long. You don't need 8-legged tentacled monsters to have science fiction. All you need to do is read the technology news in your favourite paper. It's there. It's happening. Now.
Would be cool with a light sabre, though.
Uhm, you obviously didn't have Commodore 64 back in the 80s, like the 6 million other owners of that machine.
The development of robots is very similar to that of the personal computer in the 70s and the 80s. In 20 years we will remember this time as the last years without a robot assistant.
I wonder what this bombardment of little rocks will do to all our precious satellites circling the earth?
If this thing was a bit taller and remote controled, it could actually be really useful. For example, it could go shopping for you. You would sit in your comfy chair at home and steer the robot, seeing what it sees, to the nearest grocery store.
That would require a lot less intelligent software.
Heck, it could even go on a vacation for you, and you wouldn't have to leave the sofa/home/fridge.
85% tax rate? Sounds like Sweden.
In other news... Microsoft is planning a major campaign in the Venus atmosphere.
"If there is life, it must run Microsoft.net." says a spokesman for the company. "Plus, it allows us to get closer to Sun."