My old Amiga used to overheat while I was working on term papers (and playing music, and playing games, at the same time -- back in 1995). When it would do this, no amount of rebooting, or smacking it around would work. First the sound would die, then it wouldn't print, then it would go into guru meditation and wouldn't boot at all. I can only assume this was due to one after the other of the custom chips failing after excessive multitasking in an unairconditioned appartment. If I dropped in from a height of about 3 inches I could get it to boot but the sound and printing were still a no go. So I put it in the freezer (A1200's were nice small machines) for 30 minutes, dropped it a couple times, and printed my paper just in time for class.
people complain (and rightly so) that video conferencing will never replce face to face communication. That its difficult to build rapport in a video conference, etc, etc. But no one seems to be really addressing the issues that cause this. Its not the quality of video that makes video conferences a second rate form of human interaction, but the quality of human interaction. The problem is that human interaction is mediated on the basis of lots and lots of subconscious, but critically important visual cues. Perhaps the biggest of these is eye contact.
The eye contact problem is the big one that I haven't seen addressed, which is a shame as its got to be emminently addressable. The way I see it, there are two main aspects to this problem:
1) the fact as long as we're busy looking at a camera, we can't, almost by definition, be looking at a screen (and vice versa) this makes eye contact impossible. If we seem them looking at us, it looks to them like we're looking away. This is a recipe for interpersonal disaster. You never know you've been heard because in a video conference you're violating the most basic conversational principle! Look them in the eye to show that you've understood what was said!
The second aspect to this problem is related. Video screens have nice resolution, and even a pretty good refresh rate, but they're stuck in 3d. Again, eye contact must be with both eyes, and in 2d this is just not going to be possible. Usually there's a little dance of looking in one eye, then the next, then focusing in between. But until people can replicate on a computer the social protocols that govern face to face interpersonal communication, video conferencing is always going to be disappointing.
I keep holding out hope that someone will develop a nice 3d monitor with 2 built in pin hole size cameras BEHIND the screen, either that or some sort of fancy 3d interpolated technique with one camera that can reproduce the effect convincingly. But I haven't seen it. I have a feeling, though, that when someone manages to do that, video conferencing will actually have a chance at realizing its potential.
My old Amiga1200 had a little problem with over heating. (too much multitasking on a 14Mhz computer) . More than once I had worked over night on a paper, listening to music the whole time, only to find that it wouldn't print. In frustration I unplugged it, dropped in a few inches (just to make sure the chips were seated properly) and stuck it in the freezer for 15 minutes. No problems after that. At least until the next time I pulled an all nighter...
My parents live in Kansas. Way out west where the only way to actually get technology was to form (gasp) cooperatives. That's right, apparently the anti-communist propoganda 50 years ago failed to disuade the locals from setting up cooperatives to share the technology for all. Granted at first they only shared phone lines (the so called party lines). What does this cooperative get them these days? Well it got them DSL 2 years before my appartment in Manhattan had it. Rates are as good as I've seen anywhere and since its a cooperative, everyone gets a check once a year or so with a refund. Check out the local telco united www.ucom.net. See any lack of service there? Any exorbitant prices? Nope, didn't think so. Granted, some people might want to go with SBC -- maybe they see a pretty ad on TV or something and really want to switch, but when it comes down to it -- and your next door neighbor works for the local phone company, the people of Kansas know what side their bread is buttered on.
http://www.bowlingforcolumbine.com/media/clips/ind ex.php Click the 'brief history of america' link for your favorite media player. Come to think of it, click the other links too. Then since it will probably have been/.ed by the time you get to the last one, just go out and see the movie.
Re:Begging Questions and Urban Planning
on
This is IT?
·
· Score: 1
Again, read the damned article. It says being bumped into by one of these is like being bumped into by a person. And since they can be slowed down, they can move with pedestrians.
As a frequent pedestrian, and a physics teacher, I just don't believe this. stopping on a dime isn't the same as turning on a dime. There is so much potential for hotrod induced injuries to normal people that I find it difficult to believe that the general public will accept it just like that. The Kamen PR machine needs to quick show what happens when it does run into someone. Show how its better than a crash test dummy without a safety belt. Until I see some people walk away from a crash, I'm not buying one. The biggest problem with any invention is usually just getting people to accept the unknown. Sure it can take a shove, but can it take a crash? Can it be crashed? I KNOW I can crash a bike, I don't yet know how to crash this, so I don't trust it. Maybe that's part of the hacker's mentality that makes so many slashdotters reject it. Someone should crash one and post the video...
I really wish I could get into any of these arguments but -- echoing the sentiments of so many -- I just can't. Going to war will cost so many lives! Avoiding war will cost so many lives! When did lives become the fundamental geopolitical economic unit. Oh wait -- about 3000 B.C. Aparently the constitution, bill of rights, magnicarta and thousands of years of litigous bullshit have given us nothing more than the same right to die we started with. Call me a cynic or call me an idealist, I don't care, but I refuse to believe any "death" other than my own, is something that I have any right to interfere with.
Slashdot Mirror
My old Amiga used to overheat while I was working on term papers (and playing music, and playing games, at the same time -- back in 1995). When it would do this, no amount of rebooting, or smacking it around would work. First the sound would die, then it wouldn't print, then it would go into guru meditation and wouldn't boot at all. I can only assume this was due to one after the other of the custom chips failing after excessive multitasking in an unairconditioned appartment. If I dropped in from a height of about 3 inches I could get it to boot but the sound and printing were still a no go. So I put it in the freezer (A1200's were nice small machines) for 30 minutes, dropped it a couple times, and printed my paper just in time for class.
people complain (and rightly so) that video conferencing will never replce face to face communication. That its difficult to build rapport in a video conference, etc, etc. But no one seems to be really addressing the issues that cause this. Its not the quality of video that makes video conferences a second rate form of human interaction, but the quality of human interaction. The problem is that human interaction is mediated on the basis of lots and lots of subconscious, but critically important visual cues. Perhaps the biggest of these is eye contact. The eye contact problem is the big one that I haven't seen addressed, which is a shame as its got to be emminently addressable. The way I see it, there are two main aspects to this problem: 1) the fact as long as we're busy looking at a camera, we can't, almost by definition, be looking at a screen (and vice versa) this makes eye contact impossible. If we seem them looking at us, it looks to them like we're looking away. This is a recipe for interpersonal disaster. You never know you've been heard because in a video conference you're violating the most basic conversational principle! Look them in the eye to show that you've understood what was said! The second aspect to this problem is related. Video screens have nice resolution, and even a pretty good refresh rate, but they're stuck in 3d. Again, eye contact must be with both eyes, and in 2d this is just not going to be possible. Usually there's a little dance of looking in one eye, then the next, then focusing in between. But until people can replicate on a computer the social protocols that govern face to face interpersonal communication, video conferencing is always going to be disappointing. I keep holding out hope that someone will develop a nice 3d monitor with 2 built in pin hole size cameras BEHIND the screen, either that or some sort of fancy 3d interpolated technique with one camera that can reproduce the effect convincingly. But I haven't seen it. I have a feeling, though, that when someone manages to do that, video conferencing will actually have a chance at realizing its potential.
cherries, apples, pears... why even bother? my new banana project is worth 5 times as much as any old apple. oh... wait... that was the 80's.
My old Amiga1200 had a little problem with over heating. (too much multitasking on a 14Mhz computer) . More than once I had worked over night on a paper, listening to music the whole time, only to find that it wouldn't print. In frustration I unplugged it, dropped in a few inches (just to make sure the chips were seated properly) and stuck it in the freezer for 15 minutes. No problems after that. At least until the next time I pulled an all nighter...
My parents live in Kansas. Way out west where the only way to actually get technology was to form (gasp) cooperatives. That's right, apparently the anti-communist propoganda 50 years ago failed to disuade the locals from setting up cooperatives to share the technology for all. Granted at first they only shared phone lines (the so called party lines). What does this cooperative get them these days? Well it got them DSL 2 years before my appartment in Manhattan had it. Rates are as good as I've seen anywhere and since its a cooperative, everyone gets a check once a year or so with a refund. Check out the local telco united www.ucom.net. See any lack of service there? Any exorbitant prices? Nope, didn't think so. Granted, some people might want to go with SBC -- maybe they see a pretty ad on TV or something and really want to switch, but when it comes down to it -- and your next door neighbor works for the local phone company, the people of Kansas know what side their bread is buttered on.
http://www.bowlingforcolumbine.com/media/clips/ind ex.php Click the 'brief history of america' link for your favorite media player. Come to think of it, click the other links too. Then since it will probably have been /.ed by the time you get to the last one, just go out and see the movie.
Again, read the damned article. It says being bumped into by one of these is like being bumped into by a person. And since they can be slowed down, they can move with pedestrians. As a frequent pedestrian, and a physics teacher, I just don't believe this. stopping on a dime isn't the same as turning on a dime. There is so much potential for hotrod induced injuries to normal people that I find it difficult to believe that the general public will accept it just like that. The Kamen PR machine needs to quick show what happens when it does run into someone. Show how its better than a crash test dummy without a safety belt. Until I see some people walk away from a crash, I'm not buying one. The biggest problem with any invention is usually just getting people to accept the unknown. Sure it can take a shove, but can it take a crash? Can it be crashed? I KNOW I can crash a bike, I don't yet know how to crash this, so I don't trust it. Maybe that's part of the hacker's mentality that makes so many slashdotters reject it. Someone should crash one and post the video...
http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/leonids/ it starts mid morning here in the US so I know what I'll be doing when I get up!
I really wish I could get into any of these arguments but -- echoing the sentiments of so many -- I just can't. Going to war will cost so many lives! Avoiding war will cost so many lives! When did lives become the fundamental geopolitical economic unit. Oh wait -- about 3000 B.C. Aparently the constitution, bill of rights, magnicarta and thousands of years of litigous bullshit have given us nothing more than the same right to die we started with. Call me a cynic or call me an idealist, I don't care, but I refuse to believe any "death" other than my own, is something that I have any right to interfere with.