Back at Cambridge University in England twelve years ago I saw a demonstration of a 3-D screen which did similar things.
Basically what they had was a high speed CRT, and in front of it they put an LCD-based filter and a lens system. The CRT showed consecutive images for multiple viewing angles, and the LCD filter worked in conjunction to ensure that only the correct images would be seen at the correct viewing angles. I can't remember the full details now (it was 12 years ago!) but the display did really seem to have depth and the images really did seem to jump out of it. They tried to ensure that when viewing the screen at a reasonable distance you would get different images for each eye. No glasses required.
The refresh rate wasn't astonishing, and the screen was only monochrome, but it was very effective. They were talking about making a colour version based on LCDs, but the big problem with using LCD screens back then was the switching time for the pixels.
I was seriously impressed by the demo I saw and have been waiting ever since for this to become a real product. I'm not holding my breath though - the amount of data required for 3D TV (or 3D movies) for these kind of screens is immense. Whilst modern digital satellite TV can carry hundreds of channels from a single satellite the same satellite would only be able to carry a handful of 3D broadcasts (if you want to ensure a decent 3D picture). I think you'd probably need something faster than Internet 2 for cable-based transmission.
For those of you unfamiliar with Mac OS X.3 and the new Expose feature, it basically does three different thing, which are as follows:
1) Shrink and arrange all open windows so that you can see all windows at once. Clicking on a shrunk window selects that window as the new topmost window, and restores all windows to their original sizes
2) In a similar manner, shrink and arrange all windows open for the application you are currently using to allow you to more easily swap between windows within that application
3) Shove all windows off to the edge of the screen (temporarily) so that you can easily and quickly gain access to the desktop
There is actually a hidden setting for Expose which can be turned on by using a utility like OnyX which changes the nature of this third option. Rather than move all windows off screen when this option is turned on it shrinks the entire desktop window set into a small window/icon, but basically still allows you access to the desktop.
Unfortunately this third option doesn't currently work properly, which is why it's a hidden setting. I would expect that in a future version of Mac OS X it will be implemented as part of a built-in virtual desktop system. You can imagine seeing a number of desktop icons on the backdrop whereby clicking on one of them would bring that desktop into use.
This film was the opening night feature at the Toronto Reel Asian Film Festival last November.
http://www.reelasian.com
I saw it then and thoroughly enjoyed it. Whilst there is a sci-fi element to this film it's not a typical sci-fi movie at all, which was refreshing (and I'm a sci-fi fan). The stories are really all about people, not the robots themselves. Rather than relying on sensationalistic special effects (there are none) this movie plays on our emotions, and does so very effectively.
With this movie Greg Pak has shown that you can make a sci-fi film which can have mass market appeal for a low budget. I hope that this gets a wide distribution and that lots of people get the opportunity to see it. I'm also looking forward to seeing his future movies.
If you get the opportunity to watch this film go see it - you won't regret it.
Personally I used to receive loads of spam a few years back. These days I receive none. How? I stopped using USENET, changed my email address, and refuse to give my real email address to web sites (a@b.com or something similar normally suffices) - and I don't use Hotmail.
However that isn't a real solution. What would be better would be an improved email system where it's impossible to send messages without providing a genuine return address. The big problem with the current email system is it's very easy for spammers to hide and avoid responsibility. We need a "trusted" email system, which we're not going to get if we stick with simply SMTP gateways.
An *International* problem
on
GeekPAC
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Whilst at one level I think that it's high time an organisation such as the AOTC should be formed I cannot help but be slightly disappointed by this development.
My problem is the "A" part of AOTC. The problems that the AOTC are aiming to address are not limited to America. The actions of the US government in relation to the Internet affects people and companies all around this planet, not just the relatively small population of the USA. Similarly the actions of other governments around the world have an effect on both companies and citizens within the USA.
I really should not need to remind people that the Internet is a global network, and that laws and regulations concerning the Internet have international repercussions. Everybody reading this should already be familiar with the way in which the DMCA has been used to persecute foreign nationals who have done nothing illegal in their own country. It should also be obvious to everybody that if it is passed the CBTPA will have a profound affect on people all around the world; it is not only US citizens that could loose their jobs if this law passes.
Please don't think that the USA is alone in suffering from dumb technology laws. Here in the UK we have our own dumb laws (such as the RIP Act) as well as those forced upon us by the European Parliament (like the DMCA-equivalent EC Copyright Directive). We need our own Open Technology Consortium, both for the UK and for Europe as a whole.
Think a little about what it would be like if the European Parliament passed an equivalent to the CBTPA. (For those that don't realise it, Europe has a significantly larger population than the USA, and whilst we still have national governments we also have a European government which passes laws that all European Community member states must abide by.) Many thousands of US technology companies would be adversely affected by this, and as a consequence many US citizens too.
The ideals, aims, and motivations that the AOTC represents are global in nature. Whilst they may be presently concerned with the activities of the US government if the AOTC is successful then they will eventually be forced to deal with foreign governments in order to protect the interests of their American members. Therefore I would argue that a national organisation for what is an international problem is foolish.
An international organisation with the same aims would have many advantages, and few disadvantages. At a simple economic level it could attract a significantly higher membership. Since the arguments in favour of a more open technology market are globally relevant great synergy could be gained from a global approach. Establishing national groups within an international consortium would significantly help the ability of that organisation to influence national government and policy.
Blimey - for once us folks on the other side of the pond (the UK) are ahead of our American cousins on a sci-fi show! The BBC showed the end of Farscape's third season a few months ago now.
I'm not going to give away too much, but you guys are in for a treat. The interplay between Crighton and Scorpius in the final episodes of the season is fantastic. I'd love to say more, especially about the role that Talyn and Crais play in the story, but doing so could ruin your enjoyment of the episodes.
Incidentally the BBC has a great Farscape web site (better than the official one) which you can find at http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/farscape/ This site includes an episode guide which has synopsis of the last 4 episodes of the season which you guys in the US haven't seen yet. The guide has plenty of spoliers - you have been warned. As well as the episode guide you'll find quite a few interviews (video and transcripts), and various other bits and pieces of interest.
The one minor annoyance though is that the season ends on a cliff-hanger. What's really annoying is it looks like you guys in the US will be getting season 4 before I do - the official Farscape web site says it will start on June 7th on Sci Fi...
Given the recently passed laws in the USA this development was inevitable.
Just how many databases are they planning to put together for this profiling? The US government already has granted its law enforcement agencies the right to trawl through email and other web traffic. Is that information going to be used too?
I would be suprised if it were not. From what I gather they now have the legal right to do this.
It strikes me that it could be incredibly easy to get a "dangerous" profile. Just write some emails/articles that are harshly critical about Bush's approach to the war on terrorism. Send too many attachments with your emails and you may be sending stenographic info. Send a random binary file as an attachment, or even just a corrupt file, and you must be sending cryptographic communications (of course you cannot prove otherwise). Hell, just use crypto. Buy plane tickets for a couple of friends and check in at different times from them, or not at all. Exchange emails with Muslim friends expressing anger and disgust about the racist abuse they're suffering from redneck idiots and offer your support and you must be a danger. The possibilities are almost endless.
By the sounds of it, if you were to do all of these things you would guarantee yourself a strip-search every time you fly in the USA.
Do you know who all your friends friends are? Can you really guarantee that you have no link to a terrorist organisation, or organised crime?
Of course not, and nor should you have to. However in a country where even the government has supported terrorism in the past it would not be all that unlikely for a data mining system to find such a link.
There have been many interesting comments surrounding this "penny per page" article, so I thought I'd add my own voice to the mix. Since I use a dial-up connection and tend to batch-surf I only grabbed the first page of the article so I cannot comment on the specifics involved in this particular piece. However I spent almost five years working in the micropayment industry (the company I worked for went bust earlier this year) so I think I can pass on a few insights on this subject.
The idea of "pay per click" is not a new one. IBM have done a considerable amount of work on this, and had a working system several years ago. This was achieved by having a big billing system to collect payments and special URLs in web pages to indicate to a plugin that a payment was required.
This system failed to sell, probably because IBM marketing drones wanted to use it to sell more mainframes for the back-end billing system. The latest I heard (about a year ago) was that it was being spun out into a new company.
IMO "pay per click" micropayments are a slightly flawed approach, since surfing is no the only thing you can do on the 'net.
Micropayments face two very big challenges, which are as follows:
1) Money
You need to have it to spend it.
Credit cards are the current standard payment mechanism for the web, but kids can't get cards, and nor can many adults. Additionally credit card companies won't accept low value payments since it costs them way too much to process the transactions.
Alternatives do exist which are designed to cope with low value payments and more broadly accessible, but they too have their problems. There's probably over 200m electronic cash smart cards in circulation now, many in the hands of kids, however very few card holders have a card reader attached to their PC. There's also web-based payment accounts, however there needs to be a way of charging up these accounts which either requires pre-payment (often involving a rather expensive infrastructure) or a billing arrangement.
2) Fear (and a lack of imagination)
It takes a great deal of imagination of the part of a VC now to back a micropayment company. They fear that they will loose their money, and recent history has proven this fear correct.
It also takes a great deal of imagination to come up with an idea for a web service that isn't already available for free elsewhere. The fear here is that somebody will copy the idea and set up a free alternative. Also there's the fear that nobody will have the money to spend on the service.
There's obviously a fear element linked in to credit card companies and accepting small payments, with the accompanying increased fraud risk. Money can solve this problem, by issuing smart card credit cards and upgrading the payment networks to cope. This is expensive though, so there's the fear that the investment won't be worthwhile.
There are of course considerable links here with the music industry; selling MP3s has the potential to be the (first) killer app of the micropayment industry. Personally I think the current position of the music industry is self-defeating: by preventing people from buying digital music they increase the demand for services like Napster and Gnutella. (I could go on to explain why secure formats are a waste of time, but I don't want to bore you.) Music sales could drive people to get electronic cash cards and card readers, or open micropayment accounts.
Slashdot Mirror
Back at Cambridge University in England twelve years ago I saw a demonstration of a 3-D screen which did similar things.
Basically what they had was a high speed CRT, and in front of it they put an LCD-based filter and a lens system. The CRT showed consecutive images for multiple viewing angles, and the LCD filter worked in conjunction to ensure that only the correct images would be seen at the correct viewing angles. I can't remember the full details now (it was 12 years ago!) but the display did really seem to have depth and the images really did seem to jump out of it. They tried to ensure that when viewing the screen at a reasonable distance you would get different images for each eye. No glasses required.
The refresh rate wasn't astonishing, and the screen was only monochrome, but it was very effective. They were talking about making a colour version based on LCDs, but the big problem with using LCD screens back then was the switching time for the pixels.
I was seriously impressed by the demo I saw and have been waiting ever since for this to become a real product. I'm not holding my breath though - the amount of data required for 3D TV (or 3D movies) for these kind of screens is immense. Whilst modern digital satellite TV can carry hundreds of channels from a single satellite the same satellite would only be able to carry a handful of 3D broadcasts (if you want to ensure a decent 3D picture). I think you'd probably need something faster than Internet 2 for cable-based transmission.
One day though....
For those of you unfamiliar with Mac OS X.3 and the new Expose feature, it basically does three different thing, which are as follows:
1) Shrink and arrange all open windows so that you can see all windows at once. Clicking on a shrunk window selects that window as the new topmost window, and restores all windows to their original sizes
2) In a similar manner, shrink and arrange all windows open for the application you are currently using to allow you to more easily swap between windows within that application
3) Shove all windows off to the edge of the screen (temporarily) so that you can easily and quickly gain access to the desktop
There is actually a hidden setting for Expose which can be turned on by using a utility like OnyX which changes the nature of this third option. Rather than move all windows off screen when this option is turned on it shrinks the entire desktop window set into a small window/icon, but basically still allows you access to the desktop.
Unfortunately this third option doesn't currently work properly, which is why it's a hidden setting. I would expect that in a future version of Mac OS X it will be implemented as part of a built-in virtual desktop system. You can imagine seeing a number of desktop icons on the backdrop whereby clicking on one of them would bring that desktop into use.
This film was the opening night feature at the Toronto Reel Asian Film Festival last November.
http://www.reelasian.com
I saw it then and thoroughly enjoyed it. Whilst there is a sci-fi element to this film it's not a typical sci-fi movie at all, which was refreshing (and I'm a sci-fi fan). The stories are really all about people, not the robots themselves. Rather than relying on sensationalistic special effects (there are none) this movie plays on our emotions, and does so very effectively.
With this movie Greg Pak has shown that you can make a sci-fi film which can have mass market appeal for a low budget. I hope that this gets a wide distribution and that lots of people get the opportunity to see it. I'm also looking forward to seeing his future movies.
If you get the opportunity to watch this film go see it - you won't regret it.
Personally I used to receive loads of spam a few years back. These days I receive none. How? I stopped using USENET, changed my email address, and refuse to give my real email address to web sites (a@b.com or something similar normally suffices) - and I don't use Hotmail.
However that isn't a real solution. What would be better would be an improved email system where it's impossible to send messages without providing a genuine return address. The big problem with the current email system is it's very easy for spammers to hide and avoid responsibility. We need a "trusted" email system, which we're not going to get if we stick with simply SMTP gateways.
Whilst at one level I think that it's high time an organisation such as the AOTC should be formed I cannot help but be slightly disappointed by this development.
My problem is the "A" part of AOTC. The problems that the AOTC are aiming to address are not limited to America. The actions of the US government in relation to the Internet affects people and companies all around this planet, not just the relatively small population of the USA. Similarly the actions of other governments around the world have an effect on both companies and citizens within the USA.
I really should not need to remind people that the Internet is a global network, and that laws and regulations concerning the Internet have international repercussions. Everybody reading this should already be familiar with the way in which the DMCA has been used to persecute foreign nationals who have done nothing illegal in their own country. It should also be obvious to everybody that if it is passed the CBTPA will have a profound affect on people all around the world; it is not only US citizens that could loose their jobs if this law passes.
Please don't think that the USA is alone in suffering from dumb technology laws. Here in the UK we have our own dumb laws (such as the RIP Act) as well as those forced upon us by the European Parliament (like the DMCA-equivalent EC Copyright Directive). We need our own Open Technology Consortium, both for the UK and for Europe as a whole.
Think a little about what it would be like if the European Parliament passed an equivalent to the CBTPA. (For those that don't realise it, Europe has a significantly larger population than the USA, and whilst we still have national governments we also have a European government which passes laws that all European Community member states must abide by.) Many thousands of US technology companies would be adversely affected by this, and as a consequence many US citizens too.
The ideals, aims, and motivations that the AOTC represents are global in nature. Whilst they may be presently concerned with the activities of the US government if the AOTC is successful then they will eventually be forced to deal with foreign governments in order to protect the interests of their American members. Therefore I would argue that a national organisation for what is an international problem is foolish.
An international organisation with the same aims would have many advantages, and few disadvantages. At a simple economic level it could attract a significantly higher membership. Since the arguments in favour of a more open technology market are globally relevant great synergy could be gained from a global approach. Establishing national groups within an international consortium would significantly help the ability of that organisation to influence national government and policy.
Steve
Blimey - for once us folks on the other side of the pond (the UK) are ahead of our American cousins on a sci-fi show! The BBC showed the end of Farscape's third season a few months ago now.
I'm not going to give away too much, but you guys are in for a treat. The interplay between Crighton and Scorpius in the final episodes of the season is fantastic. I'd love to say more, especially about the role that Talyn and Crais play in the story, but doing so could ruin your enjoyment of the episodes.
Incidentally the BBC has a great Farscape web site (better than the official one) which you can find at http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/farscape/
This site includes an episode guide which has synopsis of the last 4 episodes of the season which you guys in the US haven't seen yet. The guide has plenty of spoliers - you have been warned. As well as the episode guide you'll find quite a few interviews (video and transcripts), and various other bits and pieces of interest.
The one minor annoyance though is that the season ends on a cliff-hanger. What's really annoying is it looks like you guys in the US will be getting season 4 before I do - the official Farscape web site says it will start on June 7th on Sci Fi...
Given the recently passed laws in the USA this development was inevitable.
Just how many databases are they planning to put together for this profiling? The US government already has granted its law enforcement agencies the right to trawl through email and other web traffic. Is that information going to be used too?
I would be suprised if it were not. From what I gather they now have the legal right to do this.
It strikes me that it could be incredibly easy to get a "dangerous" profile. Just write some emails/articles that are harshly critical about Bush's approach to the war on terrorism. Send too many attachments with your emails and you may be sending stenographic info. Send a random binary file as an attachment, or even just a corrupt file, and you must be sending cryptographic communications (of course you cannot prove otherwise). Hell, just use crypto. Buy plane tickets for a couple of friends and check in at different times from them, or not at all. Exchange emails with Muslim friends expressing anger and disgust about the racist abuse they're suffering from redneck idiots and offer your support and you must be a danger. The possibilities are almost endless.
By the sounds of it, if you were to do all of these things you would guarantee yourself a strip-search every time you fly in the USA.
Do you know who all your friends friends are? Can you really guarantee that you have no link to a terrorist organisation, or organised crime?
Of course not, and nor should you have to. However in a country where even the government has supported terrorism in the past it would not be all that unlikely for a data mining system to find such a link.
I thank God that I'm not an American.
There have been many interesting comments surrounding this "penny per page" article, so I thought I'd add my own voice to the mix. Since I use a dial-up connection and tend to batch-surf I only grabbed the first page of the article so I cannot comment on the specifics involved in this particular piece. However I spent almost five years working in the micropayment industry (the company I worked for went bust earlier this year) so I think I can pass on a few insights on this subject.
The idea of "pay per click" is not a new one. IBM have done a considerable amount of work on this, and had a working system several years ago. This was achieved by having a big billing system to collect payments and special URLs in web pages to indicate to a plugin that a payment was required.
This system failed to sell, probably because IBM marketing drones wanted to use it to sell more mainframes for the back-end billing system. The latest I heard (about a year ago) was that it was being spun out into a new company.
IMO "pay per click" micropayments are a slightly flawed approach, since surfing is no the only thing you can do on the 'net.
Micropayments face two very big challenges, which are as follows:
1) Money
You need to have it to spend it.
Credit cards are the current standard payment mechanism for the web, but kids can't get cards, and nor can many adults. Additionally credit card companies won't accept low value payments since it costs them way too much to process the transactions.
Alternatives do exist which are designed to cope with low value payments and more broadly accessible, but they too have their problems. There's probably over 200m electronic cash smart cards in circulation now, many in the hands of kids, however very few card holders have a card reader attached to their PC. There's also web-based payment accounts, however there needs to be a way of charging up these accounts which either requires pre-payment (often involving a rather expensive infrastructure) or a billing arrangement.
2) Fear (and a lack of imagination)
It takes a great deal of imagination of the part of a VC now to back a micropayment company. They fear that they will loose their money, and recent history has proven this fear correct.
It also takes a great deal of imagination to come up with an idea for a web service that isn't already available for free elsewhere. The fear here is that somebody will copy the idea and set up a free alternative. Also there's the fear that nobody will have the money to spend on the service.
There's obviously a fear element linked in to credit card companies and accepting small payments, with the accompanying increased fraud risk. Money can solve this problem, by issuing smart card credit cards and upgrading the payment networks to cope. This is expensive though, so there's the fear that the investment won't be worthwhile.
There are of course considerable links here with the music industry; selling MP3s has the potential to be the (first) killer app of the micropayment industry. Personally I think the current position of the music industry is self-defeating: by preventing people from buying digital music they increase the demand for services like Napster and Gnutella. (I could go on to explain why secure formats are a waste of time, but I don't want to bore you.) Music sales could drive people to get electronic cash cards and card readers, or open micropayment accounts.