The future of TV is where the viewer becomes part of the show (at least, in their version of it).
It is the logical combination of traditional story-telling and video games. The "viewer" gets to see the programme through the eyes of whichever participant they choose. That might be a bystander, or they might be a character, That would give scope for a viewer to alter the storyline, so there may have to be ways to either set it back on track or to simply allow the viewer to make their own show. I can see both possibilities, eventually.
When all the actors are avatars which are downloaded and run rather than simply being a series of images shown in quick succession, along with the scenery and the story, then TV watching will become a much more immersive experience.
It depends on how you define "unhealthy," of course
It sounds to me like a more generalised level of dissatisfacton. Whether specifically with the work environment or the company, or the boss, or the pay rates or the amount of holiday.
Or even the weather on the day the question was asked, indigestion, the quality of the coffee, the distance to the car park or any of a multitude of other potential issues.
In short, asking people how they feel about anything is neither a reliable basis for a professional study, nor a robust measure of the actual question asked.
T&Cs demand acceptance, and visitors must go through tick-lists of what data they are happy to be collected and in what manner.
This is nonsense. I frequently get a popup asking my consent before proceeding with a web page, but it is a simply Accept / Deny choice. No tick-lists, no further questions. But pause, click, continue. No big deal.
When you are forced to stop and be lectured by pop-ups at every turn which must be manually shut down, one by one
Again, simply not my experience. I have no doubt that if site access became as annoying or onerous as this person suggests, there would soon be a browser extension or add-on that would do the job for people.
This piece seems to be intent on creating misinformation and stress, simply to attract an audience
The first duty of an agency that wishes some unknown data to be decrypted would be to prove that it was, in fact, an encrypted message. If they were presented with a file containing random numbers they couldn't just say "you must provide the key to decrypt that" as they have not shown that such a key actually exists.
Of course, the only way to prove that such a key exists would be to use it to decrypt the data. But until the transmission of blocks of random junk becomes widespread and well known (possibly with the occasional encrypted message inserted, as government agencies do it) the "reasonable man" criteria would apply and courts would assume that all apparently random data is actually encrypted messages.
However, that doesn't mean that negative mass matter can't be continuously created
and that's were I got lost. I fail to see how a theory can be dependent on something so fundamental, yet fail to account for it.
There is also the question of how a negative mass fluid would react with other n/mass fluid particles around it. If positive masses attract each other, and a positive-negative mass interaction results in repulsion, how would two negative-mass particles interact with each other?
We won't stop driving petrol / diesel cars because the manufacturers stop making them. We will be forced off them as petrol stations close.
Once the volume of sales makes orthodox refuelling stations uneconomic, or their is more money to be made from recharging electric cars, it will become more and more difficult to find somewhere to refill the tank. After that there will be a tipping point, where it is simply too hard to keep a non-electric vehicle running.
Not only will the bottom fall out of the market, but the demand for electric vehicles will surge, since there will be no viable alternatives. This could all happen very quickly. Well before government target dates for the banning of new sales for non-electric cars.
When people recommend what others should do, they come up with ideas and choices and solutions that are more optimistic and action-oriented
Or to put it another way, they don't care what the outcome is.
Psychologists used to talk about a thing called "risky shift". That an individual tends to make a more conservative decision than a group does. Presumably being part of a group means the blame for failure is diluted or totally obscured. So the consequences to any group member is small, compared to their own portion of blame if that decision was made by an individual.
22 percent of Earth's total landmass was altered between 1992 and 2015
Given that in 1992 the world's population was 5.5 billion and in 2015 it was 7.38 billion, that is an increase of 34%.
The article tells us that the second largest change was reverting farmland back to forests, so not all "change" was detrimental. Even if 22% of the land was altered, for a 34% increase in population, that isn't as bad as it sounds. Even taking into account that a lot of that land is so remote or desolate as to be unusable.
The craft is currently being developed at the Port of Los Angeles, at an expected cost of $5 billion
Compared to NASA's version the Space Launch System that is reported as costing $35billion.
Doesn't SpaceX have any feelings for subcontractors? How are they supposed to make a living when a new, non-governmental, outfit starts making competing rockets that are just as good, reusable and 7 times cheaper to develop and up to 10 times cheaper to launch?
The place is covered in chemicals that are hazardous to humans..
That is a very minor issue. Since if a person came into actual physical contact with the Martian surface they would have much greater problems to deal with.
Trying to define one thing as "art" and another as "not art" is a futile exercise. Given the broad range of objects, creations and interpretations that have been classed as "art" when they have been sold, there is no possible way of objectively saying which is and which is not.
As a consequence either anything can be considered to be art, or nothing qualifies.
The only real-life question that remains is not whether a person would buy the product of an AI, but whether an AI would buy the product of a human.
It does, technology has solved many of the world's biggest problems. However, once it solves a problem then there is no longer a problem, so it doesn't appear that technology has done anything.
But take mass transportation as an example. The inability to move millions of people and millions of tons of goods never seemed like a problem before it was possible. Nobody ever thought "Hmmmm, I wish there was a way to get 50 million people a year to visit other countries" or "I wonder how we could possibly move a quarter of a million tons of crude oil across the world?" . Not until the means to do so was delivered. Then after that, the problem disappeared.
So it is a rather dumb statement. Just like we don't have a "problem" now on how to get 10,000 people a year to The Moon and back. It will become possible - and then easy - to do. And once it does, that will be because technology enabled the solution. But right now, no-one considers our inability to do that to be a "problem".
many ways that foreign governments could compromise an online vote
I would look to the non-foreign possibilities first. The people most motivated to influence elections are the parties taking part. Either "officially" or some out-of-control breakaway factions.
They would also have greater access to all points of the voting process and be more able to leverage individuals who controlled it. We know from commercial and industrial hacking and espionage that most of the leaks come from within an organisation, yet most of the defences are outward-looking. It seems that those considering blockchain based voting are making the same mistakes and ignoring the much greater, internal, threat.
And once you can get to program that pet "personality" into a machine? What have you got then.
We have already seen tentative moves into that area, they will only improve with time.
However, we know that people - even adults - can easily form emotional bonds with inanimate objects. Everyone has got a lump in their throat while watching a film or programme, at some point in their life. Soon those actors will be replaced by CGI, but they will be good enough that the suspension of belief will allow us to feel sad when they die, happy when they win and to "play along" as if they were real people - or at least: fictional characters. And once they start interacting with the person(s) watching, they become even more emotionally powerful.
Alexa and its programmed responses to childish questions (adults - emotionally mature people - don't go asking others if they will be their friend) is on the road to that future. Just like having a pet is the non-technical version of the same thing.
Last time I looked, my cat's purpose in life was not to gather the data to get me to buy things from Amazon
Is that what you think this topic is about?
Most people would rightly assume that the question in the title was a pretty good guide to the subject under discussion.
Something like a dog or a cat can fall into the same category for a small child that doesn't fully understand emotions. It is very easy for them (and some adults who can't tell the difference, either) to incorrectly interpret the animal's reaction to calling their name, giving them a hug or petting them as "friendship" or an emotional bond.
While those sorts of relationships are different from Alexa's vocal responses - or Eliza's typed ones too, for people with a long memory - they can be just as strong, given the physical presence of pets in the home.
Some children need the emotional support of animals, some could grow to be emotionally dependent on a machine. It is a parental duty to teach children how to deal with these different sorts of relationship.
And when the experiment is repeated - many times, by different teams in different labs using different statistical techniques to analyse the results, the truth will come out.
But if an experiment is only performed once, never scrutinised, never checked, never tested then there can be little or no confidence in its conclusions.
the database of games that work with Proton has increased to over 2,600
But how many of that number are simply variants on hitting something, shooting something or jumping over something?
While the number of games sounds imppressive, how many of those titles are actually novel or unique and how many are simply variants on the small number of 30 year-old concepts?
Slashdot Mirror
It is the logical combination of traditional story-telling and video games. The "viewer" gets to see the programme through the eyes of whichever participant they choose. That might be a bystander, or they might be a character, That would give scope for a viewer to alter the storyline, so there may have to be ways to either set it back on track or to simply allow the viewer to make their own show. I can see both possibilities, eventually.
When all the actors are avatars which are downloaded and run rather than simply being a series of images shown in quick succession, along with the scenery and the story, then TV watching will become a much more immersive experience.
It depends on how you define "unhealthy," of course
It sounds to me like a more generalised level of dissatisfacton. Whether specifically with the work environment or the company, or the boss, or the pay rates or the amount of holiday.
Or even the weather on the day the question was asked, indigestion, the quality of the coffee, the distance to the car park or any of a multitude of other potential issues.
In short, asking people how they feel about anything is neither a reliable basis for a professional study, nor a robust measure of the actual question asked.
T&Cs demand acceptance, and visitors must go through tick-lists of what data they are happy to be collected and in what manner.
This is nonsense. I frequently get a popup asking my consent before proceeding with a web page, but it is a simply Accept / Deny choice. No tick-lists, no further questions. But pause, click, continue. No big deal.
When you are forced to stop and be lectured by pop-ups at every turn which must be manually shut down, one by one
Again, simply not my experience. I have no doubt that if site access became as annoying or onerous as this person suggests, there would soon be a browser extension or add-on that would do the job for people.
This piece seems to be intent on creating misinformation and stress, simply to attract an audience
The first duty of an agency that wishes some unknown data to be decrypted would be to prove that it was, in fact, an encrypted message. If they were presented with a file containing random numbers they couldn't just say "you must provide the key to decrypt that" as they have not shown that such a key actually exists.
Of course, the only way to prove that such a key exists would be to use it to decrypt the data. But until the transmission of blocks of random junk becomes widespread and well known (possibly with the occasional encrypted message inserted, as government agencies do it) the "reasonable man" criteria would apply and courts would assume that all apparently random data is actually encrypted messages.
However, that doesn't mean that negative mass matter can't be continuously created
and that's were I got lost. I fail to see how a theory can be dependent on something so fundamental, yet fail to account for it.
There is also the question of how a negative mass fluid would react with other n/mass fluid particles around it. If positive masses attract each other, and a positive-negative mass interaction results in repulsion, how would two negative-mass particles interact with each other?
Once the volume of sales makes orthodox refuelling stations uneconomic, or their is more money to be made from recharging electric cars, it will become more and more difficult to find somewhere to refill the tank. After that there will be a tipping point, where it is simply too hard to keep a non-electric vehicle running.
Not only will the bottom fall out of the market, but the demand for electric vehicles will surge, since there will be no viable alternatives. This could all happen very quickly. Well before government target dates for the banning of new sales for non-electric cars.
When people recommend what others should do, they come up with ideas and choices and solutions that are more optimistic and action-oriented
Or to put it another way, they don't care what the outcome is.
Psychologists used to talk about a thing called "risky shift". That an individual tends to make a more conservative decision than a group does. Presumably being part of a group means the blame for failure is diluted or totally obscured. So the consequences to any group member is small, compared to their own portion of blame if that decision was made by an individual.
22 percent of Earth's total landmass was altered between 1992 and 2015
Given that in 1992 the world's population was 5.5 billion and in 2015 it was 7.38 billion, that is an increase of 34%.
The article tells us that the second largest change was reverting farmland back to forests, so not all "change" was detrimental. Even if 22% of the land was altered, for a 34% increase in population, that isn't as bad as it sounds. Even taking into account that a lot of that land is so remote or desolate as to be unusable.
... on star HD 186302 an almost identical news report has been published.
The craft is currently being developed at the Port of Los Angeles, at an expected cost of $5 billion
Compared to NASA's version the Space Launch System that is reported as costing $35billion.
Doesn't SpaceX have any feelings for subcontractors? How are they supposed to make a living when a new, non-governmental, outfit starts making competing rockets that are just as good, reusable and 7 times cheaper to develop and up to 10 times cheaper to launch?
These arn't the sort of problems you can hand wave away.
Sure you can. Every clean room on Earth copes with this minor inconvenience every hour of the day.
The place is covered in chemicals that are hazardous to humans..
That is a very minor issue. Since if a person came into actual physical contact with the Martian surface they would have much greater problems to deal with.
It would be rather embarrassing to deploy them for real, only to discover that none of them knew where they were or where they were supposed to go!
in England 1,000 million historically was called a milliard
Nobody has used that term for well over 40 years. It is as obsolete as groats and roods.
A billion is globally understood to mean 10**9. Trying to confuse the issue doesn't make anyone look clever.
As a consequence either anything can be considered to be art, or nothing qualifies.
The only real-life question that remains is not whether a person would buy the product of an AI, but whether an AI would buy the product of a human.
This video contains multiple copyrights, ranging from sound recording to publishing rights
So all it boils down to is that companies will have to work a bit harder to earn their billions.
Maybe the answer is for countries to switch off Facebook (and other social media) for a period of time before elections?
Technology doesn't solve humanity's problems
It does, technology has solved many of the world's biggest problems. However, once it solves a problem then there is no longer a problem, so it doesn't appear that technology has done anything.
But take mass transportation as an example. The inability to move millions of people and millions of tons of goods never seemed like a problem before it was possible. Nobody ever thought "Hmmmm, I wish there was a way to get 50 million people a year to visit other countries" or "I wonder how we could possibly move a quarter of a million tons of crude oil across the world?" . Not until the means to do so was delivered. Then after that, the problem disappeared.
So it is a rather dumb statement. Just like we don't have a "problem" now on how to get 10,000 people a year to The Moon and back. It will become possible - and then easy - to do. And once it does, that will be because technology enabled the solution. But right now, no-one considers our inability to do that to be a "problem".
many ways that foreign governments could compromise an online vote
I would look to the non-foreign possibilities first. The people most motivated to influence elections are the parties taking part. Either "officially" or some out-of-control breakaway factions.
They would also have greater access to all points of the voting process and be more able to leverage individuals who controlled it. We know from commercial and industrial hacking and espionage that most of the leaks come from within an organisation, yet most of the defences are outward-looking. It seems that those considering blockchain based voting are making the same mistakes and ignoring the much greater, internal, threat.
If you look at pets like robots
And once you can get to program that pet "personality" into a machine? What have you got then.
We have already seen tentative moves into that area, they will only improve with time.
However, we know that people - even adults - can easily form emotional bonds with inanimate objects. Everyone has got a lump in their throat while watching a film or programme, at some point in their life. Soon those actors will be replaced by CGI, but they will be good enough that the suspension of belief will allow us to feel sad when they die, happy when they win and to "play along" as if they were real people - or at least: fictional characters. And once they start interacting with the person(s) watching, they become even more emotionally powerful.
Alexa and its programmed responses to childish questions (adults - emotionally mature people - don't go asking others if they will be their friend) is on the road to that future. Just like having a pet is the non-technical version of the same thing.
Last time I looked, my cat's purpose in life was not to gather the data to get me to buy things from Amazon
Is that what you think this topic is about?
Most people would rightly assume that the question in the title was a pretty good guide to the subject under discussion.
While those sorts of relationships are different from Alexa's vocal responses - or Eliza's typed ones too, for people with a long memory - they can be just as strong, given the physical presence of pets in the home.
Some children need the emotional support of animals, some could grow to be emotionally dependent on a machine. It is a parental duty to teach children how to deal with these different sorts of relationship.
But if an experiment is only performed once, never scrutinised, never checked, never tested then there can be little or no confidence in its conclusions.
the database of games that work with Proton has increased to over 2,600
But how many of that number are simply variants on hitting something, shooting something or jumping over something?
While the number of games sounds imppressive, how many of those titles are actually novel or unique and how many are simply variants on the small number of 30 year-old concepts?
Or just build the world's largest whistle.