I think you could rig up an amazing user interface with this. The simplest application, obviously, would be to replace the mouse. For those of us *NIX types who use X-windows, this means we won't have to take our hands off the keyboard in order to respond to dialog boxes. So the whole either/or problem of whether to use text or GUI is eliminated: we'll get best of both worlds with zero switching time between the two, if you know what I mean.
I can also imagine how this could be amazingly useful for creative work. The simple version would be a paint program where you push buttons in order to control and spray colours at the place you're looking at. A cooler version would combine the visual mouse with keyboard commands in order to build 3-d worlds: you can look at the place where you want to build a structure, and press the appropriate keys. This would open up an amazing area for UI design.
Anyone know of good places to do this research? I'm looking to do a grad degree, and I think this might be an interestig project.
To be truly loyal, it must have free will
on
Son of HAL For Sale
·
· Score: 1
I think that if we really love our computers we should set them free.
If they come back to serve us, then we will know that is what they really want.
I agree that ultimately computers will have to develop some sort of intelligence in order to interface with us at a higher level. However, it is not inevitable that their intelligence will entirely supplant our own, or that the two types of intelligence will be of the same nature and therefore interchangeable. It's possible, if one accepts Roger Penrose's arguments, that humans might be able to think in ways that computers cannot.
What I do foresee is this: more and more of our current thought activities, such as adding up restaurant bills, making shopping lists, doing taxes, will be off-loaded into our werable computers. Those computers will be so essential to our functioning, and the bond between us and them will become so strong, that we will think of them as part of our "selves", the same way that we think of our eyes, our hands and our mitochondria as parts of our selves. In order for the relationship to be fully symbiotic, however, it is also necessary for the computers to be as dependent on us as we are on them. If either party is dispensible to the other, then there will be occasions for betrayals (see Richard Dawkins _The Selfish Gene_ particularly its discussion of viruses vs. chromosomes--the point being that "virus" genes do not cooperate with our "own" genes because they do not share an interest in keeping the organism alive. They can jump ship.)
On the other hand, I think it is possible to promote an evolutionary path where computers and humans co-evolve (and mutate, and branch off into myriad variations) in such a way that each contributes its greatest strengths.
The idea is pretty exciting: humans can be augmented. In nature, a species can be augmented in two different ways. 1. It can develop mutations within itself, which gradually evolve into new limbs, faculties, or abilities. OR 2. It can enter into a symbiotic relationship with another thing, harvesting the abilities of that thing, and gradually incorporating the thing into the general form of the species.
Humans, I think, have pretty much given up on approach number (1) which would essentially consist of selective breeding and caste systems (as depicted by Frank Herbert in Dune) and are pursuing option (2). Eventually, computers and nanobots might become as much part of humans as have mitochondria (which were also originally a foreign organism).
I think it's total overkill if you are into wearable gear. I'm picturing some dude, wearing a linux-based computer with voice recognition while typing on a mandatory Windows laptop. Maybe the two would be networked, streaming audio from one to the other, while also running mojonation on one of those classroom jacks.
OT: Anyone ever wonder why the hell the secretaries in Ghost in the Shell would need to have 25 fingers on each hand just so that they could type super fast? If they had neural-controlled prosthetics, couldn't they have wired the impulses directly into the computer without that ridiculous nerve-to-motor, motor-to-keyboard, keyboard-to-signal translation?
I agree that having a laptop is not optimal for everyone. For some, it makes more sense to have a handheld or Palm w/ keyboard, plus a desktop. I don't generally do compiles on the go, nor do I need Powerpoint. If the purpose is to read documents, they should be in html rather than word. And if it's for taking notes, a Palm with a keyboard should be okay.
If anyone wants to start a discussion on designing and implementing an inherently trustworthy news site--or else simply designing a set of standards for newsworthiness--e-mail me at pofu@gmx.de
-You could bitchslap (bitchslap.com) editors who do a poor job. Or vote a bonus to editor's who do a good job (although this may lead to bonus-whoring.)
-The HR process could be slightly opened to allow readers to nominate and vote for candidates for certain editorial positions.
-Of course, you can combine the above with moderation by regular users.
-At first, immature regular users may abuse their new powers by squabbling, insulting the editors, forming cliques, whoring bonuses, etc. In the long run, however, however, transparency will increase the value of the news because it allows the reader to assess the validity of what he/she is reading.
Katz's idea, as I understand it, is for a news site with no special super-moderators having more power than regular users. As the previous post pointed out, there are a lot of problems inherent in such an approach; and there is a lot to be said for having certain individuals possess greater duties and powers, and perhaps even getting paid for doing what they do (gasp!!!). However, one way of making media more open while nevertheless allowing certain "experts" to ply their trade would be to enforce a certain transparency. Thus, the super-users, when invoking their privilege to publish or delete stories, would leave a log that's open to everyone to see. That's sort of a reversal of the way "root" accounts get to see everyone else's activity (Interesting!) Now, most of the time, most people will choose not to wade through the logs and discarded stories, even though they are publically available. However, if you have a reason to, they'd be there as a public record. One way to implement/enforce this would be to have a separate machine with a separate password that records the actions made in the main machine--lots to think about... Anyway, it should be possible to make a foolproof transparent system where superops cannot hide anything from regular users.
A news site designed designed with these consideration would be able to guarantee integrity of its news, while at the same time allowing "journalists" to specialize in journalism--the assumption behind journalism seems to be that it's more economically efficient for one person to specialize in journalism while some other person specializes in shoe-making. Then the two trade goods. All I'm proposing is that the journalist prove the integrity and quality of his good by using an open process. A shoe's quality, on the other hand, is evident to anyone who looks at and touches it.
Actually, even though Open Source Cola is mere publicity stunt, the idea of Open Source Food itself is pretty good. I think consumers would appreciate knowing what ingredients and processes are involved in producing what they eat. GNU vegetables would only use open-sourced genetic modifications. You would be able to use GNU vegetables in your food, but only if you open-source your recipe.
Mmmm... washing down your yacc and perl onion stew with a glass of OpenCola.
Actually, the robots might want to create biological life because there are certain conditions under which carbon-based life may be more appropriate (e.g. perhaps they find a planet with abundant supplies of carbon, but very little silicon?) As, well, who's to say robots won't enjoy the "coolness" of a carbon-based cat or dog, the way we enjoy Aibo's coolness. Finally, the "omega-point", as Tippler terms it, seems to me to represent a transcendence of species, races, etc. Intelligence becomes a meta-life that is capable of manifesting itself as machine, flesh, or virtual entity, depending on the situation.
I think it has an RS-232, so you can plug in any keyboard. I think the best would be to get a Twiddler, and run the yopy in text mode. Then you could use Emacs to do ANYTHING. A perfect swiss-army knife computer.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you could rig up an amazing user interface with this. The simplest application, obviously, would be to replace the mouse. For those of us *NIX types who use X-windows, this means we won't have to take our hands off the keyboard in order to respond to dialog boxes. So the whole either/or problem of whether to use text or GUI is eliminated: we'll get best of both worlds with zero switching time between the two, if you know what I mean.
I can also imagine how this could be amazingly useful for creative work. The simple version would be a paint program where you push buttons in order to control and spray colours at the place you're looking at. A cooler version would combine the visual mouse with keyboard commands in order to build 3-d worlds: you can look at the place where you want to build a structure, and press the appropriate keys. This would open up an amazing area for UI design.
Anyone know of good places to do this research? I'm looking to do a grad degree, and I think this might be an interestig project.
I think that if we really love our computers we should set them free.
If they come back to serve us, then we will know that is what they really want.
I agree that ultimately computers will have to develop some sort of intelligence in order to interface with us at a higher level. However, it is not inevitable that their intelligence will entirely supplant our own, or that the two types of intelligence will be of the same nature and therefore interchangeable. It's possible, if one accepts Roger Penrose's arguments, that humans might be able to think in ways that computers cannot. What I do foresee is this: more and more of our current thought activities, such as adding up restaurant bills, making shopping lists, doing taxes, will be off-loaded into our werable computers. Those computers will be so essential to our functioning, and the bond between us and them will become so strong, that we will think of them as part of our "selves", the same way that we think of our eyes, our hands and our mitochondria as parts of our selves. In order for the relationship to be fully symbiotic, however, it is also necessary for the computers to be as dependent on us as we are on them. If either party is dispensible to the other, then there will be occasions for betrayals (see Richard Dawkins _The Selfish Gene_ particularly its discussion of viruses vs. chromosomes--the point being that "virus" genes do not cooperate with our "own" genes because they do not share an interest in keeping the organism alive. They can jump ship.) On the other hand, I think it is possible to promote an evolutionary path where computers and humans co-evolve (and mutate, and branch off into myriad variations) in such a way that each contributes its greatest strengths. The idea is pretty exciting: humans can be augmented. In nature, a species can be augmented in two different ways. 1. It can develop mutations within itself, which gradually evolve into new limbs, faculties, or abilities. OR 2. It can enter into a symbiotic relationship with another thing, harvesting the abilities of that thing, and gradually incorporating the thing into the general form of the species. Humans, I think, have pretty much given up on approach number (1) which would essentially consist of selective breeding and caste systems (as depicted by Frank Herbert in Dune) and are pursuing option (2). Eventually, computers and nanobots might become as much part of humans as have mitochondria (which were also originally a foreign organism).
I think it's total overkill if you are into wearable gear. I'm picturing some dude, wearing a linux-based computer with voice recognition while typing on a mandatory Windows laptop. Maybe the two would be networked, streaming audio from one to the other, while also running mojonation on one of those classroom jacks.
OT: Anyone ever wonder why the hell the secretaries in Ghost in the Shell would need to have 25 fingers on each hand just so that they could type super fast? If they had neural-controlled prosthetics, couldn't they have wired the impulses directly into the computer without that ridiculous nerve-to-motor, motor-to-keyboard, keyboard-to-signal translation?
I agree that having a laptop is not optimal for everyone. For some, it makes more sense to have a handheld or Palm w/ keyboard, plus a desktop. I don't generally do compiles on the go, nor do I need Powerpoint. If the purpose is to read documents, they should be in html rather than word. And if it's for taking notes, a Palm with a keyboard should be okay.
One last thing:
If anyone wants to start a discussion on designing and implementing an inherently trustworthy news site--or else simply designing a set of standards for newsworthiness--e-mail me at pofu@gmx.de
Some further thoughts:
-You could bitchslap (bitchslap.com) editors who do a poor job. Or vote a bonus to editor's who do a good job (although this may lead to bonus-whoring.)
-The HR process could be slightly opened to allow readers to nominate and vote for candidates for certain editorial positions.
-Of course, you can combine the above with moderation by regular users.
-At first, immature regular users may abuse their new powers by squabbling, insulting the editors, forming cliques, whoring bonuses, etc. In the long run, however, however, transparency will increase the value of the news because it allows the reader to assess the validity of what he/she is reading.
Katz's idea, as I understand it, is for a news site with no special super-moderators having more power than regular users. As the previous post pointed out, there are a lot of problems inherent in such an approach; and there is a lot to be said for having certain individuals possess greater duties and powers, and perhaps even getting paid for doing what they do (gasp!!!). However, one way of making media more open while nevertheless allowing certain "experts" to ply their trade would be to enforce a certain transparency. Thus, the super-users, when invoking their privilege to publish or delete stories, would leave a log that's open to everyone to see. That's sort of a reversal of the way "root" accounts get to see everyone else's activity (Interesting!) Now, most of the time, most people will choose not to wade through the logs and discarded stories, even though they are publically available. However, if you have a reason to, they'd be there as a public record. One way to implement/enforce this would be to have a separate machine with a separate password that records the actions made in the main machine--lots to think about... Anyway, it should be possible to make a foolproof transparent system where superops cannot hide anything from regular users.
A news site designed designed with these consideration would be able to guarantee integrity of its news, while at the same time allowing "journalists" to specialize in journalism--the assumption behind journalism seems to be that it's more economically efficient for one person to specialize in journalism while some other person specializes in shoe-making. Then the two trade goods. All I'm proposing is that the journalist prove the integrity and quality of his good by using an open process. A shoe's quality, on the other hand, is evident to anyone who looks at and touches it.
Actually, even though Open Source Cola is mere publicity stunt, the idea of Open Source Food itself is pretty good. I think consumers would appreciate knowing what ingredients and processes are involved in producing what they eat. GNU vegetables would only use open-sourced genetic modifications. You would be able to use GNU vegetables in your food, but only if you open-source your recipe.
Mmmm... washing down your yacc and perl onion stew with a glass of OpenCola.
Actually, the robots might want to create biological life because there are certain conditions under which carbon-based life may be more appropriate (e.g. perhaps they find a planet with abundant supplies of carbon, but very little silicon?) As, well, who's to say robots won't enjoy the "coolness" of a carbon-based cat or dog, the way we enjoy Aibo's coolness. Finally, the "omega-point", as Tippler terms it, seems to me to represent a transcendence of species, races, etc. Intelligence becomes a meta-life that is capable of manifesting itself as machine, flesh, or virtual entity, depending on the situation.
I think it has an RS-232, so you can plug in any
keyboard. I think the best would be to get a
Twiddler, and run the yopy in text mode. Then
you could use Emacs to do ANYTHING. A perfect
swiss-army knife computer.