Remember how cool Big Dog is?
It acts and walks in such a life-like way that it's un-life-like appearance sends everyone talking. Boston Dynamics is at it again, this time with 2 legs! They did such a good job with 4, it's no surprise they can handle the more difficult 2 as well.
So what's the purpose here?
A 2-leg pack mule is less efficient, so this guy is meant for chemical weapons protection testing. But for something that's meant to test clothes, it sure is complicated. (You'd think some mannequin would work...) I guess you have to be able to walk around to test clothing...really it would pull and slide as people move inside it. The aim must be to make some android-like item, dress it up, then have it walk around while hosing it down with dangerous chemicals in order to test the protection.
Why is it so cool?
Well, it's not a 'man' yet, it's just 2 legs with a box on top. But you remember ASIMO, right? That walks around on 2 legs, but you also can easily remember how slow and refined the motion is. You can't see Asimo running around in the woods, or even the parking lot without tripping or tipping over. They finally get it to trot in one video, but that's about it. Asimo is nothing like bigdog...and nothing like Petman.
The legs by themselves really move along. (It's even wearing someone's shoes! There's no flat-plate feet here) The gait looks much more natural. And yes, they do shove on it like they shove on big-dog and the thing just keeps going. It's not 100% human equivelent action, it has sort of an extra horizontal thigh-like thing working in the top because there's no real hip for it to use, but the main leg parts do indeed work the same way.
This video shows it in action!
Imagine if it DID have some sort of human-like torso on there? That would really look wild! It'd nearly be terminator-ish (well if they put a scary one on there) So far it only walks and can't run. They don't say if it can see or not, BigDog could see it's way around. The goal is actually to put the human like torso onto it so it'll wear shirts.
Does this mean whatever makes this petman work, could be used to have gundams walking around? Walking on 2 legs was always this huuuge hurdle for any robot and this looks like the first one to really nail it well, and not in some slooooow methodical way that's been demonstrated before.
This is def. technology to keep an eye on, cool things will be coming--for sure!
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Carving your corneas for profit?
"Specializing People" has always been a hallmark in dystopian works.
Dudes specially created to do certain jobs, for some reason, is used as a tale of woe. Sure, other things are specialized, like horses who do different things (a clydesdale will not win too many races with arabians) or dogs like the great dane who you don't really want sitting on you, but the pug who you probably don't mind.
Well with this article
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article6859483.ece
Some people apparently want to customise their EYES to certain jobs. Well, what if you want to change jobs? Kind of in a pickle then aren't you. Cause once they scrape it off with a laser, that cornea stuff isn't coming back. You make the decision one time, then have to live with it forever. Or the side effects, if there are any.
The pitfall:
Who wouldn't want EVERYthing? So there's a 'menu' of eye enhancements you can get when you go in to have your nearsightedness nixed. Who wouldn't want to select ALL the options? "Oh no, I only want to have 'so-so' vision, I'll skip the 1000 meter night sight and awesome optical upgrades because...why?
See, there's no reason. Who doesn't want like...cat-like night vision of the special forces? And wasn't that whole laser eye fix supposed to be BAD for night vision anyway? Stars, halos or blurryness you can't get rid of? Maybe it's gotten a little more advanced but if someone's going around giving people super sight, why havn't we heard of it? Why wouldn't everyone want it?
Yes, you could have specialty things like a nearsighted and a farsighted eye (yeah brain, try to focus on all that at once then, when half the page you're reading is a blur due to that other eye) but the whole vision problem is caused by the eye being funny shaped.
All eyes should be spheres. Too fat or too tall makes vision skew one way or the other and the image won't focus on the lense. But no one looks at what controls the shape of the eye. It isn't "faulty cornea growing a crazy shape" it's the muscles around the eyeball that hold it in, turn it and squeeze it a little to change the focus. As a lot of people age the muscles get out of whack. They're mostly subconciously controlled so they can squeeze the eye and basically never let up. They've taken up the solution to be "Let it keep squeezing the eye into a bad shape, we'll just cut off bits of it until it's the right shape WHILE it still gets squeezed"
There's a mess of excersises that can be done to train it not to squeeze your eyes wrong any more and bring those muscles under concious control to get rid of glasses or fix vision without chopping bits off. UNLESS you have mutant eyes. Then, no amount of excersize will do anything, but there's not a whole lot of that out there.
The article doesn't mention:
Do the people with enhanced night vision give up any other part of sight?
What are the side effects?
Can it be undone if you change jobs?
If you have normal vision and you want night sight, can you get it?
Still, it is interesting that the customization seems pretty 'normal' and no one's having a fit over it even in the face of the dystopia writing that features it that has come before.
Dudes specially created to do certain jobs, for some reason, is used as a tale of woe. Sure, other things are specialized, like horses who do different things (a clydesdale will not win too many races with arabians) or dogs like the great dane who you don't really want sitting on you, but the pug who you probably don't mind.
Well with this article
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article6859483.ece
Some people apparently want to customise their EYES to certain jobs. Well, what if you want to change jobs? Kind of in a pickle then aren't you. Cause once they scrape it off with a laser, that cornea stuff isn't coming back. You make the decision one time, then have to live with it forever. Or the side effects, if there are any.
The pitfall:
Who wouldn't want EVERYthing? So there's a 'menu' of eye enhancements you can get when you go in to have your nearsightedness nixed. Who wouldn't want to select ALL the options? "Oh no, I only want to have 'so-so' vision, I'll skip the 1000 meter night sight and awesome optical upgrades because...why?
See, there's no reason. Who doesn't want like...cat-like night vision of the special forces? And wasn't that whole laser eye fix supposed to be BAD for night vision anyway? Stars, halos or blurryness you can't get rid of? Maybe it's gotten a little more advanced but if someone's going around giving people super sight, why havn't we heard of it? Why wouldn't everyone want it?
Yes, you could have specialty things like a nearsighted and a farsighted eye (yeah brain, try to focus on all that at once then, when half the page you're reading is a blur due to that other eye) but the whole vision problem is caused by the eye being funny shaped.
All eyes should be spheres. Too fat or too tall makes vision skew one way or the other and the image won't focus on the lense. But no one looks at what controls the shape of the eye. It isn't "faulty cornea growing a crazy shape" it's the muscles around the eyeball that hold it in, turn it and squeeze it a little to change the focus. As a lot of people age the muscles get out of whack. They're mostly subconciously controlled so they can squeeze the eye and basically never let up. They've taken up the solution to be "Let it keep squeezing the eye into a bad shape, we'll just cut off bits of it until it's the right shape WHILE it still gets squeezed"
There's a mess of excersises that can be done to train it not to squeeze your eyes wrong any more and bring those muscles under concious control to get rid of glasses or fix vision without chopping bits off. UNLESS you have mutant eyes. Then, no amount of excersize will do anything, but there's not a whole lot of that out there.
The article doesn't mention:
Do the people with enhanced night vision give up any other part of sight?
What are the side effects?
Can it be undone if you change jobs?
If you have normal vision and you want night sight, can you get it?
Still, it is interesting that the customization seems pretty 'normal' and no one's having a fit over it even in the face of the dystopia writing that features it that has come before.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
More than you wanted to know: Vision Enhancement Contacts
You already know the humble contact lense as the device that corrects vision for people who's eyes are the wrong shape.
And for as long as it's been around, that's pretty much all contact lenses have done. Their only bonus feature was adding color, but that did nothing for anyone's vision. The only mega-enhancement isn't too common, which are the giant lenses worn only at night that squeeze the eye back into it's proper shape so you can do without glasses or contacts of any kind all day long. Heard of 'em? You're likely rare. It's rumored companies are paying to keep those OFF the market because they wreck glasses/contacts and laser surgery by making it un-necisary.
Contacts...of the future!
Part of making things better in the future is taking what's already around and making it better, or adding features. A phone is fine, but now it's an internet/phone/music thing. So people already wear contacts, why not add in terminator-vision? (stats on objects seen by the viewer as an overlay) or facial recognition that brings up name subtitles for the scene so you don't botch up a re-meeting?
But if you're interested in it at all, this article here is a must-see. It's super long so anything here would be re-hashing. It covers some decent science/how angles and is not all sensationalism.
http://spectrum.ieee.org/biomedical/bionics/augmented-reality-in-a-contact-lens/0
It doesn't cover that you could conceivably use them and AR to turn ordinary places into 'game areas' and all those goodies, but if they do actually get these things made, stuff like that won't be far behind.
And for as long as it's been around, that's pretty much all contact lenses have done. Their only bonus feature was adding color, but that did nothing for anyone's vision. The only mega-enhancement isn't too common, which are the giant lenses worn only at night that squeeze the eye back into it's proper shape so you can do without glasses or contacts of any kind all day long. Heard of 'em? You're likely rare. It's rumored companies are paying to keep those OFF the market because they wreck glasses/contacts and laser surgery by making it un-necisary.
Contacts...of the future!
Part of making things better in the future is taking what's already around and making it better, or adding features. A phone is fine, but now it's an internet/phone/music thing. So people already wear contacts, why not add in terminator-vision? (stats on objects seen by the viewer as an overlay) or facial recognition that brings up name subtitles for the scene so you don't botch up a re-meeting?
But if you're interested in it at all, this article here is a must-see. It's super long so anything here would be re-hashing. It covers some decent science/how angles and is not all sensationalism.
http://spectrum.ieee.org/biomedical/bionics/augmented-reality-in-a-contact-lens/0
It doesn't cover that you could conceivably use them and AR to turn ordinary places into 'game areas' and all those goodies, but if they do actually get these things made, stuff like that won't be far behind.
Friday, August 28, 2009
The first real AR Pet?
You've seen AR around the blog before.
And chances are, you've had access to bits of it if you're in the USA, just out in the media, if you're looking for it. The old article was on more of a gimmic-product which was an AR girl atop a box that you could nettle in various ways. (yes Japan invented it/her you dont need to ask on this one) She wasn't particularly a pet or loaded with features other than interactive nettleability with an AR stick.
What else might you have seen?
If you have Popular Science Magazine, they had AR in there a couple of issues back. You could open the magazine in front of your webcam to get some real 3D shots of what was inside. Also, Best Buy has been doing it in their sunday circulars. (Mini booklets released freely in sunday papers to announce sales and deals) Theirs appear in the form of a black/yellow symbol or icon usually on the front page so you can get a look at some technology and also get lured to their website. It's nice, but it's no full-featured anything.
Well, Playstation is setting out to change that with the EyePet, which is a virtual AR pet. It works with the PSEye (of course) and is actually a whole game, not just a gimmic. At first, I was excited to hear this. But then...
Why is the pet so UGLY?
On something that's supposed to be cute/cuddly/you want to turn on the system to play with it so much etc. ugly is a dealbreaker! No one wants a pet hagfish, they want a guinea pig or a bunny or a dog or something. THOSE are at least cute. But this is virtual right? You have access to infinite cuteness! Combine a piggy and bunny! Make a rad little dinosaur! Who doesn't love chibi dinos? Make a baby Chocobo, or a kitten who's color you can change. I mean heck, do a tiny pony or some space pony or something even. Or a pet that evolves as you do things like a Chao. *Infinite cuteness* is at their disposal and they make...
A hairy dog/monkey/elf combo thing.
Of course, you need pix! Plus, video too so http://blog.us.playstation.com/2009/08/28/eyepet-in-stores-on-november-17/
How many people is it going to appeal to? I'm sure they must have polled it, and really it's only a matter of opinion, but unless it comes with more than 1 pet, I won't get it because I don't like the creature.
None the less, it IS exciting and it does pave the way for more. You know those Nintendogs and what all else are going to want in on the AR action. If this little guy does well, the AR flood may open and bring us helluva cooler stuff. That's what's so great here, because the look is just personal opinion. You either like it or you don't, but if enough people do, I think everyone may win with some genuinely cool new forms of entertainment.
And chances are, you've had access to bits of it if you're in the USA, just out in the media, if you're looking for it. The old article was on more of a gimmic-product which was an AR girl atop a box that you could nettle in various ways. (yes Japan invented it/her you dont need to ask on this one) She wasn't particularly a pet or loaded with features other than interactive nettleability with an AR stick.
What else might you have seen?
If you have Popular Science Magazine, they had AR in there a couple of issues back. You could open the magazine in front of your webcam to get some real 3D shots of what was inside. Also, Best Buy has been doing it in their sunday circulars. (Mini booklets released freely in sunday papers to announce sales and deals) Theirs appear in the form of a black/yellow symbol or icon usually on the front page so you can get a look at some technology and also get lured to their website. It's nice, but it's no full-featured anything.
Well, Playstation is setting out to change that with the EyePet, which is a virtual AR pet. It works with the PSEye (of course) and is actually a whole game, not just a gimmic. At first, I was excited to hear this. But then...
Why is the pet so UGLY?
On something that's supposed to be cute/cuddly/you want to turn on the system to play with it so much etc. ugly is a dealbreaker! No one wants a pet hagfish, they want a guinea pig or a bunny or a dog or something. THOSE are at least cute. But this is virtual right? You have access to infinite cuteness! Combine a piggy and bunny! Make a rad little dinosaur! Who doesn't love chibi dinos? Make a baby Chocobo, or a kitten who's color you can change. I mean heck, do a tiny pony or some space pony or something even. Or a pet that evolves as you do things like a Chao. *Infinite cuteness* is at their disposal and they make...
A hairy dog/monkey/elf combo thing.
Of course, you need pix! Plus, video too so http://blog.us.playstation.com/2009/08/28/eyepet-in-stores-on-november-17/
How many people is it going to appeal to? I'm sure they must have polled it, and really it's only a matter of opinion, but unless it comes with more than 1 pet, I won't get it because I don't like the creature.
None the less, it IS exciting and it does pave the way for more. You know those Nintendogs and what all else are going to want in on the AR action. If this little guy does well, the AR flood may open and bring us helluva cooler stuff. That's what's so great here, because the look is just personal opinion. You either like it or you don't, but if enough people do, I think everyone may win with some genuinely cool new forms of entertainment.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Awesomely Fast Robot Hand
There really isn't anything else to call this post.
When you think of the "Robots of the Present" you might think of stuff like the Actroid, Battlebots, ASIMO, even BigDog and not so bigdog. There are also the little snakes for crawling through rubble, and that geckobot that sticks to walls and goes up them. The one thing most of these have in common is...
They're slow.
In nearly every case a human can always do whatever it is the robot is doing, faster. Outrun bigdog? NP. If you're waiting on Asimo to do anything, you're gonna be a while. It can trot but that's about it. The only case of any of these things being faster than a person (or the "matching animal" dog/horse/bird/actual gecko/whatever) are the battlebots. Flinging, spinning and chopping could be done with greater strength and speed by several people's fighting robots in this compteition.
"Slow & Jerkey" are like...robot hallmarks of the present.
Getting past that is like some kind of huge hurdle. Especially if it has to be dynamic and not pre-programmed. Interacting with real free-moving objects (ie not assembly line screws always in the same spot) requires a kind of dynamic. Like bouncing a ball or balancing an item. Maybe it won't bounce the same exact way every time. Some pre-programmed bouncer will screw it up if a speck of dust influences the ball, for example. Bigdog breaks down a lot of that with how it walks. It encounters unexpected things and compensates giving it an air of realism that make video commenters yell.
For all the "Better stronger faster" that robots are supposed to be, we've seen like...maybe 1 at a time and only applied in way way specific spots. A fork lift can lift more than you! A battle bot can spin faster! But that's been kinda it. Till...this video!
A hand with 3 fingers out-does the 5 finger folks. For most of it's stuff they've actually got to use slowmo so you can SEE IT EVEN. And look at it catch that phone! That's so hot! Yeah the tasks are specific but it's still bounce a ball which can have a not-quite expected pattern. Also knot tieing and that phone center of gravity can't be exactly where one might expect. If they continue with this at all you could get one helluva cool thing. (which really, you know they're gonna keep going)
Look at the phone catch- Something else got caught this way, do you recognize it?
The 2nd robot from Robocop 2. He caught the container of his drug of choice in a very odd fashion. Yes it was claymation or whatever they used back in the day, but the precision it took to catch the container in that specific manner was very memorable. This hand pulls off something quite similar, and could no doubt simulate the stunt from the movie if they set it to watch for 'ends of phone' rather than 'sides of phone' when looking to do the grab. No human would catch like that, likely because it couldn't. Squishy fingertips combined with reflexes that don't match miliseconds most of the time work against it.
Aside: Pen Spinning
Yes yes its from Japan. There are Japanese pen spinning championships and videos online of people who spin pens in fanciful manners. The art was no doubt honed and originated in school by bored kids. Confined and bored people get up to the most amazing of persuits, even if they may be trivial. So to have the robo hand pen spin, it would be common because it's familiar there.
Still. What if you were able to get a whole dude who was that fast, not just the arm? That's no c3p0 , that's for sure. Will this help usher in an age of actually more than capable robots? We can certainly hope so! I mean, even the terminators weren't so quick as that thing.
When you think of the "Robots of the Present" you might think of stuff like the Actroid, Battlebots, ASIMO, even BigDog and not so bigdog. There are also the little snakes for crawling through rubble, and that geckobot that sticks to walls and goes up them. The one thing most of these have in common is...
They're slow.
In nearly every case a human can always do whatever it is the robot is doing, faster. Outrun bigdog? NP. If you're waiting on Asimo to do anything, you're gonna be a while. It can trot but that's about it. The only case of any of these things being faster than a person (or the "matching animal" dog/horse/bird/actual gecko/whatever) are the battlebots. Flinging, spinning and chopping could be done with greater strength and speed by several people's fighting robots in this compteition.
"Slow & Jerkey" are like...robot hallmarks of the present.
Getting past that is like some kind of huge hurdle. Especially if it has to be dynamic and not pre-programmed. Interacting with real free-moving objects (ie not assembly line screws always in the same spot) requires a kind of dynamic. Like bouncing a ball or balancing an item. Maybe it won't bounce the same exact way every time. Some pre-programmed bouncer will screw it up if a speck of dust influences the ball, for example. Bigdog breaks down a lot of that with how it walks. It encounters unexpected things and compensates giving it an air of realism that make video commenters yell.
For all the "Better stronger faster" that robots are supposed to be, we've seen like...maybe 1 at a time and only applied in way way specific spots. A fork lift can lift more than you! A battle bot can spin faster! But that's been kinda it. Till...this video!
A hand with 3 fingers out-does the 5 finger folks. For most of it's stuff they've actually got to use slowmo so you can SEE IT EVEN. And look at it catch that phone! That's so hot! Yeah the tasks are specific but it's still bounce a ball which can have a not-quite expected pattern. Also knot tieing and that phone center of gravity can't be exactly where one might expect. If they continue with this at all you could get one helluva cool thing. (which really, you know they're gonna keep going)
Look at the phone catch- Something else got caught this way, do you recognize it?
The 2nd robot from Robocop 2. He caught the container of his drug of choice in a very odd fashion. Yes it was claymation or whatever they used back in the day, but the precision it took to catch the container in that specific manner was very memorable. This hand pulls off something quite similar, and could no doubt simulate the stunt from the movie if they set it to watch for 'ends of phone' rather than 'sides of phone' when looking to do the grab. No human would catch like that, likely because it couldn't. Squishy fingertips combined with reflexes that don't match miliseconds most of the time work against it.
Aside: Pen Spinning
Yes yes its from Japan. There are Japanese pen spinning championships and videos online of people who spin pens in fanciful manners. The art was no doubt honed and originated in school by bored kids. Confined and bored people get up to the most amazing of persuits, even if they may be trivial. So to have the robo hand pen spin, it would be common because it's familiar there.
Still. What if you were able to get a whole dude who was that fast, not just the arm? That's no c3p0 , that's for sure. Will this help usher in an age of actually more than capable robots? We can certainly hope so! I mean, even the terminators weren't so quick as that thing.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
In Soviet Russia...TV Watches You!
Yes, it's a meme.
But, could it come true? Explore some new technology with this article and see what could happen next. (The "in Soviet Russia..." is always followed by a wacky opposite of how things usually go such as 'chocobo rides you' etc.)
However, there are several things milling around in development which would actually let the TV watch you. The first likely mention of something like this was, I think, in 1984 the book where everyone in every country had to have a tv in the house and it was always on, and you could only lower the volume or change the channel. You couldn't mute it and you could never shut it off. It also listened to what you said and watched your activities inside your house, so the government could watch anyone at any time.
Of course, that was supposed to be a dystopia and it was imagined up by some guy who hated tv. What people have to understand is...TV IS A TOOL. It can be used for good, uesed for bad, or used to waste time. JUST LIKE a hammer or a screwdriver or any TOOL. The TV trashers seem to single it out as being some monsterous thing capable of taking over your life or possibly turning your kids into micro-murderers or something stupid. TV doesn't have any special powers and it'll always be just a tool.
However, when it starts watching you back, what is it then?
Sony would like to find out. They filed a patent with some hilariously bad illustrations for a device. I don't know if the patent people are more likely to approve you if you draw funny things for your design but it doesn't seem likely. So then why is their art so bad/funny for this? You can find out more about it here: (and see the art too, of course!)
http://www.siliconera.com/2009/08/14/scea-experimenting-with-laugh-detecting-emotional-tracking-software/
Of course, Microsoft Natal has something far better than a laff-detector, it's got a bar to put on the top that'll watch you real well so you can interact with their games. And that's just fine. Because when you're hula-hooping, 'driving', ninja fighting or any of the other myriad fun activities you can game with, that's a really super addition. You want it to be able to detect you and your friends as you have a great time and interact with it.
But, why would anyone need it for when you're not interacting in a game that was built for that kind of thing? To find out if jokes in RPGs are funny? To see if you're mad at the boss monster? The Natal sensor could go the same way, but it's not being presented in that way. Like the wiimote the Natal sensor is being presented as something that you're supposed to interact with to play its games.
If you read what they've got on the illustration/graph it looks like it's meant for TV. The thing being watched is called 'presentation' and not 'game'. If you're paying attention to the show, finding it funny, ignoring it, think it's sad etc etc and then...trying to find your demographic. Which means its inspecting you to see what you are. (What color, how old, boy or girl, where you might be from) and then it sends that data to people to look at.
Do you really want to be being watched all the time while you have the TV on? Do you want the TV telling other people who you're hanging out with, as well as 'your demographic'? Have you ever laughed at anything inappropriate that you wouldn't want other people to know you found funny? What if you cried at something too, you know it'll detect for that as well.
As a passive thing, watching you while you watch, it seems kinda creepy.
As an active thing, watching you to help you interact with content made for it, it seems really fun. Virtual pet who knows when you're feeling down! Virtual girlfriend for those people who like the little mini AR girl things and obsess over the pillow and poster girl! Now she'd be interactive and they'd be infinitely entertained. Really creepy boss who knows how to scare you! Horror game knows when you're frightened...and RPG knows when you're attracted to someone in there even though you'd kinda rather no one knew that...whoops.
This link included for the sole purpose of the people who photoshopped it into batman & the joker (other available posts contain swears, so don't read it at work or something)
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=371361
Also if you stare at it long enough you realize the shoe-wheel is going the wrong way unless he means for them to step on his butt rather than kick it. At least they're not patenting something full of gears, or it'd never work!
So is the TV of the future going to watch you too?
With all this going around...it just might.
But, could it come true? Explore some new technology with this article and see what could happen next. (The "in Soviet Russia..." is always followed by a wacky opposite of how things usually go such as 'chocobo rides you' etc.)
However, there are several things milling around in development which would actually let the TV watch you. The first likely mention of something like this was, I think, in 1984 the book where everyone in every country had to have a tv in the house and it was always on, and you could only lower the volume or change the channel. You couldn't mute it and you could never shut it off. It also listened to what you said and watched your activities inside your house, so the government could watch anyone at any time.
Of course, that was supposed to be a dystopia and it was imagined up by some guy who hated tv. What people have to understand is...TV IS A TOOL. It can be used for good, uesed for bad, or used to waste time. JUST LIKE a hammer or a screwdriver or any TOOL. The TV trashers seem to single it out as being some monsterous thing capable of taking over your life or possibly turning your kids into micro-murderers or something stupid. TV doesn't have any special powers and it'll always be just a tool.
However, when it starts watching you back, what is it then?
Sony would like to find out. They filed a patent with some hilariously bad illustrations for a device. I don't know if the patent people are more likely to approve you if you draw funny things for your design but it doesn't seem likely. So then why is their art so bad/funny for this? You can find out more about it here: (and see the art too, of course!)
http://www.siliconera.com/2009/08/14/scea-experimenting-with-laugh-detecting-emotional-tracking-software/
Of course, Microsoft Natal has something far better than a laff-detector, it's got a bar to put on the top that'll watch you real well so you can interact with their games. And that's just fine. Because when you're hula-hooping, 'driving', ninja fighting or any of the other myriad fun activities you can game with, that's a really super addition. You want it to be able to detect you and your friends as you have a great time and interact with it.
But, why would anyone need it for when you're not interacting in a game that was built for that kind of thing? To find out if jokes in RPGs are funny? To see if you're mad at the boss monster? The Natal sensor could go the same way, but it's not being presented in that way. Like the wiimote the Natal sensor is being presented as something that you're supposed to interact with to play its games.
If you read what they've got on the illustration/graph it looks like it's meant for TV. The thing being watched is called 'presentation' and not 'game'. If you're paying attention to the show, finding it funny, ignoring it, think it's sad etc etc and then...trying to find your demographic. Which means its inspecting you to see what you are. (What color, how old, boy or girl, where you might be from) and then it sends that data to people to look at.
Do you really want to be being watched all the time while you have the TV on? Do you want the TV telling other people who you're hanging out with, as well as 'your demographic'? Have you ever laughed at anything inappropriate that you wouldn't want other people to know you found funny? What if you cried at something too, you know it'll detect for that as well.
As a passive thing, watching you while you watch, it seems kinda creepy.
As an active thing, watching you to help you interact with content made for it, it seems really fun. Virtual pet who knows when you're feeling down! Virtual girlfriend for those people who like the little mini AR girl things and obsess over the pillow and poster girl! Now she'd be interactive and they'd be infinitely entertained. Really creepy boss who knows how to scare you! Horror game knows when you're frightened...and RPG knows when you're attracted to someone in there even though you'd kinda rather no one knew that...whoops.
This link included for the sole purpose of the people who photoshopped it into batman & the joker (other available posts contain swears, so don't read it at work or something)
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=371361
Also if you stare at it long enough you realize the shoe-wheel is going the wrong way unless he means for them to step on his butt rather than kick it. At least they're not patenting something full of gears, or it'd never work!
So is the TV of the future going to watch you too?
With all this going around...it just might.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Taxing "Fatties"? Let's control what people do!
The issue at hand this time:
A "Fat Tax" in America which is very mis-labeled. It's actually a 'sweet tooth' tax and it doesn't apply to fat people, thus ruining the entire concept. Whoopee, only a government could think up something such as that, right?
First, get the story here at Six Wise Fat Tax? It's a big article to explain the whole thing. Norway is already doing it, and the premise is that it would put a generalized (thats over state sales tax etc like there is on Cigs.) tax upon non-diet sodas in order to discourage people from drinking them. The general opinion is that soda is what's making everyone fat and that jacking up the price will prevent everyone from buying the stuff. However, this is a bad idea because if you look at any of the following statements, are any of them true?
All fat people are terribly irrisponsible
Only fatties drink soda
All over weight people must be nannied in every area of life
Soda is the only thing that makes people fat
Answer: None.
*Why is this hazardous? First off, it puts uncle sam in your kitchen and home. He does not belong there.
*Next, it would shunt everyone over to diet soda, which as everyone knows is loaded with Aspartame which makes people HUNGRIER when they get too much of it. You want to talk diet destroyer, you put out the artificial chemicals. (What's their problem? The body knows they're non-nutritive...ie 0 cal...and it doesn't shut off the hunger chemical)
*Next, yes colas add calories but the problem is indeed no excersize or less of it and also over-eating of food in general.
*It could also BE the food! Food losing nutrition is a great article that needs to be looked at.
*Genetics do play a role here, people
*So do environmental factors and environmental-caused genetic changes
*Can't rule out viruses
Tin Foil Hat Alert!
When raking in megabuxx on soda loving folks doesn't stop the fat epidemic, what ELSE will Sammy look to control? Candy? Pizza? Burgers? Will ground beef skyrocket along with your Skittles? Will speak-easy pizza parlors be the next prohibition as the government attempts to rule everyones' diet through high costs? You know that a soda tax isn't going to stop the fat already. So something else will come into the target zone to get taxed to kingdom come. And then something else after that...as one by one the foods don't work. It's destined to fail and start snowballing as more and more foods are blacklisted. (foil dun dun dunnn on PURPOSE???)
Again, it'd be a war against convenience, which, unfortunately insidious DOES tend to work after a while. The cigs tax cut teen smoking by a great amount because really if it's cigs or nights out with freinds, the friends are usually gonna win. Plus the 'coolness' of smoking is on the downslide anyway. No one ever started smoking because they needed a way to get rid of their money.
The contraversy of govt vs cigarrettes is that while one head says 'smoking is bad!' the other says 'smoking is so awesome!' because HUGE astronomical revenues come from it. If everyone suddenly quit and big-cig wasn't giving the government any more money...it'd be a catastrophy. They need these nicotine addicted goons paying out loads of dough and they need more of 'em every day. Maybe that's why it's looking for something else to tax...smoking's on the slide.
Another 2-headed blathering issue:
They say the extra coin would go to help out like...healthy organic choices. But that's likely a lie because in 2009/summer a big bill on the table is to make small farms equal to big farms in order to put them out of biz with insane regulations/paperwork/fees etc. Imagine if you had to pay the tax bill of Apple Computer AND do all their paperwork because you wanted to sell 1 computer a month. That kinda thing. That and you havn't heard the horrors of 'big dairy' and what they'll do to you if you sell raw milk. (Basically if you squeeze it out of a cow and someone who doesn't own the cow drinks it, they break down your door with an uzi and confiscate small children and PCs while holding the whole family at gunpoint for hours. No, that's not made up. Look it up.) Same with organic produce people. All the government does is bash, and try to regulate it out of existance. Way to go healthy choice promoters! Let's give 'em more money and maybe they can stamp out veg all together!
Hopefully this so called 'fat tax' will just take a hike. No one wants some distopia future where you're on the run for selling gummi worms and 'pizza hut' is a thing of the past.
A "Fat Tax" in America which is very mis-labeled. It's actually a 'sweet tooth' tax and it doesn't apply to fat people, thus ruining the entire concept. Whoopee, only a government could think up something such as that, right?
First, get the story here at Six Wise Fat Tax? It's a big article to explain the whole thing. Norway is already doing it, and the premise is that it would put a generalized (thats over state sales tax etc like there is on Cigs.) tax upon non-diet sodas in order to discourage people from drinking them. The general opinion is that soda is what's making everyone fat and that jacking up the price will prevent everyone from buying the stuff. However, this is a bad idea because if you look at any of the following statements, are any of them true?
All fat people are terribly irrisponsible
Only fatties drink soda
All over weight people must be nannied in every area of life
Soda is the only thing that makes people fat
Answer: None.
*Why is this hazardous? First off, it puts uncle sam in your kitchen and home. He does not belong there.
*Next, it would shunt everyone over to diet soda, which as everyone knows is loaded with Aspartame which makes people HUNGRIER when they get too much of it. You want to talk diet destroyer, you put out the artificial chemicals. (What's their problem? The body knows they're non-nutritive...ie 0 cal...and it doesn't shut off the hunger chemical)
*Next, yes colas add calories but the problem is indeed no excersize or less of it and also over-eating of food in general.
*It could also BE the food! Food losing nutrition is a great article that needs to be looked at.
*Genetics do play a role here, people
*So do environmental factors and environmental-caused genetic changes
*Can't rule out viruses
Tin Foil Hat Alert!
When raking in megabuxx on soda loving folks doesn't stop the fat epidemic, what ELSE will Sammy look to control? Candy? Pizza? Burgers? Will ground beef skyrocket along with your Skittles? Will speak-easy pizza parlors be the next prohibition as the government attempts to rule everyones' diet through high costs? You know that a soda tax isn't going to stop the fat already. So something else will come into the target zone to get taxed to kingdom come. And then something else after that...as one by one the foods don't work. It's destined to fail and start snowballing as more and more foods are blacklisted. (foil dun dun dunnn on PURPOSE???)
Again, it'd be a war against convenience, which, unfortunately insidious DOES tend to work after a while. The cigs tax cut teen smoking by a great amount because really if it's cigs or nights out with freinds, the friends are usually gonna win. Plus the 'coolness' of smoking is on the downslide anyway. No one ever started smoking because they needed a way to get rid of their money.
The contraversy of govt vs cigarrettes is that while one head says 'smoking is bad!' the other says 'smoking is so awesome!' because HUGE astronomical revenues come from it. If everyone suddenly quit and big-cig wasn't giving the government any more money...it'd be a catastrophy. They need these nicotine addicted goons paying out loads of dough and they need more of 'em every day. Maybe that's why it's looking for something else to tax...smoking's on the slide.
Another 2-headed blathering issue:
They say the extra coin would go to help out like...healthy organic choices. But that's likely a lie because in 2009/summer a big bill on the table is to make small farms equal to big farms in order to put them out of biz with insane regulations/paperwork/fees etc. Imagine if you had to pay the tax bill of Apple Computer AND do all their paperwork because you wanted to sell 1 computer a month. That kinda thing. That and you havn't heard the horrors of 'big dairy' and what they'll do to you if you sell raw milk. (Basically if you squeeze it out of a cow and someone who doesn't own the cow drinks it, they break down your door with an uzi and confiscate small children and PCs while holding the whole family at gunpoint for hours. No, that's not made up. Look it up.) Same with organic produce people. All the government does is bash, and try to regulate it out of existance. Way to go healthy choice promoters! Let's give 'em more money and maybe they can stamp out veg all together!
Hopefully this so called 'fat tax' will just take a hike. No one wants some distopia future where you're on the run for selling gummi worms and 'pizza hut' is a thing of the past.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
