Jeff Han presented at the TED Conference (Technology Entertainment Design) an interface that comes straight out of the movie "Minority Report" - its all dynamic and notably sans-mouse & keyboard or any other third party interaction device. I was blown away at how effortlessly Jeff seemed to be able to manipulate objects directly on a screen in this demo seen here. Using more than one finger at a time you can move, resize and position objects while the things on screen react very similarly to the way they would in the physical world. I think this is a glimpse at the future here, but actually realized, not a movie fantasy. Thanks to Dak Elliot for finding this one.
Another interesting phenomenon is the spot presenting the demo done by 'Geek Brief TV' which is a video podcast. In closing the presenter mentions she'll be haning out on Second Life, a social computer game that simulates reality.
Keep up Gen X... technology and society is moving fast. In that one Geek Brief TV spot, we saw three things that are revolutionary.
I'm feeling old all of a sudden.
EPIC A picture of a world where the news is generated by the people and collated by Googlezon, the merger of Amazon and Google. The company which is to supercede Microsoft. Quite big thinking in this presentation and definitely worth seeing.
Review on Boxes and Arrows about The Substance of Style: How the Rise of Aesthetic Value Is Remaking Commerce, Culture, and Consciousness
"Postrel points out that “'form follows emotion' has supplanted 'form follows function'.” How else do you explain the success of the iMac, Volkswagen Beetle, and the Michael Graves Toaster at Target?"
Sorry, this is just rubbish. Of course form still follows function. If the iMac, Volkswagen Beetle etc didn't function exceptionally well, they'd have been a flop.
The notion that people value aesthetics more now than they did then is a misnomer. People can afford aesthetics now, where before this was a luxury. As the population becomes more affluent and companies cotton on to the fact that people have always wanted aesthetics, goods become cheaper and more aesthetic.
People in poorer countries (or westerners earlier this century) couldn't care less about aesthetics. If something works, and they can afford it, then that's enough for them. If aesthetic goods were cheap enough, they'd have those instead, because the desire for beauty and individuality is something that runs deeper than trend. It roots in the way humans value themselves. This isn't transient, in my opinion.
MSN shutting down their chatrooms is not, I suspect, because of some virtuous sense of guilt about paedophiles and children. When EVER, did you hear of Microsoft closing down a business venture for anything other than purely selfish motives?
It's my guess that there are two factors at play here. One lesser one is that running as large a chat network as MSNs, for free, is not cost effective in any way, shape or form. Users aren't moving around their site, increasing chances of a sale for an advertiser or Microsoft, when they're in a chatroom for an hour. Supporting a chat network technically, has also got to be eating a hole in their pocket... for what audience? Mostly teenagers and children who aren't going to be spending any money with Microsoft or advertisers.
Then, you've got the whole legal side. I would say, should any guardian of a paedophile victim, decide that it is the fault of the provider of the environment where grooming took place, any legal defense of that provider would be tenuous at best. Regardless of disclaimers, waivers and other legalese, a good lawyer would probably be able to successfully prosecute.
Finally and the most probable reason I can spot for this withdrawal, is to do with maintaining Microsoft's brand image. Microsoft needs to appeal to the family market as one of their fastest growing group of customers. A news report directly linking an attack on a child, with MSN's chatrooms, which were known by MSN to be used by paedophiles, would be a disasterous breach of the trust that the Microsoft brand must purvey.
It is my view that shutting down chatrooms means three things for Microsoft. 1) Less overheads. 2) Far lower risk of litigation. 3) Insurance against brand damage. Yes, I think the shut down is based on paedophiles using the MSN chat service... but not because Microsoft "care for the kids", but because as usual, they care for Microsoft.
I want to document an interesting pheonomenon. When Person A 'blogs' an idea, the reader automatically assumes it is Person A's idea. This doesn't seem strange until you observe the same phenomenon when Person A attributes the idea to Person B. The reader still, even if only subconsciouly associates where they picked up that thought (or 'memes') with Person A's blog.
Case in point: These ideas that I'm presenting here in this post, are not mine. I am now attributing these ideas to both Alice Taylor and Paula le Dieu with whom I work. I have picked it up in conversations from them and am now blogging it. But, from now on when you the reader, recall this idea (if you ever do), I suggest that you will associate it with this blog (if not attribute it to it's author as well).
Furthermore, as Paula points out, if the originator of the idea's name(s) is not hyperlinked, then the impact of stating them is significantly less because they don't have a web presence. This holds true particularly in the case where the readers are more often that not, other bloggers.
I work in the web development industry, which happens to be the same place from where many bloggers and therefore readers of blogs come. The ideas presented on this blog are in large part aimed at an audience of my peers, with whom I work now, or may work with in the future. I am more likely to be known within the web community because of this blog. Therefore ideas on here are of some value, forming a currency within the circles of those readers who might visit this page.
Surely, this means that those in my industry without blogs, are at a disadvantage to those who do. Is this fair? Does that matter if nothing will change? Scholars have been doing this for eons (not to suggest that I or my peers are particularly scholarly). If an idea is not from a 'noteworthy' (literally meaning worthy of observation or notice) source who is known within the circle of alumni peers of the author, then no attribution to the conciever of an idea is usually made within a paper or publication.
This is also a child of its parent phenomenon, the 'digital divide' between the information rich and information poor and between the blogs and blog-nots.
Alice and Paula conceived this idea and pretty well all the other thoughts presented within this post after noticing that some of their ideas were being presented on blogs, by other members of their professional peer group. They don't have blogs or websites, so there's no hyperlink to more about them. Will you remember their names, or this blog?
So, on the anniversary of the attack on the Twin Towers in New York, we are shocked again. "The latest block buster from Al-Queda... Osama's back baby, and he's badder than ever...". Our modern day "Boogie Man" has achieved his goal. His image alone, strikes fear into the heart of the western world. Any westerner who didn't take a sharp intake of breath at the sight of that bearded icon on a craggy mountain someplace unknown, is either dead, or utterly distracted.
What is it about the Boogie Man? Why is it that Bin Laden is so much more vivid, so much more a frightening sight now? Because like the Boogie Man, nobody really know's whether he exists. He's on the telly now. He must be real! 'We didn't gettim' I think as I realise it's the first time we've seen footage of him shot after that horrible, shocking and doom-laden day.
All the western hype and spin about this 'evil' figure, has built him into something far more scary than a pissed-off fundamentalist who's rallyed a few other pissed-off mates to try and screw a common enemy. One of the Tabloids here did their best to scorn the enemy "The Goat-Herder's Back" or something similar the headline read. They don't fool me. They're scared too.
