If anybody wants to read Ray Kurzwiel’s take on Avatar, just follow this link:
Cameron’s conception of technology a hundred years from now was incredibly unimaginative, even by Hollywood standards. For example, the munitions that were supposed to blow up the tree of life looked like they were used in World War II (maybe even World War I). Most of the technology looked primitive, even by today’s standards. The wearable exoskeleton robotic devices were supposed to be futuristic, but these already exist, and are beginning to be deployed. The one advanced technology was the avatar technology itself. But in that sense, Avatar is like the world of the movie AI, where they had human-level cyborgs, but nothing else had changed: AI featured 1980’s cars and coffee makers. As for Avatar, are people still going to use computer screens in a hundred years? Are they going to drive vehicles?
I thought the story and script was unimaginative, one-dimensional, and derivative. The basic theme was “evil corporation rapes noble natives.” And while that is a valid theme, it was done without the least bit of subtlety, complexity, or human ambiguity. The basic story was taken right from Dances with Wolves. And how many (thousands of) times have we seen a final battle scene that comes down to a battle between the hero and the anti-hero that goes through various incredible stages — fighting on a flying airplane, in the trees, on the ground, etc? And (spoiler alert) how predictable was it that the heroine would pull herself free at the last second and save the day?
Disclaimer: Despite the negative reviews I’ve posted on this site, I generally liked the film. But I like a lot of films that I think deserve heavy criticism.
The last few years have seen drastic improvements in green-screen technology.
Notice how that the actual screen only needs to cover the moving objects in the scene; that’s the part the computers still have trouble with.
With the way things are going now, I suspect the need for an actual green-screen will disappear within ten-years; we will soon be able to design programs that will be able to “cut-around’ the objects we want them to. These programs already exist, but are imperfect.
EXTRA THOUGHT: Lighting was the major issue that kept green-screen from total realism for so long; the difference between the lighting in the scene and the lighting on the green-screen set gave it away. Pretty recently, light editing become much more powerful (thanks in part to Lucas.) The coloring and light on a persons face can now be changed well after the shot (professionals usually try to adjust all the elements in the shot to each other.)
EXTRA EXTRA THOUGHT: When a special effect looks wrong, it’s usually because of a disparity between the textures and lighting of the different elements of a scene (motion difference plays a part in this as well, but animators have gotten a great deal better at this in recent years.)
I’ve recently decided I need to expand my skill set; so I took it upon myself to learn C# (and general .Net development stuff), and signed up for a class at my local community college. I am going to try to post my notes and thoughts as I go through the class ( like most programing classes, it is taught from the bottom-up, my notes are going to reflect that.) If you’re not at all interested in C# or .Net or programming, I’m sure I posted some video of a cute cat somewhere on this blog.
To start off, I read the article below. Unfortunately, it’s a little too general for those that have some knowledge in programming, but also a little too advanced for beginners.
Quantum on Quantum. I’m still a bit skeptical of Quantum Computing, but this seems like a wonderful proof-of-concept.
Making a bit of Me. I think It should be within our rights to sell our organs; but the way technology is progressing in this area, I think it’s going to become a non-issue very soon.
School used student laptop webcams to spy on them at school and home. What I find interesting about power in general is that those using it rarely think it is a big deal. Nobody wants to be watched, but how bad do you feel when you accidently see something you shouldn’t have?
There is a quick, and almost foolproof, test to see of the argument you just made sucks. Here it is:
If your argument is proven unquestionable true; is it fundamentally relevant to the question at hand?
There’s a natural tendency to start insulting people when in an argument. Passion tends to produce that. There are a lot of arguments from hypocrisy or motivation out there.
The fact that Al Gore or is a hypocrite doesn’t mean he’s wrong. The expertise or educational history of you’re opponent doesn’t matter. A person’s motivation for making an argument doesn’t make that argument wrong (how many times have you heard somebody say: “your just arguing [blank] because your thinking/feeling [blank]?”)
I suppose I have to moderate myself here; sometimes these arguments are valid (but rarely by themselves.) And they can become a nice candy coating for a more solid argument.
But I like it when arguments are made on a deeper, more fundamental level. Ultimately, everything else is just a distraction.
So, just ask yourself the next time you’re arguing a particular point: “if this point is correct, does that mean my opponent’s point is wrong?”
I was wandering around the Lifeboat Foundation website when I came upon this interesting little article. It’s essentially a laundry list of things that should and can be done to help prevent mass extinction of the human species.
Some make sense, others are a little silly, and still others are terrible. Like getting rid of Globalization, “capitalist competition”, “rouge” states ( to form a world nation); no more private science, no more dangerous knowledge; constant surveillance, complete control of all means of communication, and non-coercive breeding programs. Just to name a few.
Yes, this is a thought experiment, and not everything this person says is meant to come to fruition. It is also not necessarily true that this person would like all of these actions.
Still, that doesn’t change the fact that this person thinks that these actions will-even though they are morally questionable-increase humanity’s chances to survival.
I felt the need to respond:
We really must escape this mass delusion that greater political control equals greater safety; a casual understanding of political history and economics reveals our trust in totalitarianism (which you ARE supporting) to be sorely misplaced.
It should be obvious, but you must understand that by illegalizing something you don’t stop it from happening; you just deliver it into the hands of criminals.
How many stories have you heard about the Budweiser company killing people on the street? None, right? Yet Budweiser provides and equivalent service to Al Capone.
How much of the crime that now exists in the U.S. is related to drug laws?
Some economist estimate that the black market accounts for 15-20 percent of the world economy.
Do you really think you can control and regulate people to such a degree that nobody will ever be able to escape your grasp?
Do you really believe that a worldwide totalitarian state will allow humanity a greater chance at survival, when all of history contradicts you?
Do you really feel that science and economic development is better in the hands of dictators and rulers?
Science is crushed and warped under the state; crime and lawlessness is rampant in controlled societies (when you make everything illegal, it is very hard to find the real troublemakers; just look at illegal immigration.)
At least “capitalist competition” provides some natural protections from corruption. Under your “safe” society, corruption would become a way of life, and the only means of survival (as it has in countless places throughout history.)
Quite simply, you quest for control and security will fail miserably if brought to fruition; and ironically, will likely bring about the opposite of what you seek.
I’m sorry, but this article is historically ignorant, economically invalid, morally repugnant, and on top of that, just plain silly
I’m afraid can no longer support the Lifeboat Foundation, in any way, shape, or form.
I posted this and now I feel a bit bad; it was too harsh for my tastes(I’m way too nice of a guy, even on the internet.) Plus, I’m rational enough not to judge a single person or organization on one blog post, and I didn’t want to imply that I did that in this case.
The Lifeboat Foundation just doesn’t strike me as a very effective, or particularly rational, organization. While there is some excellent stuff there, and I like the idea of safeguarding humanity (or at-least that people are thinking about it), I just can’t get past the unprofessional bent and confused ideas.
There are many philosophers who claim that the most rational default mental position is one of pessimism; while I understand where they are coming from (pessimistic people are more careful, more discriminating), I have to disagree. Given sufficient evidence, I think we should be as pessimistic or as optimistic as is justified by the situation; and our “default position”should be one of suspended judgment.
The year 2009 was a grim one for many Americans, but there was one pleasant surprise amid all the drear: Citizens, though ground down and nerve-racked by the recession, still somehow resisted the urge to rob and kill one another, and they resisted in impressive numbers. Across the country, FBI data show that crime last year fell to lows unseen since the 1960s - part of a long trend that has seen crime fall steeply in the United States since the mid-1990s.
At the same time, however, another change has taken place: a steady rise in the percentage of Americans who believe crime is getting worse. The vast majority of Americans - nearly three-quarters of the population - thought crime got worse in the United States in 2009, according to Gallup’s annual crime attitudes poll. That, too, is part of a running trend. As crime rates have dropped for the past decade, the public belief in worsening crime has steadily grown. The more lawful the country gets, the more lawless we imagine it to be.
The implications for the country at large are stark. Democracy is based on an informed public calling upon its representatives to address problems facing their society. If we believe crime is on the march in the streets all over the country, it influences our beliefs on critical issues
from gun control to sentencing laws, from how we run our prisons to how much money we spend on law enforcement. Misinformation on the part of the public makes for bad lawmaking on the part of the government.
…
….Bryan Caplan, an economics professor at George Mason University who has written about the phenomenon, said, “It’s one thing to be more pessimistic than is justified. It’s another thing if your pessimism isn’t even responsive to objective reality.”
The common misuse of the word “democracy” aside, this really a good article (though a bit long in making it’s point.)
It reminded me of a saying I have to paraphrase: ‘there are two common truths throughout most of human history, everything’s getting better, and everybody thinks it’s getting worse.’
1. The Bias Bias. I find it interesting that a fixation on bias can, in the end, produce it’s own kind of bias.
2. Objectivist Roundup #135. Maybe I was too hasty to say that I only had ‘three links.’ Since this link links to a bunch of other links (how does that count?)
Passionate people have a tendency to pull you into their world, and hi-wire walker Philippe Petit is nothing if not passionate about his craft.
Regardless of what you think of the world of high-risk spectacle stunts, you can’t help but admire at least some aspects of Petit. He knows what he wants out of his life, and he tries his hardest to pursue it. But also, Petit himself is such an interesting character.
There is one scene, about halfway through the documentary, where Petit is walking a short tightrope; the look you see on his face is one of unparalleled concentration; I have never seen another person, inside film or out, with that level of intense focus; his face is practically stone.
The morality of his act was debatable. Him, and a few of his friends, tricked their way onto the top of the Trade Towers, and built, in the middle of the night, a hi-wire (and impressive act in it’s own right which plays out like some master heist in a movie.) And though your rooting for Petit throughout the film, he and his fellow conspirators where rightly arrested.
The movie drags on a bit, and lingers on scenes it shouldn’t; the climax of the film is also a bit disappointing when you learn there is no actual footage of the famed event (there is, though, footage of him performing other impressive hi-walks.)
You can enjoy this film on a lot of levels: as a true crime epic, and a window into the world of unique personalities, or as a small piece of history.
Man on Wire submerges you into Petit’s world for almost a hundred minutes; and while I can debate the legality and morality of his actions until I’m blue in the face, I have to admit: the world would be a less interesting place had he not done them.
I found myself a bit conflicted, actually. On one hand I want to uphold law and order and property rights; but it’s like that rare bit of beautiful and genuinely artistic graffiti. Yes, it’s on somebody’s property, but I can’t help liking the fact that it exists.
And that’s what Petit and his actions are to me: really fantastic graffiti.
