It wouldn't be one-sided or anything, both people could use them. An elderly couple for example could have digital versions of themselves a lot younger.
Imagine if everyone wore these, we could all walk around as avatars being seen how we want to be seen. You want a different look, just change your virtual body. No race, colour, gender, disfigurement. It would be a neat experiment to see how far people deviate from their own natural image.
It changes everything - maps/directions are on the road, advertising is digital so Time Square is different for everyone, you can watch two different TV shows in the same room, you can drive a Ford but every morning wake up to an Aston Martin.
<..>
Ah, you were serious , then. Well, I respect this, but this Matrix-like future may well encounter some resistance. The social acceptance may not go together with the technological feasibility. I take the risk of being taken as a stupid old chap in the future (it is true that in this domain, you never can tell), but while it is true that reality may often need to be beautified, at the end we must face it ... (which provides a hope for making it better (improving reality is better than improving the appearance of reality))
while it is true that reality may often need to be beautified, at the end we must face it ... (which provides a hope for making it better (improving reality is better than improving the appearance of reality))
I agree entirely but we don't have that much control. If you are randomly walking along and a chimp takes your face off:
getting the face transplant is of course the best thing but it doesn't restore sight or the way people see you. Being able to feed virtual data directly into the mind is the best way this situation can be overcome. They can place dual cameras on the face and get the 3D imagery directly into the brain and restore sight to anyone. Even if the virtual face was for the individual, it would have a significant benefit.
There is definitely another step to be taken with mobile technology but it will require a bigger leap than any that's gone before it:
getting the face transplant is of course the best thing but it doesn't restore sight or the way people see you. Being able to feed virtual data directly into the mind is the best way this situation can be overcome. They can place dual cameras on the face and get the 3D imagery directly into the brain and restore sight to anyone. Even if the virtual face was for the individual, it would have a significant benefit.
There is definitely another step to be taken with mobile technology but it will require a bigger leap than any that's gone before it:
In Man machine interaction, it took many years to implement three main inputs categories : keyboard, gestures (mouse can be considered as a special "plane" case of gestures), and voice input. Other ideas can be explored, of course .. But this is for the input side only, and the potential seems limited to me (apart from special cases (disabled people). On the output side, many more ideas can indeed be explored, with 3D hologram capabilities.
But the human being architecture will remain the same, and I guess you will end up with devices adapted to situations where :
1) you are seated in front of your desk ---> some form of desktop device, (where you can have a large screen)
2) you are seated in an armchair (or lying in bed) ---> some form of tablet ... or future Apple TV
3) you are mobile, and in no one of these situations ---> some form of smartphone
Man Machine Interaction used to be a popular topic (if you judge by the amount of money ...). It does not seem to be, but I am sure Sony, Apple and others indeed continue in the secret of their labs ...
Palm OS was probably the only thing that would get me to move away from the iPhone/iPad. I picked up a Touchpad back in the day, and I have to say, in many ways it was a lot nicer than the iPad - rough around the edges for sure, but some of the core concepts feel so far ahead of the game. It's really a shame that HP screwed this up.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
It wouldn't be one-sided or anything, both people could use them. An elderly couple for example could have digital versions of themselves a lot younger.
Imagine if everyone wore these, we could all walk around as avatars being seen how we want to be seen. You want a different look, just change your virtual body. No race, colour, gender, disfigurement. It would be a neat experiment to see how far people deviate from their own natural image.
It changes everything - maps/directions are on the road, advertising is digital so Time Square is different for everyone, you can watch two different TV shows in the same room, you can drive a Ford but every morning wake up to an Aston Martin.
<..>
Ah, you were serious , then. Well, I respect this, but this Matrix-like future may well encounter some resistance. The social acceptance may not go together with the technological feasibility. I take the risk of being taken as a stupid old chap in the future (it is true that in this domain, you never can tell), but while it is true that reality may often need to be beautified, at the end we must face it ... (which provides a hope for making it better (improving reality is better than improving the appearance of reality))
I agree entirely but we don't have that much control. If you are randomly walking along and a chimp takes your face off:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2064315/Charla-Nashs-new-face-Chimp-attack-victim-shows-results-6-months-transplant.html
getting the face transplant is of course the best thing but it doesn't restore sight or the way people see you. Being able to feed virtual data directly into the mind is the best way this situation can be overcome. They can place dual cameras on the face and get the 3D imagery directly into the brain and restore sight to anyone. Even if the virtual face was for the individual, it would have a significant benefit.
There is definitely another step to be taken with mobile technology but it will require a bigger leap than any that's gone before it:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11892803
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
I agree entirely but we don't have that much control. If you are randomly walking along and a chimp takes your face off:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2064315/Charla-Nashs-new-face-Chimp-attack-victim-shows-results-6-months-transplant.html
getting the face transplant is of course the best thing but it doesn't restore sight or the way people see you. Being able to feed virtual data directly into the mind is the best way this situation can be overcome. They can place dual cameras on the face and get the 3D imagery directly into the brain and restore sight to anyone. Even if the virtual face was for the individual, it would have a significant benefit.
There is definitely another step to be taken with mobile technology but it will require a bigger leap than any that's gone before it:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11892803
Thanks for the videos, interesting.
In Man machine interaction, it took many years to implement three main inputs categories : keyboard, gestures (mouse can be considered as a special "plane" case of gestures), and voice input. Other ideas can be explored, of course .. But this is for the input side only, and the potential seems limited to me (apart from special cases (disabled people). On the output side, many more ideas can indeed be explored, with 3D hologram capabilities.
But the human being architecture will remain the same, and I guess you will end up with devices adapted to situations where :
1) you are seated in front of your desk ---> some form of desktop device, (where you can have a large screen)
2) you are seated in an armchair (or lying in bed) ---> some form of tablet ... or future Apple TV
3) you are mobile, and in no one of these situations ---> some form of smartphone
Man Machine Interaction used to be a popular topic (if you judge by the amount of money ...). It does not seem to be, but I am sure Sony, Apple and others indeed continue in the secret of their labs ...
Palm OS was probably the only thing that would get me to move away from the iPhone/iPad. I picked up a Touchpad back in the day, and I have to say, in many ways it was a lot nicer than the iPad - rough around the edges for sure, but some of the core concepts feel so far ahead of the game. It's really a shame that HP screwed this up.