Scantlings

I bumped into this picture at the head of an article I was reading... It was describing the dystopian future of a tech-ruled world. Of course we sailors don't worry about this, we go sailing. But I was genuinely struck by the juxtaposition of Mark walking confidently down the aisle while the audience was submerged in the slop of virtual reality.

We need to get more people out sailing - where an iPad is just for navigation and there isn't any use for these VR "glasses".



Here's the article if you're interested: http://medium.com/@DavidRainoshek/this-image-of-mark-zuckerberg-says-so-much-about-our-future-a3953bb22ae0#.j1k06xi46

I saw that picture and it scared the poop out of me.


Wooden ships, on the water...

Modern version of Plato's Cave ...

I dare say that some have a tendency to overestimate the importance of technology and its influence on our lives in the future.

I see a saturation point where we are. Current laptops/tablets and phones give us more than what's required for the functions we put them to. Network speeds are close to workable for most people. Social media is neat but I don't see a lot of innovation opportunities.

Smart watches, virtual reality headsets and the rest are unlikely to change our lives much and the devices we have will be boring commodity items like today's desktop computer.

I've been wrong before. But if I'm right I think this is a problem for the US economy and job opportunities.

VR is supposed to revolutionize the porn industry.

We will be teaching kids to sail while they wear a VR unit before they step foot on a boat.

Will it change our lives? incrementally, yes. Do I need one? No.

kdh wrote:I dare say that some have a tendency to overestimate the importance of technology and its influence on our lives in the future.

I see a saturation point where we are. Current laptops/tablets and phones give us more than what's required for the functions we put them to. Network speeds are close to workable for most people. Social media is neat but I don't see a lot of innovation opportunities.

Smart watches, virtual reality headsets and the rest are unlikely to change our lives much and the devices we have will be boring commodity items like today's desktop computer.

I've been wrong before. But if I'm right I think this is a problem for the US economy and job opportunities.

Sounds right to me.

I think next frontier in consumer technology is making firearms as acceptable, affordable, and ubiquitous as smart phones. Maybe the capabilities can be combined in a single device.

A smart gun that only shoots the bad guys?

Panope wrote:A smart gun that only shoots the bad guys?

That would restrict one's options quite a bit, wouldn't it?

Orestes Munn wrote:

Panope wrote:A smart gun that only shoots the bad guys?

That would restrict one's options quite a bit, wouldn't it?

Depending on your personal perspective - it might not restrict shooting anyone.

Both VE and Augmented Reality using see throug goggles offer a huge improvement in individual training, particularly those that involve hazardous, expensive or infrequent environment. The more immersive the environment, the higher probability of the trainee "suspending disbelief."

Interestingly, logic or decision training is just as effective for an experiential learner in a very rudimenatry environment. Observe kids and the older monochrome "game boys" for example. No instructions. A reward based system that leads the user from simple rule sets to extraordinarily complex ones. And the kids think they are playing.

While I think that activities like watching a movie, porn and video games will be based on the immersive Virtual Reality displays, I think there is MUCH more use for a HUD (Heads Up Display) that augments reality. I've talked to my kid about what the military is using, I've used one of the BMW HUD helmets, and seen what one company invented to help doctors during operations. They were far more genuinely useful than the immersive VR stuff. Here's the BMW version:

My job requires me to keep up on the basics of such things as VR, haptic/kinesthetic feedback devices and voice command programs. My Dilbertian view of a near future engineering office is a room full of people wearing goggles, waving their kinesthetic gloved hands about, and babbling commands.

There were stories a few years ago to the effect that the requirements for a commercial pilots license did not explicitly require any flight hours in a real airplane. You could, in theory, get a license without ever going aloft.

SemiSalt wrote:There were stories a few years ago to the effect that the requirements for a commercial pilots license did not explicitly require any flight hours in a real airplane. You could, in theory, get a license without ever going aloft.

An add on type certificate or recurrent training of something too dangerous to do in a real plane yes but to get a licence you still need to go fly and test in the real thing.

derekb wrote:

SemiSalt wrote:There were stories a few years ago to the effect that the requirements for a commercial pilots license did not explicitly require any flight hours in a real airplane. You could, in theory, get a license without ever going aloft.

An add on type certificate or recurrent training of something too dangerous to do in a real plane yes but to get a licence you still need to go fly and test in the real thing.

For military aircraft, the only thing the airplane is better at teaching if fear of death and "G" forces. I cold never get permission to place needles in the seat (you crash or get shot down and I shove a couple of needles into your butt cheeks) and "Sims on sticks" (simulator on a centrifuge) never caught on. To train a strike mission, manage route, emergent threats and adversary aircraft and deliver a standoff weapon in a crowded environment would take a major exercise and cost millions of dollars on a few thousand square miles of restricted airspace. In a distributed simulation, you can mix live pilots in simulators located in multiple facilities around the word (gotta watch latency) with a virtual environment and synthetic targets and weapons, capture all the action and replay it for debrief.

For commercial aviation, a long haul heavy can generate about $250K daily in revenue. It's too valuable to use for training pilots. Get a type rating and then ride right seat for a few years. Your procedures checks are always in the simulator and most recurring check rides involve a check pilot riding along on a revenue flight.

So, can I learn to be a passenger by sitting on a dining room chair a foot from the wall, drinking tiny bottles of cheap booze and fiddling with my iPad?

Orestes Munn wrote:So, can I learn to be a passenger by sitting on a dining room chair a foot from the wall, drinking tiny bottles of cheap booze and fiddling with my iPad?

Only if it's a straight back chair, a small child is hitting the back of your head with a metal Tonka truck, and there is a 350 lbs Samoan guy next to you leaning on your shoulder as he snores. (I'm at SFO about to board a United Airtorture plane)

My first programming job was writing software for Singer Link trainers. I did the F-15, F-111, and B-52. We used to have dog fights against "real" pilots and the real pilots always lost. They could not overcome their conservative nature. We programmers knew we weren't going to die, and would to insanely stupid things that the real pilots would just shake their head over. One very senior pilot told us that it was really good for the real pilots to fly against us because they just might run into an adversary who didn't really care if they lived or died. Those would fly as badly and as crazy as we programmers did.

Just before I left to join a start-up they were putting together the database for the Space Shuttle and we stuffed a digital image of the Star Trek USS Enterprise. Years later I heard from a buddy that it would occasionally appear way way off in the distance. No pilot ever admitted seeing it while in the trainer, but at the bar the programmers got serious high-fives and free drinks for that.

BeauV wrote:

Orestes Munn wrote:So, can I learn to be a passenger by sitting on a dining room chair a foot from the wall, drinking tiny bottles of cheap booze and fiddling with my iPad?

Only if it's a straight back chair, a small child is hitting the back of your head with a metal Tonka truck, and there is a 350 lbs Samoan guy next to you leaning on your shoulder as he snores. (I'm at SFO about to board a United Airtorture plane)

I would be twice as successful (and premium on 3 airlines) if I hadn't developed such an overwhelming aversion to air travel. ...and then I'd be so busy being famous that wouldn't have time to ride and sail.

Hope it's not too bad, Beau. I find it diverting to fart a bit.

The airlines keep coming up with new ways to torment passengers. http://www.cbc.ca/news/trending/im-tired-of-these-benches-on-1.3459065

Benches. With variable seating, depending on passenger sizes. Just shoot me now.

Ish wrote:The airlines keep coming up with new ways to torment passengers. http://www.cbc.ca/news/trending/im-tired-of-these-benches-on-1.3459065

Benches. With variable seating, depending on passenger sizes. Just shoot me now.

Fuck that for a game of soldiers!

Orestes Munn wrote:

Ish wrote:The airlines keep coming up with new ways to torment passengers. http://www.cbc.ca/news/trending/im-tired-of-these-benches-on-1.3459065

Benches. With variable seating, depending on passenger sizes. Just shoot me now.

Fuck that for a game of soldiers!

I spent some time with Airbus some years ago. They have a lot of patents on different seating arrangements that will never get past the regulators for egress or never be commercially viable. That patent most of them just in case.

I'm sure the airlines would like dynamic seating. Sit down and swipe your credit card. A silent auction for leg and hip room and amount of recline. The people beside, in front of and behind you can outbid you for the space. Reopen the auction every 15 minutes until leaving cruising altitude for approach so that, at any time, you can get more space at the expense of those around you. Lord of the Flies would pale in comparison to the passengers on a transpacific flight.

Larry,

That's a great idea!! I'm sure we can automate it with an App that shows the spot price on space in real time. We'll make a killing!!

Beau

I think whole segments of the economy are about to be put out of work through the next wave of automation and robotics and I'm not sure what takes its place.

Already I really don't need many people to manufacture anything my company makes. The IoT already links all our new machines in the field, so I can cut my service reps too. The cost benefit intersection of eliminating 50% of my Finance staff is only a couple of years away.

Jamie wrote:I think whole segments of the economy are about to be put out of work through the next wave of automation and robotics and I'm not sure what takes its place.

Already I really don't need many people to manufacture anything my company makes. The IoT already links all our new machines in the field, so I can cut my service reps too. The cost benefit intersection of eliminating 50% of my Finance staff is only a couple of years away.

This.

We are about to see automation take over in the same way computers massively reduced the need for "office workers". Lots of business functions were made much more efficient by the widespread deployment of computing platforms. Gone are the ranks of corporate accountants. Does anybody have a secretary anymore?

With the availability of cheap computing (rasberry Pi, Chip), automation, robotics, and sensors (IoT), we will see the same effects in the physical work world. Besides the lower cost technology, the other driving force will be the ability to sidestep the costs and regulations involved with having human labor. Machines don't need healthcare, regulatory forms, or contract negotiations.

I'm waiting for a Holodeck.

I think I may have said this previously, in which case I apologize in advance, but folks who are interested in this really should read Kurt Vonnegut's first novel called: Player Piano. It is about this exact situation, and is a wonderful book.

BeauV wrote:I think I may have said this previously, in which case I apologize in advance, but folks who are interested in this really should read Kurt Vonnegut's first novel called: Player Piano. It is about this exact situation, and is a wonderful book.

Almost everything Vonnegut wrote was well worth reading. I recently dug through some boxes of books in storage and exhumed all the Vonnegut, plus several other authors I had neglected.
I was about to relaunch into Cat's Cradle. I think I have Player Piano in there somewhere. It's been a long time since I read that.

The Mark Z pic reminded me of this....

I have a couple of theories about music, paintings and books....

First, there is a great filtration process that goes on. People throw away the bad stuff and keep the good stuff. So, on average, if you're reading older stuff that folks are still interested in - it's probably "good stuff" and not "bad stuff". One of the great failings of any contemporary art, no matter what era is your contemporary era, is that folks haven't yet tossed the garbage out. For this reason, we (or at least I) think all of those European composers from the era of Back, Beethoven, and Chopin are wonderful and our current crop of contemporary composers suck. We simply haven't filtered out the bad stuff yet. In 200 years, maybe folks will realize that Gershwin or The Cream are actually brilliant. Who knows.

Second, I believe that often the first break-through piece of art, music, painting, poetry that someone produces is better than much of the rest of their work. To break into the market, they needed something really wonderful. Once they're famous and appreciated... not so much. So Player Piano, Vonnegut's first book, is really wonderful; as is Nightfall (Asimov's first short story published). Some of their later works... not so much.