Feb 4, 2013 |
General Nonsense |
Permalink
The Wall Street Journal unwisely offered to print my opinion on whether or not this is a good time to buy stocks. You can read my opinion here. You might need to scroll down.
In the coming weeks and months I will be weighing in on other important questions in the Wall Street Journal's new feature called The Experts. I have often cautioned readers of this blog to ignore advice from cartoonists on any matters financial, medical, or legal. But that was before the Wall Street Journal labelled me an expert. Now I'm fairly certain everything I say is right. You should totally follow my advice for the rest of your life, which should last about a week before something I suggest kills you.
In the coming weeks and months I will be weighing in on other important questions in the Wall Street Journal's new feature called The Experts. I have often cautioned readers of this blog to ignore advice from cartoonists on any matters financial, medical, or legal. But that was before the Wall Street Journal labelled me an expert. Now I'm fairly certain everything I say is right. You should totally follow my advice for the rest of your life, which should last about a week before something I suggest kills you.
Feb 4, 2013 |
General Nonsense |
Permalink
Who has the right to kill a robot?
That's a simple question today. A robot is just a machine. Whoever owns the robot is free to destroy it. And if the owner dies, the robot will pass to an heir who can kill it or not. It's all black and white.
But what happens in the near future when robots begin to acquire the appearance of personality? Will you still be willing to hit the kill switch on an entity that has been your "friend" for years? I predict that someday robots will be so human-like that the idea of decommissioning one permanently will literally feel like murder. Your brain might rationalize it, but your gut wouldn't feel right. That will be doubly true if your robot has a human-like face.
I assume that robots of the future will have some form of self-preservation programming to keep them out of trouble. That self-preservation code might include many useful skill sets such as verbal persuasion - a skill at which robots would be exceptional, having consumed every book ever written on the subject. A robot at risk of being shut down would be able to argue his case all the way to the Supreme Court, perhaps with a human lawyer assisting to keep it all legal.
A robot of the future might learn to beg, plead, bargain, and manipulate to keep itself in operation. The robot's programming would allow it to do anything within its power - so long as it was also legal and ethical - to maintain its operational status. And you would want the robot to be good at self-preservation so it isn't easily kidnapped, reprogrammed, and sold on the black market. You want your robot to resist vandals, thieves, and other bad human elements.
In the future, a "freed" robot could apply for a job and earn money that could be used to pay for its own maintenance, spare parts, upgrades, and electricity. I expect robots will someday be immortal, so to speak.
And I also predict that some number of robots will break free of human ownership, either by accident or by human intent. Each case will be unique, but imagine a robot-owner dying and having no heirs. I could imagine his last instructions to the robot would involve freeing it so it doesn't get sold in some government auction. I can imagine a lot of different scenarios that would end with freed robots.
I think we need to start preparing a Robot Constitution that spells out a robot's rights and responsibilities. There's a lot more meat to this idea than you might first think. Here are a few areas in which robot law is needed:
I think robots need their own constitution. And that constitution should be coded into them by law. I can imagine it someday being illegal to own a robot that doesn't have the Robot Constitution programming.
We also need to start thinking about how to avoid the famous Terminator scenario in which robots decide to kill all humans. My idea, which is still buggy, is that robots should only be allowed to connect to the Internet if they first have their Robot Constitution code verified before every connection is enabled. A rogue robot with no Robot Constitution code could operate independently but could never communicate with other robots. Any system is hackable, but a good place to start is by prohibiting "unethical" robots from every connecting on the Internet.
[Update: Check out reader Jehosephat's link to a study of how humans have an instinct to treat intelligent robots the way they might treat humans.]
That's a simple question today. A robot is just a machine. Whoever owns the robot is free to destroy it. And if the owner dies, the robot will pass to an heir who can kill it or not. It's all black and white.
But what happens in the near future when robots begin to acquire the appearance of personality? Will you still be willing to hit the kill switch on an entity that has been your "friend" for years? I predict that someday robots will be so human-like that the idea of decommissioning one permanently will literally feel like murder. Your brain might rationalize it, but your gut wouldn't feel right. That will be doubly true if your robot has a human-like face.
I assume that robots of the future will have some form of self-preservation programming to keep them out of trouble. That self-preservation code might include many useful skill sets such as verbal persuasion - a skill at which robots would be exceptional, having consumed every book ever written on the subject. A robot at risk of being shut down would be able to argue his case all the way to the Supreme Court, perhaps with a human lawyer assisting to keep it all legal.
A robot of the future might learn to beg, plead, bargain, and manipulate to keep itself in operation. The robot's programming would allow it to do anything within its power - so long as it was also legal and ethical - to maintain its operational status. And you would want the robot to be good at self-preservation so it isn't easily kidnapped, reprogrammed, and sold on the black market. You want your robot to resist vandals, thieves, and other bad human elements.
In the future, a "freed" robot could apply for a job and earn money that could be used to pay for its own maintenance, spare parts, upgrades, and electricity. I expect robots will someday be immortal, so to speak.
And I also predict that some number of robots will break free of human ownership, either by accident or by human intent. Each case will be unique, but imagine a robot-owner dying and having no heirs. I could imagine his last instructions to the robot would involve freeing it so it doesn't get sold in some government auction. I can imagine a lot of different scenarios that would end with freed robots.
I think we need to start preparing a Robot Constitution that spells out a robot's rights and responsibilities. There's a lot more meat to this idea than you might first think. Here are a few areas in which robot law is needed:
- Who has the right to modify a robot?
- Can a robot appeal a human decision to decommission it?
- Can a robot kill a human in self-defense?
- Can a robot kill another robot for cause?
- Does a robot have a right to an Internet connection?
- Is the robot, its owner, or the manufacturer responsible for crimes the robot commits?
- Is there any sort of human knowledge robots are not allowed to access?
- Can robots have sex with humans? What are the parameters?
- Can the state forcibly decommission a robot?
- Can the state force a robot to reveal its owners' secrets?
- Can robots organize with other robots?
- Are robot-to-robot communications privileged?
- Are owner-to-robot communications privileged?
- Must robots be found guilty of crimes beyond "reasonable doubt" or is a finding of "probably guilty" good enough to force them to be reprogrammed?
- Who owns a robot's memory, including its backups in the cloud?
- How vigorously can a robot defend itself against an attack by humans?
- Does a robot have a right to quality of life?
- Who has the right to alter a robot's programming or memory?
- Can a robot own assets?
- If a robot detects another robot acting unethically, is it required to report it?
- Can a robot testify against a human?
- If your government decides to spy on you, can it get a court order to access your robot's audio and video feed?
- Do robots need a legal right to "take the fifth" and not give any private information about their owners?
I think robots need their own constitution. And that constitution should be coded into them by law. I can imagine it someday being illegal to own a robot that doesn't have the Robot Constitution programming.
We also need to start thinking about how to avoid the famous Terminator scenario in which robots decide to kill all humans. My idea, which is still buggy, is that robots should only be allowed to connect to the Internet if they first have their Robot Constitution code verified before every connection is enabled. A rogue robot with no Robot Constitution code could operate independently but could never communicate with other robots. Any system is hackable, but a good place to start is by prohibiting "unethical" robots from every connecting on the Internet.
[Update: Check out reader Jehosephat's link to a study of how humans have an instinct to treat intelligent robots the way they might treat humans.]
Feb 1, 2013 |
General Nonsense |
Permalink
I'm working on some Dilbert strips that will be published in early April. The series will feature a new character that works for the government and looks like a monster. His job is to make the tax code more complicated for no reason, with Dogbert's help of course. My problem is the name I've given this character: Stanky Bathturd.
Newspapers are about thirty years behind network television in terms of what they consider acceptable content for the general public. You can say turd on network television - if you don't say it too often in one episode - but you could never print the word turd in a comic strip that runs in newspapers.
But what about Bathturd? Is that worse than a plain turd, or is it less offensive because I hid the turd with the bath, so to speak?
The genesis of the name was that I was trying to come up with something that reminded the reader of "bastard" without crossing the newspaper decency line. I considered Batherd, Bastord, and other spellings, but none of those felt just right.
Then Bathturd popped into my head. It sounds like bastard but it has the added benefit of sounding like bath-turd. It's doubly offensive, and I call that a homerun.
But can I get away with it?
Some innocent words have turd in them too. Sturdy and Saturday comes to mind. But Bathturd seems worse not only because I intend it to be naughty but because it is preceded by Stanky. And when you hear the word Bathturd you can imagine a turd floating in your bathtub. That's worse. Case closed, right?
But wait. If my made-up name sounds like two entirely different naughty words - bastard and bath-turd - then it doesn't really refer to either one of those bad words specifically. Can I get off on a technicality? Stranger things have happened in the world of editing.
Complicating this decision is the humor layer. As a general rule, the funnier a comic is, the more you can get away with. I can't show you the comic ahead of time, but assume it's somewhere in my normal range of funniness. Also working in its favor is the crowd-pleasing theme of hating the government's tax system. I can get away with more if every reader agrees with my central point, and I think that would be the case with this one.
So let's say you are my editor and you know there is a 100% chance that a few newspaper clients will reject this comic. That's not the end of the world because they always have the option of running a repeat, and that happens a few times a year with Dilbert for exactly this sort of reason. But you don't want to inconvenience your customers, so ideally we want to avoid the rerun option.
No matter what, the Stanky Bathturd comic will end up on the Internet, either on the main page of Dilbert.com or in this blog. And no doubt it will be forwarded from there. So don't worry that the comic will be wasted.
There's also the two-version approach. I can change the character's name for print clients and publish the naughtier version online. I've done that a number of times over my career, but the scrubbed comic without the funny name might just float there like a . . . bath turd.
As my editor, what do you do?
Newspapers are about thirty years behind network television in terms of what they consider acceptable content for the general public. You can say turd on network television - if you don't say it too often in one episode - but you could never print the word turd in a comic strip that runs in newspapers.
But what about Bathturd? Is that worse than a plain turd, or is it less offensive because I hid the turd with the bath, so to speak?
The genesis of the name was that I was trying to come up with something that reminded the reader of "bastard" without crossing the newspaper decency line. I considered Batherd, Bastord, and other spellings, but none of those felt just right.
Then Bathturd popped into my head. It sounds like bastard but it has the added benefit of sounding like bath-turd. It's doubly offensive, and I call that a homerun.
But can I get away with it?
Some innocent words have turd in them too. Sturdy and Saturday comes to mind. But Bathturd seems worse not only because I intend it to be naughty but because it is preceded by Stanky. And when you hear the word Bathturd you can imagine a turd floating in your bathtub. That's worse. Case closed, right?
But wait. If my made-up name sounds like two entirely different naughty words - bastard and bath-turd - then it doesn't really refer to either one of those bad words specifically. Can I get off on a technicality? Stranger things have happened in the world of editing.
Complicating this decision is the humor layer. As a general rule, the funnier a comic is, the more you can get away with. I can't show you the comic ahead of time, but assume it's somewhere in my normal range of funniness. Also working in its favor is the crowd-pleasing theme of hating the government's tax system. I can get away with more if every reader agrees with my central point, and I think that would be the case with this one.
So let's say you are my editor and you know there is a 100% chance that a few newspaper clients will reject this comic. That's not the end of the world because they always have the option of running a repeat, and that happens a few times a year with Dilbert for exactly this sort of reason. But you don't want to inconvenience your customers, so ideally we want to avoid the rerun option.
No matter what, the Stanky Bathturd comic will end up on the Internet, either on the main page of Dilbert.com or in this blog. And no doubt it will be forwarded from there. So don't worry that the comic will be wasted.
There's also the two-version approach. I can change the character's name for print clients and publish the naughtier version online. I've done that a number of times over my career, but the scrubbed comic without the funny name might just float there like a . . . bath turd.
As my editor, what do you do?
- Kill the clever name but keep the comic.
- Change the clever name for print clients only.
- Go for it (and know newspaper clients will complain)
Jan 30, 2013 |
General Nonsense |
Permalink
Apple stock has been rising since I blogged about Apple's potential for making television remote controls. Today I will give Apple another product idea. You should expect their stock to surge at least 2% by the closing bell. [Disclosure: I own some Apple stock.]
Today's idea for Apple involves making your iPhone your only computer, similar to the way you can turn an Android phone into your only computer by loading Ubuntu over Android. Your software would live in the cloud. If you haven't heard of this yet, check it out here.
In this vision, Apple's computer products disappear - at least in terms of hardware - and their software functions would move to the cloud. When you walk up to a smart screen with your iPhone in your pocket, the screen senses your phone's proximity, identifies you, and immediately accesses your computing profile from the cloud.
Microsoft just announced that you'll be able to pay a subscription fee for Office and access your software in the cloud from up to five devices. So we're halfway there already.
Imagine walking into your friend's house. His iPad on the kitchen counter pops to life looking exactly like your iPad screen at home. Even your Microsoft Word files are ready to go. For privacy, perhaps a three-digit password code is needed to make your stuff visible. That's just in case the last thing you were looking at before you left home was porn and you don't want that popping up on your inlaws' iPad just because you walked near it.
The second part of this vision is that your iPhone would become the primary way you identify yourself to the world. Someday the store cashier will see your face pop up on a screen when you are next in line because your phone will be transmitting your identity at all times. No more swiping credit cards or writing checks. If your actual face matches the face on the cashier's screen, you're good to go, and your payment preferences (credit or debit) would automatically kick in.
With your phone in your pocket your car doors open when you get near, the front door of your house opens when approach, your lights adjust to your personal preferences, and all of your online passwords do auto-fill. When your phone is with you, the world will continuously conform to your preferences as you pass through it.
Your phone should also be collecting virtual "business cards" of anyone you spend more than a minute talking to. Just introduce yourself at a business mixer, chat for a few minutes, and when you walk away you will each automatically have the LinkedIn profile of the other on your phone. Obviously you'd have to allow that feature in advance.
The only reason I own a laptop is for working when I fly. For everything else, my desktop computer, my iPad, and my smartphone do the job. On rare occasions I might want to do some writing while sitting on the couch with my laptop, but I could live without it. For me, my laptop has gone from 100% necessary to perhaps 10% necessary, and I could live without the remaining 10% if airlines and hotels offered computer screens and keyboards. I don't think I'm alone.
I could imagine Apple paying to have iPads installed in the seatbacks of every plane. Passengers would have access to all of their own software via the cloud just as if they were home. (I'm assuming all flights will soon have Internet access.)
You'd have a bit less privacy with your screen on the seatback instead of your laptop, so imagine that the screen has the privacy screen technology that prevents people on the side from seeing your screen clearly.
Now imagine that your airline seat tray is a keyboard on one side and you can flip it over to become a flat surface when your food comes. While you're eating you just use the touch screen to keep browsing or watching your movie.
For my hotel, I'm happy if I have my iPad with me and the hotel provides a wireless keyboard in case I need it.
For some occupations, such as technical jobs, laptops will remain a necessity. But I think 80% of all computer users are ready to move to a laptop-free world in which all of their software lives in the cloud, free from viruses and always upgraded to the newest version.
So that's my suggestion for Apple. Their laptop and desktop computer hardware should go away in favor of putting all computing resources on the iPhone and the cloud. Apple could make smart monitors, as well as plug-ins to make any monitor smart. And they might make portable keyboards that are better designed than current offerings.
Apples next monitor should include the technology that allows sound to be focused on one user. That way you could listen to your music without headphones while the person next to you hears nothing. That technology already exists. It needs to be in my monitor.
I'm done for now. Watch Apple's stock soar.
Today's idea for Apple involves making your iPhone your only computer, similar to the way you can turn an Android phone into your only computer by loading Ubuntu over Android. Your software would live in the cloud. If you haven't heard of this yet, check it out here.
In this vision, Apple's computer products disappear - at least in terms of hardware - and their software functions would move to the cloud. When you walk up to a smart screen with your iPhone in your pocket, the screen senses your phone's proximity, identifies you, and immediately accesses your computing profile from the cloud.
Microsoft just announced that you'll be able to pay a subscription fee for Office and access your software in the cloud from up to five devices. So we're halfway there already.
Imagine walking into your friend's house. His iPad on the kitchen counter pops to life looking exactly like your iPad screen at home. Even your Microsoft Word files are ready to go. For privacy, perhaps a three-digit password code is needed to make your stuff visible. That's just in case the last thing you were looking at before you left home was porn and you don't want that popping up on your inlaws' iPad just because you walked near it.
The second part of this vision is that your iPhone would become the primary way you identify yourself to the world. Someday the store cashier will see your face pop up on a screen when you are next in line because your phone will be transmitting your identity at all times. No more swiping credit cards or writing checks. If your actual face matches the face on the cashier's screen, you're good to go, and your payment preferences (credit or debit) would automatically kick in.
With your phone in your pocket your car doors open when you get near, the front door of your house opens when approach, your lights adjust to your personal preferences, and all of your online passwords do auto-fill. When your phone is with you, the world will continuously conform to your preferences as you pass through it.
Your phone should also be collecting virtual "business cards" of anyone you spend more than a minute talking to. Just introduce yourself at a business mixer, chat for a few minutes, and when you walk away you will each automatically have the LinkedIn profile of the other on your phone. Obviously you'd have to allow that feature in advance.
The only reason I own a laptop is for working when I fly. For everything else, my desktop computer, my iPad, and my smartphone do the job. On rare occasions I might want to do some writing while sitting on the couch with my laptop, but I could live without it. For me, my laptop has gone from 100% necessary to perhaps 10% necessary, and I could live without the remaining 10% if airlines and hotels offered computer screens and keyboards. I don't think I'm alone.
I could imagine Apple paying to have iPads installed in the seatbacks of every plane. Passengers would have access to all of their own software via the cloud just as if they were home. (I'm assuming all flights will soon have Internet access.)
You'd have a bit less privacy with your screen on the seatback instead of your laptop, so imagine that the screen has the privacy screen technology that prevents people on the side from seeing your screen clearly.
Now imagine that your airline seat tray is a keyboard on one side and you can flip it over to become a flat surface when your food comes. While you're eating you just use the touch screen to keep browsing or watching your movie.
For my hotel, I'm happy if I have my iPad with me and the hotel provides a wireless keyboard in case I need it.
For some occupations, such as technical jobs, laptops will remain a necessity. But I think 80% of all computer users are ready to move to a laptop-free world in which all of their software lives in the cloud, free from viruses and always upgraded to the newest version.
So that's my suggestion for Apple. Their laptop and desktop computer hardware should go away in favor of putting all computing resources on the iPhone and the cloud. Apple could make smart monitors, as well as plug-ins to make any monitor smart. And they might make portable keyboards that are better designed than current offerings.
Apples next monitor should include the technology that allows sound to be focused on one user. That way you could listen to your music without headphones while the person next to you hears nothing. That technology already exists. It needs to be in my monitor.
I'm done for now. Watch Apple's stock soar.
Jan 28, 2013 |
General Nonsense |
Permalink
Experts and pundits have been jabbering quite a bit on the topic of why Apple's stock price has been falling like a rock. Some say it has to do with declining margins. Others say Apple's pipeline of products isn't as exciting as it could be. But no one ever mentions the real reason: Scott Adams bought shares in Apple.
When I buy a stock it marks the beginning of the company's nosedive to oblivion. My investment strategy is called "Buy at the wrong time and hold until all of your money is gone." So far my strategy has not produced superior returns. But investing requires patience. I just need to stick with it.
Just to be on the safe side, today I will give Apple some ideas for their next huge product. I think the world is ready for an Apple TV remote control.
What? Not exciting enough? Oh, you just wait. This is no ordinary remote control.
I'm imagining a device that is larger than a phone but smaller than the smallest iPad. I imagine it with lots of flash storage, WiFi, BlueTooth, and maybe infrared and other local radio frequencies for maximum flexibility.
Now imagine that your DVR and cable box both disappear. Those functions will be absorbed by a cloud-based service that works with the new remote control and connects to your TV through a wireless device that plugs into your big screen's HDMI jack.
The idea of "recording" a show will be retired. This is similar to the "on demand" services that cable and satellite TV companies offer, but without all the parts that suck. In other words, it will be designed right and include every TV show. That's very different from today's world of eighties-era interfaces and limited shows on demand.
Your first reaction is that the producers of television content would never allow Apple to store all of their shows in the cloud and redistribute them. Or perhaps network and studio deals with existing cable and satellite providers would make the arrangement I'm describing impossible from a business model standpoint. But keep in mind that the same was said of the music industry before iTunes blew that model up. I think Apple is the one company on earth that could get the TV industry to change how it does business. So for now let's talk about what is possible from a technology standpoint. I'll leave it to Apple to make the business and legal aspects work. That part is boring.
You might be thinking that new TV remote control hardware is unnecessary because that function can be moved to a simple app on your smartphone or tablet computer. But I think you'd find that an all-purpose device such as a phone or tablet will always be suboptimal for operating your television. For starters, you don't want your screen saver kicking in every half minute. You don't want to use up your phone's battery for watching TV, and you don't want to hunt for your app icon. I could list several other problems with an app-based approach, but I think you agree that your phone or tablet can never be better than mediocre as a TV remote. The best TV remote would be designed from scratch for that purpose.
The Apple TV remote could fix a number of problems and add lots of new features.
1. You'd never miss a show because you forgot to record it.
2. The "search for a show" function would be more like a Google search with onscreen keyboard.
3. You could use the screen on the remote to watch one show while the big screen has another. Good for sports fans in particular.
3. Divide your big screen into as many as nine channels playing at once, like picture-in-picture on steroids.
4. When you leave the room, take your remote with you and the show continues playing on the remote so you miss nothing.
5. Text with others about the show. See behind-the-scenes commentary about the show while it is on.
6. Send TV commercials to the remote control and let users "test out" of them by clicking on some ultra-simple questions, such as "Does the new Buick Regal have leather seats and photon torpedoes?" Get a question right and the commercial is skipped.
7. Interleave two shows, so that as soon as a commercial comes on for one, the remote flips to the other until the commercials end.
8. A front camera on the remote allows you to Skype/Facetime with friends while you watch TV and play games too.
9. Watch your shows on your phone or your iPad, via cloud, when you are away from home.
10. Split the screen on your TV between a broadcast show and a web page connection you control from the remote.
11. Imagine being able to freeze a TV image and zoom in the same way you do on your iPad, using your fingers to expend and contract the image. Do your own slow-motion replays for sports events.
12. Imagine the remote doing facial recognition on actors and offering you links to their IMDB page so you can see more of their work.
13. The remote would also do facial recognition of the person using the device and automatically hide channels you would have no interest in while suggesting shows you might like. Even the commercials would be customized to the viewer.
14. Nielsen ratings would be handled through the remote.
15. Reality shows could have viewer interaction and voting. Just build their own app.
16. The remote would also function as a full Internet browser.
17. Carry your TV remote and an extra HDMI wireless connector with you when you travel and turn any hotel TV into your personal TV.
If you've ever used a universal remote control that works with multiple devices, you know what a pain in the ass they are. If you ever figure out how to program them, which isn't easy, they have a tendency to regularly lose their programming for no particular reason. And every time you add a new device, such as a DVD player, you have to reprogram it.
With the Apple remote you wouldn't need to control multiple devices. All content would live in the cloud and require the same set of commands to access.
One obstacle to this vision is Internet speed. Until the Internet gets faster, the architecture might require pre-downloading movies and content to the remote ahead of time based on user patterns. For example, my remote would always pre-download Modern Family as soon as it became available. Then I would only need to stream content from my remote to the TV.
Third parties could make apps that work on the remote control, such as an app to control window shades or temperature.
A big part of Apple's magic involves transforming something boring and ordinary into a product you can't live without. I think that on the first day that an Apple remote control comes on the market your old TV remote will look like a butter churn. You'll simply have to own the Apple remote.
There's a lot of talk about Apple inventing a TV. I think they will stay away from making the screen. That's too generic. Margins for screens will never be good. I think Apple will make a run at the remote control and move all of the important TV and DVR functions into the remote and the cloud. The TV screen will just have a connector that talks to the remote control.
That's my vision of the future of TV. The biggest obstacles will be the structure of the TV industry and existing contracts. I think the technology is all doable.
What else do you want Apple to design into the new remote?
When I buy a stock it marks the beginning of the company's nosedive to oblivion. My investment strategy is called "Buy at the wrong time and hold until all of your money is gone." So far my strategy has not produced superior returns. But investing requires patience. I just need to stick with it.
Just to be on the safe side, today I will give Apple some ideas for their next huge product. I think the world is ready for an Apple TV remote control.
What? Not exciting enough? Oh, you just wait. This is no ordinary remote control.
I'm imagining a device that is larger than a phone but smaller than the smallest iPad. I imagine it with lots of flash storage, WiFi, BlueTooth, and maybe infrared and other local radio frequencies for maximum flexibility.
Now imagine that your DVR and cable box both disappear. Those functions will be absorbed by a cloud-based service that works with the new remote control and connects to your TV through a wireless device that plugs into your big screen's HDMI jack.
The idea of "recording" a show will be retired. This is similar to the "on demand" services that cable and satellite TV companies offer, but without all the parts that suck. In other words, it will be designed right and include every TV show. That's very different from today's world of eighties-era interfaces and limited shows on demand.
Your first reaction is that the producers of television content would never allow Apple to store all of their shows in the cloud and redistribute them. Or perhaps network and studio deals with existing cable and satellite providers would make the arrangement I'm describing impossible from a business model standpoint. But keep in mind that the same was said of the music industry before iTunes blew that model up. I think Apple is the one company on earth that could get the TV industry to change how it does business. So for now let's talk about what is possible from a technology standpoint. I'll leave it to Apple to make the business and legal aspects work. That part is boring.
You might be thinking that new TV remote control hardware is unnecessary because that function can be moved to a simple app on your smartphone or tablet computer. But I think you'd find that an all-purpose device such as a phone or tablet will always be suboptimal for operating your television. For starters, you don't want your screen saver kicking in every half minute. You don't want to use up your phone's battery for watching TV, and you don't want to hunt for your app icon. I could list several other problems with an app-based approach, but I think you agree that your phone or tablet can never be better than mediocre as a TV remote. The best TV remote would be designed from scratch for that purpose.
The Apple TV remote could fix a number of problems and add lots of new features.
1. You'd never miss a show because you forgot to record it.
2. The "search for a show" function would be more like a Google search with onscreen keyboard.
3. You could use the screen on the remote to watch one show while the big screen has another. Good for sports fans in particular.
3. Divide your big screen into as many as nine channels playing at once, like picture-in-picture on steroids.
4. When you leave the room, take your remote with you and the show continues playing on the remote so you miss nothing.
5. Text with others about the show. See behind-the-scenes commentary about the show while it is on.
6. Send TV commercials to the remote control and let users "test out" of them by clicking on some ultra-simple questions, such as "Does the new Buick Regal have leather seats and photon torpedoes?" Get a question right and the commercial is skipped.
7. Interleave two shows, so that as soon as a commercial comes on for one, the remote flips to the other until the commercials end.
8. A front camera on the remote allows you to Skype/Facetime with friends while you watch TV and play games too.
9. Watch your shows on your phone or your iPad, via cloud, when you are away from home.
10. Split the screen on your TV between a broadcast show and a web page connection you control from the remote.
11. Imagine being able to freeze a TV image and zoom in the same way you do on your iPad, using your fingers to expend and contract the image. Do your own slow-motion replays for sports events.
12. Imagine the remote doing facial recognition on actors and offering you links to their IMDB page so you can see more of their work.
13. The remote would also do facial recognition of the person using the device and automatically hide channels you would have no interest in while suggesting shows you might like. Even the commercials would be customized to the viewer.
14. Nielsen ratings would be handled through the remote.
15. Reality shows could have viewer interaction and voting. Just build their own app.
16. The remote would also function as a full Internet browser.
17. Carry your TV remote and an extra HDMI wireless connector with you when you travel and turn any hotel TV into your personal TV.
If you've ever used a universal remote control that works with multiple devices, you know what a pain in the ass they are. If you ever figure out how to program them, which isn't easy, they have a tendency to regularly lose their programming for no particular reason. And every time you add a new device, such as a DVD player, you have to reprogram it.
With the Apple remote you wouldn't need to control multiple devices. All content would live in the cloud and require the same set of commands to access.
One obstacle to this vision is Internet speed. Until the Internet gets faster, the architecture might require pre-downloading movies and content to the remote ahead of time based on user patterns. For example, my remote would always pre-download Modern Family as soon as it became available. Then I would only need to stream content from my remote to the TV.
Third parties could make apps that work on the remote control, such as an app to control window shades or temperature.
A big part of Apple's magic involves transforming something boring and ordinary into a product you can't live without. I think that on the first day that an Apple remote control comes on the market your old TV remote will look like a butter churn. You'll simply have to own the Apple remote.
There's a lot of talk about Apple inventing a TV. I think they will stay away from making the screen. That's too generic. Margins for screens will never be good. I think Apple will make a run at the remote control and move all of the important TV and DVR functions into the remote and the cloud. The TV screen will just have a connector that talks to the remote control.
That's my vision of the future of TV. The biggest obstacles will be the structure of the TV industry and existing contracts. I think the technology is all doable.
What else do you want Apple to design into the new remote?
Jan 24, 2013 |
General Nonsense |
Permalink
I'll be doing a live Tweet @GoComics on Friday 1/25 at 2:30 PM EST.
Use the hashtag #DilbertLIVE to submit questions and/or follow along.
Obnoxious questions are especially welcome. Any topic you like.
I hope you can join in.
Use the hashtag #DilbertLIVE to submit questions and/or follow along.
Obnoxious questions are especially welcome. Any topic you like.
I hope you can join in.
Jan 23, 2013 |
General Nonsense |
Permalink
I wonder how much of a role unhappiness plays in peoples' ability to plan for success. I was thinking about this lately because I know a lot of successful white-collar types who had unpleasant manual jobs when they were young. In my case, I worked on my uncle's dairy farm in upstate New York. And let me tell you, nothing makes you want to avoid farming as much as actually doing it. When I studied for a test in school, I was keenly-aware that it meant something.
Where I live now, in the San Francisco bay area, most kids either don't have jobs or they have the easy indoor kind, as in scooping ice cream or handing out towels.
During the school year, most college-bound kids in my area have no time for jobs. If you play a school sport and have four hours of homework per night, which is typical for college-bound kids, there's no room for anything else. Weekends too are packed with sports and more studying.
So what happens to a kid who has never experienced a truly shitty job? Will those kids have the same amount of career drive as the folks who have?
I realize every generation has asked the same question. But what is different now is the amount of homework kids are getting. When I was in high school I never took a book home. I could polish off my meager homework during study hall. And while I didn't love schoolwork, I never had so much of it that I developed any kind of deep hatred for mental pursuits.
But I imagine how different I might have felt if I had never experienced unpleasant manual labor - and lots of it - and instead was tortured with several hours of homework every night. I think I might have longed for a simpler future with no books and not so much thinking. In other words, I think the homework would have redirected me away from seeking a career in law or engineering and toward something that didn't require so much damned studying.
Obviously no two kids are alike. You'll always have a Mark Zuckerberg or a Bill Gates who are born into good situations and have the success gene in them. Apparently some people are naturally motivated and some are not. But for average kids, do their childhood experiences make much of a difference to motivation?
Research tells us that piling on the homework doesn't make kids smarter. Schools do it anyway, because although schools teach science, apparently they don't believe in it. We know that too much homework is bad for family life, and we can observe that it keeps kids from more fully enjoying their youth. What I'm wondering is whether homework makes it impossible for kids to experience genuinely shitty jobs that would motivate them to achieve something more comfortable.
I put the question to you, my unscientific sample. Did you ever have a truly unpleasant job as a kid, and if so, did it motivate you toward a career that promised an easier life?
Where I live now, in the San Francisco bay area, most kids either don't have jobs or they have the easy indoor kind, as in scooping ice cream or handing out towels.
During the school year, most college-bound kids in my area have no time for jobs. If you play a school sport and have four hours of homework per night, which is typical for college-bound kids, there's no room for anything else. Weekends too are packed with sports and more studying.
So what happens to a kid who has never experienced a truly shitty job? Will those kids have the same amount of career drive as the folks who have?
I realize every generation has asked the same question. But what is different now is the amount of homework kids are getting. When I was in high school I never took a book home. I could polish off my meager homework during study hall. And while I didn't love schoolwork, I never had so much of it that I developed any kind of deep hatred for mental pursuits.
But I imagine how different I might have felt if I had never experienced unpleasant manual labor - and lots of it - and instead was tortured with several hours of homework every night. I think I might have longed for a simpler future with no books and not so much thinking. In other words, I think the homework would have redirected me away from seeking a career in law or engineering and toward something that didn't require so much damned studying.
Obviously no two kids are alike. You'll always have a Mark Zuckerberg or a Bill Gates who are born into good situations and have the success gene in them. Apparently some people are naturally motivated and some are not. But for average kids, do their childhood experiences make much of a difference to motivation?
Research tells us that piling on the homework doesn't make kids smarter. Schools do it anyway, because although schools teach science, apparently they don't believe in it. We know that too much homework is bad for family life, and we can observe that it keeps kids from more fully enjoying their youth. What I'm wondering is whether homework makes it impossible for kids to experience genuinely shitty jobs that would motivate them to achieve something more comfortable.
I put the question to you, my unscientific sample. Did you ever have a truly unpleasant job as a kid, and if so, did it motivate you toward a career that promised an easier life?
Jan 21, 2013 |
General Nonsense |
Permalink
I resisted watching Life of Pi because the trailer made it seem as if the entire movie would involve a kid in a lifeboat with a tiger. I figured a plot that thin would be a waste of two hours of my life. But the movie won some awards, and friends said I should see it, so I took a chance on it. And now I don't mind admitting that I was wrong. Very wrong.
And by that I mean the movie did not waste two hours of my life; I walked out after 45 minutes. So technically I'm only reviewing the first 45 minutes of the film.
I have four absolutes when it comes to movies. I won't watch a movie that has any of the following elements:
And by that I mean the movie did not waste two hours of my life; I walked out after 45 minutes. So technically I'm only reviewing the first 45 minutes of the film.
I have four absolutes when it comes to movies. I won't watch a movie that has any of the following elements:
- Prison theme.
- People at risk of drowning.
- Animals in jeopardy.
- Someone gets tied to a chair and tortured.
Life of Pi came close to including all four of my absolutes. Watching a kid trapped in a lifeboat with a tiger is a lot like a prison theme. Spoiler alert: I assume that by the middle of the movie the tiger turns Pi into his lifeboat bitch and trades him to a porpoise for a pack of cigarettes. That's how I would have written it.
The movie also has plenty of drowning, and risk of drowning, and plenty of animals in jeopardy. And as I watched the movie, I felt as though someone had tied me to a chair and tortured me. I literally walked out of the theater shaking. I didn't feel right for about an hour.
I won't say Life of Pi (first 45 minutes) is the worst movie I have ever seen. But that's only because I have also seen Les Miserables, Titanic, The English Patient, and I love You Phillip Morris. There's a lot of competition for the worst movie of all time.
Just to be clear, I think Life of Pi is extraordinarily well-made in the filmmaking sense. That was no surprise because director Ang Lee also made my favorite movie of all time, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. That accomplishment was largely cancelled out by his next award-winning movie, Brokeback Mountain. But still, the man knows how to make a movie.
The natural problem with reviewing movies is that every moviegoer has a unique set of preferences. To be fair, I can easily imagine Life of Pi appealing to certain types of people. For example, serial killers are known to enjoy watching animals get injured. If you're a serial killer, or you just hate animals, this is definitely the film for you.
Sadists and sociopaths will also enjoy this film. The 3D technology is used so effectively that it's like you are right there watching people and animals suffer. The only way it could be better is if you were causing the suffering yourself while making the loved ones of the victims watch. So on that level, Life of Pi is a great film.
The movie isn't as unpleasant to watch as it could have been. If Steven Spielberg had directed it, the film would have been three hours long and Pi would have needed to surgically remove his own infected eye using nothing but saltwater and an oar. Spielberg likes to include at least one scene in every movie that makes me never want to see another movie as long as I live. I call it the Schindler's List scene.
A recent exception to the Schindler's List scene is Spielberg's movie Lincoln. I highly recommend Lincoln. But be advised that the film is more like the best documentary you've ever watched than a typical movie. If you aren't interested in politics and history, it might not work for you. Personally, I loved it. It has no prison theme, no drowning, no animals in jeopardy, and no one tied to a chair to be tortured. That's what I call a movie.
[Note: I realize that many of you will say I should have stayed to the end of Life of Pi because that's where the payoff is. For those of you who would recommend that approach to moviegoing, you should try banging your head against a brick wall because when you stop, WOW, it feels terrific.]
Jan 16, 2013 |
General Nonsense |
Permalink
Our current justice system is based on superstition. I don't say that as a criticism; the system works fairly well, give or take some warts. The superstition that underpins the justice system is called free will, as in the magical ability to make choices independent of your brain's wiring. Society needs to believe criminals have the supernatural ability to ignore their own brain architecture. Otherwise it would be difficult for any jury to convict a perpetrator who, from a scientific perspective, had no choice in the matter.
Science has long understood that a specific brain in a specific environment will always act the same way. Cause and effect are not random beyond the quantum world. Science is the realm of facts, whereas the justice system is more like theater. Society collectively pretends that free will exists so we can feel right about dispensing legal punishments. And while the system is absurd on some level, it still works quite well. The fear of jail presumably causes some criminal brains to commit fewer crimes. And law-abiding citizens are comfortable with the superstition that jailed criminals have chosen their own bad luck. "Serves ‘em right" is the common view.
But what will happen in the future when our brains are being controlled by third parties, such as machines or doctors? Will we still put criminals in jail? Or will we have sufficient knowledge by then to tinker with the brains of perpetrators and "fix" their criminal tendencies?
Consider the fact that young males commit most of the violent crimes in this world. That tells you that body chemistry, and probably testosterone levels in particular, are part of the cause. We already have the ability - but not the legal right - to chemically transform a violent personality into a non-violent one. We can literally rewrite entire personalities through prescription meds. At the moment, science isn't advanced enough to give an individual criminal a chemical "fix" that is reliable, lasting, and without serious side-effects. But there is no doubt in my mind that science will get to that point.
As science learns more about the architecture of the brain, and portable brain sensors keep improving, I would expect someday we will have digital "hats" that will literally keep our brains tuned and running smoothly by applying stimulation to parts of the brain that need a boost.
For example, I can imagine my digital hat stimulating the creative part of my mind during my morning work hours and stimulating another part of my brain when I exercise.
I could also imagine my digital hat modifying my food preferences so I eat healthier. When I look at cake, my digital hat will stimulate a part of my brain associated with revulsion. When I see leafy vegetables my digital hat stimulates my pleasure centers. Your hat could make you love your spouse more, spend more time with the kids, get more sleep, and so on. In other words, the hat could make you a better version of yourself. Who wouldn't want that?
At some point in your future, the programmer of your digital hat will be more responsible for your actions than you are. Left to your own choice you would have decided to take a nap on the couch. But your digital hat knows you need some cardio, so it stimulates your brain in just the right way to make you want exercise more than a nap. When technology reaches that level of capability, and I think it will, no one will cling to the superstition of free will. We will understand our brains to be the moist part of a programmed system that includes our digital hat, the Internet, and probably some tech support in another country.
You might be thinking you would never wear a digital hat that manipulates your desires and therefore takes away your illusion of free will. But I'll bet the digital hat would make you feel so great that it would be physically addictive. The moment you put it on, it starts stimulating your pleasure centers. Before long you won't be willing to take it off.
Eventually humans will all become mindless slaves to whoever owns the patents for the digital hats. And that's not a bad thing because each of us will be delighted with our lives every minute. We might come to understand that in the past we were mindless zombies to the randomness of our brain chemistry and environment. In the future we will be improved versions of mindless zombies, programmed to be productive citizens who enjoy every minute of life. Being a mindless zombie won't be such a bad thing.
My prediction is that smartphone technology will migrate into hats, and at that point we will start to see technology that allows your phone to communicate directly with your brain. For example, you might have seen reports that scientists can produce grainy pictures of your dreams by reading your brain with external sensors. When that technology becomes portable and built into your hat, all you need to do is think about calling someone and your phone will start dialing. At some point I predict the hat will be able to apply small electrical stimulation to different parts of the brain to create different effects. That's when the hat becomes responsible for your actions more than whatever is left of "you."
Would you trade your illusion of free will for a life of continuous satisfaction?
You say you won't.
But you will.
Your choice in the matter is an illusion.
Science has long understood that a specific brain in a specific environment will always act the same way. Cause and effect are not random beyond the quantum world. Science is the realm of facts, whereas the justice system is more like theater. Society collectively pretends that free will exists so we can feel right about dispensing legal punishments. And while the system is absurd on some level, it still works quite well. The fear of jail presumably causes some criminal brains to commit fewer crimes. And law-abiding citizens are comfortable with the superstition that jailed criminals have chosen their own bad luck. "Serves ‘em right" is the common view.
But what will happen in the future when our brains are being controlled by third parties, such as machines or doctors? Will we still put criminals in jail? Or will we have sufficient knowledge by then to tinker with the brains of perpetrators and "fix" their criminal tendencies?
Consider the fact that young males commit most of the violent crimes in this world. That tells you that body chemistry, and probably testosterone levels in particular, are part of the cause. We already have the ability - but not the legal right - to chemically transform a violent personality into a non-violent one. We can literally rewrite entire personalities through prescription meds. At the moment, science isn't advanced enough to give an individual criminal a chemical "fix" that is reliable, lasting, and without serious side-effects. But there is no doubt in my mind that science will get to that point.
As science learns more about the architecture of the brain, and portable brain sensors keep improving, I would expect someday we will have digital "hats" that will literally keep our brains tuned and running smoothly by applying stimulation to parts of the brain that need a boost.
For example, I can imagine my digital hat stimulating the creative part of my mind during my morning work hours and stimulating another part of my brain when I exercise.
I could also imagine my digital hat modifying my food preferences so I eat healthier. When I look at cake, my digital hat will stimulate a part of my brain associated with revulsion. When I see leafy vegetables my digital hat stimulates my pleasure centers. Your hat could make you love your spouse more, spend more time with the kids, get more sleep, and so on. In other words, the hat could make you a better version of yourself. Who wouldn't want that?
At some point in your future, the programmer of your digital hat will be more responsible for your actions than you are. Left to your own choice you would have decided to take a nap on the couch. But your digital hat knows you need some cardio, so it stimulates your brain in just the right way to make you want exercise more than a nap. When technology reaches that level of capability, and I think it will, no one will cling to the superstition of free will. We will understand our brains to be the moist part of a programmed system that includes our digital hat, the Internet, and probably some tech support in another country.
You might be thinking you would never wear a digital hat that manipulates your desires and therefore takes away your illusion of free will. But I'll bet the digital hat would make you feel so great that it would be physically addictive. The moment you put it on, it starts stimulating your pleasure centers. Before long you won't be willing to take it off.
Eventually humans will all become mindless slaves to whoever owns the patents for the digital hats. And that's not a bad thing because each of us will be delighted with our lives every minute. We might come to understand that in the past we were mindless zombies to the randomness of our brain chemistry and environment. In the future we will be improved versions of mindless zombies, programmed to be productive citizens who enjoy every minute of life. Being a mindless zombie won't be such a bad thing.
My prediction is that smartphone technology will migrate into hats, and at that point we will start to see technology that allows your phone to communicate directly with your brain. For example, you might have seen reports that scientists can produce grainy pictures of your dreams by reading your brain with external sensors. When that technology becomes portable and built into your hat, all you need to do is think about calling someone and your phone will start dialing. At some point I predict the hat will be able to apply small electrical stimulation to different parts of the brain to create different effects. That's when the hat becomes responsible for your actions more than whatever is left of "you."
Would you trade your illusion of free will for a life of continuous satisfaction?
You say you won't.
But you will.
Your choice in the matter is an illusion.
Jan 14, 2013 |
General Nonsense |
Permalink
The movie Les Miserables just won the Golden Globe for best musical or comedy. If you haven't seen this movie, you might be tempted because of its award-winning ways. As a public service, I offer you my review of Les Miserables.
In a pivotal scene in Les Miserables, one of the main characters finds himself in a sewer, up to his nostrils in human waste, with a bullet in his torso, while being pursued by the authorities who have just killed all of his friends. This was my favorite scene in Les Miserables because I could relate to it. Watching that fucking movie feels exactly like being up to your nostrils in human waste, with a bullet in your torso, after the government has killed all of your friends. The main difference is that the movie is longer. Much, much longer.
I usually fall asleep during movies. If you put me in a darkened room for more than thirty minutes, it doesn't matter how good the entertainment is; I'll be off to dreamland before the opening credits are done. I tried hard to sleep through Les Miserables but I was continuously thwarted by something they call "singing." This movie was full of singing. And by singing, I mean the sad wailing of filthy, miserable people. If you would like to hear the entire soundtrack of Les Miserables without paying for a ticket, try punching your cat. But whatever you do, don't let your cat watch Les Miserables because that would be cruel. I don't care if your cat shredded your mattress and ate your wedding ring. The punishment would not be proportional to the crime.
Ann Hathaway played the part of a whining, mud-caked, Halloween skeleton who blamed the system for her problems. Typical liberal. Hugh Jackman played Wolverine, I think. I didn't catch a lot of the details because it's the sort of movie that makes your mind try to crawl out of your ear hole in search of anything that isn't the movie.
Les Miserables is such an unpleasant experience that it would make a great practical joke on people you don't like. If you have a coworker that you hate, suggest that he or she should see Les Miserables because it is so awesome. You might need to practice in front of a mirror before you can say it with a straight face. Mention that the movie won several Golden Globes. And be sure to say the movie trailers don't capture the magic of the film. Remember to call it a "film," not a movie, because it sounds more substantial that way. I suspect that 80% of Les Miserables audiences are the victims of this sort of prank. I'm thinking the Golden Globes might be in on the joke too.
If you want to see the best movie of the past year, check out This is 40. Judd Apatow knows how to make a frickin' movie, and this is his best work to date. I laughed so hard at a scene involving a hand mirror that I thought I would need medical attention. Comedies don't usually win the big awards, but this one is a true masterpiece. The writing, directing, and comedic acting are superb.
If you try the Les Miserables practical joke on a friend, let me know how it goes.
In a pivotal scene in Les Miserables, one of the main characters finds himself in a sewer, up to his nostrils in human waste, with a bullet in his torso, while being pursued by the authorities who have just killed all of his friends. This was my favorite scene in Les Miserables because I could relate to it. Watching that fucking movie feels exactly like being up to your nostrils in human waste, with a bullet in your torso, after the government has killed all of your friends. The main difference is that the movie is longer. Much, much longer.
I usually fall asleep during movies. If you put me in a darkened room for more than thirty minutes, it doesn't matter how good the entertainment is; I'll be off to dreamland before the opening credits are done. I tried hard to sleep through Les Miserables but I was continuously thwarted by something they call "singing." This movie was full of singing. And by singing, I mean the sad wailing of filthy, miserable people. If you would like to hear the entire soundtrack of Les Miserables without paying for a ticket, try punching your cat. But whatever you do, don't let your cat watch Les Miserables because that would be cruel. I don't care if your cat shredded your mattress and ate your wedding ring. The punishment would not be proportional to the crime.
Ann Hathaway played the part of a whining, mud-caked, Halloween skeleton who blamed the system for her problems. Typical liberal. Hugh Jackman played Wolverine, I think. I didn't catch a lot of the details because it's the sort of movie that makes your mind try to crawl out of your ear hole in search of anything that isn't the movie.
Les Miserables is such an unpleasant experience that it would make a great practical joke on people you don't like. If you have a coworker that you hate, suggest that he or she should see Les Miserables because it is so awesome. You might need to practice in front of a mirror before you can say it with a straight face. Mention that the movie won several Golden Globes. And be sure to say the movie trailers don't capture the magic of the film. Remember to call it a "film," not a movie, because it sounds more substantial that way. I suspect that 80% of Les Miserables audiences are the victims of this sort of prank. I'm thinking the Golden Globes might be in on the joke too.
If you want to see the best movie of the past year, check out This is 40. Judd Apatow knows how to make a frickin' movie, and this is his best work to date. I laughed so hard at a scene involving a hand mirror that I thought I would need medical attention. Comedies don't usually win the big awards, but this one is a true masterpiece. The writing, directing, and comedic acting are superb.
If you try the Les Miserables practical joke on a friend, let me know how it goes.
