Recently in Thoughts Category

I was responsible for the following sections/sub-sections:

• Socio-Technical Analysis
• Professional Support of Thesis: Dr. Massimiliano Vasile
• Professional Support of Thesis: Dr. Gary An
• Future Technologies and Applications of Thesis

Below is an iPaper document containing my contributions. If you would like a good old-fashioned PDF, you can grab it from here.


Note: There will probably be a few minor changes made to my parts at some point tomorrow, but I would guess that this is 99.43% representative of what’s actually submitted.

[As mentioned in some of my previous blog posts, my group's final presentation will be focused on science fiction and its ability to predict future technologies. My specific part of the presentation will focus on more recent predictions of technologies that are expected within the next century.]

Assuming that science fiction is, in fact, an accurate indicator of future technology (which we believe to be true, as supported by my group members, Chris and Rolland), what fun innovations should we expect to be seeing within the duration of our lifetimes? Here are a few examples of predictions, mostly taken from Trivia-Library, made by the likes of Brian Aldiss, James Blish, D.G. Compton, Hugo Gernsback, Joe Haldeman, Robert A. Heinlein, Jules Verne and H.G. Wells:

• Automatic clothes-making machines, which obtain the user's measurements and produce on the spot
• Gene therapy as preventive medicine
• Weather Control
• Temperature-controlled couches
• Moving conveyor roadways
  
• DNA repair/replacement
• Sound bombs
• Electromagnetic tube elevators, no cables
  
• Computers that translate 10 languages simultaneously
• Computers hook directly into students' minds for accelerated learning
• Suspended animation for extended spaceflight
  
• Human life-span predicting machine
• The cosmiflyer, a 6-in. cosmic power generator strapped to one's back, is used for short-distance aerial transit
• Sound waves employed to expand vegetable cells (and man's food supply) a thousand times over
• Thought recorders
• Nuclear satellite bombs
• Iridium wire spirals at street corners, change night into day
• Ultrahigh-frequency electronic baths to remove dirt and other foreign particles from the human body
• Underwater air guns using glass electric shells that shock their prey
• The "stasis field," a special kind of force field, renders all radiation, electricity, light, and magnetism inert (including the atom bomb) and makes conventional weapons obsolete
• Manipulation of matter at the atomic scale, combining elements to build custom molecules and providing the world with new materials and medicines
• Electronic glass pane air-conditioning units
• Wireless and synthesized 3D viewers, allowing individuals to interact and conduct business with people not really there (but seem to be)
• Anticrime devices, which render felons rigid and helpless for 15 minutes
• Amplifiers that will pick up sounds in a house 20 mi. away
• Individual force fields enable the adventurous to sleep nude in snowstorms
• Faster-than-light spaceships
• Laser weapons
• 3D tape recorders
  
• Total absorption of radar waves, a radar cloaking device
  
• Amputated limbs and damaged organs can be regrown from their stumps
• Transatlantic rocket flights and commercial rocket travel
• Permanent settlements on the moon
  

Exciting, is it not? While I expect that some of these concepts will take decades to become reality (weather control, commercial rocket travel, iridium wire spirals that turn night into day), several hardly seem unrealistic (automatic clothes-making machines, gene therapy, sound bombs, human life-span predicting machines). As suggested by the article "Where Has All the Sci-Fi Gone?", it's becoming more and more difficult for writers to make incredibly futuristic claims. Because information technology grows at an exponential rate (see video below - it's long, but informative), the more we advance, the harder it becomes for writers/futurists to keep pace. To add insult to their injury, we (the audience) have become accustomed to this accelerated rate of development, so the bar for shocking/impressing us has also risen. Despite these disadvantages, though, we still feel that science fiction is a legitimate tool for predicting future technologies for some time.


While there are certainly no shortage of predictions to explore, I find the most interesting area of future technology to be that of singularity...

According to Arthur C. Clarke, a famous science fiction author, inventor and futurist (whose works have foreshadowed technologies such as video phones, e-mail, space travel, laptops, and cloning), artificial intelligence will reach human levels by the year 2020, marking the existence of two intelligent species on earth - one biological, one non-biological. Another renowned inventor and futurist, Raymond Kurzweil, who has his own extensive list of predictions and was featured in the above video, estimates the following timeline (courtesy of Wikipedia):

• 2010 - Supercomputers will have the same power as human brains
• 2020 - Personal computers will have the same processing power as human brains
• 2030 - Mind uploading becomes possible - Nano-machines could be directly inserted into the brain and could interact with brain cells to totally control incoming and outgoing signals. As a result, truly full-immersion virtual reality could be generated without the need for any external equipment
• 2040 - Human body 3.0 comes into existence. It lacks a fixed, corporeal form and can alter its shape and external appearance at will via foglet-like nano-technology. Organs are also replaced by superior cybernetic implants.
• 2045 - The Singularity
• $1000 buys a computer a billion times more intelligent than every human combined. This means that average and even low-end computers are infinitely smarter than even highly intelligent, unenhanced humans.
• The Singularity occurs as artificial intelligences surpass human beings as the smartest and most capable life forms on the Earth. Technological development is taken over by the machines, who can think, act and communicate so quickly that normal humans cannot even comprehend what is going on. The machines enter into a "runaway reaction" of self-improvement cycles, with each new generation of A.I.s appearing faster and faster. From this point onwards, technological advancement is explosive, under the control of the machines, and thus cannot be accurately predicted.
• The Singularity is an extremely disruptive, world-altering event that forever changes the course of human history. The extermination of humanity by violent machines is unlikely (though not impossible) because sharp distinctions between man and machine will no longer exist thanks to the existence of cybernetically enhanced humans and uploaded humans.
• Post-2045 - "Waking Up" the Universe
• The physical bottom limit to how small computer transistors can be shrunk is reached. From this moment onwards, computers can only be made more powerful if they are made larger in size.
• Because of this, A.I.s convert more and more of the Earth's matter into engineered, computational substrate capable of supporting more A.I.s. until the whole Earth is one, gigantic computer.
• At this point, the only possible way to increase the intelligence of the machines any farther is to begin converting all of the matter in the universe into similar massive computers. A.I.s radiate out into space in all directions from the Earth, breaking down whole planets, moons and meteoroids and reassembling them into giant computers. This, in effect, "wakes up" the universe as all the inanimate "dumb" matter (rocks, dust, gases, etc.) is converted into structured matter capable of supporting life (albeit synthetic life).
• Kurzweil predicts that machines might have the ability to make planet-sized computers by 2099, which underscores how enormously technology will advance after the Singularity.
• The process of "waking up" the universe could be complete as early as 2199, or might take billions of years depending on whether or not machines could figure out a way to circumvent the speed of light for the purposes of space travel.
• With the entire universe made into a giant, highly efficient supercomputer, A.I./human hybrids (so integrated that, in truth it is a new category of "life") would have both supreme intelligence and physical control over the universe. Kurzweil suggests that this would open up all sorts of new possibilities, including abrogation of the laws of Physics, interdimensional travel, and a possible infinite extension of existence (true immortality).

Pretty heavy stuff, right? And the scary part is that these futurists have exceptional track records when it comes to predicting future technologies. Could singularity really be just around the corner? And is this how the events following will unfold? Is this what we want? Do we even have the ability to change the outcome? Is it a matter of technological determinism or social constructivism?

I don't have the answers to these questions, but I do believe that these predictions are momentous (and probable) enough that we should be taking them seriously. These are technologies that may very well be irreversible. Once we cross the line of singularity, there could be no turning back. And before we cross the Rubicon, we should be prepared to face the consequences, which we might already be aware of, or then again maybe not.

APRIL 4 - Pittsburgh Pair Claims Privacy Invaded By Posting of Home Photo -- A Pittsburgh couple is suing Google for invasion of privacy, claiming that the web giant's popular "Street View" mapping feature has made a photo of their home available to online searchers. Aaron and Christine Boring accuse Google of an "intentional and/or grossly reckless invasion" of their seclusion and privacy since they live on a street that is "clearly marked with a 'Private Road' sign," according to a lawsuit the couple filed this week in Allegheny County's Court of Common Pleas.

If you've never used Google's Street View feature on Maps, you can watch the short introductory video below and then (just a little bit farther down) try the functionality out for yourself with the embedded Street View map of Anchorage, Alaska.

View Larger Map
I intentionally selected a not-so-heavily-trafficked residential area to demonstrate the more intrusive side of Google's Street View. As you can see, you have a front-row seat to just about any house in the neighborhood, and if you zoom in, you can walk right up the driveway and onto the porch of some of the homes. It's understandable that habitants dwelling in Street View-able areas might be concerned. Millions of strangers can freely roam the streets and inspect the layout and landscape of any house near a road. For those with children, this is even more alarming. What a convenient tool for potential predators and burglars! Even more worrying, perhaps, is knowing that this is just the beginning of our home privacy concerns. Take a minute to watch the PhotoSynth demonstration below.


While Google's Street View might be too close for comfort to some, the potential of PhotoSynth digs deeper, reaching degrees of privacy invasion that even the more carefree individuals might consider threatening. According to an article on ReadWriteWeb,

The Street View maps are developed in partnership with Immersive Media, which, according to the O'Reilly Radar blog, is "a company that has an eleven lens camera capable of taking full, high-res video while driving along city streets." What that means is that these Street View maps, because they are extracted from video shot while driving, are not just static images at random points around the city. They can be advanced fluidly down the street.

In order to create the Street View experience, Google had to send out vehicles equipped with these super cameras to roam the city streets. I don't think we need to worry about them getting too much closer, because I doubt the day will come when cameramen are knocking on our doors, asking to be let in our homes to film for Google Maps.

PhotoSynth, on the other hand, isn't limited to the resources of a single organization. Because the technology utilizes the metadata associated with each image, it doesn't matter where the media is coming from. If it's available on the internet and properly tagged, it can be used to construct a three-dimensional representation of the real world. Pictures taken at parties, holidays, or during rainy afternoons lounging around the house, whatever the occasion, are fair game if they're posted online. And because of the nature of our photo-sharing (Facebook, WebShots, Flickr, blogs, personal webpages, etc.), it wouldn't be hard for friends, family and peers to tag any information that might be left out. Before long, anyone could take a full tour of your home or business from the comfort of their computer chair. Even one album of photos might be enough to reconstruct the interior of a building.

The end result? If the proper precautions aren't made, then just about anybody might be able to take a virtual tour of the inside of your house. A cool technology in many respects, but with the benefits we'll need to take the privacy and security issues as well.

MMORPGs have countless aspects worth studying. I could probably devote my entire life to learning about the socio-technical issues floating around this fairly recent gaming phenomenon. Unfortunately, I have not the time nor motivation to do so. Instead, I've taken a few topics and provided some quick overviews. For all of the blurbs, I've chosen to focus on World of Warcraft (WoW), as it is the most popular of the MMORPGs and the only one I have personal experience with.

Objectives of Gameplay
Before getting into some of the more in-depth topics, I thought it might be appropriate to explain how these kind of games work, for anyone who might not be familiar. Here's an excerpt from Wikipedia's entry for World of Warcraft:

As with other MMORPGs, people control a character avatar within a persistent game world, exploring the landscape, fighting monsters, performing quests, building skills, and interacting with NPCs, as well as other players. The game rewards success with money, items, experience and reputation, all of which in turn allow players to improve their skill and power. Players can level up their characters from level one to level 60, level 70 if they have The Burning Crusade expansion.

And below are some clips taken from YouTube that might help you visualize the process. The first is an official trailer from Blizzard. For the rest, I intentionally avoided videos with music, cinema scenes and fast camera cuts. This is what the game is. This is what people do, for hours upon hours upon hours, leveling up for new weapons, abilities, and places to explore. Once you get to the higher levels, you can slay other players as well, but it doesn't look much more exciting than other kinds of gameplay.

Motivations for Playing
Recently, Nick Yee, administrator of the Daedalus Project,set out to find the answer to the question, "What exactly drives people to play these games?". He asked players to "read through a set of motivations [generated from earlier findings] and pick the one that was most important to them". I'm not sure if the survey was open to unique responses, but the list seemed to be pretty comprehensive, and I don't think this would be cause for any significant inaccuracies. Below is a chart of the findings.

As you can see in the chart above, progress appears to be the most motivating aspect of play. Based on my experience, I couldn't agree more. The reward system is ingenious. At any given point, there is always a desirable skill or weapon that's only 2-5 levels away. It seems so close, and it makes playing an extra five hours (on top of the eight you've already played that weekend) completely feasible. And, guess what? As soon as you obtain your goal, there's another equally appealing treat dangling in front of your face and it's just as close. Progress is, by far, the most addictive aspect of WoW in my mind, and I believe that was the intention when the game was designed.

At first, I was a little surprised to see how highly socialization scored. But after realizing that it was only applicable for females and seeing some other research online, it made a little more sense. See the "Playing with Romantic Partners and Family Members" section.

Gender Composition
According to the Daedalus Project, the real-life gender distribution of WoW is 84% male v. 16% female. I didn't find the numbers particularly surprising, as I probably would have estimated an 85:15 or 80:20 ratio myself. I assume that the figures were calculated either from account holders' subscription information (which, not seeing any obvious incentive to lie, I think would be very accurate) or from surveying a large sample of players. In either case, I originally believed the statistics wholeheartedly. Then, I came across this article, claiming that Blizzard representatives assert that only 5% of the WoW population is female. These folks, more than anyone else, should know the ratio, but I (along with the author of the blog post) am a little skeptical. Considering the undisputed rise in female gamers, described in this NBC write-up, and my own beliefs coming into this assignment, I think 5% is too low. Maybe the blog post is inaccurate. Maybe the Blizzard representative didn't know his facts. Maybe the definitions of what constitutes a gamer were inconsistent. In any case, I'm leaning toward the Daedalus Project's work. I found quite a few YouTube videos, some being part of a series, proclaiming the presence of females in MMORPGs. At this point, I believe the stereotype that video games are solely for males is fading. Males still make up the majority, of course, but it's understood that the number of female players are increasing significantly and may someday even out the ratio.

 

Playing with Romantic Partners and Family Members
The Daedalus Project estimates that about 60% of female players and 16% of male players play the game with real-life romantic partners. The study also asserts that 40% of female players and 35% of male players play with family members.

I think the appeal of playing with those who share a real-life relationship is fairly obvious. Rather than being limited to interaction with people who, in most cases, the player will only communicate to through a digital medium, players can enhance existing relationships (romantic or family-based) they have with people they can interact with directly. While this post argues that, in some ways, meeting people through MMORPGs is more efficient and successful than in real-world situations, I believe that even the most hardcore of gamers would prefer real-life, face-to-face, human interaction over something mediated by a digital world. Also, playing with real-life peers, partners and family-members is more socially acceptable, because there is some form of human interaction that exists, so I believe this also makes players more likely to engage in the game with these people.

I also found it interesting that in both situations (romantic and family-based), females were more inclined to participate with other players they know in real-life. After thinking it through, it didn't take long to see why these statistics make sense. While the population of females in the gaming world is rapidly growing, the old gender roles are still prominent in society. It isn't as common for girls to start playing video games at an early age as it is for boys. Whether the reason for this is biological or dependent on the upbringing of the children (I'm guessing a combination of both), young females just aren't as inclined to be playing video games. I think that if they aren't introduced to video games early in life, they are less likely to play them later on for the same familiar reasons that most gamers play (progress, immersion, exploration, etc.). They need something else to spark their interest. As mentioned in the "Motivations for Playing" section, this is socialization. I think many females are introduced to gaming by males in their lives, whether boyfriends, husbands, brothers, fathers, or sons. Several may develop deeper interests in the games after they start playing, but the reason many start is, I believe, a social one.

Memorable Gameplay
According to the Daedalus Project, the most memorable experiences players retained fell into the following categories:

Achievements
----Team
----PvP
----Solitary

The Trek

Relationships
----Random Acts of Kindness
----Romantic Relationships
----Friendships

Death
----The Memorable Wipe
----Guild Death
----Role-Played Funeral
----RL Death of Player

Misc.
----Role-Playing
----Meeting Guild IRL
----The Initial Euphoria

There are plenty of things to expound upon here, but of all the memorable experiences, I found the most interesting to be online funerals, specifically honoring those who have died in real-life...

My reaction to this video was confusing. On one hand, I thought it was ridiculous and cheesy, but on the other, it was possibly more moving than any real-life funeral I've ever attended (not that that's a high number). After experiencing this "funeral", I think I give more credit to those claiming that online communities can decently substitute, in some forms, actual human interaction. Although the circumstances under which their relationships developed are rather inhuman, it seems that there are genuine emotions connecting the individuals. But, with the good, apparently so come the bad. I also found this clip of a guild holding another funeral honoring a real-life death, then the ambush that followed.

Worth Studying?
I think we're getting to the point where it's almost necessary to study MMORPGs. These games are hugely popular in today's culture, and I have a feeling that they won't be going away any time in the near future. Not being an advocate of a society where individuals devote more time to online communities than they do to the physical ones around them, I can't say that I see a lot of good coming from this research, though. Learning what kind of games are most addictive so companies like Blizzard can make more profit isn't something I find to be particularly beneficial to society. Even with studies like comparing the relationship of age and status in digital v. physical environments, there is surely interesting and beneficial information to be extracted, but I feel that it will mostly help us move toward more submersion into digital environments. And yes, there's something good to be said for this (distance learning, perhaps?), but I don't know how much.

Stereotypes v. Research
I think that most stereotypes are derived from some form of the truth. Stereotype: Girls don't play video games. Yes, female players are on the rise, and they may be in equal numbers with males before too long. However, because this stereotype was, at one point in time, completely true, the change is a process, and we're not there yet. There's still some truth to it. Stereotype: Gamers are asocial geeks that stay cloistered up in their basements all day, never interacting with humans. When single-player console games were the only thing available, yes, this was the case. I don't think there were Super Mario Bros. 2 parties happening everywhere in the late 80's, and hardcore gamers probably were social outcasts. Now, however, gaming is becoming a more social activity. As mentioned earlier in the post, many players are interacting with people they know physically and many start relationships (friendly and romantic) over the internet that, in several ways, resemble traditional relationships. Still, they are typically alone in the physical sense. So, once again, I think the stereotype is fading, but still has roots in truth. I think, for the most part, this is a reoccurring trend (partially true stereotypes) but there are some cases that are absolutely factual - children who play video games are overweight.

So, I've discussed MMORPGs quite a bit. How do I feel about them personally? Well, I've seen them from both third and first-person perspectives. For about two months, I was mildly hooked on WoW before finally cutting it off cold-turkey. I've experienced the appeal, the addictive nature, and the enlightenment giving it up, and I don't plan to play any MMORPGs anytime in the near future. I think this article sums up my thoughts pretty well. The games require huge investments of time and offer nothing in return. They are evil.

Over the course of our lives, most of us have witnessed the evolution of video game controllers - starting with the "anything goes" era of the Atari joystick and an assortment of very alien-looking controller designs, then several years of developers building on the revolutionary NES template, and now into the next generation, brought about by the Wii Remote. I consider the progress up until this point to be, for the most part, progressive, however I think we may soon bump our heads on the ceiling (at least until we have a few significant technological advances).

Excluding the Wii, I feel that most recent systems (XBox 360, PS3, GameCube) have mastered the ergonomics of traditional controller design. Sure, there are complaints, but they're mostly issues of preference rather than better design. The NES-derived controllers are about as good as they can get, which makes Nintendo's attempt to break the mold a logical and almost predictable business decision. The company was falling behind in the gaming world and needed something revolutionary to bring them back into the game. Traditional controller design couldn't go much further, so they changed the rules.

I don't dispute the fact that Nintendo's latest release has been beneficial and innovative, but because the success of the Wii and its games has so much riding on the controller design and style of gameplay, I feel that developers are making a lot of poor decisions. Sure, bowling, golfing, performing surgery on convulsing rabbits, and, in some cases, first-person shooters are really appropriate for the WiiMote, and having this new technology enhances gameplay. But the applications are limited, and mini-games can only go so far. Once the novelty wears off, those that don't already will start to miss the old-fashioned controllers. The WiiMote is more of an extension than a substitute, and as a long-term solution, it just isn't going to cut it. It's not that the WiiMote is poorly designed, it's just that its predecessors are just too efficient in most situations. So, I guess what I'm saying is that until we have a big breakthrough (like being able to control characters with our minds), there probably aren't going to be any controller innovations that will completely replace our current standard. The NES template is here to stay for a while.

[The article can be found here, and the video here. I would have embedded it, but it looked rather ugly.]

For the past year or so, I've been wondering why Facebook hasn't incorporated instant messaging into its hugely popular social networking system. It seems like a logical progression to me, and I'm surprised it's taken this long. But then again, maybe the company was just waiting for the perfect time to strike.

At this point, I think it's become set in stone that Facebook is (or at least is going to be) victorious over the obviously inferior MySpace. It's assumed that practically every college student has an account (which is crucial for the success of any sort of IM system), and because college folk like us are typically the ones that nurture new  Internet technologies into maturity, Facebook has everything it needs.

I'm anticipating that, at first, many will experiment with Facebook's new instant messaging feature, but the majority will still rely primarily on AIM. While Facebook Chat (very similar to GoogleTalk) seems to be unobtrusive, lightweight and well-integrated, it still runs in a browser, thus requiring more effort to maintain and being limited in its capabilities (especially when compared to an application installed on the operating system, like AIM).

But in time, I expect to see a standalone version of Facebook. With the recent release of the delightful new AIR runtime environment, the technologies are now available to design an extremely powerful, local version of Facebook, with richly aesthetic and highly interactive interfaces. The Facebook application will be a sort of "Super AIM", providing all of the flexibilities of our current IM standards (system-level control, access to the file system, the ability to directly send images and files, audio/video chat, etc.), but additionally, it will have all the perks of Facebook - extensive user profiles, the ability to search for friends by a variety of fields, integrated and user-friendly multimedia players, extensive privacy controls, groups, events, applications, etc.

Once the Facebook standalone has been released, we won't have a need for any other instant messaging system (except for talking to that 5% of stragglers who haven't gotten with the program yet), and really, none of the existing clients will even be able to compete. How could they? Facebook's insuperable advantage over everyone (Google included) is that it knows all of us...very, very well. It can take social interaction to a level that current IM clients (that know little more about us than who's on our buddy lists and what songs are quoted in our away messages) can't even fathom. And with the added power of a standalone Facebook, the gap's only going to grow...

It will have access to resources like our iTunes libraries, most likely linking friends with similar musical tastes, allowing for group playlists and custom radio broadcasts, pulling music from the files on individuals' machines. We'll also have "movie sessions", so when someone purchases a new blockbuster from the iStore, all of his/her friends can join in and watch it together as it streams from the owner's computer. When Tuesday rolls around and a new album is released, listening parties, too, could be arranged in this manner. Members of the audience could enjoy their friend's most recent musical purchase, listening, commenting, discussing (in a chatroom type of environment) without needing to interrupt the songs to verbally communicate. All of the previously mentioned gatherings would be treated as events, either public or invite-only, that users can organize and attend.

Facebook may also try to outdo Google Docs, creating its own set of collaboration tools. Users who submit their school schedules could easily be placed into course groups. With some modifications to the standalone Facebook, students could share papers, presentations, even art, modifying the files simultaneously, and chatting with one another to communicate ideas in the process.

The possibilities are there, and I do hope that at least some of the features I've described become a reality. But, maybe the Facebook community will reject that new chat/IM system and my ideas will never see the light of day. Time will tell.

I saw this desktop decoration on Google Reader this afternoon, and it reminded me of The Mysterious Geographic Explorations of Jasper Morello (a short film I had written about last night and have since discovered the full length version of here, if you're interested...also, you can save the video to your machine using ClipNabber). In addition to being an attractive clock, I found the content of the device sort of intriguing. More and more, it seems, we're incorporating past technologies into modern art (science fiction included, as mentioned in my previous post) and culture - sometimes for their nostalgic value, sometimes as symbols, representative of ideals or memorable aspects of the technologies' contexts (possibly applicable to the bonsai gear clock), and sometimes just because they look cool (definitely applicable to the clock). The original NES is a good example of an old technology that's frequently referenced today. I think it's so popular in part because it's such a rich and imaginative resource to pull from, but also because it's sentimental to so many individuals, and they can use it to identify themselves with a certain subgroup of the gaming community.

But even if I knew that 10-20% of each article I read was inaccurate, I would still probably use it as a resource. Off the top of my head, I don't know any substitutes that compare to Wikipedia (although I'm sure I could find some mediocre alternatives if I tried), and it's become such a habit at this point that it's sort of strange imagining a world without it. At this point, I think that, similar to Napster and music filesharing, Wikipedia has become embedded in enough people's lives that if anything should ever happen to it (legally or otherwise), plenty of substitutes would pop up immediately.

Upon Googling "define: wikipedia", I came up with some interesting results:

• “A Web-based, free-content encyclopedia,” available in numerous languages. It "is one of the most popular reference sites on the Internet."
• Modern aluminium beer barrels - also called casks or kegs - outside the Castle Rock Barrels often have a convex shape, bulging at the middle.
• The term church originated from the pre-Christian Germanic kirika. St.Simon church in Aleppo,Syria is considered to be one of the oldest.
• A nonparasitic antigen capable of stimulating a type I hypersensitivity reaction in atopic individuals is called an allergens.
• The Buffalo Sabres are a professional ice hockey team based in Buffalo, New York. They began playing in the National Hockey League as an expansion team in...
• FAME can also be an abbreviation for:. Full-sky Astrometric Mapping Explorer, an astrometric satellite designed to measure the positions of stars very...
• Dean Blakesley was the author of the first English Life of Aristotle (1839), an edition of Herodotus (1852-1854) in the Bibliotheca Classica.
• The is a small breed of dog usually Such s can be seen in many of the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries.
• Among other problems, the real Billy the Kid spoke Spanish fluently and could read and write ... Jon Bon Jovi's album Blaze of Glory; Charlie Daniels 's song, Billy the Kid; Billy Dean 's song...

Maybe I should be more concerned with the information I encounter using Google's "define" method (which also comes up very frequently for me)...

I just read this article about some students at Fairview High School who have been coordinating and participating in an afterschool fight club. At least 12 students were actively involved (fighting), and it's estimated that there are about 60 individuals that attend the events altogether. The school board has already "ticketed" ten students who will need to make court appearances and may be suspended from school.

Morally, I don't have much problem with this little extracurricular activity the kids (aged 15-17) have started. As long as the ordeal is fairly friendly and things don't get out of hand, it's probably a healthier investment of time/energy than a lot of alternatives the participants/spectators could get involved with instead. But, these thoughts aren't particularly relevant at the moment.

As soon as I read the headline, "'Fight Club' Busted at Fairview High School", the first thing that popped into my head was Tyler Durden reading off the list of Fight Club rules to newcomers in Lou's Tavern. I considered the likelihood that the film (Fight Club, that is) wasn't an inspiration for the after-school group formed at Fairview High School, and I didn't guess the probability to be very high. A handful of the students most likely watched the movie, thought (rightfully so) that it was pretty cool, and then theorized how it would be even cooler if they started their own version.

I found the scenario to be somewhat relevant to my group's final project/presentation in IST 431, which might be (we have to work out this issue with another group that selected the same topic) about science fiction's role in predicting/determining future technologies. The juvenile fight club isn't any sort of technology, of course, but would it have come into existence if it wasn't first written about years before? Did the fiction cause the reality? Or, was the author just one of the first to come up with a concept that others would have inevitably arrived at, and publishing his idea for the masses did nothing more than speed up the process at which everyone else discovered it?

While I haven't come to a firm conclusion as to my stance on the topic in general (whether fiction causes things to happen, or if the things happen the same way even if the fiction had never existed), I think in this particular case, the idea was more predetermined. We've been fighting since the beginning of time, at first out of necessity and as a means to gain wealth (land, money, resources, etc.), and then later as a form of entertainment and sport. Fighting has been part of culture since, well...since we've had a culture. So, I don't find the fight club derivation to be particularly surprising, and it probably would have eventually happened even without the fiction.

However, if the object of concern was something more contradictory to human nature, or at least not innate to humans...let's say, mowing grass - the 60 students gathered in the old field behind the school after hours each week to cut and maintain the lawn - then I would say, "Yes! These children are behaving in such a way because they've all seen that new blockbuster, Grass Groupies!"

And I think this philosophy (hazy as it may be - apologies for the less-than-stellar examples) applies to technology as well...

Science fiction predictions involving technologies that were fairly predictable (like groups organized purely for the sake of fighting) probably didn't have much influence. Take the toaster. Sure, at one point, the thought of having a toaster that knew when bread was finished heating was probably far-fetched and futuristic. But, look at it from a toaster manufacturer's perspective. Maybe the competition is starting to pull ahead, and our company needs something new and revolutionary to get us back in the game. So, we sit and stare at a toaster. "How could this be improved?" we ask ourselves, "What is wrong with existing model? What would be a nice feature? What could we do better?" At some point, someone in the group would declare, "It should stop heating the toast when it's finished, so the user doesn't need to stand around watching it!" Even without any forward-thinking science fiction available, this should have eventually happened on its own.

On the other hand, technologies like using sound as a weapon (predicted by Brian Aldiss in the mid 1900's) are not as easily anticipated. Technologies that wouldn't be the result of a natural progression (see pop-up toasters), technologies that we would almost need to happen upon by accident to realize - these are the cases where science fiction is most valuable. If a scientist sees notices a strange behavior when certain chemicals are mixed or perhaps becomes aware of an unusual byproduct, then the individual may overlook great potential if he/she doesn't possess certain forward-thinking concepts to which connections can be made. These concepts might very well come from science fiction.

Well, this post came a long way from Fight Club. I think somewhere during the journey, though, I've cleared up my thoughts on the value of science fiction and its influence on future technologies. As a rule of thumb (subject to change, of course, as I consider the idea more), I would say that the more absurd and out-there the science fiction, the more impactful it could potentially be for the future. If it doesn't seem completely unrealistic, then it would have probably happened on its own.

"Imagine a tunnel more than ten storeys underground, a hundred years old, bricklined, wet, and completely inaccessible save by descending through a narrow slit in its ceiling thirty feet above the floor, and then returning up the same rope you came down. Now imagine that this tunnel flows into Niagara Falls, emerging behind the pummeling curtain of water that nearly everyone in North America journeys to see at some point in their lives." [taken from The Vanishing Point]

These magnificent underground structures were originally built to harness the kinetic energy of Niagara Falls, but they were abandoned more than 40 years ago. Now, we have miles and miles of wonderful, otherworldly passages beneath the earth's surface in Canada. What's strange is that, unlike many technological developments, these structures (built for purely functional purposes - generating power and moving water) have become beautiful and almost natural over time. Because of the integration of water and light from the surrounding environment, the tunnels have a sort of ancient ruinsy feel to them, even though they're not much more than a century old. I realize it's not possible, or even desirable, for most new products/buildings/structures, but I really like the idea of incorporating the natural environment into the designs of technologies. Most of them become obsolete within a few years, anyway, so if they're going to be left behind for junk, why not make them aesthetically pleasing and give them the potential for (the illusion of) antiquity?

I'm thinking I might venture up to Canada after finals week this semester to see if I can explore these tunnels. In addition to being amazing structures to witness, they would make for some great photos (as you can see above).