the Magicball Network Forums

the Magicball Network Forums (
-   Off topic (
-   -   The Hi-tech thread (Hoverboards,slowmos and Spaceeeeee) (

Jasiek 2009-01-14 15:49

Well it's better to by laptops nowadays, you can get same performance in a competitive price and a lot smaller electricity needs.

Darkflame 2009-01-14 16:21

Indeed, laptops tend to be double the efficiancy.
Allthough some of the advantage is lost as you mostly have to replace the whole thing, rather then just parts like on a PC.
(I'm still using a 15 year old PC case, for instance :P)


Originally Posted by Jasiek (Post 371800)
I write such a huge post for you and you ignore it completely? I'm hurt. :sad:

Not ignoring, just dont have time to reply yet :)


Btw. to transfer a single megabyte through the internet you need to use up an equivalent of a fist-sized lump of coal, downloading a movie off the internet costs the world a really big and heavy bag of coal.
Not in the least.
To start with, Id like a source on the bag of coal thing, because that sounds like a bullshit.
Running a sever and the inferstructure beween for a few hours might well take a bag of coal or even a few , but thats not per-download.

Secondly, we already use vastely vastely vastely more energy making things physicaly. If it did take a bag of coal to download a film, then it would take a few truckloads to make and transport a dvd.
Are you honestly trying to argue it takes less then a bag of coal (per dvd) to make a dvd and ship it to your home?

Finaly, datarate dosnt effect energy consumption.
Everyone could be transfering terabytes a second, or kilobytes and it wouldnt effect squat on the power consumption. The whole idea that a megabyte=lump of goal is just bezire. In fact, quicker datarates will save power, because less sever load means less severs need to be active at any one time.

The things that effect power consumption are total number of users, and total number of severs online. And yes, they should be as power efficiant as possible. (Google leading the way on this, incidently).

But download capacity or speed? no effect.
You use just as much energy browseing the web as you do downloading terabytes.


There is (yet) no feasible way to secure enough energy for a virtual earth to exist on top of this one. With every person transferring terabytes of data each minute.
Stop making physical DVDs and you have secured all the energy requirements you need already.

Then theres all the energy saved on CDs and Games.
All the energy saved on sending emails rather then physical letters.
All the energy saved on having news online rather then ver newspapers, or worse, glossy magazines.

Sorry, but you seem to not understand the insanely humougus amounts of energy humanity already spends on physicaly producing this stuff.

Physicaly pressing a DVD alone already would take more energy then a single download of a few gigabytes.
(in fact, probably terabytes).
The gains in efficiancy when switching to digital distribution are just massive.

Generaly speaking, in almost any product or device, any movement or moving parts will take more energy then anything without.
Most printers consumer more power when in use then PCs, for example.
Theres a chart here;
(CRTs use way more power then flatscreens, incidently, so things have improved there since that was made)

Printing a dvd is like using a high powered printer and bowling a Kettle at the same time :D
A download, by comparison, is like using 1/1,000th the energy of about 6 different PCs, and then your own PC's power ontop of that.
(and that 1/1000th is under a very pessimistic messurement that each sever along the chain will have only 1000 user's)

All of thats less then even the one action of pressing the disc.
Then when you factor in all the energy used for materials shipping and distribution, hopefully you see how its not just more efficiant, but crazly-insanely more efficiant :P

Jasiek 2009-01-14 16:31

I saw the coal thing on TED, a piece about a digital library.
However since then I found a post like this:

Originally Posted by some site
Without watching the video, I sincerely question the figures given. As it happens, today’s Slate includes a piece on the energy costs of a blog–and the energy researchers who looked at this came up with 9 to 16 kWh to transmit a gigabyte of data (that includes the servers and the net).

From the calculators I’ve seen, 200lbs (90 kg). of coal should generate 591 kWh of electricity, enough for at least 36GB (at the 16kWh end).

So 200MB of data should require no more than one pound of coal (0.4 kg). Which isn’t nothing, but is two orders of magnitude less than 200lb.

Kilograms added

I would agree with you that it would be better to use digital distribution for the things like you mentioned. But I still see no reason I should have a "blank" house and only see my stuff with some eye-harming (cause in the long run they are) glasses.

Darkflame 2009-01-14 21:46

Well, obviously, we are still talking hypothetical tech here.
Current gen glass's would indeed harm your eye if worn permanently, so you wouldn't want to have a minimalist house yet.

The harm is done not by the glass's,themselves however, but by the fact that you wont be focusing naturally on the virtual objects. A AR spec with the AR completely turned off will be harmless. (it is, after all, just looking though a plane of glass....this is, incidentally, why I have always been in favour of optical-transparent rather then video-transparent AR...optical transparent you are still getting mostly natural, undisturbed view your eyes have evolved to see).

The focusing/harm problem isn't a major one really, as the tech develops and is invested in it will go away.

It might be the case that projecting into the retina is better for the eye, but that tech is also still in development. (projection sounds worse, but it wouldn't strain the eye so much, as focusing can be almost completely natural)

For the moment, however, I see AR as replacing only stuff like mobile phones, laptops, PCs, maps, tv's,games etc.
They will be a non-perminate gateway to a virtual worlds at first, used mostly when we are out and about.

I think the potential for games is high actualy.

People already play Pacman on the streets;

I expect with AR specs this sort of street-gaming will become a lot more popular.
Yes, people will look silly, but I think the shear fun factor will overwealm that.
And the glass's tech we have right now is just fine for this sort of use.


Originally Posted by Jasiek (Post 371786)
For me that can only and truly be accomplished by nanotechnology, if every person can create what they need there is no need for money, trading as we know it and governing. In your system there is always the person making the AR devices, on whom everyone else are dependant (unless the technology is relatively simple and open source).

Relatively simple? No...but certainly open source. Yes.
Companys might hold patients on specific methods of hardware, but in order for mass adoption there would have to be some standards, and open standards catch on a lot faster.

I see one standard, but many different companys and amataurs making glass's. Just like PC's/Internet today really.

I see AR, and the internet in general, helping form a lot more collaborative open source hardware designs. I mean, for the first time in human history, we can pretty much access any bit of knowledge almost instantly.
We can discuse things and work together.

Imagination a website like;
Only in AR. You could see exactly how to build something by looking at the virtual person guiding you. You could see everthing on context. You'd still need to get the parts, of course, but the skills to assemble them become without a lot more peoples reach.
(Love that site, btw)

So think people would be a lot more independant in what they could do, if they want to. Allthough I suspect manfuctoring on mass will still be the most economical way for quite some time.
(I do picture local 3d-printing and fabrication facilitys popping up for smaller scale needs, but for the foreseeable future they wouldnt be able to alone make something as complex as AR specs.)

I dont see a world where everyone is independant as the goal anyway.
Merely that people should be dependant on those around them localy, not everyone all dependant on the same people hundreds of miles away.

So, technologicaly speaking, that would be more p2p based networks.
Politicaly speaking, purhapes a lot more distributed power rather then centralised etc.


That is appealing. Your personal space grows significantly.
Yeah, allthough I think the most exciting part is the potential for shared of collaborative work even within your own personal space.

I mean, purhapes these virtual spaces can be set to blend slightly with your friends so you sometimes get changes you didnt make yourself.

"Hay, I like what you did with the moon!"
"Cheers, thats a nice medievil city in your garden btw"


Sooo, you sculpt?
A little, not so much these days.
Was utterly useless, but I did feel a strong connection with it and 3D art.
Sculting is nice to see something in real space. That is, you can look around it, you can see it in 3D, you get instant feedback when you touch and change it.
3D artwork you feel a lot more detached from the work...its glued to a screen, doomed never to be seen in context.
On the other hand, it can be shared and changed and edited as much as you like.

So, really, Id love the best of both worlds.

Did you see this;

Using AR to create virtualy, then 3D printers to create.
I think we might get a lot of that.

People wont have their own big 3d printers like that, but purhapes shops will start appearing with them, so you can get your own models "developed" into solid objects.
People will get very customised homes this way.

Things that have to be physical (eg, you cant sit on a virtual chair :D), will still benifit from AR tech.

(Of course, in the far future maybe we could have swarms of nanobots building stuff when we like without the need for a 3rd party to have a 3d printer. But we can only guess at the energy levels needed to use and create those nanobots.)


What is the point of reducing the creation of real things, when things ranging from food and clothing to art can be made out of the junk we created during all these years?
Well, obviously, food has to be real, and clothing has to be real in the extent it protects and keeps us warm. So to some extent things will continue as they are.

But it dosnt have to conform to any design or style...not physicaly.
That could just be a virtual layer on top, changable whenever we want and as many times as we want.


What money would you speak of in a world where everything can be made to be everything else by a whim of each person?
I see value in the art, but not the product of art.

Think of it like a book, or painting.
Anyone can write a story or draw a picture, and share it with their friends.
But some people are so good that people will be happy to pay to have their own copy of it.
I see the artists still getting paid in some form, if what they are creating is popular.

But I see it on the individual level now, not a company one.
If someone makes a cool tshirt design, I might pay them. But I'm not buying a tshirt, I'm buying the design which I like.

And even ignoring money, theres plenty of people that do Art for nothing but Arts sake. (to some this in fact, is the definition of art).
So I see a vaste collection of free stuff too.

Overall I see money still existing, but for each "unit of work" we do, the money we get for it can do a lot more things.
I see less middle-man in the process, I guess.


With nanotech the finite resources can be an infinite number of things. Matter itself would be our clay.
Possible, but only in theory, given enough developments.
AR is, like, possible now :P

Nanotech is of course, a term that can mean a lot of different technologys.
The particular tech your talking about I assume is like lots of small scale rearrangable units.
Like this;

But a million times smaller and more of them.

The problems with this is energy issues again. Running the tech to feed some visualy to the brain.,,(either with glass's, contacts, projection into the eye, or even directly to the brain) likely to be less then comanding a large swarm of tiny robots to form a shape on command.
Because of that I think nanotech will be used to "fill in" the AR world in places when and where it needs to be physical. Like a liquid flowing into a hole. I dont think it would be used purely for asthetical things though. At least not on a large scale. As a toy, or a small scale thing, maybe.

Of course, by the time we can do this, maybe energy concerns wont be a mater anyway. Then the whole argument becomes a bit pointless :P

Fussion reactors are, after all, a lot more further along then nanobots :P

(/I'll get to your other points much topics to cover here :P)

Jasiek 2009-01-15 14:48

They found methane in there, there's going to be a press conference today at 19.00 (my time).There's talk of it being created by unknown bacteria that might still live there or at least be in suspended animation. I wonder how it will turn out. Perhaps we'll be able to add "and life" to the threads title? :D

ChaosFish 2009-01-15 17:03


It would actually be kind of surprising if it turns out there isn't any bacteria on Mars. It's so close to Earth, and surely the two planets exchange substances from time to time.

Darkflame 2009-01-15 18:13


I absolutely agree on that, however I think you're mixing two things, modern mass culture with it's useless crap has nothing to do with real style and aesthetics.
I'm not getting them mixed up, I just think AR is precisely the method needed to seperate the two.
Every item we use currently as a function, and a form.
The function is whats important in terms of how well it does its job, and what it costs to run (either in energy, or resources).
The form, however, more often then not dictates whether people buy it or not.
This is why companys invest so much money in brand design, recognition, and the visual looks of thier products.

Sadly, this works.

I'd like to think of a social change that would make people stop caring for brand names and purely look at functionality, but I dont see it happening naturaly
AR is a shortcut to this social change. Once people see that image is "worthless" and changable on a whim, function is the only thing of value to remain.

(note; I do mean worthless purly in money terms there...I dont mean its worthless as in asthetics dont mater at all).


Fashion and "style" sadly have nothing to do with pure aesthetics.
Yes and no.
They can certainly exist independantly, and independantly there is nothing wrong with them.
But is not fashion merely the mass following of a particular style of aesthetics?

I'm not "blaming" asthetics here for the crimes of fashion, but I do think there is a connection.
I think its probably a quite fundimentaly human thing to copy others around us, to "be like the crowd". As much as we praise individuality, I dont think this aspex of society will go away.

So I think the best we can do is to uncouple the asthetics from the mass-market companys that dictate them. Style and Fashion will still exist, but they will be more growing from individuals becomeing popular artists then from companys telling us what to wear.
And, more importantly, the whims of fashion wont have any enviromental impact. The cost of running an AR network is flat, regardless of how often people change the skins to their world.


Same with sufficiently developed nanotech, instead of hiding the trash we will be able to reclaim it, or give it back to nature, or reuse it as we please.
Sure, to quite a large extent.
We wont be able to turn anything into anything else, however.
Fortuntely for most usefull purposes that wont be needed. Chairs, tables, even house's can be made of anything really.

But, for example, we couldnt proform achelmy and change the elements of materials, even with nanotech.
It takes nuclear reactors to do that, and unless you only need a few nanograms of gold, that wont help with the rare earth elements :P


Most likely it would be the other way around, only thing you would create would be new fields for advertising. Someone has to make the AR merchandise, imho it would only allow the rich west to hide behind it's pink spectacles shielding it more effectively from the hunger and poverty stricken
third world.
Absolute rubbish.
One pair of AR specs could replace thousands, if not tens of thousands of products.
This means we will take less resources from the third world.

Probably a heck of a lot less, once the wants of Fashion go.
(brand name clothing etc).

And what do you mean by "someone has to make the AR merchandise" ?

The merchandise is just code, software, mesh's.
That just takes resources at all. It can be made by a guy at home, or a team of thousands....dosnt mater.
The impact on the rest of the world would be nearly zero in either case.

Compare that to today, when almost any product you care to mention exploits the third world in some way.


imho it would only allow the rich west to hide behind it's pink spectacles shielding it more effectively from the hunger and poverty stricken
third world.
Thats just silly.
The physical ability for AR specs to "hide" things in the real world has nothing to do with the west ignoring the concerns elsewhere in the world.

In fact, increased comminication probably opens our eyes slightly. The internet has already closed the distant between a lot of people around the world, seeing things more "in context" could do that moreso.

Allthough, frankly, overall, I suspect no difference whatsoever.
People can only care about so many stuff, and physcologicaly, thats often stuff near us. (even if stuff elsewhere in the world is far more important).

AR will help as it means even when we dont care, we dont effect the rest of the world so much.


Nanotech fills that gap making money useless, hence there won't be any trading in the present sense and so no labels or brands other than the ones of the individual craftsman will exist.
And what about those making the nanotech? What about those supplying the power?

Even without those concerns, I dont see it making money useless completely.

Both AR and Nanotech prepose making the cost of reproduction virtualy nothing...either by having it virtual, or by making it from material that can be reassembled at will.

But that dosnt make the content they carry worthless.
To make say, a movie, will still require effort by hundreds of people. Not all the jobs will be stuff people are willing to do for free. A lot might be, but not all.
Theres always going to be some jobs some people wont want to do, or want some sort of reward for doing it.

Even if, this nanotopia can give anything physical on a whim, theres still a question of living space itself. Surely people that work harder/do less pleasent jobs, deserve bigger homes?
Surely people that make art enjoyed by the most other people should deserve more then those that purely absorb art, and dont put any other work in themselfs?

It seems that money, or at least, some "unit of trade" will always have to exist, even if the value of the money changes drasticaly.
(I mean, if anything can be made on a whim, that means the form of money being used would probably become very powerfull in even tiny quanitys. Probably, like 10 units of money = a small country estate :P ).

The value of money I guess would break down to only things nanotech cant provide;
1. Space/Area
2. Certain elements.
3. Energy. (even with fussion, we wont have unlimited energy, and if some people want to start sending spaceships about, they will have to ration some of it).


There won't be any buying, you'll just think stuff into being by shaping whatever pile of heap you find. I guess AR could be the interface for doing so.
Things you dont need to ever touch dont need to be shaped physicaly at all.
Thats the point of AR.
You only shape what you need to touch.

Why physicaly make something if its never really needs to be touched?
More art is actualy non-physical in nature, after all. Music, Video, Paintings...even sculptures arnt really being felt by people. (unless they have sculptures for the blind? guess that would be an exception).

Likewise even large structures like buildings. The building needs to physicaly be there, but you dont need extra effort making the exteria fancy.

Remember also, this vision of nano is very far away. I do believe a lot what yopur saying is possible, but it will take a lot more developments in order to work then AR does.

I think "idle" AR is, like 30 years away.
Universaly usefullable nanotech able to form anything on a whim? At least a hundred, probably a few hundred years.
(not to say there wont be more usefull specific nano stuff earlier though...merely not rearranging mater on mass scale).

[....still to be continued]

Darkflame 2009-01-15 18:15

Jasiek- Very cool!
It will take a bit more to confirm life though ;)


Originally Posted by ChaosFish (Post 371920)

It would actually be kind of surprising if it turns out there isn't any bacteria on Mars. It's so close to Earth, and surely the two planets exchange substances from time to time.

Theres life everywhere on earth, after all.
Even in volcano's and in deep ice.

Jasiek 2009-01-15 20:14

Ok, so the Nasa education thing is over and the "science update" should be next. Somehow I couldn't play it on my laptop with Ubuntu... but my windows with realalternative plays the ram file in MPC nicely.

Yaaay, the conference is on.

Odysseus 2009-01-15 21:41

Biological "slightly more plausible" ~ Lisa something.

Not much more being said. :-/

Jasiek 2009-01-15 22:00

Yeah, becouse there is no major vulcanism, and methane only gets produced when liquid crust material comes into contact with sea water on Earth. She also said that it is A LOT easier to live on methane.

Imho it is either life or permafrost releasing ancient methane during martian summer. The whole thing with vulcanism somehow doesn't sound like mars... and the places the methane was weren't exactly small... shouldn't we see the vulcanism produing it then?

Carbon footprint of google searches.

Odysseus 2009-01-16 11:41


Originally Posted by Jasiek (Post 371939)

Carbon footprint of google searches.

Yeah came across that too. So to save the planet we better bookmark everything.

Jasiek 2009-01-17 04:50

A car to last 100 years without refuelling, changing tires, oil etc.

Darkflame 2009-01-17 12:17


, puts the CO2 emissions of a Google search at between 1g and 10g, depending on whether you have to start your PC or not.
Seems to me in that case their stats are very muddy indeed.
If your going to give stats for a google search it shouldnt include your own PC into the equation.
(because your pc can vary could be searching from a Wii, a mobile phone, or a quad-core, dual gpu, 10 hard drive motherload of a PC).


t, estimates the carbon emissions of a Google search at 7g to 10g (assuming 15 minutes’ computer use).
15 minutes?
So they are assuming something really hard to find here then :P
They arnt measuring a google search, more "15 minutes of internet activity on google from a typical pc"
The bulk of the energy use is really your own pc here, not google. (at least, not per-person).

That said, the artical is good, and despite the hyperbole of the title, they at least make clear what the stats are measuring.
They also mention the most important point here;


If your internet use is in place of more energy-intensive activities, such as driving your car to the shops, that’s good. But if it is adding activities and energy consumption that would not otherwise happen, that may pose problems.
And this is, naturaly, very hard to measure overall.
But I stick firmly by the point that digital distribution hugely displaces more energy intensive activitys.

If the internet as a whole add's energy, its going to be from the non-displaceing activitys, or even ones that make the situation worse physicaly.
For instance, as brillent as Amazon and Ebay are...surely the increase in mail-order and shipping goods isnt good for the enviroment?

Or maybe people buying more second hand stuff on ebay rather then chucking it away is good, and makes up for the energy used shipping?

Very hard to judge, but its that sort of effect that will overwealm the effects of severs.
Shipping a few kg a few hundred miles takes more energy then running a pc powersupply.

In Googles specific case though;

That is, they aimed to be carbon nutral by *last year*, using a combination of saving and offset. (as well as the fact they have the worlds biggest private solar polar plant).
They also offer guides for how to get the most energy efficiant datacenters. (for example, apperently having a transformer in each PC is bad...if you convert to DC at one point and distribute over the facility, you can save a fair bit....allthough naturaly, it has to be very savely done).

Of course, remains to be seen how successfull they are at being carbon nutral, but investment in google towards being carbon nutral is clearly quite high. Probably it dosnt hurt that having their own power supply and using a lot less energy will save them money too ;)

Darkflame 2009-01-17 12:21


Originally Posted by Jasiek (Post 372028)

A car to last 100 years without refuelling, changing tires, oil etc.

How do you get a job as a car concept designer anyway :P

I got this great one where you make the vechile from fluriofluides controlled by a magnetic skeltion..shape changing and near frictionless.
Plus, it could fit into a briefcase or too.

ChaosFish 2009-01-17 14:21


Originally Posted by Darkflame (Post 372035)
How do you get a job as a car concept designer anyway :P

Go to a car manufacturer (for example Opel), ask to speak to the management, tell them you seek a job as a car concept designer, show resume to prove you're serious, and voila.

Jasiek 2009-01-17 16:04

Tornado powered power-plant....

Darkflame 2009-01-18 16:44


More AR stuff.
Long but really interesting artical and ideas;

Specificaly the interview is very interesting, as the company seems to be taking a very forward-thinking position, and has a more Denno-Coil like vision of AR. (rather then many firms at the moment which are concentrating on advertising, or specific apps for phones).
This company wants to make a new network AR structure for other people to build onto.

Some quotes;


You start with wifi triangulation or gps coord to get a “brute” location, and then you use the visual stuff for down to the meter accuracy and that by nature, gives you your orientation and positioning.

Tish Shute: Wow this is beginning to sound very interesting!

Robert Rice: Once you have that, it doesn’t matter where you go, it continues to track and continually refines areas you have been before. We’ve spent the last year figuring all this out. There are so many problems and obstacles that are going to be developing in the future for anyone trying to do what we are, but we have already discovered solutions......
That’s something that almost every AR company, venture, and research program is missing out on entirely. They are so focused on making cute things with markers. They are missing the larger problems of AR Spam, interface, iconography, GUI, metaphor, interoperability, privacy, identity.


Why couldn’t a 3D artist make a wicked animated 3D dragon, and then sell it to someone else? With AR, you could sit it on your shoulder. With a good scripting engine, you could train it to do stuff. Thats what I want to enable.

tools + sdk + platform = enabling people to make and create. Add in a commerce level (microtransactions) and wala.
I'm glade someone raised this point;


For example, lets contrast the web and virtual worlds. For every virtual world you go to, you have to download a whole new client. Imagine if that model was applied to the web… you would need a brand new browser for every website you went to. That is just so…wrong.
As this is quite criticaly holding AR back...theres no standards!?
There needs to be W3C commity for ARN stuff.


[Tish Shute: So people could bring their WoW weapons into your system?

Robert Rice: Not legally, but sure.

I recomended reading, it even mentions nanomites in combination with AR for food history identification.

Lots of good ideas.

(and...err..purhapes slightly disconcertingly they quote me twice, despite me not actualy knowing the website :P)

Darkflame 2009-01-18 16:52

oh, and not really related to the above, but theres a really cute/pretty bit of AR here;

Darkflame 2009-01-22 17:52

Not really high-tech, but googles made a really over the top futuristic tourist center thingy in newyork;
(about half way in)

Jasiek 2009-01-23 17:34

Mars Gullies!

And blue dunes!

Darkflame 2009-01-23 18:31


Darkflame 2009-01-23 18:34

Ok, I know the colour is false/enhanced, but WTF:

(n Abalos Undae.- Mars)

Jasiek 2009-01-23 18:45

I think this one is the actual color. It says something about them being composed of basalt.

SpaceGuitarist 2009-01-23 18:45

These images are CGI? they're not actual photographs right? o_O

All times are GMT +2. The time now is 09:48.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, the Magicball Network