Inspire

Holographic Video in a Cost-Effective and Practical Way

Stunning. Cost-effective and practical holographic video is around the corner. More in this link from Technology Review. I used to think the development of holographic storage and video would take many years to come. Somehow MIT is advancing faster than predicted. How does it work ? The modulator converts a video signal into a vibration. When laser light is passed through the modulator, the vibrations modify the brightness and frequency of the light. The altered light is then shined on a screen, and the varying intensities and frequencies create a three-dimensional hologram.

What does this mean ? Will 3D video become mainstream across the board ? (e.g. 3D TV, 3D movies, 3D Web (Web 3.0; Google Earth+SketchUp as well as Second Life) and 3D printers). Or does 2D still provide most value while the different 3D propositions fill in niche applications ? When is 2D best and when 3D ? In my view 3D will become standaard within 10 years across the board due to the enriched experience, lower costs and practical benefits. And when will (smart) mobile devices become 3D ? And which exciting eMarketing videos can be made using holography ?

"The tyranny of two-dimensional computer and TV displays could soon be over. A team of MIT researchers has proposed a way to make a holographic video system that works with computer hardware for consumers, such as PCs with graphics cards and gaming consoles. The display, the researchers say, will be small enough to add to an entertainment center, provide resolution as good as a standard analog television, and cost only a couple hundred dollars.

A holographic video display could provide another way to view medical images such as MRIs and CT scans, as well as sets of complex, multidimensional data and designs for furniture and cars, says V. Michael Bove Jr., director of the consumer electronics program, CELab, at MIT. And the system would be a natural fit for displaying video games and virtual worlds."

On Lifelogging, Co-Presence, Augmented Reality, Being John Malkovich and its Impact on eMarketing, Identity and Innovation

Some musings from my side on Lifelogging (storing and sharing all your life experiences digitally; all you see, hear, read, share, say etc.). Kevin Kelly and this post from Fast Company inspired me in this respect. People who are interested in reading more on this topic might look at the Metaverse Roadmap Report coming out this week.

My 2 cents why lifelogging will be on the rise:

• It is a logical extension of current trends like location based services (Plazes), social networking (MySpace), blogs (Typepad), RSS feeds, co-presence/microblogging (Twitter and Jaiku) and live webcasting (UStream and Justin.tv)
• It relates to software-based, bottom-up, automatically text-based, speech-based and video-based indexing solutions like Autonomy, Nuance and Blinkx respectively enabling the value and searchability of lifelogging
• Convergence of lifelogging and Augmented Reality applications like Steve Mann/MIT uses
• Convergence of lifelogging and virtual worlds like Second Life
• Convergence of lifelogging and the increasing importance of Transformation
  
• Convergence of lifelogging with the Semantic Web (Radar Networks and Metaweb). More structured, targeted and relevant RSS feeds will be integrated into our lifestreams
• It feeds on the popular movies called Being John Malkovich ("subscribe to a friend" in an extreme way) and Truman Show
• It relates strongly to the key emerging themes Identity, Creativity/Innovation and Authenticity. More in my previous, elaborate post on the interrelationships between these three concepts and how it fits with lifelogging. Lifelogging will only deepen the saliency and importance of these three concepts in the future and these concepts will feed the adoption of lifelogging. It is an interactive , self reinforcing relationship in my view.

In my view lifelogging will have a huge impact on the evolution of eMarketing and digital advertising. Why ? Because this will result on User Owned Data, the User will be the one in controlk permanently of their lifelogging data. This data is the most valuable marketing resource as it is complete, socially networked, actual, behavorial, contextual, personalized and deep. Access to this lifestream of users/customers will be rewarded, both in monetary and non-monetary ways. Attention, permission, trust and collective intelligence will be key themes in eMarketing going forward.

So what do you expect of lifelogging ? Will it become mainstream ? Why (not) ? When ?
Do you see other trends merging with the lifelogging trend ? Which ones ? What will be the impact on eMarketing or digital advertising ?

On Citizendium versus Wikipedia, Digital Maoism and the Difference between Wisdom of the Crowd and Collective Intelligence

A fantastic post by Larry Sanger on Edge on Wikipedia and other forms of mass online opinion. It is about subjectivity and objectivity, about equal access and authority, about meritocracy and reputational systems. Sanger is co-founder of Wikipedia and started a competitor called Citizendium (Wikipedia with real names and experts-integration). Sangers' deepens my previous posts on journalists and bloggers, on who controls entries on Wikipedia from a PR point of view and on Jaron Laniers' Digital Maoism. Highly recommended reading and watch out for Citizendium to grow rapidly !

"Diversity and independence are important because the best collective decisions are the product of disagreement and contest, not consensus or compromise.  An intelligent group, especially when confronted with cognition problems, does not ask its members to modify their positions in order to let the group reach a decision everyone can be happy with.

But that's exactly what happens on wikis, and on Wikipedia.  To be able to work together at all, consensus and compromise are the name of the game.  As a result, the Wikipedian "crowd" can often agree upon some pretty ridiculous claims, which are very far from both expert opinion and from anything like an "average" of public opinion on a subject.  I don't mean to say that the Wikipedia process is not robust and does not produce a lot of correct answers.  It is and it does.  But the process does not closely resemble the "wise crowd" phenomena that Surowiecki is explaining.

The desire for fairness creates hostility toward any authority—and not just when authority uses its power to gain an unfair advantage, but toward authority as such. That is, the most radical egalitarians advocate that our situations be made as equal as possible, including in terms of authority.  But, in our specialist-friendly modern society, expertise can confer much authority not available to non-experts. Perhaps the most important and fundamental authority experts have is the authority to declare what is known. This authority, then, should be placed in the hands of everyone equally, according to a thoroughgoing egalitarianism.

I support meritocracy: I think experts deserve a prominent voice in declaring what is known, because knowledge is their life. As fallible as they are, experts, as society has traditionally identified them, are more likely to be correct than non-experts, particularly when a large majority of independent experts about an issue are in broad agreement about it. In saying this, I am merely giving voice to an assumption that underlies many of our institutions and practices. Experts know particular topics particularly well. By paying closer attention to experts, we improve our chances of getting the truth; by ignoring them, we throw our chances to the wind. Thus, if we reduce experts to the level of the rest of us, even when they speak about their areas of knowledge, we reduce society's collective grasp of the truth.

It is no exaggeration to say that epistemic egalitarianism, as illustrated especially by Wikipedia, places Truth in the service of Equality. Ultimately, at the bottom of the debate, the deep modern commitment to specialization is in an epic struggle with an equally deep modern commitment to egalitarianism. It's Truth versus Equality, and as much as I love Equality, if it comes down to choosing, I'm on the side of Truth."

User Generated Content At Its Best: Arcade Fire Meets Sergio Leone

This user generated video is fascinating right from the start...a holistic experience :-)

What Is Driving Human History, Competitive Advantage and Our Future ? Some Thoughts From Jared Diamond, Thomas Sowell and William McNeill

Once in a while I give a recap of classic, important articles. In the past, you could see recaps on this blog of God is the Machine by Kevin Kelly,  Why the Future Doesn't Need Us by Bill Joy, We Are The Web by Kevin Kelly and The Long Tail by Chris Anderson . I saw reread an article on Edge written by Jared Diamond on the differences in human development on different continents. Just like his book (Pulitzer Prize winning) called Guns, Germs and Steel, a terrific overview of the last 13.000 years in human history based on the article.

There is are a few complementary book to Guns, Germs and Steel. One is called Conquests and Conflicts: An International History by Thomas Sowell. Another The Rise of the West: A History of the Human Community by William McNeill. Both highly recommended. McNeill shows us the increasing role of cooperation, community and interdependency. Sowell documents the case of how geography (harbors, arable land, navigable rivers, freedom from monsoons and tropical disease) and ideas/culture (fundamental beliefs and principles widely shared or disseminated) make the world what it is today. The key distinction among human communities is "human capital", the spectrum of individual and collective learned behaviors that produce distinctive patterns of skills and attitudes. The positive form of this capital is based on flexibility/receptivity to cultural transfers and willingness to apply those transfers in different contexts. Sowell shows that these cultures are more competitive and resilient.

While Jared Diamond shows us primarily the (external) environmental factors driving the evolution of human history and development, McNeill and Sowell (also) demonstrate the impact of internal factors like cultures and (cooperative) mindsets driving this evolution. In my view it is a combination of both internal and external factors driving the our human development, complemented by luck. Furthermore, I believe in the earlier days of human development (deterministic) environmental factors were more important than internal factors like culture, ideas and mindset relative to todays' situation. Why ? The human history is all about increasing empowerment and autonomy of individuals, about increasing voluntarism, about using more and more tools en technologies. On top of that, in todays world, geography and other environmental drivers (germs, diseases, guns, etc.) seem to be less relevant for competitive advantage relative to (internal) learning capability. Access to data and information is free and more ubiquitous everyday, now it's more about participation and cooperative skills and attitudes. The only thing that complicates my analysis the (likely) future lack of (external) resources on this planet for everybody (oil/energy, food, water, etc.).

Tools are hacks. Technology changes the evolution of evolution. It is an infinite game according to Kevin Kelly. Agriculture enabled industrial evolution (see quote below from Jared Diamond) which enabled digital revolution (electricity) enabling the current biotech revolution enabling the current/coming nanotech revolution with accellerating speeds. Hockey stick curve stuff (see among others Juan Enriquez on TED in this great presentation). So what do we need to survive and gain an edge in the digital, biotech and nanotech periods ? Geographic advantages (like in Sillicon Valley/Green Valley) ? Environmentally cleaned physical spaces ? Other environmental factors like Jared Diamond describes ? Density of people ? In my view it is nowadays more about a mindset of people: openness, peering, sharing, a global scope and a heartfelt acceptance of diversity in all forms. It is basically internal. This resonates with the (some of the) findings and conclusions of Diamond, McNeill and Sowell. It is increasingly about the soft factors, although not exclusively. See my earlier post on the increasing importance and interrelationships of Identity, Authenticity and Creativity/Innovation. In my view, without these soft, internal factors we will not be able to stop global warming, resource depletion and other problems.

What do YOU think about the above analysis ? Thanks.

"We began by identifying a series of proximate explanations - guns, germs, and so on - for the conquest of the Americas by Europeans. Those proximate factors seem to me ultimately traceable in large part to the Old World's greater number of domesticated plants, much greater number of domesticated animals, and east/west axis. The chain of causation is most direct in explaining the Old World's advantages of horses and nasty germs. But domesticated plants and animals also led more indirectly to Eurasia's advantage in guns, swords, oceangoing ships, political organization, and writing, all of which were products of the large, dense, sedentary, stratified societies made possible by agriculture.

All other things being equal, the rate of human invention is faster, and the rate of cultural loss is slower, in areas occupied by many competing societies with many individuals and in contact with societies elsewhere.  If  this interpretation is correct, then it's likely to be of much broader significance.  The broadest pattern of history - namely, the differences between human societies on different continents - seems to me to be attributable to differences among continental environments, and not to biological differences among peoples themselves. In particular, the availability of wild plant and animal species suitable for domestication, and the ease with which those species could spread without encountering unsuitable climates, contributed decisively to the varying rates of rise of agriculture and herding, which in turn contributed decisively to the rise of human population numbers, population densities, and food surpluses, which in turn contributed decisively to the development of epidemic infectious diseases, writing, technology, and political organization.  In addition, the histories of Tasmania and Australia warn us that the differing areas and isolations of the continents, by determining the number of competing societies, may have been another important factor in human development."

Web = Youniversity ; Fora.TV and Research Channel Complement TED, Edge, Google TechTalks and YouTube

We already have YouTube Science, TED, Edge and Google TechTalks (all of favorites of mine). That is a real blessing ! But now we also have Fora.TV and Research Channel. Thanks to Wall Street Journal for pointing these two out. Just great !

When will Joost (P2P on demand TV coming soon) integrate all of these videos while leveraging the social networking options, annotations, tags and other metadata (more in my earlier post on Joost) ?

Who needs a university or any other physical school ? The stuff available in these six (video) sites is just mind-boggling and growing every day.

Two questions remain:

• Is there any way in which we can reduce our sleep period ? ;-)
• How can integrate Nintendo Wii technology in these sites to guarantee our physical workout and reduce obesity ? ;-)

eTech Recap: Creating Alternate Realities Presentation

Just saw an interesting presentation on Slideshare on Creating Alternate Realities. Especially slides 9 and 10 (on the new Happiness movement) and slide 38 hit home with me. There are quote a few trends in here converging: transformation, serious gaming and smart mobs.

Bloggers, Journalists, Flow Organizers, New and Old Media, Convergence and Mass Collaboration

I couldn't agree more with the quotes below from this post from Bruno Giussani (one of my favorite bloggers). Amen !

It even applies to the corporate environment...professionals will increasingly be enablers, knowledge integrators and less experts, leveraging their networks of experts and the ideas of the mass. Mass Collaboration by Don Tapscott in terms of the Wiki Workplace.

"At a recent conference in California, Ethan Zuckerman, the Harvard-based co-founder of GlobalVoices
was asked whether newspaper and television editors were still relevant in these days of participatory, "citizen" journalism. He offered the best answer I've heard so far on that question: "Don't speak. Point!" By which he meant: the days of journalists and editors "speaking on behalf of people" or "speaking to people" are over. "Point to people and get out of the way," he said.

A pretty radical statement. But Zuckerman didn't mean that the days of editors and journalists are past. He was rather suggesting that with facts, information and opinions circulating freely and broadly, their role is changing into that of facilitator, coach, flow organizer.

The new power of editors and journalists will depend on their ability to take on new tasks: to animate a group of people; to develop ways to organize how information is gathered and used, with the participation of what used to be called "the audience;" and to help people navigate an information landscape that's increasingly crowded and constantly shifting.

The direct implication is that the newspaper and the television/radio channel are no longer a mere product --and that they have to relinquish their self-representation as "beacons" or "heralds." They have to become places. Places where people from the community converge, stop by, make connections and come back again to build a common future. Places where most of the social, informational, entertainment and economic value is created not by the journalists and publishers, but by the members of the community. Encourage the exploration of ways to connect communities using digital media. Because, of course, the most powerful content of all, is people themselves. A key role of the media in the future will be to provide the places—to become the platform—for people to link what they know with who they know, and to expand both their knowledge and their network.

What does all this say about the future of journalism? At least three things. First, journalists will be around for a long time. Secondly, they need not fear what's coming because it will be exciting and vastly expand their possibilities. But, thirdly, they will need to reinvent themselves as a skilled part of a crowd rather than as lecturers, to become more tolerant of ambiguity, to become fluent in both the tech innovations and the shifts in social dynamics that are driving the development of media."

On Chatbots, AI, Cyber Doubles, MyCyberTwin, Semantic Web and Authenticity versus Productivity

Below some quotes from Jeremy Wagstaff from Wall Street Journal. More in here. This is an interesting dillemma: productivity (and info discernment; see Linda Stone) versus authenticity.

Using cyber doubles we can interact and scan more efficiently while at the same time we are losing control and our own authenticity, albeit marginally due to the almost perfect online copies of our real personalities. What does it to ones' reputation (both individually as well as corporate) when people or users find out that their conversation with you was fake (and this was not announced by the chatbot before the conversation started) ? In my view the reaction depends on the specific context. On a personal level this might be less acceptable compared to the corporate setting. In my view using chatbots to save time for your personal live is a lack of (emotional) commitment to others while corporate bots can be justified by being (rationally) relevant and efficient.

However, I do believe in Web 3.0 or the Semantic Web enabling personal advisors or agents acting on our behalf, but in my view that is different from the statements below. Those 3.0 agents focus on the individual and not on the conversations with other people. 

To me MyCyberTwin is particularly interesting due to the fact that it is a transformative tool (see Joseph Pine II and this link on different other examples of Transformation) to gain self awareness. What is your own communication style ? Which patterns do you use unconsciously ? This tool makes the invisble visible, thereby allowing for personal growth.

"Expect a future where we don't interact with other people. Instead, we'll send our "cyber double" out to interact with other people's "cyber doubles" until things get interesting. Then, and only then, will real people take over. This is the vision of Liesl Capper, whose Sydney-based RelevanceNow! last week launched an early version of MyCyberTwin (mycybertwin.com), a service that allows you to create and hone an online version of yourself. Your cyber twin will then chat on your behalf on instant messaging, your blog or your MySpace page. Eventually much of what you do online will be left to your cyber double, indistinguishable from the real thing (you). As Ms. Capper puts it: "You can be you, even when you're not you."

Ms. Capper, armed with a degree in psychology, has with her business partner John Zakos taken what she says is a different tack: looking at the human side by measuring personality traits with psychometric testing, in order to generate a person's likely responses to questions, so that person's cyber twin can mimic that person better. This, Ms. Capper says, not only makes the replies more lifelike, it allows people to quickly generate and personalize their own cyber twins. Which is pretty much where MyCyberTwin stands now. Answer 80 questions and the software does a pretty good job of describing your character. Once that's done, you can tweak your cyber twin's responses further by feeding it content from your own emails, records of instant-message chats or blog posts, and it will, Ms. Capper says, sound like you. Some of these features aren't available yet, but Ms. Capper says that in initial tests "we're finding that a fairly large population don't know if they're talking to a real person or a cyber twin." My own tests suggest she's onto something, but still has some way to go."

Update on Joost, Web 3.0 and Metadata

A very important post on Joost from NewTeeVee in this post. Joost is one of the first Web 3.0/Semantic Web companies around integrating RDF in their P2P TV product. Clearly, Joost will be the biggest success on the web in 2007. Convergence Culture from Henry Jenkins applied in a creative way.

"The notion of using this type of data for some creative mashups first came up on the Ironic Sans blog, where a Joost fan by the name of David Friedman brainstormed about a feature that he would like to see in the client: The ability to share comments on the programming based on each show’s timeline. Says Friedman: “Imagine watching a show like Heroes once, and then watching it again with comments turned on to see what other people caught that you missed.” Joost is planning "trivia” that pops up at specified timestamps and will timestamped tagging, commenting, annotation, etc.”

So what can these metadata frameworks be used for? Timestamped comments and tags are certainly one interesting possibility. Combine this with FOAF-like social networking structures, and you got yourself a whole new way to explore TV programming.

Imagine a personalized TV channel that only serves you shows your friends are literally talking about. Or think about the way this could transform programming itself. What if the Lost folks didn’t do their next Alternative Reality Game on the web, but in Joost itself, allowing you to collaborate with your friends and collect clues while watching the show? Now that’s what I would call combining the best of TV and the net."