58 replies to this topic

[SG-1]

Don't laugh, laughing at people is rude, CyberMister..Beauty -_-
Anyway, not every one wants to interact like they do in the real world. Sometimes you just want to sit on a computer without talking to someone, or you are too tired to walk around all day long.

If I had the option of walking around the internet or just browsing I would say browse. Its just not practical all the time to walk around. Say I want to read Gizmodo. I have to actually go into virtual reality to pick up a newspaper or something to read an article? Or this, I have to walk around a Wikipedia. Wikipedia COULD just be as easy as logging onto a computer and loading webpages like we do today, or with whatever computers are then such as glasses that only we can see the screen. The point is the internet is basically tons of data and we created things like Wikipedia partly because walking into a library is to much work. Especially if you are tired.

Like I said in my other post, virtual reality will be available when you want it, but not the only way. I don't think I would like dealing with some of these people on the forum face to face anyway. Its easier from a chair where you can listen to music, relax or have a snack. Try doing all that and still having room to walk around. The medium for the internet will change, such as how we access it (augmented reality, glasses, thought control etc), but the way we use it will stay more or less the same even though new ways of using it will be available.

EDIT: You said something about it even being in the timeline. The timeline is an ongoing project (as in, its creators cannot see the future). I agree with it, but no where in the timeline does it say that we will only use virtual reality. Its OK to have an opinion, so by saying that I respect your opinion and if virtual reality is what you want, who is to say you won't use it that way, they internet is becoming more personalized.

Edited by SG-1, 28 April 2012 - 05:44 PM.

[Time_Traveller]

HTML5 and the future of the web: Edgar Wright on BrandonGenerator.com

Which technology is evolving fastest? The mobile phone? The television? Tablets may constantly tout their latest specifications, but it’s easy to forget that the internet itself is evolving at unprecedented pace.


In part, that’s because of the shift to a new way of writing for the web, called HTML5, but it’s also because that shift is backed by every major software company in the world, from Google and Microsoft to Apple and Mozilla, the makers of the popular Firefox browser.

Thankfully, however, these firms are not taking the view that web users should have the faintest idea what HTML5 actually is. Although it stands for hypertext markup language, even that is far more than you need to know.


Instead, the companies are simply trying to show off the web. For Google that means doing clever things, such as producing personalised music videos at TheWildernessDowntown.com with the band Arcade Fire. It also means making sites the sheer utility of which is obvious, and building an entire operating system, Chrome OS, that makes the web central to everything people do on their computer, from saving files to editing video.


Their aim is ultimately to take on Windows but Microsoft itself is taking the fight back to Google on the web. Through a series of websites, they’re seeking simply to emphasise the slogan they’re using for their web browser, IE9: “The beauty of the web”.

More at http://www.telegraph...erator.com.html

So basically every company is making the Internet better.

[GNR Rvolution]

Don't laugh, laughing at people is rude, CyberMister..Beauty -_-
Anyway, not every one wants to interact like they do in the real world. Sometimes you just want to sit on a computer without talking to someone, or you are too tired to walk around all day long.

If I had the option of walking around the internet or just browsing I would say browse. Its just not practical all the time to walk around. Say I want to read Gizmodo. I have to actually go into virtual reality to pick up a newspaper or something to read an article? Or this, I have to walk around a Wikipedia. Wikipedia COULD just be as easy as logging onto a computer and loading webpages like we do today, or with whatever computers are then such as glasses that only we can see the screen. The point is the internet is basically tons of data and we created things like Wikipedia partly because walking into a library is to much work. Especially if you are tired.

Like I said in my other post, virtual reality will be available when you want it, but not the only way. I don't think I would like dealing with some of these people on the forum face to face anyway. Its easier from a chair where you can listen to music, relax or have a snack. Try doing all that and still having room to walk around. The medium for the internet will change, such as how we access it (augmented reality, glasses, thought control etc), but the way we use it will stay more or less the same even though new ways of using it will be available.

EDIT: You said something about it even being in the timeline. The timeline is an ongoing project (as in, its creators cannot see the future). I agree with it, but no where in the timeline does it say that we will only use virtual reality. Its OK to have an opinion, so by saying that I respect your opinion and if virtual reality is what you want, who is to say you won't use it that way, they internet is becoming more personalized.

Agreed, this timeline is prediction, not certainty. And completely agree with the VR thing. VR will have it's uses, for games, education, business, but it so many ways it would be far too clunky. Voice and thought dominated web will be the future I think, anything to make the user's experience easier. And HTML5 will give us the capability to customise the web far better than previous generations, although it's all still client-side and there is still a massive place for server-side scripting. Add AR and AI into the mix and you have the next generation of web, using location-based (and not just geographical) service models where the user gets the content offered to him/her that is relevant to them individually, where they can use semantic queries to return results.

The only problem I see with all of this is the requirement to the internet to be a free and open architecture. What bills like SOPA will do is remove that freedom, and if we start down that path the web will probably be a very different place to the one imagined above in a few years time. VR / AR etc. and the like would be available, but only to those that can afford it, whilst the availability of free material will disappear for many.

[SG-1]

Your right SOPA and CISPA, PIPA and ___PA will threaten the web, but if it gets to the point where people fear it will, I hope that protests that will put the Occupy movements to shame will happen all over the world against it. The only problem is some people don't understand what these do, and they won't be willing to go out and protest against it.

I have a hard time believing that governments will be able to control the internet like a dictator forever. I do believe that piracy needs to be stopped though, and it should be legal to just go out and shut down the servers to websites like thepiratebay.

[GNR Rvolution]

Here's something on the potential of cyberwar and it's implications:

http://www.bbc.co.uk...gazine-17868789

[Alric]

You are assuming you would have to walk. If we are talking about VR you access from home, you could just as easily fly around. Or teleport into a room with your table full of snacks(which taste good but are virtual so no calories!). There are lots of computer games with pets and stuff because people think they are cool. Maybe you will fly around on your pet dragon.

You are kind of assuming that VR will be like real life, but there isn't actually any reason for that. It is harder to picture something totally unique so we tend to compare to real life but I think that is a huge mistake. if you were in a simulated house you wouldn't actually need to walk outside to get the newspaper, you would just make it appear in your hand. In fact, anything you wanted you could probably just make appear.

If you wanted to compare it to something, I would think of it like dreaming. In dreams things are similar to real life but nothing follows the laws of physics. You can teleport around from location to location, and things can appear out of no where and yet in dreams that all seems natural.

[GNR Rvolution]

I certainly don't assume that VR would imitate real-life, completely the opposite in fact. The description of VR that has been proffered here has indicated that there would be replication of real-life, with people walking around rooms complete with furniture and such like. True, some sites may keep this look and feel but ultimately people want things to be as easy as possible. I don't want to have to search a room for something I put away, I just want it! In games people have pets and other such companions, but they are primarily status symbols rather than actually performing any real purpose.

In the general realm of the internet things would be very different, and I would be hard pressed to find a use at this moment in time for say, a VR version of this site? There might be some advantages in ease of navigation, or look and feel, but I still think that it would never necessarily be constrained to imitating actual life. Here's an old satirewire article that always made me chuckle on the subject:

http://http://www.sa...bist_site.shtml

I do think that VR will have a major impact on the way we use the web, but I don't think it will dominate as CyberMisterBeauty believes. It is the way that we interact with the web that will change as much as the ways in which web pages guide us, a symbiotic relationship that will evolve together.

[SG-1]

Well the shoutbox could be us actually talking to each other that would be cool

[CyberMisterBeauty]

Great idea!In VR mode the shoutbox could be a room and we could invite some people to talk each other...It could be designed as a bar or a restaurant and,using a more advanced form of VR using nanobots we could even drink and eat something...

[GNR Rvolution]

That isn't necessarily VR. VR is total immersion, and that would be difficult to reconcile with the rest of the site. Are you thinking more or a Second Life game style interface? That sounds more like what is proposed, but you can do that without VR.

[CyberMisterBeauty]

So I guess you are talking about tele-immersion...



http://electronics.h...environment.htm

Edited by CyberMisterBeauty, 01 May 2012 - 01:07 PM.

[GNR Rvolution]

Not really, what I meant was you could have an existing 2D second-life style interface for communicating, this could be done now but would be a little out of context (not to mention cost) with the rest of the site. But TBH that's not really what the Shoutbox is for, or at least not how it's used as I understand it. What you mean is like a lounge or hang-out type environment where people can gather to talk? VR is much more than a place for holding conversations, and I think it would be a long time before the cost associated with developing this sort of thing for a small community like ours is feasible.

[Raklian]

Has anyone read Tad William's "Otherland" series?

In the series, because silicon-based hardware isn't up to the challenge of creating virtual worlds more hyper-real than our reality, the "bad guys" had to resort to painstakingly find and kidnap a newborn infant with an abnormal brain structure/wiring. They stripped the infant of his flesh except for the brain and launch it to geostationary orbit in a large satetilite so it can grow to an enormous size under the effects of microgravity. It is then they wirelessly connected the network to the "mind-matter" and engineers created millions of realities, each at least as real as this reality.

The series ended when this "mind-matter" figured out a way to sabotage the orbit of its satetilite and accurately crashed into a skycraper, in which the man who orchestrated all of this was lying in his VR pod enjoying being a god in his stimulated reality.

Edited by Raklian, 01 May 2012 - 07:56 PM.

[Alric]

In games people have pets and other such companions, but they are primarily status symbols rather than actually performing any real purpose.

That was kind of my point. If we are looking at a very immersive VR internet, then walking serves no purpose at all. If you choose to walk, or fly, or go around on a dragon it is because you want to and think it is cool. It isn't going to serve any purpose.

You can probably download all the information on this site into your brain in a few seconds, so in the future this site wouldn't exist in this form. If it were to exist it would probably focus more on the forum and people talking with each other about the future. And in that case you could have VR setting for when you are chatting with other people. It is kind of like a social thing.

If you are not on the internet to be social then you are probably just downloading stuff, or quickly referencing things and so your not going to linger very long. It will be quick in and out.

[Guyverman1990]

If texting by thinking will become a reality in the near future, than using any web search engine in existence by using thinking rather than text, that would be awesome!

It would save the need to dig through Google for hours to find subjects and content that you exactly want, because using just words and letters is what computers are presently only capable of using to search for something. Using specific thoughts for searching is what really matters.

Edited by Guyverman1990, 11 May 2012 - 03:20 AM.

[eacao]

@ Guyverman1990, that is something which would be pretty fantastic, and it is something which is safe to assume it will be used in the future, it probably wont be in the same decade as texting by thinking. The difference between decoding a vocabulary and pure thought is immense. I'd put it somewhere in the early 2030s and maybe a little later.
While we already have technologies to decode images for thought, the perfection and then marketing of said technologies can take a long time.

[GNR Rvolution]

If texting by thinking will become a reality in the near future, than using any web search engine in existence by using thinking rather than text, that would be awesome!

It would save the need to dig through Google for hours to find one specific page or subject,Using just words and letters is what computers are presently only capable of using to search for something. Using specific thoughts for searching is what really matters.

I think you would still need a search engine of some sort to perform the search, simply thinking about something doesn't make it so. However I would expect search engines to evolve to accommodate this, with better searching and filtering capabilities. Even today Google, despite all it's goodness, isn't brilliant, it's interaction with search engines for specific sites is not up to scratch. For example, if I want to search for something regarding Oracle (the database) I am far better off searching the Oracle forum than Google. Although given the current spat between them there could be good reasons for this not working so well..

[GNR Rvolution]

Coding the future: HTML5 takes the internet by storm


http://www.bbc.co.uk...siness-17931814

Edited by GNR Rvolution, 08 May 2012 - 11:41 AM.

[GNR Rvolution]

Project Moon: One Small Step for a PC, One Giant Leap for Data


Building a supercomputer from a distributed PC network:

http://www.wired.com...5/project_moon/

[Logically Irrational]

Here's a bit of good news:

Netherlands passes net neutrality law, first among EU nations

http://www.theverge....w-passes-senate

People in the Netherlands have reason to celebrate today, following the expected passing into law of new net neutrality regulation. The legislation in question was agreed upon back in June last year, but it's only on Tuesday that the nation's second legislative chamber gave its blessing to the move, making everything official. Under the new law, mobile internet providers like KPN won't be able to charge for access to particular services like Skype or throttle traffic through them — both techniques that the company was intent on using to manage its mobile traffic.

Some exceptional reasons, such as network congestion and security, are allowed for slowing down users' connections, but the general thrust of the law is that operators ought to be blind to the traffic they carry and treat all of it equally. Dutch lobbying group Bits of Freedom also notes that the net neutrality law includes anti-wiretapping provisions, making it unlawful to use deep packet inspection on users' internet communications without their express consent or a legal warrant. All in all, it's a good day for privacy and internet freedom in the Netherlands, now how about we spread the good cheer throughout the whole European Union?