Home
Xorg [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Trond

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Virtual stage management [Jul. 3rd, 2008|07:28 pm]
[Tags|, , ]

While waiting for pizza this evening, I read an article by David Allan Grier in IEEE Computer about the ways in which technology has changed entertainment, particularly the theatre, over the last 40 years or so.

In particular, he discusses how automated lighting, sound and so forth can afford a stage manager the opportunity to calibrate the response of the audience by controlling the timing of cues much more closely, much in the same way a live television producer does the same. What this has meant is that show production, in addition to be a massive organizational exercise, is now a performance unto itself.

Later, he goes on to talk about ways in which producers of other media gauge audience reaction and adapt accordingly - focus groups for TV and movies, golden ears for music, and now, with technology, learning systems based on customer profiling and crowd-sourcing, that can supplement socially driven recommendations such as friends or local record store owners - last.fm being a prominent example.

So inspired, here's an interesting extension that occurred to me:

What if specialized AI, running locally, could be injected into traditionally mass-produced media like music, TV, or movies to act as a kind of virtual stage manager? It could observe you, the audience, a focus group of one, then tweak the timing, the content, the tone, and even the script of media to better suit your current mood, your tastes, to stimulate you in ways to which you are more sensitive, or even to better fit your available time.

LinkLeave a comment

[May. 21st, 2008|11:54 am]
[Tags|, , ]

via Warren Ellis, so some of you will have seen this already..

But, giant military hovercraft!



Loaded out with firepower that seems to put it about on par with a frigate, capable of carrying infantry and tanks, and, on sufficiently flat terrain, carrying them a reasonable distance inland. Imagine an Operation Overlord scale landing equipped with these..
Link9 comments|Leave a comment

Bionic eye [Apr. 29th, 2008|09:47 pm]
[Tags|, , ]

via George

You may have heard me rant about these in the same breath as cochlear implants, but, well, seeing is believing. Video contains a news article about bionic eyes being implanted into fully blind patients in the UK; current versions provide an image of about 30 or 60 pixels directly through electrical stimulation of the optic nerve.

Follow items of interest as I encounter them via my Google Reader share feed. If you're using Google Reader, please, let me know..
Link5 comments|Leave a comment

[Jan. 22nd, 2008|10:38 pm]
[Tags|, ]

You might remember xkcd's map of the internet from a while back..

Well, a bunch of researchers at USC did a real one. It's really quite impressive - a grid of pixels 65536 x 65536 - one for each IP address..
Link2 comments|Leave a comment

[Jan. 5th, 2007|01:10 am]
[Tags|, , ]

Apparently I wrote and posted this in response to http://tecfa.unige.ch/perso/staf/nova/blog/2007/01/04/criteria-to-classify-location-awareness/

It seems that parts 1 and 3 are 'pull' or 'push' operations. Either I detect my location, then publish it at a particular frequency (push), or the system determines my location and makes it available (pull). Similarly, I either request information about a particular person or location (pull), or the system simply tells me what's going on within particular areas of interest (push).

Also, is part 2 really about storage? It's more to do with how location is described, isn't it? For that matter, storage isn't really necessary if location is requested directly from a user..

So, as I understand it,
Part 1 is about how location is determined and made available to the world,
Part 2 is about how it's described,
Part 3 is about how it's consumed (requested and used),
Part 4 is parameters for retrieval and search (and is thus related to part 3)
Part 5 is further data format (isn't this really a duplicate of part 2?)

I wonder, could you represent this as a diagram of communication between the involved entities? So, subject, consumer and storage (where subject is the entity whose location is being tracked while the consumer is the entity requesting it)?

I'm too lazy to draw, so let me describe..

The subject may detect their own location (no arrow)
The subject's location may be determined by the system (arrow from storage to subject)

The subject may pass location info to a storage system (arrow from subject to storage),
The subject may pass location info directly to a consumer (arrow from subject to consumer)

The consumer may request the location of a particular subject (arrow from consumer to subject (also, arrow from consumer to storage))
The consumer may request location information based on search criteria (arrow from consumer to storage and back again)

Then, your part 1 describes the arrows entering and leaving the subject, parts 2 and 5 describe data carried by each arrow, and parts 3 and 4 describe the arrows entering and leaving the consumer.

I'm not quite happy with that, but I think there's definitely merit in thinking about it in this way - it gives scope to consider who knows about any request or transaction, as well as scope for specifying the capabilities of a particular system.. I also think it's a good idea to include location info sent directly from subject to consumer..

It seems though, that this general set of criteria you've got could be quite interesting for describing location awareness systems and what they're capable of.. It's probably also good for specifying the requirements of particular location awareness applications..
LinkLeave a comment

navigation
[ viewing | most recent entries ]