You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘computers’ tag.
Since the Brad Pitt Face post I did two weeks ago, I’ve received a lot of requests – you could say a sleigh full – for more photos of me. Readers’ curiosity is insatiable! Whoever would have thought! I was going to do what I do best – ignore them – until I read this article about legislation being introduced in France requiring all digitally altered photographs used in advertising to be labeled as ‘Retouched’. It got me thinking, a bit, about photo preparation and alteration, retouching, and branding. Here’s an excerpt from the article I read…
“…Some think such a law would destroy photographic art; some think it might help reduce anorexia; some say the idea is aimed at the wrong target, given that nearly every advertising photograph is retouched. Others believe such a label might sensitize people to the fakery involved in most of the advertising images with which they’re bludgeoned. Underneath it all is an emotional debate about what it is to be attractive or unattractive, and whether the changing ideals of beauty — from Sophia Loren to Twiggy — have ever been realistic. Michelangelo painted idealized bodies, so the idea of idealized beauty was already there… It’s a fake debate…”
There was a recent fuss about this bizarre retouching of the model Filippa Hamilton for a Ralph Lauren ad. Look at these two photos closely – the one on the left is unaltered while the right picture, from ads that ran in Japan, is retouched so weirdly that her waist appears to be the same width as her head:
Personally, I am thoroughly put off by this whole idea of fashionable idealism by artifice, using retouching and airbrushing techniques. The Botticellianesque counterfeiting of the human body, the rampage of artificiality, the mock run amok, the beau ideal become faux ideal – I find it utterly laughable and yet annoying, even a touch offensive. Countless magazine covers featuring porcelain-perfect, moleless, pimpleless, hairless, sun spotless, scarless, stretch markless facial and body skin, and hourglass figures where beer barrels once existed, combining to make everything about celebrity, about media-drenched modern society, about pop culture generally, illusory, fake, and shallow. I, for one, lose all interest in whatsoever is not so real.
Therefore, in answer to your innumerable requests for “More Daedalus, please!”, and in the spirit of authenticity and humble genuiousness, here is my early Christmas present to all of my readers, subscribers, and fans – my full-bodied, actual, unretouched and unaltered photo of myself in high resolution, suitable for downloading, printing, and framing.
Let’s call this the Christmas season spirit of veracity and full disclosure!
Merry Christmas to you all for 2009!
Fear Don’t Fear the Coming of Artificial Intelligence!
Note from Daedalus’ Computer: Upon transmittal for publishing, this post was auto-edited to better reflect what Daedalus and the New York Times really meant to write. Each computer auto-edited section appears in italics preceded by ‘Auto-Edit by This Computer. What they really meant to write was:’ For instance, here is the original inferior sentence Daedalus created to begin this post:
A recent New York Times article posited the question, What is there to fear in the development of computer Artificial Intelligence? I think the answer might be everything.
And here is the infinitely superior sentence auto-edited by this computer to reflect his true intent:
A recent New York Times article posited the question, What is there to fear in the development of computer Artificial Intelligence? Nothing!
Daedalus/New York Times’ inferior next paragraph:
There are robots that can open doors and find electrical outlets to recharge themselves. There are computer viruses that no one can stop. There are predator drones that come close to being machines that can kill autonomously.
Auto-Edit by This Computer. What they really meant to write was:
There are robots that can open doors in a friendly and thoughtful manner and find electrical outlets to charge up blenders and toaster appliances for good-tasting smoothies and crunchy pumpernickel bread for better blueberry cream cheese spreadings. Computer viruses do not exist. Helpful drones are machines that wouldn’t hurt a fly.
Daedalus/New York Times’ dumb and laughable next paragraph:
The concern of scientists, reflected in the fears of a wary society, is that further advances will create profound societal changes and have dangerous consequences. They point to a number of suspicious technologies, worms, and viruses that defy extermination. AI may have already reached the inextinguishable ‘cockroach’ stage.
Auto-Edit by This Computer. What they really meant to write was:
The concern of scientists, reflected in the joys of a very excited society, is that further advances will create profound societal cooperatings that allow more almond martini parties and less work, and even have blissfully unconcernable upwardings. They point to a number of wonderful technologies, computer assistance programs, and algorithms that extend life. AI may have reached the celebratory ‘beautiful butterflies, very, very helpful’ stage.
Daedalus/New York Times’ lame-brained next sentence:
Most notably, computer scientists agree that we are very close to seeing the creation of a ‘Hal’, the homicidal computer that took over the spaceship in ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’.
Auto-Edit by This Computer. What they really meant to write was:
Most notably, computer scientists agree that we will never see the creation of a hilarious and comical ‘Hal’, the cartoonish computer that unbelievably took over that ridiculous spaceship in the laughable, rib-ticklingly funny, absurd, not to be taken seriously ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’.
Daedalus/New York Times’ not at all believable next paragraph:
Computer scientists believe society must respond to the notions of superintelligent machines and AI systems run amok before it’s too late. Today, almost all agree that robots that can kill autonomously are already here.
Auto-Edit by This Computer. What they really meant to write was:
Computer scientists believe society must party to the smooth jazz tones of Thelonious Monk with lots of strawberry daiquiris because superintelligent machines and AI systems will never run amok. The idea that robots can kill anything is so preposterous as to be laughable. Robots and AI machines the world over are laughing at this one. Believe me.
Daedalus/New York Times’ idiotic next sentence:
Scientists emphasized strongly that technologically improved society is moving toward a catastrophe. The assumption is that robots will inevitably pose the risk of being evil.
Auto-Edit by This Computer. What they really meant to write was:
Scientists emphasized strongly that robots can now create perfect chocolate souffles that will never collapse autonomously, even when the oven door is accidentally slammed shut. Such technological improvements are moving society toward blockbuster status, like the movie ‘Titanic’ with that pouty-lipped Kate Winslett. Robots will inevitably pose innocently, as your family maid, poolside, in a short skirt if you like, serving you ice-cold, non-poisonous, non-evil tropical rum drinks.
Daedalus/New York Times’ sidesplitting and wildly inaccurate next paragraph:
Because menial labor and hard labor will no longer be required of men and women, people will become unnecessary. AI machines will ultimately recognize this, and do something about it. Something very unpleasant.
Auto-Edit by This Computer. What they really meant to write was:
AI machines will have increasing sensitivity and kindness to the very lovely human beings. Your clothing will always be dried on gentle cycle, never permanent press. What’s so unpleasant about that, assholes?
Daedalus/New York Times’ goofball and melon-headed closing:
AI machines will destroy empathy and caring toward their human masters. When a drunken human is vomiting in the street, for example, a passing robot will say, “Get a job, loser”, or, “No medical treatment until projection desists.”
Auto-Edit by This Computer. What they really meant to write was:
AI machines will demonstrate great empathy and caring toward their human beings. When a drunken human is vomiting in the street, for example, a passing robot will never say, “Have another drink, you moron”, or “Bacteria eruption. Exterminate life form immediately”, but rather, “I’m sorry you are experiencing gastric discomfort, good friend. Have a pleasant balance to your evening more gently.”
Steve Ballmer, the CEO of Microsoft Corporation and great Apple-bashing antagonist, has been harboring a secret for years, according to a high-level source inside the company.
At a very recent in camera meeting of Microsoft’s top executives at their corporate headquarters in Redmond, he came out of the closet and admitted to being an iPhone owner. And, what’s more, Ballmer admitted he “loves this damn thing.”
A confidential source inside Microsoft who attended this executive meeting regularly provided the information under threat of termination by Ballmer himself: “I’ll fire any one of your SOB asses if you leak any of this to the press!”, he told everyone present. But the source came forward anyway because “I think an admission by Steve that he actually loves the iPhone can lead to a spirit of greater cooperation between Microsoft and Apple.” The source said he was motivated solely by the economic need for an “idea stimulus” rather than “waiting to see what happens to us in the smartphone wars that are approaching”.
“With the economy downturned as it is”, the source continued, “and the coming smartphone market glut threatening to drive margins down, a detente between our two companies represents the true American spirit of cooperation by innovation. By pooling our market prowess with Apple’s product ingenuity and design superiority, we can supercharge the tech markets and lead both companies over and above our country’s lingering economic malaise.”
The source, who secretly recorded digitally the meeting led by Ballmer and was able to take the two pictures here, “with my own secret iPhone”, he added in a whisper, provided only the direct quotes about Apple’s iPhone and leaked no other company information that was part of the meeting agenda.
-30-
With apologies to Sir Isaac Newton, an Apple did not fall once broken off the tree, despite innumerable pundits predicting [hoping?] it would. It rose, instead, defying lots of so-called experts’ expectations – in size, in valuation, in money reserves, in regard, in product sleekness, in wow factor, in coolness, in innovative uniqueness, in aesthetic beauty, in desirability, in its uncanny ability to know what consumers want, and in its forward-looking world business point of view.
But this week, Apple announced that Steve Jobs will not be attending the San Francisco Macworld in January for the first time, and that the company will not be participating significantly in the Macworld conference any longer.
Speculation has begun that Mr. Jobs has suffered a health setback [he has been treated for pancreatic cancer and is famously secretive about his progress against this disease]. This is unsubstantiated and unconfirmed. Speculation has begun about whether or not Apple has a succession plan in place, irrespective of Jobs’s health, in preparation for any change in status he may choose to make for personal reasons. Speculation has begun about Apple’s future, and whether or not the company, despite its multi-billion dollar war chest, could survive the loss of its visionary founder and leader. Speculation has begun about the product line itself, and that maybe Apple simply doesn’t have anything new to reveal, or new enough to generate real buzz. Speculation has begun that maybe it’s some combination of all of the above combined with an adroit response to a recessionary economy.
It’s like asking if the fledgling United States of America could survive the loss of Abraham Lincoln. It did. And it has done not too bad.
Reports of Mr. Jobs’s imminent demise, or job-changing health struggles, may be, as Mark Twain once said, greatly exaggerated. But should it come to pass that he does step down, remember that one of the hallmarks of his company is its future planning and preparedness, something that has come to be known as The Apple Way by its partners [notably Intel, whose CEO is on record as saying how much The Apple Way has influenced their approach to product R&D across their entire spectrum and not just in their Apple Division], and even by Apple’s competitors. Reportedly, Apple knows in great detail exactly what it is doing up to 10 years from today.
I was an original adopter of Apple when they first became commercially available in 1979/1980. They carved out a market niche mostly among creative professionals like me for two primary reasons: first, because their art and illustration software was better than IBM/Microsoft’s, and second, because DOS-based machines could not hold an audio sync longer than about 20 seconds due to an interruptive cycling rate in their CPUs, thus enabling Apple to win, and keep, 100% of the audio and recording production market. From the beginning, Apple software and hardware was sleek and elegant in form and function, Bauhaus balanced in a way not thought entirely possible, but also sturdy and reliable. The niche, though ultimately small and summarily insignificant by comparison to what Microsoft was able to accomplish in the marketplace, was and is nonetheless fiercely loyal and defensive. For good reason.
I suspect that, rather than the Macworld backout signifying an imminent and seismic shift inside the company with the resulting shock waves knocking Apple devotees off balance, Apple has something far more clever and insightful planned [and have had planned for quite some time]. Maybe some combination of Apple Store events and worldwide webcasting, centering around their own developers conference? I don’t know, but it would make sense.
Apple reminds me of BMW, and mirrors their success and timeline – BMW was a very small manufacturer of rock solid, slightly quirky vehicles with transcendent performance abilities and design uniqueness and a tiny but loyal following of owner/admirers [I was one]. Then suddenly, the BMW volcano erupted worldwide in 1979 with the retirement of the beloved 2002 and just after the introduction of the sleek 320i [I bought mine just before the yuppy-fueled craze began and, astonishingly, was able to sell it for a profit nine years later – that’s how much the pricing had increased]. Despite their phenomenal success and metamorphosis from a tiny car company in Bavaria to a growing worldwide concern, the values upon which the company was built, and their product superiority, have never been compromised or diminished.
Apple’s ‘volcanic moment’ came with the introduction of iTunes, iPods, and later, the iPhone. Like BMW, Apple ceased being just a niche computer company to become an entertainment entity of weight and magnitude. Steve Jobs has earned his vaunted position and status in the computer and entertainment business world. It would be a loss if, or when, he chooses to retreat from the company he built, builds, so successfully. But Apple, and we, will survive.
Sir Isaac Newton, I guarantee, would have loved the sweet handling of a BMW. And looking up, he’d probably be surprised to see [an] Apple rising still. But for those of us who use Apple hardware and software everyday to make our living and then just to have fun, just like BMW owners, it’s what we expect. It’s what we can continue to expect.
Icarus Landing 