Bianca Bosker's Blog, page 14
May 6, 2013
Google Aims To Patent Policy Violation Checker, Potentially Revolutionizing Email Snooping
We've all come to rely on spell-checkers that correct misspellings as we type. Now, Google has filed a patent for a tool that seems like an evil-checker: a software system that could prevent people from writing out, in electronic correspondence and documents, phrases that run afoul of policies or laws.
Google’s proposed "Policy Violation Checker" would allow software to peek over peoples' shoulders while they type to alert individuals -- and potentially their employers -- when their written text contained "problematic phrases" that “present policy violations, have legal implications, or are otherwise troublesome to a company, business, or individual," according to the patent filing.
The tool recalls Google chairman Eric Schmidt’s controversial advice to people worried about their un-erasable digital trail online: "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know,” Schmidt advised in a 2010 interview, “Maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.” Google seems to have followed through on Schmidt’s thinking with software that stops people before they make ill-advised digital disclosures -- or will tattle on them if they do.
With Policy Violation Checker, Big Brother isn’t just watching you. He’s getting some control over what you write.
In the patent application, Google details a process that would allow its algorithms to automatically detect troublesome text by comparing the writing to a database of phrases previously identified as “problematic." The tool could not only inform a person that they've written something that violates protocol, it could also tell an individual why she’s run afoul of the rules, suggest alternate wording that would be less risky and, crucially, alert third parties to the violation.
“If a user creates a text document, presentation, or other document with a problematic phrase, the policy violation checker may notify a member of the legal department of the existence of the document,” Google explains in its patent filing.
The technology could be applied beyond email to include any electronic document, “such as a text document, spreadsheet, presentation, or electronic mail message,” according to the patent brief. And the software could be customized to run on “any type of processing device including, but not limited to, a computer, workstation, distributed computing system, embedded system, stand-alone electronic device, networked device, mobile device, set-top box, television, or other type of processor or computer system.”
Google suggests its software could come in handy for corporations seeking to avoid lawsuits, leaks or other incriminating disclosures. Presumably, it could have prevented a Goldman Sachs executive from making his now-notorious reference to a “shitty deal” in his emails to a colleague.
“It is in the best interest of companies to prevent violations of company policy or laws before they occur. As businesses glow [sic], the number of documents in a business rises exponentially, and the potential that a particular document may implicate a violation of law or company policy grows,” the patent filing explains. “Business employees often knowingly or unknowingly discuss actions that could potentially lead to violations of company policy, such as a confidentiality policy, or run afoul of the law."
For example, “a phrase in a document containing the words ‘project ABC is going to totally KILL company XYZ’ could potentially give rise to an unfair competition claim,” Google writes.
The patent application leaves future users free to determine for themselves what text would be considered problematic and to specify what to include in their database of phrases: “[T]he database may be initially populated, for example and without limitation, by a member of a company's legal department, other employees, or outside consultants.”
It also seems reasonable to venture that the database could initially be populated by an authoritarian regime's Internet censors. And with the ability to integrate the software on “any type of processing device,” from a smartphone to a television, oppressive governments could be empowered to see anything their citizens write -- in Word documents, in emails, in drafts of blog posts, in digital journals -- and to view it before someone hits “send.”
While Google suggests this technology could come in handy for companies, its broad definition of “problematic phrases” raises the question of how else it might be used and what correspondence could be monitored. Could Google flag pedophiles for the police? Could it thwart a politician’s extramarital affair, or alert a spouse to his wife’s indiscretions? Could it stop white supremacists or religious extremists from emailing with each other? And if the software could do those things, should it?
Slashdot, which first reported on the patent filing, posited that the technology would offer a way for wrongdoers to skirt the rules. "So, if you can't Do-No-Evil," Slashdot wrote, referring to Google's corporate promise, "at least you can Do-No-Discoverable-Evil!"
Of even greater concern may the role of moral arbiter Google could assume. The company's founders promised it would do no evil. But should that really give Google the right to guarantee we do no evil on their watch?
(Hat tip: Slashdot and Rough Type.)
Google’s proposed "Policy Violation Checker" would allow software to peek over peoples' shoulders while they type to alert individuals -- and potentially their employers -- when their written text contained "problematic phrases" that “present policy violations, have legal implications, or are otherwise troublesome to a company, business, or individual," according to the patent filing.
The tool recalls Google chairman Eric Schmidt’s controversial advice to people worried about their un-erasable digital trail online: "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know,” Schmidt advised in a 2010 interview, “Maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.” Google seems to have followed through on Schmidt’s thinking with software that stops people before they make ill-advised digital disclosures -- or will tattle on them if they do.
With Policy Violation Checker, Big Brother isn’t just watching you. He’s getting some control over what you write.
In the patent application, Google details a process that would allow its algorithms to automatically detect troublesome text by comparing the writing to a database of phrases previously identified as “problematic." The tool could not only inform a person that they've written something that violates protocol, it could also tell an individual why she’s run afoul of the rules, suggest alternate wording that would be less risky and, crucially, alert third parties to the violation.
“If a user creates a text document, presentation, or other document with a problematic phrase, the policy violation checker may notify a member of the legal department of the existence of the document,” Google explains in its patent filing.
The technology could be applied beyond email to include any electronic document, “such as a text document, spreadsheet, presentation, or electronic mail message,” according to the patent brief. And the software could be customized to run on “any type of processing device including, but not limited to, a computer, workstation, distributed computing system, embedded system, stand-alone electronic device, networked device, mobile device, set-top box, television, or other type of processor or computer system.”
Google suggests its software could come in handy for corporations seeking to avoid lawsuits, leaks or other incriminating disclosures. Presumably, it could have prevented a Goldman Sachs executive from making his now-notorious reference to a “shitty deal” in his emails to a colleague.
“It is in the best interest of companies to prevent violations of company policy or laws before they occur. As businesses glow [sic], the number of documents in a business rises exponentially, and the potential that a particular document may implicate a violation of law or company policy grows,” the patent filing explains. “Business employees often knowingly or unknowingly discuss actions that could potentially lead to violations of company policy, such as a confidentiality policy, or run afoul of the law."
For example, “a phrase in a document containing the words ‘project ABC is going to totally KILL company XYZ’ could potentially give rise to an unfair competition claim,” Google writes.
The patent application leaves future users free to determine for themselves what text would be considered problematic and to specify what to include in their database of phrases: “[T]he database may be initially populated, for example and without limitation, by a member of a company's legal department, other employees, or outside consultants.”
It also seems reasonable to venture that the database could initially be populated by an authoritarian regime's Internet censors. And with the ability to integrate the software on “any type of processing device,” from a smartphone to a television, oppressive governments could be empowered to see anything their citizens write -- in Word documents, in emails, in drafts of blog posts, in digital journals -- and to view it before someone hits “send.”
While Google suggests this technology could come in handy for companies, its broad definition of “problematic phrases” raises the question of how else it might be used and what correspondence could be monitored. Could Google flag pedophiles for the police? Could it thwart a politician’s extramarital affair, or alert a spouse to his wife’s indiscretions? Could it stop white supremacists or religious extremists from emailing with each other? And if the software could do those things, should it?
Slashdot, which first reported on the patent filing, posited that the technology would offer a way for wrongdoers to skirt the rules. "So, if you can't Do-No-Evil," Slashdot wrote, referring to Google's corporate promise, "at least you can Do-No-Discoverable-Evil!"
Of even greater concern may the role of moral arbiter Google could assume. The company's founders promised it would do no evil. But should that really give Google the right to guarantee we do no evil on their watch?
(Hat tip: Slashdot and Rough Type.)
May 2, 2013
Online Dating At 76: Weird Widowers, Ex-Cons And Lying Octogenarians
Barbara Rose Brooker has been single for over 28 years.
Six years ago, at age 70, Brooker tried a new approach to her love life: online dating.
A 2012 Bowling Green State University study described people over 60 as the "fastest-growing demographic in online dating," and even lifestyle mogul Martha Stewart, 71, is giving Match.com a go.
Brooker, now 76, describes herself as a proud member of the "boomer hottie" generation and has penned a new novel, The Viagra Diaries , detailing the exploits of a 60-something love columnist. Brooker ventured deep into the world of online dating -- joining sites like eHarmony, Plenty of Fish, Match.com and more -- in the hopes of finding a relationship, but also to do research for her book and learn how other boomer hotties were looking for love online (the oldest person she met: An 88-year-old man Brooker says was "charming, absolutely charming"). Brooker is also a blogger for The Huffington Post.
For our "Life As" series, Brooker took HuffPostTech inside the life of an online dater in her 70s, told us what septuagenarian men lie about most, and gave us the scoop and what happens when online dates go horribly awry.
What was most surprising to you about online dating?
What really surprised me was the overwhelming response from men who are looking for love and at the same time are so terrified of age. They’d say things like, “You’re an interesting woman, but I really need to be with someone 45,” or they’d say, “You want to go to Viagra falls?” Or they were still playing the role of men from other, lost generations. Very, “I’m Tarzan, you Jane” kind of thing. Most of the men won’t respond if you say your real age.
What’s your worst online dating horror story?
There was a retired surgeon who sounded on phone like he was very intellectual, so we set up a meeting at Starbucks, near my house. He walked in, sat down, and he looked like a man who had been left on an island. He looked like a homeless person.
It turned out that he’d just gotten out of prison. He had been in prison a long time and I was his first date. On the phone he made it sound like he still had practice!
Then there was the serial JDater. I met him on JDate, we met for a cocktail and I liked him immediately. He was a very elegant man, a very attractive man. He was in his early 70s, but very, as you’d say, cool, successful -- all those things. And I thought, “Oh my God.” And so we got involved. But very quickly I found out he was on JDate like an hour after he brought me home. It’s like a big candy store for some of these guys, particularly the ones who are not terribly mature or terribly serious about having a committed relationship.
What did you consider the best and worst online dating sites?
I really did like JDate.com, and I also liked Match.com. With Match.com, you can meet anyone from any culture. It’s diversified, but I think it’s 99 percent honest. It seemed very comfortable and I never really, outside of one or two times, got any horrible lies.
I disliked eHarmony intensely with all the rules. I remember when I first filled out its questionnaire, I got a notice: "You’re not fit for our site."
There are some sites that really don’t want you if you're older, like eHarmony. They’ll deny it of course, but it was so obvious. There was another one that I actually called. I got a live person on the phone and I asked, “Do you have something against someone over 60?” and they said, “We prefer no older than 50.” There’s a lot of disease still in online dating and that disease is ageism.
In your experience, what do people in your age demographic lie most about on online dating sites?
They all use pictures that were taken 20 years ago, and a lot of women have pictures taken, then airbrushed. Most of them definitely lied about their age. For example, this doctor I met who had this incredible resume and exciting mind, but he was at least 20 years older than he said and had his hair dyed and a facelift. If guys said they’re 60, they’re usually 75, and if they said they’re 74, they’re usually 92.
I met one man who said he was a widower. He sounded neat and we decided to meet at the bar of a restaurant in North Beach. He described himself as looking like Clint Eastwood, and when I met him I could tell there was something really off off off. And I said, “When did your wife die?” And he said, “Two days ago.”
What's the most important thing that online dating sites need to do better?
To me, the sites seem a little outdated now. They seem kind of old-fashioned with the "put your profile in and meet the man of your dreams” kind of thing. And I think that the way the sites are set up, they’re just not honest. They’re not true. Some people will meet the man of their dreams or woman of their dreams, but most won’t. It’s like going through an airport and getting on the wrong plane.
The rules that they have just seem so ridiculous. And the questions! I don’t know who writes them, but they really have to revisit them for everyone, period.
What’s your advice for other “boomer hotties,” as you call them, who want to online date?
I always say: Talk to the younger people and find out what you should do technologically. I have a son-in-law who’s a multimedia geek, and he makes lists for me. I’d get somebody you feel comfortable with and you’re not afraid to feel stupid with to help and show you. And then gradually, start learning. I wouldn’t do it all at once because I’m still overwhelmed by the sites I'm on and they’re growing so fast.
It’s better than going to a spa and it‘s better than getting Botox because with just one app you feel really cool and you feel younger. I want to be with the next generation, I don’t want to be with the last generation. And the only way you can do it is through technology.
UPDATE: An earlier version of this story incorrectly spelled Brooker's last name. The correct spelling of her name is Barbara Rose Brooker.
This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.
Six years ago, at age 70, Brooker tried a new approach to her love life: online dating.
A 2012 Bowling Green State University study described people over 60 as the "fastest-growing demographic in online dating," and even lifestyle mogul Martha Stewart, 71, is giving Match.com a go.
Brooker, now 76, describes herself as a proud member of the "boomer hottie" generation and has penned a new novel, The Viagra Diaries , detailing the exploits of a 60-something love columnist. Brooker ventured deep into the world of online dating -- joining sites like eHarmony, Plenty of Fish, Match.com and more -- in the hopes of finding a relationship, but also to do research for her book and learn how other boomer hotties were looking for love online (the oldest person she met: An 88-year-old man Brooker says was "charming, absolutely charming"). Brooker is also a blogger for The Huffington Post.
For our "Life As" series, Brooker took HuffPostTech inside the life of an online dater in her 70s, told us what septuagenarian men lie about most, and gave us the scoop and what happens when online dates go horribly awry.
What was most surprising to you about online dating?
What really surprised me was the overwhelming response from men who are looking for love and at the same time are so terrified of age. They’d say things like, “You’re an interesting woman, but I really need to be with someone 45,” or they’d say, “You want to go to Viagra falls?” Or they were still playing the role of men from other, lost generations. Very, “I’m Tarzan, you Jane” kind of thing. Most of the men won’t respond if you say your real age.
What’s your worst online dating horror story?
There was a retired surgeon who sounded on phone like he was very intellectual, so we set up a meeting at Starbucks, near my house. He walked in, sat down, and he looked like a man who had been left on an island. He looked like a homeless person.
It turned out that he’d just gotten out of prison. He had been in prison a long time and I was his first date. On the phone he made it sound like he still had practice!
Then there was the serial JDater. I met him on JDate, we met for a cocktail and I liked him immediately. He was a very elegant man, a very attractive man. He was in his early 70s, but very, as you’d say, cool, successful -- all those things. And I thought, “Oh my God.” And so we got involved. But very quickly I found out he was on JDate like an hour after he brought me home. It’s like a big candy store for some of these guys, particularly the ones who are not terribly mature or terribly serious about having a committed relationship.
What did you consider the best and worst online dating sites?
I really did like JDate.com, and I also liked Match.com. With Match.com, you can meet anyone from any culture. It’s diversified, but I think it’s 99 percent honest. It seemed very comfortable and I never really, outside of one or two times, got any horrible lies.
I disliked eHarmony intensely with all the rules. I remember when I first filled out its questionnaire, I got a notice: "You’re not fit for our site."
There are some sites that really don’t want you if you're older, like eHarmony. They’ll deny it of course, but it was so obvious. There was another one that I actually called. I got a live person on the phone and I asked, “Do you have something against someone over 60?” and they said, “We prefer no older than 50.” There’s a lot of disease still in online dating and that disease is ageism.
In your experience, what do people in your age demographic lie most about on online dating sites?
They all use pictures that were taken 20 years ago, and a lot of women have pictures taken, then airbrushed. Most of them definitely lied about their age. For example, this doctor I met who had this incredible resume and exciting mind, but he was at least 20 years older than he said and had his hair dyed and a facelift. If guys said they’re 60, they’re usually 75, and if they said they’re 74, they’re usually 92.
I met one man who said he was a widower. He sounded neat and we decided to meet at the bar of a restaurant in North Beach. He described himself as looking like Clint Eastwood, and when I met him I could tell there was something really off off off. And I said, “When did your wife die?” And he said, “Two days ago.”
What's the most important thing that online dating sites need to do better?
To me, the sites seem a little outdated now. They seem kind of old-fashioned with the "put your profile in and meet the man of your dreams” kind of thing. And I think that the way the sites are set up, they’re just not honest. They’re not true. Some people will meet the man of their dreams or woman of their dreams, but most won’t. It’s like going through an airport and getting on the wrong plane.
The rules that they have just seem so ridiculous. And the questions! I don’t know who writes them, but they really have to revisit them for everyone, period.
What’s your advice for other “boomer hotties,” as you call them, who want to online date?
I always say: Talk to the younger people and find out what you should do technologically. I have a son-in-law who’s a multimedia geek, and he makes lists for me. I’d get somebody you feel comfortable with and you’re not afraid to feel stupid with to help and show you. And then gradually, start learning. I wouldn’t do it all at once because I’m still overwhelmed by the sites I'm on and they’re growing so fast.
It’s better than going to a spa and it‘s better than getting Botox because with just one app you feel really cool and you feel younger. I want to be with the next generation, I don’t want to be with the last generation. And the only way you can do it is through technology.
UPDATE: An earlier version of this story incorrectly spelled Brooker's last name. The correct spelling of her name is Barbara Rose Brooker.
This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.
May 1, 2013
Zuckerberg: Folks On Facebook Are Happy With All The Ads We're Showing Them
A few things seem to hold true about Facebook users as a whole: They'll gripe about being friended by their bosses, they'll be annoyed by baby photos and they'll complain about ads.
But Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said during a quarterly earnings call Wednesday that the social network's new suite of ad offerings, which, among other changes, have inserted more ads into Facebook's desktop and mobile News Feed, aren't alienating users.
In fact, Zuckerberg said the company had been pleasantly surprised by how well Facebookers took to the sponsored posts, a warm reception that ensures users will only see more ads in the months ahead.
"What we're seeing is really positive and better than expectations," said Zuckerberg in response to a question about the ads. "We assumed sentiment and satisfaction might drop some amount and we continue to watch it really carefully because there’s no guarantee it won't in the future. But so far, what we see has made us confident there’s more we can do with advertising over time and we can ramp that up."
He also noted Facebook "continue[s] to measure satisfaction with all content, including ads."
Zuckerberg previously stressed the better-than-anticipated reaction to Facebook ads in the company's January earnings call. Improvements made to the algorithms Facebook uses to surface relevant content in the News Feed had increased people's likes, clicks and comments by 50 percent. Those interactions decreased by only 2 percent after ads were inserted, Zuckerberg said.
"We’re surprised that the quality has been naturally high and there’s been basically no engagement hit at all that’s very meaningful," he said in January.
What's not surprising is that Facebook, a company that makes most of its money from ads, would want to assure investors that its users aren't irked by them. But while Facebook says its data indicates people don't mind hearing more from companies, individual users haven't been bashful about sharing their distate for seeing increased advertising alongside their friends' photos and status updates.
"This is enough to stop me using facebook the way I have been. I have enough junk to sift through in my life!" wrote Facebooker Sonya Settle in a comment on a TechCrunch story about Facebook's plan to introduce ads into the News Feed.
Twitter, a frequent repository of complaints about Facebook, is full of gripes about its advertising.
"#Facebook, there are too many freakin ads on my news feed! fix that...." tweeted @_TonyBanks earlier this week.
"Facebook is really starting to suck #facebooksucks," tweeted another user. "too many ads, all the other bullshit. They really need to clean it up."
Zuckerberg noted that the company will work on improving the quality and relevancy of its ads through more personalized targeting -- in other words, it will put the personal data users have shared to work. Also, look for more pictures and even videos to come from advertisers: Facebook increased the prominence of images in the News Feed in part because advertisers prefer precisely that kind of media-rich messaging.
Instagram, which Facebook acquired last year, may be one area that isn't likely to see more ads, for the time being. Asked whether the photo-sharing app had a monetization strategy, Zuckerberg stressed that growing the app's userbase "should be 100 percent of the focus right now."
So what's your take? Are Facebook's ads getting to be too much, or do you like what you see?
But Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said during a quarterly earnings call Wednesday that the social network's new suite of ad offerings, which, among other changes, have inserted more ads into Facebook's desktop and mobile News Feed, aren't alienating users.
In fact, Zuckerberg said the company had been pleasantly surprised by how well Facebookers took to the sponsored posts, a warm reception that ensures users will only see more ads in the months ahead.
"What we're seeing is really positive and better than expectations," said Zuckerberg in response to a question about the ads. "We assumed sentiment and satisfaction might drop some amount and we continue to watch it really carefully because there’s no guarantee it won't in the future. But so far, what we see has made us confident there’s more we can do with advertising over time and we can ramp that up."
He also noted Facebook "continue[s] to measure satisfaction with all content, including ads."
Zuckerberg previously stressed the better-than-anticipated reaction to Facebook ads in the company's January earnings call. Improvements made to the algorithms Facebook uses to surface relevant content in the News Feed had increased people's likes, clicks and comments by 50 percent. Those interactions decreased by only 2 percent after ads were inserted, Zuckerberg said.
"We’re surprised that the quality has been naturally high and there’s been basically no engagement hit at all that’s very meaningful," he said in January.
What's not surprising is that Facebook, a company that makes most of its money from ads, would want to assure investors that its users aren't irked by them. But while Facebook says its data indicates people don't mind hearing more from companies, individual users haven't been bashful about sharing their distate for seeing increased advertising alongside their friends' photos and status updates.
"This is enough to stop me using facebook the way I have been. I have enough junk to sift through in my life!" wrote Facebooker Sonya Settle in a comment on a TechCrunch story about Facebook's plan to introduce ads into the News Feed.
Twitter, a frequent repository of complaints about Facebook, is full of gripes about its advertising.
"#Facebook, there are too many freakin ads on my news feed! fix that...." tweeted @_TonyBanks earlier this week.
"Facebook is really starting to suck #facebooksucks," tweeted another user. "too many ads, all the other bullshit. They really need to clean it up."
Zuckerberg noted that the company will work on improving the quality and relevancy of its ads through more personalized targeting -- in other words, it will put the personal data users have shared to work. Also, look for more pictures and even videos to come from advertisers: Facebook increased the prominence of images in the News Feed in part because advertisers prefer precisely that kind of media-rich messaging.
Instagram, which Facebook acquired last year, may be one area that isn't likely to see more ads, for the time being. Asked whether the photo-sharing app had a monetization strategy, Zuckerberg stressed that growing the app's userbase "should be 100 percent of the focus right now."
So what's your take? Are Facebook's ads getting to be too much, or do you like what you see?
April 29, 2013
Human Extinction: Could Our Greatest Innovations Lead To Our Own Demise? (VIDEO)
Technology is risky business. At least, that's what some scientists fear: the proposed Center for the Study of Existential Risk at the University of Cambridge will bring together researchers to brainstorm how we may prepare for technology-related and human-induced dangers in the future.
But what are these possible threats? Well, in part, it's too soon to tell -- that's precisely what the center hopes to study. Yet the center's co-founders have suggested we should pay more attention to the potential downsides of building sophisticated, artificially intelligent machines or of producing designer viruses. What if we build computers that are too smart for our own good, and they write their own code that wreaks havoc on our banking system or electrical grid? Or, what if a powerful genetically engineered virus is mistakenly let loose from a biotech lab and infects millions?
Dr. Martin Rees, entrepreneur and astrophysics professor at Cambridge, addressed these "what ifs" in the video above -- and/or click the link below for a full transcript. Plus, don't forget to sound off in the comments section at the bottom of the page.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL TRANSCRIPT
BIANCA BOSKER: Imagine you've turned on the morning news and discovered that an army of robots have self-assembled and are now making demands on national leaders. Or you check Twitter, and see that its exploded with news that a genetically engineered virus was mistakenly let loose from a biotech lab, and is now infecting millions of people. Sounds like something from a Hollywood flick or sci-fi novel, right? But actually, researchers at Cambridge University’s Center for the Study of Existential Risk are investigating the likelihood of these kinds of doomsday scenarios becoming a reality. Their core question is: Could our own inventions make us not just obsolete, but eradicate us entirely?
MARTIN REES: Obviously there are risks connected with effects on the environment, runaway disasters there. There are risks in computer networks breaking down and there are other risks from potential new technology and of course there’s a continuing risk of some kind of nuclear catastrophe. So all these things are possible and one thing we certainly do is to get a group of scientists crossing all fields together and have them to brainstorm.
BB: Researchers at the center will focus on four key areas that could pose the greatest risk to humans in the future. They are nuclear, cyber, biological and environmental threats.
MR: It’s valuable in its own right to try and have as complete a list as possible of threats, including even the crazy ones, so that as evidence comes in, you adjust your betting odds against the different ones and decide which are serious and which are not.
BB: Never before, in the earth's history, has the threat from man-made catastrophes been equal to natural ones. And while we know we can survive earthquakes and tsunamis, we don’t have any real experience surviving these human-induced doomsdays situations.
MR: The human impact on the biosphere and on the climate is for the first time substantial. And we are threatened by small groups empowered by powerful technology. So this is the first century when one species, namely ours, will determine the future of the planet.
BB: So are any of these scenarios, like an explosion of super germs or a take-over of artificial intelligence, overhyped?
MR: We worry far too much about plane crashes and things like that. We expend far too little worry on these other less familiar threats. I think it's important to bear in mind that the fact that something is unfamiliar doesn't mean it's improbable.
BB: So, in other words, don't sweat the small stuff -- especially when a robot-apocalypse could be on the horizon. We'll be keeping an eye on the center's work as they draw the line between science fiction and science fact. In the meantime, tell us what you think: Will technology be to humans what the asteroid was to the dinosaurs?
See all Talk Nerdy to Me posts.
But what are these possible threats? Well, in part, it's too soon to tell -- that's precisely what the center hopes to study. Yet the center's co-founders have suggested we should pay more attention to the potential downsides of building sophisticated, artificially intelligent machines or of producing designer viruses. What if we build computers that are too smart for our own good, and they write their own code that wreaks havoc on our banking system or electrical grid? Or, what if a powerful genetically engineered virus is mistakenly let loose from a biotech lab and infects millions?
Dr. Martin Rees, entrepreneur and astrophysics professor at Cambridge, addressed these "what ifs" in the video above -- and/or click the link below for a full transcript. Plus, don't forget to sound off in the comments section at the bottom of the page.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL TRANSCRIPT
BIANCA BOSKER: Imagine you've turned on the morning news and discovered that an army of robots have self-assembled and are now making demands on national leaders. Or you check Twitter, and see that its exploded with news that a genetically engineered virus was mistakenly let loose from a biotech lab, and is now infecting millions of people. Sounds like something from a Hollywood flick or sci-fi novel, right? But actually, researchers at Cambridge University’s Center for the Study of Existential Risk are investigating the likelihood of these kinds of doomsday scenarios becoming a reality. Their core question is: Could our own inventions make us not just obsolete, but eradicate us entirely?
MARTIN REES: Obviously there are risks connected with effects on the environment, runaway disasters there. There are risks in computer networks breaking down and there are other risks from potential new technology and of course there’s a continuing risk of some kind of nuclear catastrophe. So all these things are possible and one thing we certainly do is to get a group of scientists crossing all fields together and have them to brainstorm.
BB: Researchers at the center will focus on four key areas that could pose the greatest risk to humans in the future. They are nuclear, cyber, biological and environmental threats.
MR: It’s valuable in its own right to try and have as complete a list as possible of threats, including even the crazy ones, so that as evidence comes in, you adjust your betting odds against the different ones and decide which are serious and which are not.
BB: Never before, in the earth's history, has the threat from man-made catastrophes been equal to natural ones. And while we know we can survive earthquakes and tsunamis, we don’t have any real experience surviving these human-induced doomsdays situations.
MR: The human impact on the biosphere and on the climate is for the first time substantial. And we are threatened by small groups empowered by powerful technology. So this is the first century when one species, namely ours, will determine the future of the planet.
BB: So are any of these scenarios, like an explosion of super germs or a take-over of artificial intelligence, overhyped?
MR: We worry far too much about plane crashes and things like that. We expend far too little worry on these other less familiar threats. I think it's important to bear in mind that the fact that something is unfamiliar doesn't mean it's improbable.
BB: So, in other words, don't sweat the small stuff -- especially when a robot-apocalypse could be on the horizon. We'll be keeping an eye on the center's work as they draw the line between science fiction and science fact. In the meantime, tell us what you think: Will technology be to humans what the asteroid was to the dinosaurs?
See all Talk Nerdy to Me posts.
April 25, 2013
How Desti Is Training Your IPad To Be Romantic And Fun
We’re used to asking computers for facts, like the population of San Francisco, the GDP of Indonesia, or the square root of 5,929. But can a computer -- all hard drive and no heart -- really be expected to form an opinion on where to wine and dine a lover?
Absolutely, according to Menlo Park-based startup Desti, which has created a virtual travel agent that aspires to master human-like judgment and taste.
Desti’s iPad application, launched last fall under the same name, lets people ask questions as if they were posing them to another person, and it answers using artificial intelligence technology that can glean meaning from online reviews.
By figuring out how people describe their travel experiences, Desti has created an algorithm that’s learning to be an expert in the fuzzy matters of opinion, not just the stuff of fact. The app can address subjective questions that have subjective answers by consulting subjective sources.
Desti understands, "I'm looking for a romantic place in Napa to take my wife,” and then "read" a Condé Nast article or TripAdvisor review knowing that references to fireplaces and Jacuzzis suggest a dreamy hideaway. The text needn’t ever explicitly mention “romantic” for Desti to recognize a spot as such.
“We are humanizing computers to a certain degree,” said Desti chief executive and co-founder Nadav Gur. “We’re making them experts.”
The startup belongs to a growing roster of companies creating software able to process our written communication to infer things we haven’t expressed explicitly, such as tone or intent. These firms are forging a new frontier with algorithms that have an ear for human expression, allowing them to provide insights once beyond the scope of machines. Bing Liu, a computer science professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, notes that his research team has been using so-called sentiment analysis to pinpoint social media users' political leanings through their updates.
Gur maintains Desti is unique in applying natural language processing -- the technology that helps computers decode the meaning of human speech or text -- both to understand questions asked and to deliver the correct responses.
The startup emerged from the same research institute, SRI International, as Siri. And like Apple’s virtual assistant, Desti allows people to phrase their questions naturally. But whereas Siri can only identify “fun,” “luxurious” or “outdoorsy” places if they’ve been tagged as such, Desti is taught to recognize what “luxurious” means and how to identify it from reviews posted online.
So how does a computer spot, say, a “fun” activity when it sees it?
Desti’s creators first had humans read through thousands of pieces of text, indicating which ones did and didn’t describe fun experiences. In a process known as supervised learning, the human readers provided a way of reasoning that the algorithm could emulate. Desti developers also fed the algorithm specific examples of “fun” pastimes.
Once trained to mimic humans’ analysis, Desti applies its pattern-recognition skills to comb through millions of reviews on thousands of sites, including Foursquare, Wikipedia and magazines. The app also knows to trust certain sources, such as Travel & Leisure, over others, like Yelp, where user-generated reviews could be fake or biased.
“There’s almost a psychological component to the analysis,” explained Desti’s chief scientist, Ofer Melnik.
Ask Desti for fun things to do in San Francisco, and it returns a list including the Musee Mecanique, Beach Blanket Babylon and the Marrakech Magic Theater -- hardly the typical tourist fare. For each place, Desti lists contact and location information, along with bullet points outlining features, price recommendations and tips culled from other reviews. Much like Kayak or Priceline, Desti takes a commission on any itinerary a user books through the app.
A selection of Desti's recommendations for fun things to do in San Francisco.
The company initially identified several hundred attributes Desti would use to organize its database of destinations, but has since added thousands more to the app’s brain. Gur says Desti tracks queries and adds new areas of expertise based on users’ requests. For example, the startup quickly realized, based on logs of questions being asked, that Desti needed to know what a “girls’ weekend” would entail. Still, certain queries stump Desti: It can’t quite figure out what “offbeat” activities there are in Portland (hint: a lot).
Given the huge variance in how people ask questions and describe their experiences, sentiment analysis and natural language processing become significantly more difficult the more categories an algorithm is forced to master. Liu, the UIC professor, notes that Desti is able to deliver on what it promises only by limiting its focus to travel.
“They’re using the fact that they’re working within a particular domain to get around some of the most difficult problems that natural language processing poses,” said Philip Resnik, director of the University of Maryland’s Computational Linguistics and Information Processing Laboratory. “Part of the reason that this is likely to work is because it’s working within a constrained setting.”
While Desti can help plan a vacation, it can’t yet assist with all your everyday needs, or even address all your travel queries. So far, the app, which has been in “beta” since November, can only offer advice on destinations in six states, including California, Hawaii and Washington. According to Gur, the startup will have the entire United States covered soon.
Though still limited by the attributes it can identify and which areas it knows well, Desti has earned a four-and-a-half star rating (out of five) on the App Store. Gur declined to specify how many times the app has been downloaded, but noted that it was one of the top 20 most-downloaded travel apps during the month of March.
Sheila Griffith, a blogger who runs the site Grandma Talks Tech, said Desti was initially confused by her request for a room for two with a Jacuzzi near downtown Las Vegas, but it got her meaning after she tweaked her question's wording.
“I was impressed,” she said. “It’s very intuitive, it’s very comprehensive and it gives all kinds of details.”
The technology that allows Desti to understand natural language questions and comments could be used to spawn a range of other virtual helpers, from personalized, on-demand shopping assistants to dating experts.
For example, instead of combing through Best Buy’s website for the perfect gadget or ticking off boxes to refine a search query, Desti’s technology could let shoppers make specific requests, like, “I’m looking for a DVD player to buy for my kids that’s under $200.”
From finding romantic restaurants, the app might even evolve to advising on romantic relationships. Desti’s progeny could one day interpret an email exchange between lovers, and help a miffed girlfriend determine whether her partner was intentionally rude, or merely rushed, Gur said. Unclouded by human emotion, an intelligent dating assistant could offer unbiased advice, or even recognize patterns in human behavior.
“We used to have a divide between things that people can do well and computers can do well,” said Melnik, the Desti developer. “I think more and more, we will see computers doing things we’re used to thinking people are only able to do.”
Absolutely, according to Menlo Park-based startup Desti, which has created a virtual travel agent that aspires to master human-like judgment and taste.
Desti’s iPad application, launched last fall under the same name, lets people ask questions as if they were posing them to another person, and it answers using artificial intelligence technology that can glean meaning from online reviews.
By figuring out how people describe their travel experiences, Desti has created an algorithm that’s learning to be an expert in the fuzzy matters of opinion, not just the stuff of fact. The app can address subjective questions that have subjective answers by consulting subjective sources.
Desti understands, "I'm looking for a romantic place in Napa to take my wife,” and then "read" a Condé Nast article or TripAdvisor review knowing that references to fireplaces and Jacuzzis suggest a dreamy hideaway. The text needn’t ever explicitly mention “romantic” for Desti to recognize a spot as such.
“We are humanizing computers to a certain degree,” said Desti chief executive and co-founder Nadav Gur. “We’re making them experts.”
The startup belongs to a growing roster of companies creating software able to process our written communication to infer things we haven’t expressed explicitly, such as tone or intent. These firms are forging a new frontier with algorithms that have an ear for human expression, allowing them to provide insights once beyond the scope of machines. Bing Liu, a computer science professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, notes that his research team has been using so-called sentiment analysis to pinpoint social media users' political leanings through their updates.
Gur maintains Desti is unique in applying natural language processing -- the technology that helps computers decode the meaning of human speech or text -- both to understand questions asked and to deliver the correct responses.
The startup emerged from the same research institute, SRI International, as Siri. And like Apple’s virtual assistant, Desti allows people to phrase their questions naturally. But whereas Siri can only identify “fun,” “luxurious” or “outdoorsy” places if they’ve been tagged as such, Desti is taught to recognize what “luxurious” means and how to identify it from reviews posted online.
So how does a computer spot, say, a “fun” activity when it sees it?
Desti’s creators first had humans read through thousands of pieces of text, indicating which ones did and didn’t describe fun experiences. In a process known as supervised learning, the human readers provided a way of reasoning that the algorithm could emulate. Desti developers also fed the algorithm specific examples of “fun” pastimes.
Once trained to mimic humans’ analysis, Desti applies its pattern-recognition skills to comb through millions of reviews on thousands of sites, including Foursquare, Wikipedia and magazines. The app also knows to trust certain sources, such as Travel & Leisure, over others, like Yelp, where user-generated reviews could be fake or biased.
“There’s almost a psychological component to the analysis,” explained Desti’s chief scientist, Ofer Melnik.
Ask Desti for fun things to do in San Francisco, and it returns a list including the Musee Mecanique, Beach Blanket Babylon and the Marrakech Magic Theater -- hardly the typical tourist fare. For each place, Desti lists contact and location information, along with bullet points outlining features, price recommendations and tips culled from other reviews. Much like Kayak or Priceline, Desti takes a commission on any itinerary a user books through the app.
A selection of Desti's recommendations for fun things to do in San Francisco.
The company initially identified several hundred attributes Desti would use to organize its database of destinations, but has since added thousands more to the app’s brain. Gur says Desti tracks queries and adds new areas of expertise based on users’ requests. For example, the startup quickly realized, based on logs of questions being asked, that Desti needed to know what a “girls’ weekend” would entail. Still, certain queries stump Desti: It can’t quite figure out what “offbeat” activities there are in Portland (hint: a lot).
Given the huge variance in how people ask questions and describe their experiences, sentiment analysis and natural language processing become significantly more difficult the more categories an algorithm is forced to master. Liu, the UIC professor, notes that Desti is able to deliver on what it promises only by limiting its focus to travel.
“They’re using the fact that they’re working within a particular domain to get around some of the most difficult problems that natural language processing poses,” said Philip Resnik, director of the University of Maryland’s Computational Linguistics and Information Processing Laboratory. “Part of the reason that this is likely to work is because it’s working within a constrained setting.”
While Desti can help plan a vacation, it can’t yet assist with all your everyday needs, or even address all your travel queries. So far, the app, which has been in “beta” since November, can only offer advice on destinations in six states, including California, Hawaii and Washington. According to Gur, the startup will have the entire United States covered soon.
Though still limited by the attributes it can identify and which areas it knows well, Desti has earned a four-and-a-half star rating (out of five) on the App Store. Gur declined to specify how many times the app has been downloaded, but noted that it was one of the top 20 most-downloaded travel apps during the month of March.
Sheila Griffith, a blogger who runs the site Grandma Talks Tech, said Desti was initially confused by her request for a room for two with a Jacuzzi near downtown Las Vegas, but it got her meaning after she tweaked her question's wording.
“I was impressed,” she said. “It’s very intuitive, it’s very comprehensive and it gives all kinds of details.”
The technology that allows Desti to understand natural language questions and comments could be used to spawn a range of other virtual helpers, from personalized, on-demand shopping assistants to dating experts.
For example, instead of combing through Best Buy’s website for the perfect gadget or ticking off boxes to refine a search query, Desti’s technology could let shoppers make specific requests, like, “I’m looking for a DVD player to buy for my kids that’s under $200.”
From finding romantic restaurants, the app might even evolve to advising on romantic relationships. Desti’s progeny could one day interpret an email exchange between lovers, and help a miffed girlfriend determine whether her partner was intentionally rude, or merely rushed, Gur said. Unclouded by human emotion, an intelligent dating assistant could offer unbiased advice, or even recognize patterns in human behavior.
“We used to have a divide between things that people can do well and computers can do well,” said Melnik, the Desti developer. “I think more and more, we will see computers doing things we’re used to thinking people are only able to do.”
April 24, 2013
3D Printers Could Actually Make Donuts Healthy
These days, restaurant dishes can’t be customized too far beyond requests to hold the dressing or to cook the meat medium-rare.
But thanks to 3D printing technology, along with the proliferation of sensors tracking our activities and tastes, future meals -- even mass-produced ones -- could be tailored specifically to suit an individual’s dietary needs. A dish someone is served might even be calibrated to the calories she burned that day.
Jeffrey Lipton, a doctoral candidate at Cornell University’s Creative Machines Lab and chief technology officer of Seraph Robotics, argues that the emerging category of data-driven food is destined to make up a much larger part of our diet in the years to come.
Lipton predicts that cloud computing, 3D printing and the explosion in digitized personal data will together allow for the mass customization of meals, letting chefs instantly produce dishes that offer the recommended quantities of sugar, fat or sodium when given diners' health records.
Instead of eating a quarter of a donut to cut calories, you instead might be able to buy a whole pastry from the corner deli, then watch the donut 3D printed before your eyes -- with one-fourth the calories and just the right amount of fiber to bring you up to your daily minimum.
"Once you have the automatic collection of what you’re eating and when, you can predict -- based off your activity levels, your planned diet and your health records -- exactly how much and what types of food you should be eating. That’s really ultimately the long-term potential of food printing," explained Lipton during a lecture at the Inside 3D Printing conference in New York City on Tuesday. "It’s going to be about this automated production of food where you have the entire cloud of information helping to guide you forward."
Some of the latest cutting-edge research taking place in Cornell University’s Fab@Home lab, which explores personal fabrication, has focused on something deceptively simple: a recipe for snowflake-shaped sugar cookies.
The lab succeeded in printing what Lipton dubs “data-driven cookies.” He and his colleague, Hod Lipson, each compiled information about their height, weight, body mass index, daily schedule and caloric deficit for the day, then used 3D printers to print two cookies that each accounted for 10 percent of their respective caloric deficits.
“They’re both the same size cookies,” explained Lipton, “but composed of different ingredients based on our nutritional requirements.”
Lipton's "data-driven" cookie.
In addition to sugar cookies, chefs and researchers have experimented with 3D-printing everything from scallops in the shape of buildings and chocolates molded after lovers’ faces to pasta, chips and meat. Cake batter, shrimp paste, chocolate, and frosting are used as the raw ingredients for the printers, which build objects by laying down layer after layer of the material in the desired shape. Lipton noted that four publicly-traded food companies have 3D printers they’re using to prototype new edibles.
A 3D printer creating a snack.
The concept of customized nutrition on a mass scale holds particular promise for people with strict dietary regimens, such as pregnant women and the elderly. Scientists at the University of New Zealand and TNO, a research institute in the Netrehlands, are also exploring how technology and 3D printing can be harnessed for customized nutrition.
So how long before people can expect to see pizzas printed before their eyes?
In addition to the technical challenges of creating materials that are both edible and printer-appropriate, the cost of 3D printing is still prohibitively high to make mass printed food production feasible. Lipton anticipates that novelty items like birthday cakes and chocolates will be the first areas where 3D-printed foods catch on.
Eventually, however, restaurants might be able to tap information about their diners’ medical history, dining habits and exercise regimens, then whip up meals to precisely suit their health needs, even before they're ordered.
“A computer network could easily ... print out a list of the ingredients the chef needs to put in [a meal] and change the recipe slightly and create a design space for them,” explained Lipton. “If we can automate the production of food, we’ll be able to capture information, store it in the cloud and so the cloud will know what you want in any restaurant before you do.”
But thanks to 3D printing technology, along with the proliferation of sensors tracking our activities and tastes, future meals -- even mass-produced ones -- could be tailored specifically to suit an individual’s dietary needs. A dish someone is served might even be calibrated to the calories she burned that day.
Jeffrey Lipton, a doctoral candidate at Cornell University’s Creative Machines Lab and chief technology officer of Seraph Robotics, argues that the emerging category of data-driven food is destined to make up a much larger part of our diet in the years to come.
Lipton predicts that cloud computing, 3D printing and the explosion in digitized personal data will together allow for the mass customization of meals, letting chefs instantly produce dishes that offer the recommended quantities of sugar, fat or sodium when given diners' health records.
Instead of eating a quarter of a donut to cut calories, you instead might be able to buy a whole pastry from the corner deli, then watch the donut 3D printed before your eyes -- with one-fourth the calories and just the right amount of fiber to bring you up to your daily minimum.
"Once you have the automatic collection of what you’re eating and when, you can predict -- based off your activity levels, your planned diet and your health records -- exactly how much and what types of food you should be eating. That’s really ultimately the long-term potential of food printing," explained Lipton during a lecture at the Inside 3D Printing conference in New York City on Tuesday. "It’s going to be about this automated production of food where you have the entire cloud of information helping to guide you forward."
Some of the latest cutting-edge research taking place in Cornell University’s Fab@Home lab, which explores personal fabrication, has focused on something deceptively simple: a recipe for snowflake-shaped sugar cookies.
The lab succeeded in printing what Lipton dubs “data-driven cookies.” He and his colleague, Hod Lipson, each compiled information about their height, weight, body mass index, daily schedule and caloric deficit for the day, then used 3D printers to print two cookies that each accounted for 10 percent of their respective caloric deficits.
“They’re both the same size cookies,” explained Lipton, “but composed of different ingredients based on our nutritional requirements.”
Lipton's "data-driven" cookie.
In addition to sugar cookies, chefs and researchers have experimented with 3D-printing everything from scallops in the shape of buildings and chocolates molded after lovers’ faces to pasta, chips and meat. Cake batter, shrimp paste, chocolate, and frosting are used as the raw ingredients for the printers, which build objects by laying down layer after layer of the material in the desired shape. Lipton noted that four publicly-traded food companies have 3D printers they’re using to prototype new edibles.
A 3D printer creating a snack.
The concept of customized nutrition on a mass scale holds particular promise for people with strict dietary regimens, such as pregnant women and the elderly. Scientists at the University of New Zealand and TNO, a research institute in the Netrehlands, are also exploring how technology and 3D printing can be harnessed for customized nutrition.
So how long before people can expect to see pizzas printed before their eyes?
In addition to the technical challenges of creating materials that are both edible and printer-appropriate, the cost of 3D printing is still prohibitively high to make mass printed food production feasible. Lipton anticipates that novelty items like birthday cakes and chocolates will be the first areas where 3D-printed foods catch on.
Eventually, however, restaurants might be able to tap information about their diners’ medical history, dining habits and exercise regimens, then whip up meals to precisely suit their health needs, even before they're ordered.
“A computer network could easily ... print out a list of the ingredients the chef needs to put in [a meal] and change the recipe slightly and create a design space for them,” explained Lipton. “If we can automate the production of food, we’ll be able to capture information, store it in the cloud and so the cloud will know what you want in any restaurant before you do.”
April 19, 2013
Robot-Human Interaction: Will We Bond With Bots In The Future? (VIDEO)
We often think of robots as merely assembly-line tools meant for physical labor. But they're capable of much more than that: like companionship, and even love.
Will we come to depend on robots as a source of empathy? And will we welcome them everywhere, from the boardroom to the bedroom? Research scientist Dr. Leila Takayama studies human-robot interaction at robotics lab Willow Garage, and has seen our relationship with bots evolve.
What's her take on our future bond with bots? Find out in the video above, and/or click the link below for a full transcript. And don't forget to sound off in the comments section at the bottom of the page.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL TRANSCRIPT
BIANCA BOSKER: They can take out the trash, cook us dinner, and feed the dog. They can even make us laugh, smile, or cry. No, I’m not talking about our loved ones. I’m talking about robots, which are becoming more intelligent and socially aware. Some even say we'll soon have robots as our lovers. So could you have an emotional relationship with a robot? The answer might surprise you.
LEILA TAKAYAMA: In terms of people having emotions for those robots, people fall in love with their cars. And it’s a different kind of love than for other people, but it’s a real emotion and it’s a real thing that I can think we need to be looking at.
BB: Takayama, with Willow Garages's help, is building robots that can help you with household chores, and go to the office while you work from home. And that’s just the beginning. Researchers around the world are trying out robots that care for the elderly. And there are even people working on sex robots. Dr. Hooman Samani, a pioneer in the field of "lovotics," melding love and robotics, is creating robots that can actually kiss humans to let lovers smooch from afar. He's even testing robots that love and are loved by people. But what would make us bond with robots? In part, it's the same thing that makes us bond with people -- the ability to learn and use appropriate social cues.
LT: If the robot succeeds in opening a door so that it could do a task for you, it could look a little bit happy and that can actually help with the way that that robot feels appealing and approachable. Same thing if it fails, if that robot at least looks like it feels a little bad about failing, that increases the appeal and approachability and perceived competence of that robot.
BB: As it turns out, Emily Post could have a thing or two to teach a robot. Just like people, robots can alienate us by seeming rude and abrasive -- interrupting, crowding us in hallways or just running away.
LT: They have no manners. They know nothing about social intelligence. So a robot that’s trying to, say, navigate a hallway will just barrel through the middle of that group of people talking. And it’s not because it’s trying to be rude, but it is perceived as rude.
BB: Scientists like Takayama are now trying to teach robots manners and social skills -- like how to give a human the right personal space. But here's the catch: even people with bad manners have the advantage of being able to pick up on things robots can’t, like facial cues, tone of voice and body language. So, do these bots stand a chance?
LT: There’s a lot of subtlety in things like timing. Knowing when to talk, knowing when to listen. Knowing when someone wants to interact with you, and knowing when they’d rather withdraw and be on their own. But it’s hard for people, and it’s going to be hard for robots too.
BB: So the real question is, would you want a robot as your best friend? Tell us what you think.
To keep the conversation going, check out this recent HuffPost Live segment on human-robot interaction.
See all Talk Nerdy to Me posts.
Will we come to depend on robots as a source of empathy? And will we welcome them everywhere, from the boardroom to the bedroom? Research scientist Dr. Leila Takayama studies human-robot interaction at robotics lab Willow Garage, and has seen our relationship with bots evolve.
What's her take on our future bond with bots? Find out in the video above, and/or click the link below for a full transcript. And don't forget to sound off in the comments section at the bottom of the page.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL TRANSCRIPT
BIANCA BOSKER: They can take out the trash, cook us dinner, and feed the dog. They can even make us laugh, smile, or cry. No, I’m not talking about our loved ones. I’m talking about robots, which are becoming more intelligent and socially aware. Some even say we'll soon have robots as our lovers. So could you have an emotional relationship with a robot? The answer might surprise you.
LEILA TAKAYAMA: In terms of people having emotions for those robots, people fall in love with their cars. And it’s a different kind of love than for other people, but it’s a real emotion and it’s a real thing that I can think we need to be looking at.
BB: Takayama, with Willow Garages's help, is building robots that can help you with household chores, and go to the office while you work from home. And that’s just the beginning. Researchers around the world are trying out robots that care for the elderly. And there are even people working on sex robots. Dr. Hooman Samani, a pioneer in the field of "lovotics," melding love and robotics, is creating robots that can actually kiss humans to let lovers smooch from afar. He's even testing robots that love and are loved by people. But what would make us bond with robots? In part, it's the same thing that makes us bond with people -- the ability to learn and use appropriate social cues.
LT: If the robot succeeds in opening a door so that it could do a task for you, it could look a little bit happy and that can actually help with the way that that robot feels appealing and approachable. Same thing if it fails, if that robot at least looks like it feels a little bad about failing, that increases the appeal and approachability and perceived competence of that robot.
BB: As it turns out, Emily Post could have a thing or two to teach a robot. Just like people, robots can alienate us by seeming rude and abrasive -- interrupting, crowding us in hallways or just running away.
LT: They have no manners. They know nothing about social intelligence. So a robot that’s trying to, say, navigate a hallway will just barrel through the middle of that group of people talking. And it’s not because it’s trying to be rude, but it is perceived as rude.
BB: Scientists like Takayama are now trying to teach robots manners and social skills -- like how to give a human the right personal space. But here's the catch: even people with bad manners have the advantage of being able to pick up on things robots can’t, like facial cues, tone of voice and body language. So, do these bots stand a chance?
LT: There’s a lot of subtlety in things like timing. Knowing when to talk, knowing when to listen. Knowing when someone wants to interact with you, and knowing when they’d rather withdraw and be on their own. But it’s hard for people, and it’s going to be hard for robots too.
BB: So the real question is, would you want a robot as your best friend? Tell us what you think.
To keep the conversation going, check out this recent HuffPost Live segment on human-robot interaction.
See all Talk Nerdy to Me posts.
April 16, 2013
Gavin Andresen, Bitcoin Architect: Meet The Man Bringing You Bitcoin (And Getting Paid In It)
Depending on whom you ask and when, Gavin Andresen is either bitcoin’s greatest champion or out to destroy the virtual currency.
Andresen serves as the chief scientist of the Bitcoin Foundation, a group modeled after the Linux foundation that aims to provide some organization to bitcoin’s expansion, from establishing new ways to process transactions, to maintaining the Bitcoin.org site.
A kind of cash for the Internet, bitcoin marks the world’s first online, decentralized currency supported by peer-to-peer transactions, rather than government backing. Since mid March, the value of a single bitcoin skyrocketed from $47 to a record high of $250, then fell back down to its current price of around $72.
Andresen acts as arbiter and architect for the bitcoin community and helps coordinate improvements to the core bitcoin software used by the worldwide community. His toughest job, he notes, is trying to reach a consensus among the open source currency's distributed supporters, who correspond via inter-relay chat channels, on forums and on mailing lists.
HuffPostTech spoke with Andresen about being paid in bitcoin, why the virtual currency could one day be like email and who’s eyeing bitcoin now.
Bitcoin prides itself on being a decentralized currency supported by a decentralized group. So how did you come to have the position as chief scientist?
For my first bitcoin project in 2010, I created a site that then became pretty famous called the Bitcoin Faucet. I was giving away five bitcoins to anyone who went there. I started to submit code to Satoshi [Nakamoto, bitcoin's mysterious and anonymous creator] to improve the core system. Over time he trusted my judgment on the code I wrote. And eventually, he pulled a fast one on me because he asked me if it’d be OK if he put my email address on the bitcoin homepage, and I said yes, not realizing that when he put my email address there, he’d take his away. I was the person everyone would email when they wanted to know about bitcoin. Satoshi started stepping back as leader of project and pushing me forward as the leader of the project.
Do you have a political motivation for getting involved in bitcoin?
As I’ve gotten older, I’ve become mostly libertarian. I’m generally of the opinion that less government tends to be better just because I’m very suspicious of concentrated power. I realized that a lot of the evils in the world come from people who take or are given too much power, and often the way that they get there is through government.
You’re paid in bitcoin. How does that work? Have you been able sever ties with fiat currency?
My contract is written in terms of dollars and the exchange rate into bitcoins is calculated. It was being calculated every three months, but because of the current price volatility, it was decided my salary would be re-pegged every month. My salary is converted to bitcoin and taxes are taken out. You have to do all the tax computations in dollars because the IRS does not deal in bitcoins.
My first preference is to buy things that are sold for bitcoins using my salary although I will admit I’ve been diversifying out of bitcoins because it just doesn’t make sense to have all your eggs in one basket. I put a good chunk of my long-term savings in traditional investments, like index mutual funds.
So what can you buy with your bitcoins?
I convinced my barber to take bitcoins for haircuts. Just yesterday I purchased a new wallet using bitcoin which I’m excited about. The Bitcoin Store has a bunch of electronics available for bitcoin now. The online store actually changes their prices constantly -- every few minutes -- depending on what the exchange rate it.
I think more and more merchants will sign on to accept bitcoin as other form of payment. Just a few days ago, I saw a company that lets you buy hotel rooms and airline tickets for bitcoin.
How would you characterize bitcoin’s mission?
The mission is really to create a stable worldwide currency for the internet. And to let people all over the world to transact with each other as easily as people all over the world send email to each other.
I think bitcoin will have a similar adoption as email, which started out with the very technologically literate and spread to be more and more ubiquitous as it became easier to use. And just as it got easier to use email, it will be easier to use Bitcoin as people invest in it and become more familiar with it.
What is the greatest challenge bitcoin faces in realizing that mission?
The first is, is it fair? A lot of people feel like bitcoin is not fair because if you hold some bitcoins from when a pizza cost 10,000 bitcoins, as bitcoin has gained adoption, those bitcoins have become more valuable. bitcoin is in some ways it's like a high-tech Internet start-up where the people who start the successful start-up become wealthy because they created something that the whole world wants to use. I think a lot of people won’t want to use [bitcoin] because they feel like, “Oh, we’re helping those early-adopter geeks get rich.” I don’t know how you fix that. Bitcoin couldn’t be created full fledged.
The other big challenge is that no one knows the answer to, how will governments react? There’s a lot of thought that bitcoin will be a huge threat to existing tax systems or existing ways governments have of controlling currency flows across their border. I personally think governments will do what governments have always done: they will adapt.
Is bitcoin a currency or commodity?
I don’t think we know yet. It fulfills both purposes and looks a little bit like both. I don’t know if it will be used like gold -- where people store it and use it as token of wealth -- or if people use them like dollars, where you do use them as means of exchange.
How has the makeup of the bitcoin community changed in the last four years?
It started out among really technical people who were interested in cryptography and technology. Then the first early, non-geek people tended to be very libertarian and very distrustful of the Federal Reserve and government money. We’ve started to see some interest from people who love gold, and who see bitcoin as an electronic version of gold. Fairly recently, over the last six to eight months, we’ve seen a lot of interest from Silicon Valley venture capitalist folks who see it less as internet currency that might replace fiat currency someday, and more as a low cost payment network.
Are there countries you see embracing bitcoin sooner than others?
I could imagine bitcoin taking off some place other than the U.S. first. I carry about a Zimbabwe $1 trillionTK note in my wallet as a visual aid. Here in the U.S., we’re lucky because our currency is the world’s reserve currency and it’s stable. I could imagine bitcoin taking off in a country like Zimbabwe because people remember that they can’t trust their government currency.
New bitcoins are generated, or "mined," when computers succeed at solving increasingly complex equations. Bloomberg recently described this mining process as an "environmental disaster" because of the energy required to power the machines working on the problems.
The bitcoin mining process incentivizes people to be as efficient as possible and use as little power as possible to create bitcoins and to validate the transactions. The more efficient you are, less you spend on electricity and the more profitable you’ll be. In the future, I expect to see bitcoin mining in places where electricity is free or cheap. You could put solar array in the Arizona desert attached to bitcoin miners and instead of trying to ship that electricity all over world, you could ship Bitcoin all over the world. The output of bitcoin mining is heat. You’ll see bitcoin mining happening in places where people need heat anyway. I could imagine bitcoin heaters that, in addition to generating heat, generate bitcoin.]
You mentioned your wife was wary of bitcoin at first. Has she come around in light of its recent prominence and price hike?
Yes. She no longer calls it my "make-believe money project."
Andresen serves as the chief scientist of the Bitcoin Foundation, a group modeled after the Linux foundation that aims to provide some organization to bitcoin’s expansion, from establishing new ways to process transactions, to maintaining the Bitcoin.org site.
A kind of cash for the Internet, bitcoin marks the world’s first online, decentralized currency supported by peer-to-peer transactions, rather than government backing. Since mid March, the value of a single bitcoin skyrocketed from $47 to a record high of $250, then fell back down to its current price of around $72.
Andresen acts as arbiter and architect for the bitcoin community and helps coordinate improvements to the core bitcoin software used by the worldwide community. His toughest job, he notes, is trying to reach a consensus among the open source currency's distributed supporters, who correspond via inter-relay chat channels, on forums and on mailing lists.
HuffPostTech spoke with Andresen about being paid in bitcoin, why the virtual currency could one day be like email and who’s eyeing bitcoin now.
Bitcoin prides itself on being a decentralized currency supported by a decentralized group. So how did you come to have the position as chief scientist?
For my first bitcoin project in 2010, I created a site that then became pretty famous called the Bitcoin Faucet. I was giving away five bitcoins to anyone who went there. I started to submit code to Satoshi [Nakamoto, bitcoin's mysterious and anonymous creator] to improve the core system. Over time he trusted my judgment on the code I wrote. And eventually, he pulled a fast one on me because he asked me if it’d be OK if he put my email address on the bitcoin homepage, and I said yes, not realizing that when he put my email address there, he’d take his away. I was the person everyone would email when they wanted to know about bitcoin. Satoshi started stepping back as leader of project and pushing me forward as the leader of the project.
Do you have a political motivation for getting involved in bitcoin?
As I’ve gotten older, I’ve become mostly libertarian. I’m generally of the opinion that less government tends to be better just because I’m very suspicious of concentrated power. I realized that a lot of the evils in the world come from people who take or are given too much power, and often the way that they get there is through government.
You’re paid in bitcoin. How does that work? Have you been able sever ties with fiat currency?
My contract is written in terms of dollars and the exchange rate into bitcoins is calculated. It was being calculated every three months, but because of the current price volatility, it was decided my salary would be re-pegged every month. My salary is converted to bitcoin and taxes are taken out. You have to do all the tax computations in dollars because the IRS does not deal in bitcoins.
My first preference is to buy things that are sold for bitcoins using my salary although I will admit I’ve been diversifying out of bitcoins because it just doesn’t make sense to have all your eggs in one basket. I put a good chunk of my long-term savings in traditional investments, like index mutual funds.
So what can you buy with your bitcoins?
I convinced my barber to take bitcoins for haircuts. Just yesterday I purchased a new wallet using bitcoin which I’m excited about. The Bitcoin Store has a bunch of electronics available for bitcoin now. The online store actually changes their prices constantly -- every few minutes -- depending on what the exchange rate it.
I think more and more merchants will sign on to accept bitcoin as other form of payment. Just a few days ago, I saw a company that lets you buy hotel rooms and airline tickets for bitcoin.
How would you characterize bitcoin’s mission?
The mission is really to create a stable worldwide currency for the internet. And to let people all over the world to transact with each other as easily as people all over the world send email to each other.
I think bitcoin will have a similar adoption as email, which started out with the very technologically literate and spread to be more and more ubiquitous as it became easier to use. And just as it got easier to use email, it will be easier to use Bitcoin as people invest in it and become more familiar with it.
What is the greatest challenge bitcoin faces in realizing that mission?
The first is, is it fair? A lot of people feel like bitcoin is not fair because if you hold some bitcoins from when a pizza cost 10,000 bitcoins, as bitcoin has gained adoption, those bitcoins have become more valuable. bitcoin is in some ways it's like a high-tech Internet start-up where the people who start the successful start-up become wealthy because they created something that the whole world wants to use. I think a lot of people won’t want to use [bitcoin] because they feel like, “Oh, we’re helping those early-adopter geeks get rich.” I don’t know how you fix that. Bitcoin couldn’t be created full fledged.
The other big challenge is that no one knows the answer to, how will governments react? There’s a lot of thought that bitcoin will be a huge threat to existing tax systems or existing ways governments have of controlling currency flows across their border. I personally think governments will do what governments have always done: they will adapt.
Is bitcoin a currency or commodity?
I don’t think we know yet. It fulfills both purposes and looks a little bit like both. I don’t know if it will be used like gold -- where people store it and use it as token of wealth -- or if people use them like dollars, where you do use them as means of exchange.
How has the makeup of the bitcoin community changed in the last four years?
It started out among really technical people who were interested in cryptography and technology. Then the first early, non-geek people tended to be very libertarian and very distrustful of the Federal Reserve and government money. We’ve started to see some interest from people who love gold, and who see bitcoin as an electronic version of gold. Fairly recently, over the last six to eight months, we’ve seen a lot of interest from Silicon Valley venture capitalist folks who see it less as internet currency that might replace fiat currency someday, and more as a low cost payment network.
Are there countries you see embracing bitcoin sooner than others?
I could imagine bitcoin taking off some place other than the U.S. first. I carry about a Zimbabwe $1 trillionTK note in my wallet as a visual aid. Here in the U.S., we’re lucky because our currency is the world’s reserve currency and it’s stable. I could imagine bitcoin taking off in a country like Zimbabwe because people remember that they can’t trust their government currency.
New bitcoins are generated, or "mined," when computers succeed at solving increasingly complex equations. Bloomberg recently described this mining process as an "environmental disaster" because of the energy required to power the machines working on the problems.
The bitcoin mining process incentivizes people to be as efficient as possible and use as little power as possible to create bitcoins and to validate the transactions. The more efficient you are, less you spend on electricity and the more profitable you’ll be. In the future, I expect to see bitcoin mining in places where electricity is free or cheap. You could put solar array in the Arizona desert attached to bitcoin miners and instead of trying to ship that electricity all over world, you could ship Bitcoin all over the world. The output of bitcoin mining is heat. You’ll see bitcoin mining happening in places where people need heat anyway. I could imagine bitcoin heaters that, in addition to generating heat, generate bitcoin.]
You mentioned your wife was wary of bitcoin at first. Has she come around in light of its recent prominence and price hike?
Yes. She no longer calls it my "make-believe money project."
Marathon de Boston : six secondes d'horreur en boucle sur Vine (VIDÉO)
MARATHON DE BOSTON - Moins d'une heure après avoir été postée, la vidéo de Doug Lorman de l'explosion qui a eu lieu au Marathon de Boston -tirée d'un reportage télévisé et partagée sur Twitter- était retweetée plus de 15.700 fois et regardée par plus de 35.000 internautes. Les personnes sans accès à Twitter se l'envoyaient également par sms.
Le clip a été posté grâce à Vine, l'application Twitter qui héberge des vidéos, lancée cette année. Étant donné que Vine limite la durée des vidéos à six secondes et que ces six secondes sont automatiquement rejouées en boucle, la vidéo de Lorman a montré la bombe explosant encore et encore, six horribles secondes suivies de six horribles secondes.
Dès que la vidéo commence à jouer, il y a un flash de lumière jaune, suivi de fumée. Les drapeaux se renversent et les marathoniens continuent de courir vers la ligne d'arrivée. Et ça recommence. De la fumée apparaît derrière les drapeaux qui sont au beau milieu de la rue. Les coureurs regardent autour d'eux. Et ça recommence. La fumée, les drapeaux, les coureurs. D'autres détails commencent à apparaître alors que la vidéo se lance une troisième puis une quatrième fois. 4:09, un coureur au milieu du cadre se penche, ses jambes lâchent et il tombe à la renverse. La vidéo recommence et il se relève et tombe à nouveau. Des personnes courent encore vers la ligne d'arrivée. Quelqu'un dont les bras sont levés en signe de victoire. Des questions viennent à l'esprit: Est-ce étrange qu'ils continuent de courir? Est-ce normal? Qu'y avait-il derrière les drapeaux? Qui d'autre était là?
D'autres vidéos ont été partagées sur Vine après l'explosion. Certaines montrent des flux Twitter apportant de nouvelles informations, d'autres illustrent la situation dans les rues et d'autres diffusent encore des reportages filmés sur des écrans TV. Jusqu'à maintenant, peu d'entre elles ont eu un impact similaire à celle de Lorman mais la décision d'avoir recours à Vine a soulevé des interrogations et pourrait marquer un tournant pour cette jeune plateforme de partage.
"Vine connait son moment de gloire"
"Est-ce le moment 'place Tahrir' de Vine?", s'est demandé Nicholas Jackson, directeur digital du Pacific Standard, sur Twitter.
Alex Goldmark, producteur pour WYNC, a aussi commenté sur le réseau social: "Vine connaît son moment de gloire comme le nouvel outil utilisé pour les breaking news"
Tous les yeux sont tournés vers Vine et les explosions de Boston ont élevé ce réseau à un nouveau rang. Cela a aussi validé le pari qu'a fait Twitter d'ajouter la vidéo à ses petits messages et ses photos. Mais toujours est-il que quelques heures après les annonces de blessés et de morts au Marathon, il semble plus pressant de réfléchir non pas à ce que cette tragédie a fait pour Vine mais plutôt ce que l'ascension de Vine pourrait signifier pour nous.
Chaque nouvelle technologie à succès change la façon dont on fait l'expérience du monde qui nous entoure. Quelque chose dont on se rend peut-être encore mieux compte au cours de désastres. Twitter, pour sa part, a rendu les informations tragiques plus immédiates et plus personnelles, comme on a pu le constater avec la tuerie de Newtown ou les Printemps Arabes, comme le dit Jackson. Cela a permis aux internautes de partager des instantanés de leur point de vue en pleine action. De la même façon, YouTube a rendu possible le voyage rapide du son et de l'image des désastres.
Six secondes d'une grande intensité émotionnelle
Plus que les photos postées sur les réseaux sociaux ou les vidéos diffusées sur YouTube -toutes largement partagées après les explosions de lundi- la vidéo de Lorman sur Vine est une vision effrayante et continue du moment même de l'impact de la bombe. Elle s'est focalisée sur l'instant où tout a changé et a joué cet instant en boucle.
Vine permet aux utilisateurs d'enregistrer six secondes d'une grande intensité émotionnelle et de rejouer ce moment sans arrêt. Dans la vidéo de Lorman, il n'y a pas la moindre chance de reprendre sa respiration avant que l'explosion ne se produise à nouveau. Pas le temps de respirer ni de détourner le regard.
Il faut aussi ne pas oublier que la vidéo de Lorman n'a pas été prise sur place et qu'elle n'est qu'une infime partie d'un reportage diffusé à la télévision. "J'ai enregistré les informations diffusées sur NBC Boston", a tweeté le jeune homme de 29 ans. "J'espérais que l'une de mes vidéos de chat serait populaire pas celle sur cette tragédie". Lorman, qui habite à 70 kilomètres au nord de Boston, se présente sur Twitter comme un "geek, fan de hockey, athée et marié à la plus merveilleuse femme qu'il existe, Jess".
"Je suis triste que ma vidéo ait eu autant de succès"
"J'ai décidé de posté la vidéo sur Vine parce qu'à ce moment-là, aucune grande chaîne de télévision n'avait encore parlé du sujet", explique Lorman dans un email. "Mon vrai but était de permettre aux personnes en dehors de Boston de voir ce qu'il se passait. Je suis triste qu'elle ait eu autant de succès, j'aurais préféré que mon compte ne gagne pas en popularité de cette façon".
L'impact de sa vidéo est plus lié à son timing qu'à son point de vue nouveau ou unique. Beaucoup d'autres ont vu les informations diffusées localement mais seul Lorman a enregistré et posté la scène au bon moment.
Les photos capturent un moment dans le temps, les vidéos et les chaînes de télévision capturent plusieurs moments dans le temps mais Vine a capturé LE moment dans le temps et l'a joué en boucle. Une boucle où la violence ne faiblit pas, où elle ne s'arrête pas. Ressentons-nous alors cette violence plus fortement? Moins fortement? Plus longtemps? Malheureusement, il se pourrait que cette tragédie ne soit pas la dernière qui nous permette de répondre à cette question.
» Retrouvez ci-dessous des images du marathon de Boston:
Le clip a été posté grâce à Vine, l'application Twitter qui héberge des vidéos, lancée cette année. Étant donné que Vine limite la durée des vidéos à six secondes et que ces six secondes sont automatiquement rejouées en boucle, la vidéo de Lorman a montré la bombe explosant encore et encore, six horribles secondes suivies de six horribles secondes.
Dès que la vidéo commence à jouer, il y a un flash de lumière jaune, suivi de fumée. Les drapeaux se renversent et les marathoniens continuent de courir vers la ligne d'arrivée. Et ça recommence. De la fumée apparaît derrière les drapeaux qui sont au beau milieu de la rue. Les coureurs regardent autour d'eux. Et ça recommence. La fumée, les drapeaux, les coureurs. D'autres détails commencent à apparaître alors que la vidéo se lance une troisième puis une quatrième fois. 4:09, un coureur au milieu du cadre se penche, ses jambes lâchent et il tombe à la renverse. La vidéo recommence et il se relève et tombe à nouveau. Des personnes courent encore vers la ligne d'arrivée. Quelqu'un dont les bras sont levés en signe de victoire. Des questions viennent à l'esprit: Est-ce étrange qu'ils continuent de courir? Est-ce normal? Qu'y avait-il derrière les drapeaux? Qui d'autre était là?
D'autres vidéos ont été partagées sur Vine après l'explosion. Certaines montrent des flux Twitter apportant de nouvelles informations, d'autres illustrent la situation dans les rues et d'autres diffusent encore des reportages filmés sur des écrans TV. Jusqu'à maintenant, peu d'entre elles ont eu un impact similaire à celle de Lorman mais la décision d'avoir recours à Vine a soulevé des interrogations et pourrait marquer un tournant pour cette jeune plateforme de partage.
"Vine connait son moment de gloire"
"Est-ce le moment 'place Tahrir' de Vine?", s'est demandé Nicholas Jackson, directeur digital du Pacific Standard, sur Twitter.
Vine's Tahrir Square moment? vine.co/v/bFdt5uwg6JZ
-- Nicholas Jackson (@nbj914) 15 avril 2013
Alex Goldmark, producteur pour WYNC, a aussi commenté sur le réseau social: "Vine connaît son moment de gloire comme le nouvel outil utilisé pour les breaking news"
Tous les yeux sont tournés vers Vine et les explosions de Boston ont élevé ce réseau à un nouveau rang. Cela a aussi validé le pari qu'a fait Twitter d'ajouter la vidéo à ses petits messages et ses photos. Mais toujours est-il que quelques heures après les annonces de blessés et de morts au Marathon, il semble plus pressant de réfléchir non pas à ce que cette tragédie a fait pour Vine mais plutôt ce que l'ascension de Vine pourrait signifier pour nous.
Chaque nouvelle technologie à succès change la façon dont on fait l'expérience du monde qui nous entoure. Quelque chose dont on se rend peut-être encore mieux compte au cours de désastres. Twitter, pour sa part, a rendu les informations tragiques plus immédiates et plus personnelles, comme on a pu le constater avec la tuerie de Newtown ou les Printemps Arabes, comme le dit Jackson. Cela a permis aux internautes de partager des instantanés de leur point de vue en pleine action. De la même façon, YouTube a rendu possible le voyage rapide du son et de l'image des désastres.
Six secondes d'une grande intensité émotionnelle
Plus que les photos postées sur les réseaux sociaux ou les vidéos diffusées sur YouTube -toutes largement partagées après les explosions de lundi- la vidéo de Lorman sur Vine est une vision effrayante et continue du moment même de l'impact de la bombe. Elle s'est focalisée sur l'instant où tout a changé et a joué cet instant en boucle.
Vine permet aux utilisateurs d'enregistrer six secondes d'une grande intensité émotionnelle et de rejouer ce moment sans arrêt. Dans la vidéo de Lorman, il n'y a pas la moindre chance de reprendre sa respiration avant que l'explosion ne se produise à nouveau. Pas le temps de respirer ni de détourner le regard.
Il faut aussi ne pas oublier que la vidéo de Lorman n'a pas été prise sur place et qu'elle n'est qu'une infime partie d'un reportage diffusé à la télévision. "J'ai enregistré les informations diffusées sur NBC Boston", a tweeté le jeune homme de 29 ans. "J'espérais que l'une de mes vidéos de chat serait populaire pas celle sur cette tragédie". Lorman, qui habite à 70 kilomètres au nord de Boston, se présente sur Twitter comme un "geek, fan de hockey, athée et marié à la plus merveilleuse femme qu'il existe, Jess".
"Je suis triste que ma vidéo ait eu autant de succès"
"J'ai décidé de posté la vidéo sur Vine parce qu'à ce moment-là, aucune grande chaîne de télévision n'avait encore parlé du sujet", explique Lorman dans un email. "Mon vrai but était de permettre aux personnes en dehors de Boston de voir ce qu'il se passait. Je suis triste qu'elle ait eu autant de succès, j'aurais préféré que mon compte ne gagne pas en popularité de cette façon".
L'impact de sa vidéo est plus lié à son timing qu'à son point de vue nouveau ou unique. Beaucoup d'autres ont vu les informations diffusées localement mais seul Lorman a enregistré et posté la scène au bon moment.
Les photos capturent un moment dans le temps, les vidéos et les chaînes de télévision capturent plusieurs moments dans le temps mais Vine a capturé LE moment dans le temps et l'a joué en boucle. Une boucle où la violence ne faiblit pas, où elle ne s'arrête pas. Ressentons-nous alors cette violence plus fortement? Moins fortement? Plus longtemps? Malheureusement, il se pourrait que cette tragédie ne soit pas la dernière qui nous permette de répondre à cette question.
» Retrouvez ci-dessous des images du marathon de Boston:
VIDÉO. Marathon de Boston : six secondes d'horreur en boucle sur Vine
MARATHON DE BOSTON - Moins d'une heure après avoir été postée, la vidéo de Doug Lorman de l'explosion qui a eu lieu au Marathon de Boston -tirée d'un reportage télévisé et partagée sur Twitter- était retweetée plus de 15.700 fois et regardée par plus de 35.000 internautes. Les personnes sans accès à Twitter se l'envoyaient également par sms.
Le clip a été posté grâce à Vine, l'application Twitter qui héberge des vidéos, lancée cette année. Étant donné que Vine limite la durée des vidéos à six secondes et que ces six secondes sont automatiquement rejouées en boucle, la vidéo de Lorman a montré la bombe explosant encore et encore, six horribles secondes suivies de six horribles secondes.
Dès que la vidéo commence à jouer, il y a un flash de lumière jaune, suivi de fumée. Les drapeaux se renversent et les marathoniens continuent de courir vers la ligne d'arrivée. Et ça recommence. De la fumée apparaît derrière les drapeaux qui sont au beau milieu de la rue. Les coureurs regardent autour d'eux. Et ça recommence. La fumée, les drapeaux, les coureurs. D'autres détails commencent à apparaître alors que la vidéo se lance une troisième puis une quatrième fois. 4:09, un coureur au milieu du cadre se penche, ses jambes lâchent et il tombe à la renverse. La vidéo recommence et il se relève et tombe à nouveau. Des personnes courent encore vers la ligne d'arrivée. Quelqu'un dont les bras sont levés en signe de victoire. Des questions viennent à l'esprit: Est-ce étrange qu'ils continuent de courir? Est-ce normal? Qu'y avait-il derrière les drapeaux? Qui d'autre était là?
D'autres vidéos ont été partagées sur Vine après l'explosion. Certaines montrent des flux Twitter apportant de nouvelles informations, d'autres illustrent la situation dans les rues et d'autres diffusent encore des reportages filmés sur des écrans TV. Jusqu'à maintenant, peu d'entre elles ont eu un impact similaire à celle de Lorman mais la décision d'avoir recours à Vine a soulevé des interrogations et pourrait marquer un tournant pour cette jeune plateforme de partage.
"Vine connait son moment de gloire"
"Est-ce le moment 'place Tahrir' de Vine?", s'est demandé Nicholas Jackson, directeur digital du Pacific Standard, sur Twitter.
Alex Goldmark, producteur pour WYNC, a aussi commenté sur le réseau social: "Vine connaît son moment de gloire comme le nouvel outil utilisé pour les breaking news"
Tous les yeux sont tournés vers Vine et les explosions de Boston ont élevé ce réseau à un nouveau rang. Cela a aussi validé le pari qu'a fait Twitter d'ajouter la vidéo à ses petits messages et ses photos. Mais toujours est-il que quelques heures après les annonces de blessés et de morts au Marathon, il semble plus pressant de réfléchir non pas à ce que cette tragédie a fait pour Vine mais plutôt ce que l'ascension de Vine pourrait signifier pour nous.
Chaque nouvelle technologie à succès change la façon dont on fait l'expérience du monde qui nous entoure. Quelque chose dont on se rend peut-être encore mieux compte au cours de désastres. Twitter, pour sa part, a rendu les informations tragiques plus immédiates et plus personnelles, comme on a pu le constater avec la tuerie de Newtown ou les Printemps Arabes, comme le dit Jackson. Cela a permis aux internautes de partager des instantanés de leur point de vue en pleine action. De la même façon, YouTube a rendu possible le voyage rapide du son et de l'image des désastres.
Six secondes d'une grande intensité émotionnelle
Plus que les photos postées sur les réseaux sociaux ou les vidéos diffusées sur YouTube -toutes largement partagées après les explosions de lundi- la vidéo de Lorman sur Vine est une vision effrayante et continue du moment même de l'impact de la bombe. Elle s'est focalisée sur l'instant où tout a changé et a joué cet instant en boucle.
Vine permet aux utilisateurs d'enregistrer six secondes d'une grande intensité émotionnelle et de rejouer ce moment sans arrêt. Dans la vidéo de Lorman, il n'y a pas la moindre chance de reprendre sa respiration avant que l'explosion ne se produise à nouveau. Pas le temps de respirer ni de détourner le regard.
Il faut aussi ne pas oublier que la vidéo de Lorman n'a pas été prise sur place et qu'elle n'est qu'une infime partie d'un reportage diffusé à la télévision. "J'ai enregistré les informations diffusées sur NBC Boston", a tweeté le jeune homme de 29 ans. "J'espérais que l'une de mes vidéos de chat serait populaire pas celle sur cette tragédie". Lorman, qui habite à 70 kilomètres au nord de Boston, se présente sur Twitter comme un "geek, fan de hockey, athée et marié à la plus merveilleuse femme qu'il existe, Jess".
"Je suis triste que ma vidéo ait eu autant de succès"
"J'ai décidé de posté la vidéo sur Vine parce qu'à ce moment-là, aucune grande chaîne de télévision n'avait encore parlé du sujet", explique Lorman dans un email. "Mon vrai but était de permettre aux personnes en dehors de Boston de voir ce qu'il se passait. Je suis triste qu'elle ait eu autant de succès, j'aurais préféré que mon compte ne gagne pas en popularité de cette façon".
L'impact de sa vidéo est plus lié à son timing qu'à son point de vue nouveau ou unique. Beaucoup d'autres ont vu les informations diffusées localement mais seul Lorman a enregistré et posté la scène au bon moment.
Les photos capturent un moment dans le temps, les vidéos et les chaînes de télévision capturent plusieurs moments dans le temps mais Vine a capturé LE moment dans le temps et l'a joué en boucle. Une boucle où la violence ne faiblit pas, où elle ne s'arrête pas. Ressentons-nous alors cette violence plus fortement? Moins fortement? Plus longtemps? Malheureusement, il se pourrait que cette tragédie ne soit pas la dernière qui nous permette de répondre à cette question.
» Retrouvez ci-dessous des images du marathon de Boston:
Le clip a été posté grâce à Vine, l'application Twitter qui héberge des vidéos, lancée cette année. Étant donné que Vine limite la durée des vidéos à six secondes et que ces six secondes sont automatiquement rejouées en boucle, la vidéo de Lorman a montré la bombe explosant encore et encore, six horribles secondes suivies de six horribles secondes.
Dès que la vidéo commence à jouer, il y a un flash de lumière jaune, suivi de fumée. Les drapeaux se renversent et les marathoniens continuent de courir vers la ligne d'arrivée. Et ça recommence. De la fumée apparaît derrière les drapeaux qui sont au beau milieu de la rue. Les coureurs regardent autour d'eux. Et ça recommence. La fumée, les drapeaux, les coureurs. D'autres détails commencent à apparaître alors que la vidéo se lance une troisième puis une quatrième fois. 4:09, un coureur au milieu du cadre se penche, ses jambes lâchent et il tombe à la renverse. La vidéo recommence et il se relève et tombe à nouveau. Des personnes courent encore vers la ligne d'arrivée. Quelqu'un dont les bras sont levés en signe de victoire. Des questions viennent à l'esprit: Est-ce étrange qu'ils continuent de courir? Est-ce normal? Qu'y avait-il derrière les drapeaux? Qui d'autre était là?
D'autres vidéos ont été partagées sur Vine après l'explosion. Certaines montrent des flux Twitter apportant de nouvelles informations, d'autres illustrent la situation dans les rues et d'autres diffusent encore des reportages filmés sur des écrans TV. Jusqu'à maintenant, peu d'entre elles ont eu un impact similaire à celle de Lorman mais la décision d'avoir recours à Vine a soulevé des interrogations et pourrait marquer un tournant pour cette jeune plateforme de partage.
"Vine connait son moment de gloire"
"Est-ce le moment 'place Tahrir' de Vine?", s'est demandé Nicholas Jackson, directeur digital du Pacific Standard, sur Twitter.
Vine's Tahrir Square moment? vine.co/v/bFdt5uwg6JZ
— Nicholas Jackson (@nbj914) 15 avril 2013
Alex Goldmark, producteur pour WYNC, a aussi commenté sur le réseau social: "Vine connaît son moment de gloire comme le nouvel outil utilisé pour les breaking news"
Tous les yeux sont tournés vers Vine et les explosions de Boston ont élevé ce réseau à un nouveau rang. Cela a aussi validé le pari qu'a fait Twitter d'ajouter la vidéo à ses petits messages et ses photos. Mais toujours est-il que quelques heures après les annonces de blessés et de morts au Marathon, il semble plus pressant de réfléchir non pas à ce que cette tragédie a fait pour Vine mais plutôt ce que l'ascension de Vine pourrait signifier pour nous.
Chaque nouvelle technologie à succès change la façon dont on fait l'expérience du monde qui nous entoure. Quelque chose dont on se rend peut-être encore mieux compte au cours de désastres. Twitter, pour sa part, a rendu les informations tragiques plus immédiates et plus personnelles, comme on a pu le constater avec la tuerie de Newtown ou les Printemps Arabes, comme le dit Jackson. Cela a permis aux internautes de partager des instantanés de leur point de vue en pleine action. De la même façon, YouTube a rendu possible le voyage rapide du son et de l'image des désastres.
Six secondes d'une grande intensité émotionnelle
Plus que les photos postées sur les réseaux sociaux ou les vidéos diffusées sur YouTube -toutes largement partagées après les explosions de lundi- la vidéo de Lorman sur Vine est une vision effrayante et continue du moment même de l'impact de la bombe. Elle s'est focalisée sur l'instant où tout a changé et a joué cet instant en boucle.
Vine permet aux utilisateurs d'enregistrer six secondes d'une grande intensité émotionnelle et de rejouer ce moment sans arrêt. Dans la vidéo de Lorman, il n'y a pas la moindre chance de reprendre sa respiration avant que l'explosion ne se produise à nouveau. Pas le temps de respirer ni de détourner le regard.
Il faut aussi ne pas oublier que la vidéo de Lorman n'a pas été prise sur place et qu'elle n'est qu'une infime partie d'un reportage diffusé à la télévision. "J'ai enregistré les informations diffusées sur NBC Boston", a tweeté le jeune homme de 29 ans. "J'espérais que l'une de mes vidéos de chat serait populaire pas celle sur cette tragédie". Lorman, qui habite à 70 kilomètres au nord de Boston, se présente sur Twitter comme un "geek, fan de hockey, athée et marié à la plus merveilleuse femme qu'il existe, Jess".
"Je suis triste que ma vidéo ait eu autant de succès"
"J'ai décidé de posté la vidéo sur Vine parce qu'à ce moment-là, aucune grande chaîne de télévision n'avait encore parlé du sujet", explique Lorman dans un email. "Mon vrai but était de permettre aux personnes en dehors de Boston de voir ce qu'il se passait. Je suis triste qu'elle ait eu autant de succès, j'aurais préféré que mon compte ne gagne pas en popularité de cette façon".
L'impact de sa vidéo est plus lié à son timing qu'à son point de vue nouveau ou unique. Beaucoup d'autres ont vu les informations diffusées localement mais seul Lorman a enregistré et posté la scène au bon moment.
Les photos capturent un moment dans le temps, les vidéos et les chaînes de télévision capturent plusieurs moments dans le temps mais Vine a capturé LE moment dans le temps et l'a joué en boucle. Une boucle où la violence ne faiblit pas, où elle ne s'arrête pas. Ressentons-nous alors cette violence plus fortement? Moins fortement? Plus longtemps? Malheureusement, il se pourrait que cette tragédie ne soit pas la dernière qui nous permette de répondre à cette question.
» Retrouvez ci-dessous des images du marathon de Boston:
LIRE AUSSI :
» Le co-fondateur de Foursquare a participé et live-tweeté le marathon
» Sur Twitter, les people prient pour les victimes de Boston
