“Why 3D doesn’t work and never will. Case closed.”

Posted by on

Film critic Roger Ebert weighs in on the current 3D movie craze, and why it’s a failure, at least from the technical side. I always wondered why it feels so odd when I don the glasses, now I have an explanation.

I really couldn’t care less whether a film is 3D or not. It doesn’t give me headaches or anything, but I only notice the 3D part maybe twice per movie — once at the beginning, once in the particular scene the director put in just to highlight the 3D aspect. And I have to put up with the glasses on top of that. Forcing me to pay extra for this dubious honor just annoys me. GoddessJ and I make a point of going to 2D showings whenever we have a choice. Hollywood, call me when you’ve got real 3D, then I’ll probably reconsider.

On the other hand, I hear that it has caused a lot of beneficial changes in the film industry by forcing it to finally go digital, so I’m not going to complain too loudly.

“The Other Intelligent Design Theories”

Posted by on

The synopsis: Religion and brute force failed to quash the idea of Darwinian evolution. Creationists and their Bible verses just irritated nonbelievers. Now Intelligent Design (ID) tries to topple Darwin again, not by offering a viable alternative, but by trying to co-opt the same concepts that have raised science to its current strength. Unfortunately for them, that argument would also open the door to a number of other alternative “theories,” all just as unscientific as Intelligent Design:

[All of these] will have to be let in, or the whole program must collapse under howling derision and accusations of hypocrisy.

Not that the people behind ID have any trouble with their own hypocrisy.

(And yes, the unscientific alternatives include my personal favorite, the “simulation” hypothesis. I support Darwinian evolution as the only viable scientific theory for how life originally arose, but I also think that this reality isn’t the original. It can’t be proven, and thus is not scientific, but I suspect the reason for this is deliberate. As such, that argument doesn’t dissuade me from it.)

“Superhero oil-burping algae will save the world”

Posted by on

As much as this sounds like pure fantasy right now, I suspect it’s all but inevitable. Too many people are looking too hard at the problem — somebody is going to crack it sooner or later, and likely sooner. I also suspect that the consequences listed in the article are only the tip of the iceberg.

(There are also things like this, but it looks to me like the algae route is a better long-term bet.)

“Brainscan breakthrough: Working robot limbs come closer”

Posted by on

This sort of thing will be useful for lots of peaceful purposes too. True telepresence, for instance, a la Surrogates. Fire and rescue workers equipped with something like this will be able to save others without having to risk their own lives. Astronauts could remain safely in orbiting ships, sending down only robotic suits, possibly to environments like that of Mercury, where it would be all but impossible to protect a human body.

Then there are non-android uses, like simply controlling machinery or computers without need of physical contact. Repetitive Stress Injury could become a thing of the past when all you have to do is think about hitting the keys. I imagine you’d be able to “type” a whole lot faster that way too.

And of course, it will pave the way for the inevitable merging of mind and machine.