Seriously....
Du Toit. Doesn't that translate as 'some twat'?
George Orwell once said the future would be like a "boot stamping on a human face – forever". It turns out that he was totally wrong. There won't be any stamping, but there'll certainly be shoes. Some of these will be 3D-printed, whilst others will be able to beam data back to Richard Branson – or rather a squad of number- …
Is not London Eye but a few hundred yards across the river from where Pepys sat under a tree and played an air on his pipe during that little problem with the Armada? He was Secretary to the Admiralty at the time. All he could do was wait... no status updates in those days.
Is it possible that the Leary like reveries reported here arose from the simple fact of sitting for an hour in a slowly moving vehicle?
One hopes the various communications devices where quieted.
Pepys would understand the icon.
Is not London Eye but a few hundred yards across the river from where Pepys sat under a tree and played an air on his pipe during that little problem with the Armada?
No, and for a variety of reasons. Samuel Pepys worked for the Navy Board, in Seething Lane [1], close to the Tower of London, which is some considerable way down the river from where the London Eye now stands. And the ironically named Grande y Felicísima Armada sailed from Spain in 1588, forty-five years before Samuel Pepys was born.
This post has been deleted by its author
I've already registered www.duzmubumlukbiginthis.com - but I'm thinking of calling my company duzbum. What do you think?
I wonder if we should use one of those combined question mark / exclamation mark things in the logo?
Obviously the mirrors will be voice activated. So you say "mirror mirror on the wall". At which point all of your friends' phones make an annoying pinging sound and the screen comes on with your picture. I think we'll digitally put a tiara on the head of every shot - except ones where people are trying on a tiara of course...
They can then swipe up for love it, or swipe down for hate it. I don't want to allow any of this pesky human interaction in this app. That's not what friends are for! Plus it's harder to monetise.
The phone users then either get an advert for the dress if they've swiped up, or an alternative ad for something less hideous (which we choose and can make better margins on), if they swiped down.
We then total these votes - or thumz (as I shall call them) - and pass to the user in the changing room. Who then gets a musical fanfare appropriate to the assessment from their friends (frendz - or is that going too far?). Plus a giant thumb up/down as appropriate. This would be the point to sell advertising for gyms I think.
...
I feel rather dirty after typing that. It was supposed to be more ridiculous than our beardy futurologist. But I've a horrible feeling it would sell to a VC. Is this how Chris Morris and Armando Iannucci feel, after 'The Day Today' and 'Brass Eye' turned out to media training manuals?
Du Toit - clearly no point in trying to parody him. Good luck, I say, I would have been doing what he's doing if I had thought I could get away with it.
Beardie's (senior) response to the social mirror; does he remember the storyline from sleeping beauty? But perhaps he was taking the piss. Who can tell? Emperor's New Clothes might be a better fairytale reference.
Usual hopelessly optimistic crap. Yeah, 3 day weeks, paperless offices yada yada yada Who the hell wants to be interrupted by some self-obsessed droid while having a life or worse, "help" choosing clothes? I believe wetware to wetware interfacing solved that.
Thumbs up for those who noted an hour or two of quiet solitude can help one think.
To whom? Insurance companies?
If there is single industry where surveillance and personal data acquisition has disastrous consequences, it is no doubt insurance. The more information on individuals they have (individuals, not broad demographic), the nearer we are to effective eugenics. How this played out we should know very well.
And there were even 'good reasons' any good and proper citizen should and indeed can identify with.
AC wrote :- "It's all about added value To whom? Insurance companies? The more information on individuals they have ....)the nearer we are to effective eugenics."
I don't get your bit about eugenics, but insurance companies are up against a paradox if they get accurate info on individuals.
The principle of insurance is that less careful or less lucky people are bailed out of their catastrophies by more careful and more lucky people (assuming you believe in "luck"). There is some dilution of this pure principle however in that right now insurance companies make what they consider to be lthe more accident-prone people pay more for their premiums (hit by somemone running a red light? - higher premium for "unlucky" you).
However, the more insurance companies can accurately predict your accidents, the more the premiums will be aligned with what they will need to pay you in claims. But if your premium is going to equal precicely what they are going to pay out to you in claims (plus thier profit margin), there ceases to be any point in insuring yourself unless legally or contracturally required to. End of story.
Of course, there is already no point in a careful person insuring anything they can afford to replace themselves, because they are only subsidising the careless people. I don't. So expect to see more of insurance as a contractural requirement - I already see it required for some holiday bookings. Those insurance companies have enough clout to get your money somehow.
"I don't get your bit about eugenics"
Because only people in perfect health, rich enough to live in "nice" areas and are risk averse will be able to even get insurance, never mind afford it.
There was some report on the radio yesterday saying something along the lines of "the 'beautiful people' are less likely to get ill, especially in relation to chronic illness". (I think they called them "attractive" people)
I don't think there was an intention to equate the use of the term eugenics to an active sterilisation or breeding program. Just a social movement in the direction of making life difficult for those less successful or pretty. "nudging" as the Govt. calls it. We already have sections of society finding it difficult to get a job due past indiscretions thanks to exhanced CRB checks. More and longer data retention makes it harder to outlive past mistakes, no matter how hard you try. Insurance is one of those industries where more data and accuracy can be a serious cost to those most in need.
Someone is bound to install the mirror in their shop's changing room - intended for the tech-savvy youngsters. A hacker's dream - or gives sexting a new angle. It could also lead to confusions about when it was on or off - or to whom the picture was being sent.
Instead of a mirror - why not a full length display that looks like a mirror. Then different patterns/colours could be tried at the touch of a button. A bit of automatic PhotoShopping could make the person look more attractive in the more expensive outfits. Hasn't someone already done one where the outfits are all virtual to save the customer trying them on?
The trying-on-outfits-virtually-via-pseudo-mirror idea featured in an episode of the short-lived Max Headroom US scifi "drama" from the late eighties. (If you missed it, the show was based on the original Twenty minutes into the future Channel 4 production and looks horribly dated nowdays.)
I suppose that counts as prior art should anyone try patenting the idea.