this works on so many levels...

most futuristic aspect of the personal computer revolution is how personal it is.

and how the masturbation occurs in more ways than you might first assume.

Just remember, don't do drugs kids because drugs are for losers. Together we can build a better society, futurists!

Nothing he says is new information. He is simply repeating things that Ray Kurzweil and Michio Kaku have been saying for many years. Both of their theories and futurist outlooks are supported by a lot of science.

Go read The Singularity is Near - Ray Kurzweil

We aren't going to be 'the borg' we will actually be far more advanced. Our nonbiological humanity will have the option to look completely human if we wish using nanotechnology. We will be more like T1000s from the Terminator. Anyone will be able to look like anything.

Why is that dude wearing old grandpa jeans and a nondescript sweater. As Chief of Apple, he should be wearing a glossy white tux and futuristic shades. Like Kraftwerk or something.

It's actually pointless to introduce the solar energy input into the equation at all Crake. The sun has shone and will shine for far longer than human beings will ever manage to survive on this planet. When I and many others look at agricultural reform we look at those aspects of the food production chain that humans can control and can change. The 'facilitation' you talk about is the entire crux of the modern day agricultural dilemma. There are an infinite number of ways that facilitation could happen, and the concern and debate is whether or not the road industry has chosen for us is the one that will bare the most fruit. Clearly it has not. The reasons, myriad, I don't want to write a thesis on the sift.

And I agree, when you start looking at government crop subsidies the energy calculation does lose its relevance. Why? Because you have jumped a 100 steps up a chain that was problematic at its root. The agricultural subsidy issue is a whole other Pandora's box.

Again, it's not the Haber process itself that is unsustainable, it is the entire industrial agricultural framework. The Haber process's dependence on natural gas is problematic, and even with future technological developments aside, it's a reductionist solution that undermines the multitude of complimentary farming techniques that could naturally introduce nitrogen into the soil. It's the kind of simplified agricultural solution that corporate agribusiness monopolies love, and it's this mutual reinforcement that causes concern. Again, the Haber process is a small piece of huge puzzle, we digress.

And with regards to future developments, let me illustrate why future developments are almost irrelevant to many of the problems at hand. In India for example there is a 500 year old tradition of aquaculture, for shrimp specifically. Most of the farms are small, local and sustainably run using various aquaculture farming methods (if you are interested you could read up on the Bheri system of aquaculture, just one of the many traditional systems).

This 'third world' farming technique as some might call it is just as profitable and has yields just as large as the more intensive commercial and industrial aquaculture methods. It has stood the test of time and it also forms the back bone of India's shrimp export economy, the largest in the world.

Industrial shrimp farming has had dismal success around the world. Taiwan, China, Mexico, Ecuador, all these countries have had huge issues keeping commercial shrimp farming sustainable. Wherever commercial shrimp farming has been tried, it has failed to a large degree, usually due to major disease outbreaks. That's why the call it the 'rape and run' industry.

Isn't it strange that the more industrial shrimp farms are introduced in India (due to government subsidies and incentives), the more 'environmental issues' they have to deal with that just didn't exist with the 'traditional third world systems' . . . mangrove destruction, drinking water pollution (from antibiotics and pesticides add to the shrimp ponds to minimize disease) , salinization of groundwater, etc.

Now you might argue with me that the solution to this problem potentially lies with future developments . . . a better antibiotic maybe, perhaps genetically engineering shrimp to be more resistant to disease and pollution, etc, or maybe the solution lies in adopting farming techniques that have been slowly perfected for the last 500 years and are proven to work, where the only interventions that could be made were natural ones and success was determined by how well you could maintain a balanced relationship with your local ecosystem. It is these farming systems and the mindset that they embody that I would like to see the world adopt, improve upon and gravitate towards.

Pinning your hopes for improvement on future developments and technology is totally misguided, especially when the core of the modern industrial agricultural foundation is so rotten. I have nothing against technology, but I'm not going to let the problems, born of brutish and unsophisticated industrial thinking, be overlooked by a corporate apologist futurist mindset. I'm not implying that's how you feel about the issue, but that the stance that many people have. There is an utter lack of holistic thinking in the industrial agricultural world (and everywhere else pretty much) and the direction it is leading us in is potentially frightening.

>> ^JAPR:
Wow, 2010 really IS the future! About damn time a new decade/century/whatever means something cool for futuristic technology.


The 2000s saw more scientific/technological progress than any decade in the history of humankind. That's assured just by the continually accelerating rate of progress.

Not only (1) are scientists and innovators around the world better connected with each other than ever before, but (2) a greater proportion of humankind is contributing than ever before. It used to be just a handful of nations, led by North America and Britain, but now we're at the point where China is actually 2nd only to the US as a producer of scientific knowledge, and it's expected to pass the US in 2020.

Does anybody remember what the internet was like in 1999? I'd rather gauge my eyes out.

Wow, 2010 really IS the future! About damn time a new decade/century/whatever means something cool for futuristic technology.

>> ^spoco2:
Nope, no sarcasm at all... I hate online play. Although, with friends, on a LAN, that is fun, and as such, I can see that you could eventually get to that point on general online play... I guess.
I don't have the time, patience, or inclination to build up the teams/organize times to play together etc. only to end up playing a fast twitch game where this sort of bullshit taunting goes on.
I enjoy single player games with stories, I enjoy playing through crafted experiences like Bioshock, HL2 and it's sequels, Arkham Asylum etc. Or, just fun puzzle games like World of Goo. Westy, you either have an unrealistically high bar for single player games, or just don't play good ones. Personally... I'd rather AI that's trying to fit into the world, rather than playing a WW2 game and have the enemy tea bag me, or yelling 'die fags'... that breaks me out of the immersion far more than a bit of dodgy AI.
That's where my enjoyment comes from I'm afraid... I just don't find enjoyment in online gaming.
I can SEE the attraction, especially in games like Eve Online etc. where it's like living in a futuristic world... but really, that's a time investment of a few orders of magnitude higher than I can give to anything that's not productive.



I enjoy both multilayer and single player , Its just that the the story telling in single player games is UTTER SHIT . compare the stories and emotoinal impact in games to a good film or book its just depressing. also the fact that the game play in single player games is often so predictable its just annoying. I really enjoy single player games as a peace of art of a mideum thats still in its black and white without sound stage.

Evan coop instantly makes any single player game infinitely better. the technology is not really there to deliver engrossing single player games of a high sophistication , Maby as a games Designer things stick out to me more than they do other people but I can still recognize fantastic single player games but Evan the really good ones the plot is that of a TV BMovi


Here is a list of some single player games that were really good.
Half life 1 , operation flash point , shadow of the colossus. The Penumbra Series , max Payne 1 and 2. portal ,
System Shock 2, myst series.

I always find it Amusing that still Half life 1 is more advanced and natural in the way it tells its story than modern FPS games. Mirrors edge has really nice environments and some well designed levels (in terms of game play) but the story is badly written and the cut scenes are annoying.

Nope, no sarcasm at all... I hate online play. Although, with friends, on a LAN, that is fun, and as such, I can see that you could eventually get to that point on general online play... I guess.

I don't have the time, patience, or inclination to build up the teams/organize times to play together etc. only to end up playing a fast twitch game where this sort of bullshit taunting goes on.

I enjoy single player games with stories, I enjoy playing through crafted experiences like Bioshock, HL2 and it's sequels, Arkham Asylum etc. Or, just fun puzzle games like World of Goo. Westy, you either have an unrealistically high bar for single player games, or just don't play good ones. Personally... I'd rather AI that's trying to fit into the world, rather than playing a WW2 game and have the enemy tea bag me, or yelling 'die fags'... that breaks me out of the immersion far more than a bit of dodgy AI.

That's where my enjoyment comes from I'm afraid... I just don't find enjoyment in online gaming.

I can SEE the attraction, especially in games like Eve Online etc. where it's like living in a futuristic world... but really, that's a time investment of a few orders of magnitude higher than I can give to anything that's not productive.

Those futuristic battlemech cartoons don't seem so laughable now, do they?! Won't be long now...

Video like this will be shown 40 years from now and laughed at for our "futuristic" ideas. Just like the retro-future visions of the 50's. I still recall kitchen of the future videos made in the 50's-60's.

Still, I wouldn't mind a dish washer that doesn't eventually dump me.

In the last minute, as the sky grew darker, the city lit up. With the clouds over head dashing across the sky, the city had a very futuristic cyberpunk feel to it.

I would say that pretty much any three wheel car would have stability issues, it's just physics.

But, this had worse issues than just that :

An accident at the 1933 Chicago world's fair damaged the first prototype badly, killing the driver, and seriously injuring the two passengers. The Dymaxion had rolled over, and although the driver was wearing a seatbelt, the prototype's canvas roof had not offered sufficient crash protection. The cause of the accident was not determined, although Buckminster Fuller reported that the accident was due to the actions of another vehicle that had been following the Dymaxion closely.[3] The crash prompted investors to abandon the project, blaming the accident on deficiencies of the vehicle's steering.

Technology wasn't all that great back then...to make something spaceworthy all NASA did was wrap it in futuristic aluminum foil.

IMO the Blackbird is on of the most beautiful and futuristic looking planes ever. What an awesome build, must have cost him a lot of money to make. Landing that thing must be terrifying.
I wonder what its top speed is. Googled around, but couldn't find anything but video on this one.