|
|
Post by spr1ntz on Nov 23, 2006 1:45:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by wetpaint on Nov 25, 2006 19:04:39 GMT -5
That was INSANE. They have to develop an actual OS to be used with that technology, a ZUI like Jef Raskin described. Then they could actually build a functional computer with that touch screen. I wonder if it would be hideously expensive, or just how much those screens cost to make.. A second video: www.gametrailers.com/umwatcher.php?id=23346 |
|
|
|
Post by Sgtpepper on Nov 26, 2006 18:56:06 GMT -5
That is so WICKED.
I think if anything replaces GUI it'll be ZUI but with that screen.
It eliminates the crappiness of zooming with a mouse.
|
|
|
|
Post by wetpaint on Nov 26, 2006 19:03:13 GMT -5
I think if anything replaces GUI it'll be ZUI but with that screen. I agree. That two finger zoom/resize made me DROOL. However, will something like this really catch on? I doubt it. It seems to me that we are already too used to our mouse and keyboard. In the long run an OS based on this would be far more intuitive than a GUI. But since it is unfamiliar it would actually be HARDER to use in the beginning, so no one would be an early adopter and the transition can never happen. That is my fear. |
|
|
|
Post by Sgtpepper on Nov 26, 2006 19:07:25 GMT -5
I think that touch screens and OS's like those can slowly be integrated into our life. First at like ATM's or travel kiosks, then into PC monitors. Then, introduce new ZUI OS's
|
|
|
|
Post by wetpaint on Nov 26, 2006 19:14:06 GMT -5
That's true, if we got used to it on other places first..
I think that eventually what will happen is there will be a voice interface. It will be on all pooters, from hope desktops to ATMs to automatic checkouts at the grocery store.. You will just say what you want to happen and it will happen. The onscreen is just feedback, read-only, no buttons or anything. You just talk. Totally intuitive. Dunno how this would work for gaming though..
|
|
|
|
Post by Sgtpepper on Nov 26, 2006 19:22:55 GMT -5
Yeah, that is such a Utopian cliche.
I dunno if it'd work though.
Imagine what would happen with all the noise.
You couldn't do anything secret on your pooter.
I mean, you'd say something and immediately people would know what you were up to. And imagine at checkout lines. You don't want to have to say out loud that your buying condoms, you'd just want to discretely swipe the rubber over a laser bar-code scanner.
|
|
|
|
Post by wetpaint on Nov 26, 2006 19:28:50 GMT -5
Who's buying condoms?   Lawl. But yeah, I don't mean a voice version of current OSes, where you say everything instead of clicking it. I mean an OS that gets out of your way. You have to do as little as possible and the OS does it for you. What little input you MUST give you just say. Like: You walk up to a checkout. You scan the items, and put them in the bag. Then you slide your credit card in the slot. That's it. Why should you have to do any more? Or: You walk up to an ATM. You say your bank number (or slide your card) and then say how much money you want to get. It comes out of the slot. Done. All machines, EVERYWHERE could be this easy, without the complicated interfaces and mashing of buttons. At home, if you want some information, you ask a question and the pooter searches the internet, finds the asnwer, and displays it on the screen (or says it). If you want to write, you tell the pooter "I want to write" and the screen goes blank, then displays words as you speak them. There should be less of the pooter's interface, and more of what YOU are doing. |
|
|
|
Post by Sgtpepper on Nov 26, 2006 19:59:49 GMT -5
You are GROSSLY misunderestimating how difficult this would be.
Plus, counter-intelligence and eavesdropping would be too easy: place a listening device on the machine (an ATM for example) and BOOM, you've got tons of personal information.
|
|
|
|
Post by wetpaint on Nov 26, 2006 20:22:18 GMT -5
I know how difficult it is, I'm just saying it would be NICE.
It ain't THAT hard. Key words/phrases could help them understand what you want. And an ATM doesn't need to understand all English, just the four phrases or so that people would actually say to an ATM. But there is no reason for you to program all language recognition into all machines. Just the words it needs to know to do its job.
The AI is farther along than you would think. Also if you look at sites like OliverBot, you see the technology is already there. All we have to do is implement it. And BrainBoost is another great step along this road. It could be improved, certainly, but that idea is fantastic.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sgtpepper on Nov 26, 2006 20:51:37 GMT -5
robots can process and respond...
but making the connection that "I want 20 bucks." and "I would like 20 dollars, please." is the same thing.
They're programmed for specific stimuli.
|
|
|
|
Post by wetpaint on Nov 26, 2006 20:55:55 GMT -5
Yes, but you program an ATM to know numbers and a couple words like "bucks" "dollars" "cents" etc, and that's all they need to know in order to process simple sentences like "Give me 20 bucks," or "Withdraw forty nine dollars from my account."
People assume it is hard to program one robot that can understand ALL of English. But it wouldn't have to. Specialization would allow for robots to only need to know small (VERY small) portions of the English language relevant to their given tasks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sgtpepper on Nov 26, 2006 21:02:43 GMT -5
This is very true.
The point I'm trying to make is there are too many bugs (foreseeable and unforeseeable).
Lisps, slurring words, mumbling, broken English, accents, it just goes on and on...
|
|
|
|
Post by wetpaint on Nov 26, 2006 21:07:05 GMT -5
Oh, you mean the voice recognition is hard. I thought you meant making it respond to English is hard. That isn't.
Voice recognition is a bit difficult, but again, if you limit the words the bot knows, and just give it an algorithm to determine which of those words is CLOSEST to the sound it heard, that might help a lot. The less they know, the better they work. Ignorance really is bliss.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sgtpepper on Nov 26, 2006 21:11:22 GMT -5
Yeah, that is true.
That is very true.
|
|
|
|
Post by wetpaint on Nov 26, 2006 21:58:14 GMT -5
Indeed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sgtpepper on Nov 27, 2006 22:17:13 GMT -5
That would be good for sculpting programs for art students.
Man, now that I think about it, the applications of this technology is nearly limitless.
|
|
|
|
Post by wetpaint on Nov 28, 2006 23:06:04 GMT -5
I know. I really want to see what an OS based on this would look like. Might do some mockups of one if I feel like expending the effort.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sgtpepper on Nov 28, 2006 23:09:57 GMT -5
You won't end up doing it, you're too lazy.
'Course now you'll do it just to smite me.
But oh well, it's all good.
|
|
|
|
Post by wetpaint on Nov 30, 2006 11:49:12 GMT -5
GRAR. I am doing some sketches of what the OS would look like, but it is hard to design an OS like this. It has to be much more basic and less intricate than something like Windows, as no one wants to operate so many small buttons with their fingers. I am going for a ZUI type of thing, and so there really won't be much of an interface to it, just the content. I guess that is good.
Will post them soon.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sgtpepper on Nov 30, 2006 11:51:46 GMT -5
Good stuff.
Yes, I think I'll begin fabrication of that Dragon Sword this weekend.
|
|
Ralbane
New Member
I R Teh 1337 Modeller
Posts: 24
|
Post by Ralbane on Dec 6, 2006 23:36:10 GMT -5
Wasn't impressed, though it is the first time some one has utilized this technology.
Now something to be impressed about is the Unreal 3 Game Engine, that thing has freakin' bending metal in it.
|
|
|
|
Post by wetpaint on Dec 9, 2006 22:05:19 GMT -5
Now something to be impressed about is the Unreal 3 Game Engine, that thing has freakin' bending metal in it. God that engine is hawt. Just the idea of bending metal is insane. It just costs way too much for startups to be able to use it, but for the actual Unreal games it will be sweet. |
|
Lawl.