We continue our AI arc with a discussion of humanity’s hopes and dreams for artificial intelligence. And we run down the week in geek, including a new transformer for TF3, Levar Burton’s upcoming BBT guest appearance, Davies’ possible Torchwood abandonment, Hugh Jackman’s 6,000-calorie-a-day diet, and a Japanese study’s confirmation that anime copyright infringement increases DVD sales.
As usual, commenting and I’m just on the news section.
Re: The BBC…
Obviously they get the bulk of the money from the license fee that we have to pay - Buy a TV (only have to buy 1 fee for the household), pay the fee for the right to watch TV (and I think they’re closing the loop on streaming TV on your laptop (I think it counts as the same). This fee is then used to made the programmes and thus support the other arts. So technically if you could prove that your area could not get BBC1 or 2, then you don’t have to pay the fee as the other channels are supported by adverts.
How the licence fee was spent in 2009/2010
[i]Between 1 April 2009 and 31 March 2010 the cost was £142.50 – the equivalent of £11.88 per month or just under 40p per day.
The BBC used its income from the licence fee to pay for its TV, radio and online services, plus other costs, as shown below.
TV
£7.85 per month per household (66%)
Radio
£2.01 per month per household (17%)
Online
£0.67 per month per household (6%)
Other costs
£1.35 per month per household (11%)
[/i]
About the licence fee
[i]Everyone in the UK who watches or records TV as it is broadcast needs to be covered by a TV licence. This includes TV on computers, mobile phones, DVD/video recorders and other devices.
The Government sets the level of the licence fee. In January 2007 the licence fee was agreed for a six-year period with the amount being approved each year by Parliament. More recently the Government decided to freeze the licence fee at its 2010 level of £145.50 until the end of the current BBC Charter period in 2016. [/i]
With the BBC, they don’t have to worry about the rushing to next ads as there are none on BBC1 and BBC2. While we do get good shows like Spooks, Being Human, Red Dwarf, Torchwood, Dr Who etc. We also get alot of formualic shows such as X-Factor, Dancing on Ice, etc. BBC1 is mainly the entertainment channel that caters for the wide range audience while BBC2 is more for the niche TV (Countryfile, politics shows), ITV is the Advert version of BBC1 and Channel 4 is again the niche version of BBC2. Channel 5 is the programmes where they are usually US in origin or just not as popular as the other shows. (It’s the newer of the channels).
As for the episode runs, it can be annoying when you get into a good arc and it ends but it also leaves you craving more (e.g Primevil, Being Human,etc) instead of the long drawn out shows like Lost, 24,etc. So in that vein, it’s going to be interesting to see how the US deals with Being Human and what story lines they’re going to explore compared to the UK version. (P.S - Did you know that the main vampire is named Aiden after the actor that plays the vampire in the UK version).
It’s interesting for me as a Brit to watch US shows, get used to the length and then go back to watching UK shows. There are some good shows over here.
A popular show at the moment is ‘Come dine with me’. Four people go to a house where they are cooked dinner and they all vote and the one with the highest points wins £1k at the end of the week. Do you have anything similar?
Re: 6K diet - That’s alot of chicken and protein shakes and you know there are going to be people that are going to use that as justification to emulate it. They did it with Micheal Phelps and they’re going to do the same again.
It would be interesting to do a project ‘Geek to Superhero - The journey into one man’s life to turn him from weak nerd to powerful superhero’. What would it take to look like Cyclops/Rogue/Batman in todays world.
My first exposure to A.I would be:
D.A.R.Y.L
Johnny 5
The ship from the Flight of the Navigator
Kit
The spheres from Terrahawks (Zeroids) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrahawks
Then Terminator,etc…
Bicentennial Man is one of my favorite movies. Easily top 5. Its positive, funny/campy and it makes you think. If you have not seen it, I HIGHLY recommend it.
Audra, I think you would live it.
~Shooter Out
Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk
This is new : Juan is opening the thread for the latest podcast! This means only one thing : SUPERBOWL !
Cheers! 
PS Somehow I can hear your voice-over in my head as I read the thread-starter 
So, did you hear my voice doing an impression of Chuck?
- Juan -
Pay no attention to the Juan behind the curtain…
There’s a show like “Come Dine With Me” in N. America; I think the title’s even the same. Actually I think there are a couple shows like it, at least one of which is on the Food Network. I’m assuming it’s an American version, but the impression I have that there’s more than one with a similar setup could be because there might be separate Canadian and American versions.
Also, thinking of that segment…Oi! Sean! Do you know how many knitting podcasts there are out there right now? Okay, I know most of the population would view the knitting channel the same way I see the Golf Channel (ie. “…really?”). And it would probably be like half the specialty channels here that show topical stuff during prime time and then show reruns of “Holmes on Homes” the rest of the day.
Oh and one other comment that really doesn’t have much to do with the main topic of the podcast, Sean expressed some doubt that there were religious groups explicitly said they wanted their members to create their sect’s army by outbreeding others. Actually…there are. I spend way too much time reading threads on the Free Jinger board, and there are a number of people in the extreme right-wing Christian groups (ie. the kind that think women shouldn’t work or vote, children–especially female children–shouldn’t go to college because even the Christian colleges are too liberal) who’ve said in their blogs that they need to have more kids because other religious groups will out-reproduce them. It’s like Rule 34 without the sex part–if you can think of it, someone out there believes it.
Edited because that wasn’t Juan that was talking about the BBC licenses. Sorry, Bishop Montanha, I am obviously in need of more caffeine. Tea to the rescue!
Excellent cast for the most part, though I do have a few quibbles with the answer on photography. I’ll post more on my considerations on the question asked, but I must correct one glaring mistake;
Sean, Tea Staining (also called Tea Toning) was not an artistic process. It was an Archival process used only with Cyanotypes. It much like Selenium Toning (used for platinum prints and silver gelatin prints) was a process used to extend the life of a print by replacing the ammonium salts that creates the blue tone in a cyanotype with a more durable nitrate. The longer you left the print in the bath, the darker and redder the print.
Both of these processes create a brown to red toned image (selenium with platinum created a bluish black, while with silver an ochre response) that would be resistant to further exposure to sunlight causing fading. That is why we still have beautiful rich prints that are over a century old from the dawn of printed from negative photography (around 1850 or so).
Tintypes and it’s associated processes (Ambrotypes, Daugerrotypes, et al) do not require toning as they use Mecury Salts and are done either onto glass or metal, where the process etches the image chemically when exposed. This process was still in use as late as the early 80’s in mimeographic printing.
I almost did a massive spit-take when Audra asked Sean if Robert Guillaume had poofy blonde hair!
I do not believe this was covered during any of the casts, or the call ins; if it was I apologize (I was working during the cast and missed some bits). What about the Hologram character, Rimmer in ‘Red Dwarf’? It is based upon memories and a personality profile, from the original crewmmember. It considers itself alive and still Rimmer, even though the original Rimmer died millions of years ago. An if you are of the religious or spiritual bent that means the soul has already passed on… Therefore the Rimmer which exists now is only a facsimile and not a true continuation of the original.
Is this character an AI or a delusional ‘digital ghost’ of the original Rimmer?
I ask because I have a character I created years ago that has a somewhat similar origin, in that she was created using the memories and personality matrix of a 13 year old daughter who tragically died before his project was finished. In my stories she is capable of learning and adapting, and therefore grows and matures mentally and emotionally. And so stops being a ‘digital ghost’ and evolves into her own unique identity over time, and demands from her creator that she be allowed to change her image to more accurately reflect who she now is, because she has long ago outgrown the 13 year old Japanese school girl she used to be.
I have only seen 3 episodes of Red Dwarf and so I am not aware if Rimmer ever evolves beyond being a pest or not. If he never evolves beyond his original template then I do not believe he is an AI, he just an interactive program. But if he can learn and grow as a natural life form can then is he not adapting and adjusting to his environment? When a copy grows and matures beyond their original parameters, have they become something new? Should they now be seen as their own identity and no longer a mere copy? What rights should they have?
Sorry I am rambling… Just food for thought.
Ok, being a professional photographer, I thought I would chime in on the death of film discussion a bit more fully.
Has the extinction of film changed the art of photography? You have no idea how often I have been asked this question by my assistants and some of the students I help. One must remember that photography was once as much a craft as it was an art form. In many respects it was truly alchemy. A well rounded photographer was expected to be skilled in both the art of composition as he/she was in the science of the lab.
Knowing which chemicals to add to which developer (many of us would mix our own developers from bulk chemicals) to improve dynamic range of certain films exposed in various manners. From the professional stand point, I can tell you, I don’t miss film. I still shoot as many shots now as I did when I shot film, not more. The discipline one learned with film works well when shooting digitally. It hasn’t affected how I compose a shot, or how I shoot. What it has affected is how fast I can turn around a job to my client, as well as depressing how much I and others in my field can charge a client. Gone are the days of lab fees and getting a contact sheet to a client in 48 hours. Today we shoot tethered to a computer with the client right there watching the shots pop up on a 30" display and quickly telling me when to stop and what changes they wanted. Gone are the days of proofing on a Polaroid back, and sending a runner to the client with a handful of them for approval before committing to film. For all intent and purposes, as far as professional commercial photography is concerned, film is dead.
As far as personal projects, many of us still use film, especially B&W stocks. Sure you can make any digital sorta shot look like it was shot with Tri-X, but there really is a difference when you actually see a shot done with Tri-X. And why Black and White stocks and not say Chromes or C41? That’s because color stocks use dye couplers, so the final neg has no silver, no grain, much like a digital image has today. B&W however the final neg is made by silver salts, and grain structure created by said salts that could be affected by the developer one used. Ilford PanF+ looks very different when developed in Rodinal than say D76. Grain was an artitic tool, and unfortunately as film begins to fade away into the sunset, we are losing said tools. Sure Nik’s Software Silver Efx Pro does a nice job simulating the various grain structures of B&W film stocks, but it never comes close. That is where many of us that grew up and worked professionally with film bemoan it’s demise. Cross processing film (say processing C41 in E6) is another thing we all miss. It created amazing color shifts that still are very difficult to recreate digitally. Then the loss of Polaroid film to do transfers etc. Yeah the loss of film does affect photography in ways most don’t understand.
I’ll close this out with some of my favorite images I’ve shot with film. Sure this could be done digitally, but somehow I’m happy it didn’t. I’ve include which camera and film was used in each.
Pentax 67
SMC 90/2.8 LS
Fuji Neopan 400
Pentax 67
SMC 90/2.8 LS
Kodak E100G
Camera - PenFT
Lens - Zukio 25/2.8
Film - Ilford Delta 100
1931 Speed Graphic 4x5
Graphtec 135/5.6
Ilford HP5+
Pentax 67
SMC 165/2.8
Ilford Delta 100
Actually while you are correct in photographs sir, I wasn’t just referring to photos. As imaging tools can create any number of effects across many mediums it’s more the style and feel not the method that’s important.
I was thinking more old west with the sepia and more ‘kindergarten craft project’ with the the tea staining because that’s where (I thought) most people might have had experience with it. Having created many a project with tea-stained-water/tea powder/and pressings with rollers. One can make all kinds of designs, prints, and images with just dye and pressure which is the real fun of it since tea is cheap and easy to clean up after a pile of 5 years olds had a go at it.
http://www.craftathome.com/Instructional/teastainingpaper.html
Or later on in 2nd or third grade images on cards over a mask or thin metal-backed sheets (to mimic tin types for a weathered look) on heavy stock or acid washed metal with something like lemon juice and a separate base wash mix that the stain would effect some areas of but not others. Neat process but in science class not art that time.
http://www.helium.com/items/662068-how-to-tea-stain-fabric
You can also employ tea as an excellent fabric dye to create traditional Asian artistic designs on panels or clothes. (and it makes a wicked tie-dye too) It’s sadly not done much anymore because the dye winds up decaying in the fabric eventually but IMHO is much prettier than many modern pigment stains. There is also a debate on where it first came from as seen here.
http://www.easterntea.com/research/teastaining.htm
After asking around this morning it seems either my childhood classes were very progressive or very odd as many, except some other artists, looked at me like I was off tilt when I asked if they had done tea-stained art as a kid . To each their own I suppose.
However the effect is easily put down in PS (as an artistic effect to mimic the real pigment artistic effect) with simple filters or techniques, and in many cases unnecessarily so, which was really my point.
Never did Tea staining is school myself. Very progressive school indeed lol! The sepia look of old west photos is again due to the selenium toning that I mentioned., as well as most modern prints of old west photos being from Ambrotypes which were brown to start with. Actual photographic sepia toning smells horrible (rotten eggs on steroids) and provides no archival protection. Why we still have old west photos, but I must agree that sepia toning in photoshop is over done and poorly as well.
The Ansel Adams society got so fed up with it, that they actually had custom duotone routines created to to properly create the look of selenium toning, not that yellow hell of sepia tone.
Here is an example of the AA selenium curves on a digital image, a lot better than sepia.
Actually yes, and believe or knot (see what I did there?) I learned to do needlework, knit, crewel work and basic sewing at an early age because mom thought I’d need it one day… I’m still trying to work out why but I do have a guess. Personally I think she wanted to show a daughter but didn’t have one to pass it on to so I was the next best thing. I always liked it to be honest - though I didn’t have the patience for it. Somewhere I’ve got shoddy needlework pillow of an airforce logo I never got around to completing.
Wasn’t picking on knitting, just trying to find something about as far away from an automotive program as I could get that hit a different segment of the demographic to illustrate my point.
As an art form I have much respect for the thread arts, and believe it or not, the hobbies I enjoy, furniture making, fine scale modeling, and amateur bowyer, make knitting look like the main-line-Superbowl of crafts. So a saying about a pot and kettle comes to mind there. 
That… is scary.
Religion and knittery…seems like they go together like hand and glove. I wonder if some muslim or hindi has a favorite religious passage crocheted on the wall in their living room like my grandmother used to. I wonder if anyone of ANY religion has ever crocheted a violent passage like “Kill the Infedels” and put it on the wall.
“What is kill all humans, Alex?”
This needs to be a new GWC shirt >.>
“Religion and Knittery”… Maybe it should have its own thread. Hey I made a pun! Religion and Knittery destroying the fabric of society, film at 11! A cell of needle-pointing terrorists was captured in Seattle, we go now to Shepard Smith for further details… “Yes Greta, local citizens became suspicious when they saw a group of Arabic men making repeated trips to JoAnn and Michael’s stores for supplies. Thanks to tips from concerned citizens their foul plan was unraveled!”
Greta: “Shep, were these terrorists men of the cloth?”
Shep: “I do not believe that was sew.”
R2 had natural language (the ability to receive and transmit linguistic data in a way other life forms could understand) - he just didn’t physically have the mechanisms to produce speech (cheap astromech units don’t have a need to communicate, for the most part). That’s why, when he is able to use the X-Wing as a communicative intermediary (i.e. communicating by putting text on one of the screens), Luke can understand him just fine without 3PO translating.
[Edit: just restarted the 'cast and heard you make this exact point, Chuck]
Sean, I 100% agree with your reservation about using natural language as a criterion for establishing intelligence since we might not understand it. I was just trying to explain why, even though it might be totally alien (no pun intended) to us, it’ll almost certainly be there. It’s just that “natural” is entirely dependent on common ground shared by both the speaker and listener, so what is typically “natural” to the AI may not at all be natural to us, assuming we aren’t the ones that make it.
Even then, though, I don’t think language is an insurmountable hurdle. Given time, we can pretty much reverse engineer the phonology (assuming it’s an auditory language), morphology, and syntax of any type of communication by constructing a lexicon and constructive rules. Then, those things can be used to construct new communications going the other direction. It’s a tedious process, but as long as we don’t accidentally piss the AI off by flying a helicopter at it & flashing a seizure-inducing light array, I’m confident we could figure out any communicative methodology.
You mean Bartowsky and/or Cage?
In addition to the info Bishop Montanha provided the License Fee raised around £3.5 Billion last year, taken from that is the overhead required to maintain and enforce the license fee. The BBC also gets a share of the profits from BBC Worldwide a joint venture between the public corporation and private business and it’s this venture that is responsible for BBC America. Despite around £1 Billion in revenues the profits have been only around £100 million so the BBC themselves are not an example of using money to make money.
I guess from outside the UK the BBC and it’s funding is something to admire but in reality it’s a hold over of the times when the British public had to say in what they were given from the state and how it was paid for. The BBC had a monopoly on TV and radio for decades and it’s only the inertia and mindset that has protected it from the realities of the real world.
There has never been so much pressure on the BBC to justify itself and cut costs but even with half the households in the UK taking some sort of voluntary PAY subscription television there are no real signs the BBC will be forced to fend for itself in a open and competitive market.
The amusing thing is that for anyone outside the UK saying “I would pay for it” the fact is that when you are in the UK it’s a question being forced to pay for it just for owning a TV receiving device even if you never watch the BBC. Choice tends to make everything more palatable;)
That is true, I hardly watch the BBC except the news, doctor who and stuff like that. I tend to watch more US programs than UK.
Also people are curious to why the Chris Moyles and the Jonathon Ross’s get paid so much vs the fees that we pay and the television that we receive.
I think Moyles is on £630000 for talking on the radio, Terry Wogan - 80k (but people like Ol’ Terry), J Ross - 6 million. We do get alot of repeats and/or the same sort of shows (which are cheap to make) which make people angry.