Finally, a 21st century technologyThe early 21st century holds so much promise. For the great science fiction writers it was far enough away for progressive scientific advancement to happen and close enough for humanity to still be relatable to the reader. There's also something special about crossing over the year 2000. Two thousand! It's like "now" had become "then".
Arthur C. Clarke saw free global communication and people travelling between planets, Philip K. Dick saw hovering cars and androids that could pass as people. What do we have instead? The best that we can muster are planetary probes that have to crash land to be regarded as a success and cars that still travel on the same wheel that cavemen invented. Maybe that's a good thing. If necessity is the mother of invention then I suppose we should be thanking our lucky stars that we've never had a need for laser guns or androids.
Relief is no counter to disappointment, so you can imagine my excitement when no less than Prince Charles recently appeared as a hologram to give a speech. The speech wasn't some regal bullshit that no-one cares about, it was a message on the perils of global warming that no-one cares about. As always, the message here isn't important, it's the medium (sorry, this crap was drilled into me in university). Holograms! Oh boy! This is just the kind of technology that I have been hanging out for.
I was going to explain how this works and which consumer goods it will be replacing in the near future, but Wikipedia has pretty much exploded all the romance out of it for me. In case you don't want to read this article, I will summarise. It's really not much more than a movie projected on to glass with a weak reflective layer. What is behind the glass is still able to be seen by the viewer, with the brightened 2D image of the "hologram" in between. The viewer sees the movie being played seemingly in mid air. The Prince Charles hologram had a black background to enhance the effect.
If that doesn't sound like a hologram to you, then you're right, it's not. It's not even a pale imitation. It's a trick that's been around for almost as long as cinema has, and it hasn't taken off because it's just plain crappy. Illusion, Michael. A trick is something a whore does for money.
Those police lineups on TV use a similar trick, though it's used to obscure the background rather than make an image float. A brightened room full of potential criminals is separated from a darkened room with detectives and a rape victim inside by a window-sized partial mirror. Some of the light from the bright room makes it through, while the partial mirror keeps out the weak light from the dark room.
I can't see real holograms replacing TV or telephones anytime soon, and certainly not with the crap described above. A floating 3D head doesn't add much to the communication process. I think that even voice isn't needed for successful communication, as the popularity of SMS shows. I can see holograms being used in niche industries, say as a tour guide for a historical location, where the hologram can add to the experience. I'd love Hitler to show me around his bunker, or Neil Armstrong to show me around the movie set.
Speaking of Prince Charles, I like the man! I'm no lunatic monarchist (sorry, constitutional monarchist, because we all know that any nation without a king is a lawless ratsnest) but I think that he'll make a fine king. He went after the love of his life, even if she is a hideous personality implosion. He speaks his mind and puts his money where his mouth is, but then I suppose I would too if I was sitting on an infinite pile of money and no-one could fire me. King of Australia? Well, that's another matter.
«PreviousNext»
King of Australia?
I voted for a republic in the referendum but have since changed my mind. Sure the monarchy is pretty silly and all but the idea of a president, you know, an elected king is a great deal worse. Here's my reasoning: 1) The current GG is a essentially powerless figurehead representing a powerless figurehead, 2) The referendum was sunk by framing the question so as to offend the demotic sensibilities of those who touchingly believe that an elected president somehow represents the apotheosis of the citizen. 3) This indicates to me that the powers of the office of the president would rapidly expand by popular demand. The citizenry would see the president as "their man", allowing he/she to ride roughshod over the reps the senate the judiciary everyone on a wave of popular acclaim. Imagine John Laws with executive power.
So, Hail Charles, the third of that name...
Comment posting is disabled.
