The real Shakespeare could only pump out Shakespeare too.
Wait - so we could have a whole section of the internet that Windows computers fundamentally can't access? Sign me up!
Maybe if they'd spent the 11 years using these resources to rein in police racism and brutality, there wouldn't be a need for protests.
Bad cops and systemic police racism are what's terrorizing the populace in cities like Baltimore - that's your terrorist threat right there. But law enforcement are also the ones running these centers. It's the old problem of who's watching the watchers.
I get your point, but I think a representation of a hologram is a representation of a hologram, regardless of whether or not the subject is a fictional character.
Plus, I can't think of many good alternatives to calling representations of holograms anything but "holograms".
You could call it a "virtual protest", but "virtual" is a weak and vague term. It's really more suggestive of VR or AR technology.
"virtual projection" is better than "virtual" on its own, and would work in this case. But it doesn't work for the many well-known hologram effects that are done using Pepper's ghost (like 2pac, MJ, etc), because those are reflections, not projections. It replaces one technically inaccurate term with another.
"pseudo-hologram" is the best blanket term I can think of.
Eventually though, in 50 to 100 years, we will have actual video hologram tech. People will then be able to see and understand the difference, and these cheap smoke and mirror tricks will be abandoned, and the problem will go away on its own.
First, projection onto a semitransparent material is not a pepper's ghost illusion. Pepper's ghost is a reflection onto a 45-degree transparent screen.
Second, you are confusing implimentation with representation.
Full coulour video holograms are science fiction. The technology to create them doesn't exist and probably won't within our lifetime. But many representations of hologram individuals are commonly referred to as holograms, and nobody questions or challenges this.
For example, Arnold Rimmer on Red Dwarf and the EMH Doctor on Star Trek Voyageur are universally accepted as holograms, as is the projection of Princess Leia in Star Wars that was produced by R2-D2. I've never heard any nerd or pedant challenge this. But none of these holograms were made using holography. Rimmer and the EMH were just actors standing on set. Very occasionally they would use visual affects to indicate their hologram-ness. The projection of Princess Leia was also a visual effect. They weren't created using holograms. They represented holograms.
Likewise, this protest involved representations of holograms, created using non-holographic means (because there is no other way to do it). They are as much holograms as any character that is universally referred to as a hologram.
If this was a protest involving people waving toy lightsabers around, I don't think many pedants would complain if the media called it a lightsaber protest. You'd sound kind of stupid complaining that they weren't using "real lightsabers". So I don't know why people get so irrationally bent out of shape over representations of holograms.
If 80% of all SF writers are white males, then you can expect around that same fraction of the nominees to be white and male.
Maybe, but not necessarily.
If roughly 50% of English speakers are white, and roughly 50% of those are male, then around 75% of English-speakers are NOT white males.
If one were to assume that writing talent is more or less evenly distributed among the population, and that the truly gifted are increasingly able to rise to the top despite cultural and social biases, then I would expect that the majority of outsanding writers today to not be white males, regardless of the underlying distribution of all the mediocre writers.
That's the short "radio" version. The hour-long 10,000 digit version I think has greater impact.
Other articles spin it the other way.
'Spocking' Laurier on $5 not illegal, says Bank of Canada
Really? because I'm surprised at those who downplay it.
When you see it as blue-black it looks really blue-black. When you see it as white-gold it looks really white-gold. It's astonishing when you have two groups of people looking at the same thing at the same time under the same lighting conditions and seeing such radically different things, to the point that is unimaginable for each that the other person could be seeing what they say they're seeing.
What I find intereresting is that in all of recorded history, no painting, photograph, or object has ever exhibited this property in such an extreme and shocking way before. If it only work on LCDs then that might explain it, but I don't know if that's been established.
Have you been in a room with two different groups of intelligent perceptive people, all looking at the same picture on the same screen and seeing two totally different sets of colours, and screaming at each other because of it?
Maybe you have, maybe you haven't. But those who haven't experienced it, are probably not the best persons to judge it. Just saying.
Japan's computer-generated grassroots indie pop phenomenon Hatsune Miku makes her US TV debut Wednesday on the David Letterman show.
Not exactly what the article about, given that Miku is massively crowdsourced, and provides opportunities for musicians, rather than taking away jobs. But a funny coincidence nonetheless.
If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
Playing devil's advocate...
2001 had music over top of space scenes. You can't hear music in space, never mind Dolby surround sound, so this was wrong. I think there was also music playing on ancient Earth, which is before music was invented.
I've also seen subtitled versions of 2001 (and lots of movies praised for their realism). This is wrong. When people speak in real life, glowing words don't magically appear beneath them.
One can argue that these are cinematic conventions that improve people's enjoyment. The music has emotional impact, and the subtitles make it easier to understand what is happening (especially with foreign languages). But then why can't things like space sound effects (which add impact) and visible lasers (which make it easier to see what is happening) also be considered cinematic conventions? It all seems a bit arbitrary to me.
Then send the follow-up mission in the first ship, and then send the colony ship in the faster ship second. The faster colony ship gets there first, and the follow-up ship arrives second.
If your objective is to get as many ships to as many stars as quickly as possible, then there is simply no benefit to waiting for faster ships to be invented.
Sure, and in every sci fi book, the next generation drive beat them there. Sometimes spending more time on the colony than the travelers spent getting there.
I've seen that argument many times including in at least one physics journal. I believe it is one of the stupidest arguments ever put forward by scientists.
There are billions of stars in the heavens. So why would you ever send a next generation ship to a star that you've already sent a ship to?! Send your next generation ship to a different star. There are plenty to chose from.