Edward Snowden’s Strangely Free Life as a Robot
nymag.com
nymag.com
For one, on our model, there's zero peripheral vision. This makes it really hard to orient yourself in space - how far away is that wall? Did I scoot far enough past that doorway to swivel 90° to the right and go through it? Am I about to hit someone?
The same problem occurs when you're trying to talk to people. You can really only see two people who are standing in front of you. I'm not even sure if there's stereo sound - as there appears to be on the Snowbot, since he swivels towards people who are addressing him.
Other minor difficulties:
* it was difficult to park it into its charging station, which meant that sometimes it would just go comatose in a hallway.
* there's still a fair amount of lag, which makes it slightly annoying to have a conversation. Dialing someone over Skype/Hipchat/whatever-video is almost always the better option.
* sometimes you'd remote in, and be in an unfamiliar location because the robot wasn't returned to its parking spot. Since the whole point is to be able to access remote locations, we typically weren't familiar with the office layout, and would have to wander around aimlessly trying to get someone to help us get to where we needed to go.
The wide angle / fisheye view would provide a more typical FPS-like frame of reference, while the 20-35mm view makes faces appear realistic.
The unit should have an internal map of the company and know where each employees desk is, you shouldn't have to manually drive it around an unknown office, thats just crazy! I'm sure the fact that it doesn't is a result of it still being in the novelty phase, but I would think the industry might get serious about this technology as teams become more and more distributed. Anything that simulates the effect of presence is going to be very valuable and detrimental to the communication of the future distributed workforce. I think VR/AR will ultimately take over this space, but these roving camera/screen's might be a good interim solution.
Don't bother. Pied Piper video chat is so much better.
Not the end of the world but not pleasant either.
I'm not saying that these bots are bad, but I feel like there's a benefit that I'm not seeing.
As soon as there is a sufficiently high value trade on the table, Putin will put him on a plane to the United States, without a moment's hesitation.
However I imagine politically useful dissident might well be kept in an ambiguous status, if the perceived use as a bargaining chip later was high enough.
Really I was just objecting to the idea that the US is somehow above such shenanigans because of some sort of philosophically deep commitment to the "rule of law". Neither proposition holds much weight on evidence of actual behavior. Which isn't at all to say I believe the US is equally likely to engage in such behavior as Russia, mind you.
IANAL but would love to hear what some more informed have to say about this. The law is constantly catching up to technology....
To make the question meaningful, I suppose you'd have to stipulate that the robot is somehow irreplaceable. Meaning it's the only one of its kind that's capable of representing itself as the body of Ed Snowden, and that it's the only means at his disposal for interacting with the outside world.
On the other hand, it's no stretch at all to say that the company who provided the robot is liable under US law for aiding and abetting him, especially if Snowden has to use their servers to communicate with it. (Well, OK, it's a stretch, but it's a stretch that the US judicial system has had no qualms about making in the past.) Our Federal courtrooms aren't often mistaken for philosophy classrooms.
It's not like those robots are only made for Snowden are they?
Those gas station corn dogs are a crime against humanity but a fine seems excessive.
The point is what a designation is for; in the case of an arrest vs detention or seizure for natural persons, it's usually an elaborate shell game around when various search doctrines or other restraints on police behavior kick in. In the case of property, the only point is to grab your stuff; the circumstances surrounding it don't particularly matter because they can always decide later under one doctrine or another that they're entitled to keep it.
To the point about the movie focusing on one substantial robot body, there is an excellent explanation: extremely limited quantities of vibranium.
How informative is such statement? Is the $25,000 based on the maximum fee that any speaker has earned? Is it the average fee? Is it the highest fee that Snowden or someone representing him has said he have earned?
Is the $1.25M/yr in any way anchored to Snowden, or is it just speculation? Do Daniel Ellsberg also earn 1.25M/yr through speaker fees? The Wikipedia article about him fails to mention his vast riches.
>He is scheduled to make more than 50 such appearances around the world this year, earning speaking fees that can reach more than $25,000 per appearance, though many speeches are pro bono.
Snowden movie:
> Snowden had a hand in making the film as well, consulting Stone and helping with the casting.
https://www.rt.com/news/335319-snowden-stone-movie-problems-...
You are taking a speaking fee that is implied to be at the upper end, and multiplying it by a number including unpaid speeches (which is "many" of them), and then implying that this is how much he is making.
Sure, you said up to. I also make up to $1.25M/yr on speaking fees, but it's not a bump up from any payscale since the actual number is 0.
Can I ask what problem this solves that something like skype/hipchat/whatever doesn't solve? I guess to me it just feels like a step backwards.
I'm not saying that these bots are bad, but I feel like there's a benefit that I'm not seeing.
It's totally at the discretion of the Beam driver get online drive over to your desk and start a conversation. Much more like having someone in the office. It also has a very personal feel talking to your colleague next to you. You have to experience it to understand. The full-scale Beam is a much nicer experience, we also have the cheaper model, which also works well.
In Czech language `robota` means forced labor for your lord. Robotnik is just guy performing it, it is not used in other way in Czech language.
Another language with the same word used with a closer meaning does not always mean there is a connection. Etymology usually discovers connections which aren't intuitive at all.
[1]: (Turkish) http://www.nisanyansozluk.com/?k=robot&x=0&y=0
Source: I read memoirs of guy who invented this word in theater play.
A little bit off-topic, I was quite surprised when I clicked the link, to find that the unnamed "French musician" is, in fact, synthesizer legend Jean-Michel Jarre. Why not mention his name? It kind of sounds like it's some random dude on youtube, but he's right up there with Kraftwerk and not even a little obscure :)
On another note, I think it's funny how many similarities this music video has with the intro-theme of TV-series "Person of Interest" :) The imagery and especially the vocal effects on Snowden's voice in the second half :)
I'm guessing that one was locally manned by someone nearby. It's possible that device did not have a videocam feed back either but that local person had LOS on the robot.