Category Archives: Transhuman News

H1Z1 - Futurism
Futuress explains the commandments of Futurism in this short montage of sick jumps. Music: Zomboy - Survivors (Feat. MUST DIE!) https://youtu.be/jekSKv1Id28.

By: Jason K

Read the original here:
H1Z1 - Futurism - Video

MUSE - EXETER GREAT HALL - FUTURISM - 20TH MARCH 2015
Muse Performing Futurism at Exeter Great Hall What A Night!!

By: futurism

More here:
MUSE - EXETER GREAT HALL - FUTURISM - 20TH MARCH 2015 - Video

Muse - Futurism | Cover de Bajo (Bass Cover)
Puede que difiera de la original, en la versin en vivo al parecer es diferente la figura principal adems de que la tocan 1/2 tono abajo.

By: Azka TheHedgehog

See more here:
Muse - Futurism | Cover de Bajo (Bass Cover) - Video

Has the conversation about streaming music serviceschanged in recent years? Hasmusic's future entered the absolute present? If so, how did music execs and indie artists react. Kyle Bylin, a tech writer and user researcher, explores all of these interesting questions in his latest essay.

1. Music Futurism

Ive spent several years of my life writing about the future of music listening. I love to look at the world through the lens of a music startup that has an ambition to change current listener habits and speculate on what the shift could mean if it actually happens. The greatest challenge of this pursuit is that behavioral change often takes a very long time to occur, and by the time a predicted shift begins to fully emerge, both the world and I have likely forgotten that I ever planted that flag in the ground.

I have woken up several times in the past couple of years to a news story about a music startup launch or new feature release that sounded very familiar. I look back in my blog post archive, and, sure enough, a few years earlier I predicted that this very thing might happen. So I email the writer with a hyperlink to an old blog post of mine, and then he or she updates his or her news story with an acknowledgment that I had said it first.

And then, life goes on.

There is nothing awarded for correctly predicting that some thing might happen at some point. Furthermore, it often takes several more years to learn whether a music startup or new feature will cause a behavioral shift among music listeners. There have been many cases where I hypothesized about how a specific feature would look and feel, and why it would matter, only to see that some company came to realize the potential for a similar feature and incorporated it into a part of its music website or mobile app.

Months or years later, I grab a coffee with the startup founder and ask him or her about this feature, only to find out that no one uses it. Did the company get the feature right? Could the feature have been a commercial success if it had been introduced in a different context or incorporated into another product? It's hard to know. I have heard that it can take many different implementations for a feature to catch on. Oftentimes, the company doesnt have enough time to test every possible angle. Some ideas come too early and others too late, but sometimes they arrive right on time. Timing is what every music startup must attempt to nail or defy.

Today, many versions of the future of music exist. Interestingly, I think this has decreased speculation about what this future might entail and increased concern from industry executives and indie artists about how the present will play out.

At the start of 2011, the online trade conversation about streaming music services was mainly based on anticipation and speculation: What will happen when company X does X? What will happen when Spotify finally launches in the U.S. and a free version is offered without a trial period? Will this freemium model lead to wider use of subscription music? What will happen when Apple releases a Pandora or Spotify killer? Apple has sold over 800 million iOS devices and over 800 million credit cards on file with iTunes. How about Google, Facebook, Samsung, Twitter, or Amazon? What will happen when these major tech giants decide to enter the streaming music space? Will there be a streaming music war? Who will win? As each of these hotly anticipated and highly speculated things happened, the music industrys focus shifted from the next horizon to the present moment.

A strong indicator of this shift arrived in 2012, when several indie artists published their royalty statements online and stirred up a heated debate about streaming payout figures. In sum, their blog posts and social statuses said, Look at what Pandora and Spotify pay me right now. My royalty payments are too small. We must discuss this issue right now. For months, indie artists argued with industry executives about whether they understood how to read royalty statements and if streaming payouts could ever support their careers. Most artists didnt seem to care whether they would receive more money from Pandora and Spotify as their business operations and revenue streams grew in the coming years. All they focused on was how their streaming payouts compared to their music income and whether Pandora and Spotify royalties could supplant declining physical and digital sales. Suddenly, the conversation about whether Pandora and Spotify were the future of music grew into direct criticism about whether either companys business model was sustainable.

Read the original post:
MUSIC INDUSTRY: Present Shock: When Musica(TM)S Future Arrives in the Here and Now [kyle Bylin]

Over the past 400,000 years, the amount of carbon dioxide in the Earths atmosphere has periodically fluctuated, and along with it, so have global temperatures. When the concentration of CO2 has increased, global temperatures have also seen an increase and vice versa.

The basic atmospheric chemistry, which as been well-studied since the 19th century, suggests that the increased concentration of CO2 is driving the increase in temperatures. All else being equal, if you introduce more CO2 into a gaseous mixture containing mostly nitrogen and oxygen, like our atmosphere, youll see more heat trapped something you can demonstrate easily in the laboratory. However, untangling cause and effect in historical events can be tricky, especially in this case, where the evidence is drawn primarily by examining evidence from Antarctic ice cores.

Some earlier studies had suggested that the increased temperatures seen over the past 400,000 years actually preceded the increase of carbon dioxide concentration. While more recent research has cast significant doubt on those findings, a debate among some climate researchers over the causal relationships has remained.

CO2 concentration over the past 400,000 years. (Credit: NASA)

That may change now thanks to a new mathematical analysis from an international team led by Egbert van Nes of Wageningen University. To develop their conclusions, the team utilized a method to detect causality in complex systems developed by George Sugihara. These methods have been successfully used to determine issues of cause and effect in ecological systems where some variables may be dependent on one another, such as the relationship between sardine and anchovy populations with ocean temperatures in the Pacific Northwest. (For details on those original methods, see this paper.)

Use of this statistical method, the authors write, allows us to circumvent the classical challenges of unravelling causation from multivariate time series.We build on this insight to demonstrate directly from ice-core data that, over glacialinterglacial timescales, climate dynamics are largely driven by internal Earth system mechanisms, including a marked positive feedback effect from temperature variability on greenhouse-gas concentrations.

In other words, this new model allows climate researchers to confirm that the known chemistry of greenhouse gasses helped drive positive feedback loops that led to increases in global temperatures. Even in a case over the past 400,000 years where the temperatures may have started to rise first, the subsequent increase in carbon dioxide helped to drive those trends upward when they might have otherwise leveled off or declined.

Our new results confirm the prediction of positive feedback from the climate models, research team member Tim Lenton said in a statement. The big difference is that now we have independent data based evidence.

Average global temperatures by decade. (Credit: World Meteorological Organization)

This new paper is significant as it provides further validation for current climate models and provides yet another resource to demonstrate the consequences of rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the Earths atmosphere. From the perspective of the last 400,000 years, were currently entering uncharted territory. The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere now exceeds any concentration seen during that period of time. And the results are predictable the past few decades have seen increased average temperatures. Last year, 2014, was the hottest year on record since 1880.

Go here to see the original:
Research Confirms That Carbon Dioxide Led To Higher Temperatures In The Past