It's the end of Firefly because Fox owns the rights to the series and WON'T LET Sci-Fi make the series. Nor will they make the series themselves, and in fact they did SFA to push it when they showed it - out of order, skipped the pilot episode, shuffled show times at random, etc. The only opportunity JW had to keep making Firefly stuff was the movie, which I personally liked.
It's not beneath him, it is unavailable to him. You have insulted him without reason or justification. Is that because you didn't understand what was going on?
First, the connection between drug addicts and refusing to consider advice on its merits has yet to be established. Grandparent poster compared me to a drug addict who says that you shouldn't knock his addiction before you try it; essentially, grandparent is saying, "I don't have to eat shit to know I don't like the taste." Probably true, but not relevant. You do have to have children of your own in order to understand how difficult it can be to maintain "spine," as GP put it. I, like grandparent poster, have been intimately involved in raising siblings of my own; trust me, it's different when it's *your* child. GP did NOT say, however, that I was like a drug addict because I refused to accept advice; as far as I can tell, that's an invention of your own.
Second, you make a close stab at a logical conclusion: my response to his post carried a tone which was less than pleasant, true, based on the fact that his post was damned well ugly. (OK, so was my response.) However, IF you decide that my response to Seumas smelt of sanctimonious prick, that still doesn't support his conclusion that I was a sanctimonious prick because I didn't value the advice of a non-parent. At best, it supports the conclusion (unstated by anyone so far) that I was a sanctimonious prick because he was one first. I know, I know; two wrongs don't make a right. S'OK, the kid's out with Mommy right now.
As it happens, you are spot on with your anecdotal child-rearing stories, IMHO. You haven't said anything that I would disagree with, nor would I have jumped on you for saying it. What I objected to, at the very top, was a non-parent mouthing meaningless statements of intent like "I would try to teach them that you don't need shiny things to be happy" as if he was privy to majestic truths that those of us with children can never truly know. Like, duh. He might as well say (please pardon my foulmouth here), "I would teach them not to hate niggers!" as if it were worthy of an award. What I object to are self-righteous, sanctimonious pricks (there's that phrase again) who see parents having to work to raise a child well, and treat it as if it were easy and they must be unintelligent for screwing it up. I hold my sister up as an example: she's a brilliant mathematician, but not such a good parent (hope she's not reading this!). The kid's spoiled rotten right now, and she knows it, and she's working on it - but it's not easy. Fortunately, he's only two, and she has time to straighten things out.
Point is, advice like "my reaction would be to not take them down that aisle anymore," is less than useless, because it doesn't do anything to teach a child not to be a mindless consumer - which was, IIRC, the original point. It's like avoiding the birds and the bees talk so your child won't ever have sex. All it does is relieve the parent (temporarily) of the burden of actually having to deal with the problem. It's not advice from someone with experience, or even from someone with second-hand experience, nor is it good advice; and so I feel no remorse at all for disregarding it. Should I have been more polite about pointing out my disregard? Perhaps. But it doesn't make me wrong.
Oh, no, you miss my point. My point is that blanket statements like, "I don't have any children, but I know how to raise 'em right!" are not just useless, but annoying as well. Grandparent poster says, e.g., that he would solve the problem by not taking them down that aisle any more. Which, of course, simply avoids the problem instead of solving it. Or "I'd teach them not to want stuff just because it's shiny!" as if reasoning with a 2-year-old is like coding in Basic. I mean, duh! Who DOES want to raise their kids to be mindless consumers?
But, in case you really do want parenting advice from someone on Slashdot (advice that's worth the paper it's printed on), here's my advice on trying not to raise a mindless consumer: less TV. Especially broadcast TV. So far, Noggin seems to be pretty good (commercial-free). Realize that your child will learn to want things BEFORE he or she is capable of discussing the matter rationally, and that having an unfortunate scene isn't always avoidable. Try to establish as early as possible that "No." isn't negotiable. Try to accommodate requests for books whenever possible. Also, remember that each child is different and what works on one doesn't always work on another. And that advice, my friend, is worth what you paid for it. Remember - you asked for it, I didn't push it on you.
So you, a non-parent, compare me to a drug-addicted, unintelligent, sanctimonious prick because I don't value the child-rearing advice of a non-parent?
[blink]
What is this, stupid comment day on Slashdot? You win a prize for writing the least insightful comment? You appear to have first place locked up.
I must thank you, though, for that swell hint on not feeding your children ice cream for breakfast every day. That must be what got you a "+1, Insightful" mod. Nice one. Sure wish *I* had an IQ.
But were you avoiding AMEX to prevent their uncovering your Krispy Krimes? "... And I've have gotten away with it, too, if it hadn't been for you darned meddling KIDS!"
OK, calm down, now. I'm really sorry, here. Nobody needs to get hurt over this. It was a simple mistake, and I'm really very sorry, OK? Now just back away from the keyboard. Let's try to relax, just a little bit. Deep breaths. Deep breaths. Yeah, that's better.
I think perhaps next time you should insert a smaller stick. Hint: not necessary to use the entire broomstick. Your ass will thank you. It may be worth ramping down the coffee consumption, too -- and I am only saying that because I care -- there's a lot of decaffeinated brands on the market that are just as tasty as the real thing.
And I will promptly turn around and disagree with you. I have a Fuji (which I love), two Sonys (both of which are better cameras than the Fuji), and an Olympus.
That Olympus is the single worst digital camera I've ever owned, or even seen. It's the only one I've ever owned which actually needed repair due to defects in materials or workmanship (I take care of my electronics - it was a crappy part), it has the worst autofocus I can imagine someone trying to market, and it's slower than a molasses-covered septuagenarian driver license office worker after lunch in January. It takes forever to turn on, takes forever to set focus and adjust exposure, and takes at least three eternities to actually take the photo when you depress the shutter button the rest of the way. On a camera without manual focus available, you HAVE to have *good* AF (and AE), and the Olympus has neither. I absolutely and categorically disagree with any statement which associates "Olympus digital camera" with "unquistionable quality (sic)", unless it's as a counter-example thereof. This camera, you see, is a flaming piece of shit. People - complete strangers! - have been known to see me trying to take a picture with it, take pity on me, and actually write me a check for my "Buy Rob a new, functional digital camera" fund.
Now I've got a Sony that's smaller, faster, has more resolution, and has both AF and AE far superior to the Olympus, and for that matter to any other consumer camera I've ever used, mine or anyone else's. I include in that dataset several of Canon's series of Digital Elph cameras, which are nice but I don't like 'em as well as this Sony DSC-T1. I don't think I'd have bought the Sony myself (it was a gift), but I sure do like it. It's a relief and a pleasure to use a camera that works as it ought.
I humbly beg to differ. Actually, almost everything you wrote was wrong.
Here's the info you wanted but apparently couldn't Google for: The 'p' or 'i' part refers to 'progressive' or 'interlaced', not to a specific resolution. In terms of video bandwidth, you're right - 1080i30 is the same as 540p60. But in terms of pixel resolution, you couldn't be more wrong. Sorry.
1080i is the shorthand term for a video resolution of 1920H x 1080V, with 60 interlaced 1920Hx540V fields per second, 2 fields per frame - effectively 30 1920Hx1080V frames per second. So the first field in a frame will display the even (or odd, can't remember which and it doesn't matter) lines, and then the second field will display the other lines interlaced between the first field's lines. It's not the same lines on the screen updated twice.
1080p30 is 30 progressive 1920H x 1080V frames per second. No interlacing, hence no fields.
1080p60 is 60 1920H x 1080V frames per second, with no interlacing. That requires considerably more bandwidth than 1080i OR 720p - which is 60 full 1280H x 720V frames per second, non-interlaced. Nobody broadcasts in 1080p60 right now. It's basically all 720p (ABC, ESPN, FOX) or 1080i.
"HD Ready" means that the set is capable of accepting an HD signal, but does not have an ATSC tuner.
'EDTV' displays are not capable of displaying HD signals at full resolution, so they downsample the incoming HD image to some resolution that they can display - my 800x600 LCD projector will do that, but of course can't display anything better than 480p without downconversion.
To be a true HD set, and not an EDTV set, it must be capable of displaying at least 720p, or (preferably) 1080i or greater. Most current CRT and projection HDTV sets are completely capable of displaying 1080i at full resolution. If you buy an "HDTV" and its native resolution is any lower than 1280x720, you got screwed. Interestingly, lots of HD LCD panels are actually WXGA, or something along the lines of (get it? lines? Ah, I kill me!) 1280x768 - clearly adapted from computer display panels, as evidenced by the '768' part. There's no reason for having 768 lines to display a 720 line image.
Now, if you want to get into the relative merits of 1080i vs. 720p, I'm ready; be warned, though, the answers aren't as clear here. Much of the issue has to do with a) personal preference and b) the nature of the source material.
I'm trying really hard here not to be insulting or dismissive, but I'd really appreciate it if next time you feel the urge for an, "ummm...," coming on that you stop and check your facts before you correct someone. I see that sort of behavior far too often on Slashdot. I realize that in meatspace, most of us are the most technically savvy people we know - but here on Slashdot, we're all technocrati. You're almost guaranteed NOT to be the most knowledgeable person here on any given subject, unless it's your Ph.D. topic or something. I am (relatively speaking) an expert in video. I have 10 years of broadcast video engineering experience, a bachelor's and master's in EE, and am A.B.D. for my Ph.D. in EE. I have designed and built several functional, used-in-the-field video circuits and devices. I am currently a paid consultant in video circuit design. I'm not just guessing, or making shit up.
By the way, if you ever get the urge to correct someone else here on Slashdot about rocket-triggered lightning, come ask me first.
Indeed. However, the grandparent referred to neither a 17" screen nor a laptop screen. He referred to a 15" widescreen desktop LCD. While your find is intriguing, it in no way qualifies for my next meal.
Aside: Why, STILL, can we not get desktop screens in the same pixel densities as laptop screens? I'd love a pair of 17" 1920x1280 desktop LCD screens. If you can get one in a ~$1500 laptop, why can't you buy a desktop version for $500 or so?
Well, HDTV's that can only do 720p natively don't have resolution greater than that of a desktop 15" widescreen LCD, it's true. However, most of the HDTV's that *I've* seen are capable of 1080i, and if you can find me any significant number of 15" widescreen desktop LCD's that display 1920x1080, I'll eat 'em. That's 23" territory, there.
...because your statement reeks of ignorance. FYI, what's 2 years old is DVD *burners* capable of writing to Dual-Layer discs. Your ancient DVD player does, in fact, read dual-layer mass-produced DVD videos. IOW, you are wrong. Why is it that people on Slashdot feel the need to declaim endlessly on subjects they don't understand, and then jump all over the people who do?
This ought to enlighten you a bit, and hopefully you'll learn to shut up (and do a quick Google) when those more knowledgeable than yourself attempt to educate you. You might wait on using the word "bullshit" until you've checked your facts.
What's different about it is that it's made out of the exact same stuff that your CPU is made of. So you could make a CPU with lasers on the die , reducing complexity and increasing compactness and integration. It's not that they're better lasers, it's that it opens the door to do more stuff with optical computing, networking, etc, ON CHIP. It's a real PITA to try to, e.g., combine GaAs lasers with a Si IC.
Will it make it possible for your computer to have sex with you tomorrow? No. But it's important nonetheless.
Yes. Because the laser is made with SILICON. Coincidentally, that's the same stuff your CPU was made from. You could, then, in theory, fabricate a laser on the same die as the CPU... or fabricate hundreds or thousands of on-die lasers for communications between regions or between IC's. The advantage of using Si is that it's cheap and well-understood, and we're already making the chips out of those. You can't fabricate a GaAs laser on the die with the CPU, you have to bond two different dice together.
So the advantage is that you could fabricate the laser on the same die as the CPU, and the wavelength isn't as important as the tight integration and reduction of processing complexity. Yes, that's important.
Well, they do run MXC, which is based on dialog-replaced Japanese enactments of life-size video game-style contests. So it's kinda about video games. Funny as shit, too, if your tastes aren't too fastidious.
Slashdot Mirror
So now what you're saying is that Linux thing is now on computers?
That's right. It's not just for toasters any more.
And I've used it (previous versions) on BeOS and IRIX.
It's the end of Firefly because Fox owns the rights to the series and WON'T LET Sci-Fi make the series. Nor will they make the series themselves, and in fact they did SFA to push it when they showed it - out of order, skipped the pilot episode, shuffled show times at random, etc. The only opportunity JW had to keep making Firefly stuff was the movie, which I personally liked.
It's not beneath him, it is unavailable to him. You have insulted him without reason or justification. Is that because you didn't understand what was going on?
Your logic leaves something to be desired.
First, the connection between drug addicts and refusing to consider advice on its merits has yet to be established. Grandparent poster compared me to a drug addict who says that you shouldn't knock his addiction before you try it; essentially, grandparent is saying, "I don't have to eat shit to know I don't like the taste." Probably true, but not relevant. You do have to have children of your own in order to understand how difficult it can be to maintain "spine," as GP put it. I, like grandparent poster, have been intimately involved in raising siblings of my own; trust me, it's different when it's *your* child. GP did NOT say, however, that I was like a drug addict because I refused to accept advice; as far as I can tell, that's an invention of your own.
Second, you make a close stab at a logical conclusion: my response to his post carried a tone which was less than pleasant, true, based on the fact that his post was damned well ugly. (OK, so was my response.) However, IF you decide that my response to Seumas smelt of sanctimonious prick, that still doesn't support his conclusion that I was a sanctimonious prick because I didn't value the advice of a non-parent. At best, it supports the conclusion (unstated by anyone so far) that I was a sanctimonious prick because he was one first. I know, I know; two wrongs don't make a right. S'OK, the kid's out with Mommy right now.
As it happens, you are spot on with your anecdotal child-rearing stories, IMHO. You haven't said anything that I would disagree with, nor would I have jumped on you for saying it. What I objected to, at the very top, was a non-parent mouthing meaningless statements of intent like "I would try to teach them that you don't need shiny things to be happy" as if he was privy to majestic truths that those of us with children can never truly know. Like, duh. He might as well say (please pardon my foulmouth here), "I would teach them not to hate niggers!" as if it were worthy of an award. What I object to are self-righteous, sanctimonious pricks (there's that phrase again) who see parents having to work to raise a child well, and treat it as if it were easy and they must be unintelligent for screwing it up. I hold my sister up as an example: she's a brilliant mathematician, but not such a good parent (hope she's not reading this!). The kid's spoiled rotten right now, and she knows it, and she's working on it - but it's not easy. Fortunately, he's only two, and she has time to straighten things out.
Point is, advice like "my reaction would be to not take them down that aisle anymore," is less than useless, because it doesn't do anything to teach a child not to be a mindless consumer - which was, IIRC, the original point. It's like avoiding the birds and the bees talk so your child won't ever have sex. All it does is relieve the parent (temporarily) of the burden of actually having to deal with the problem. It's not advice from someone with experience, or even from someone with second-hand experience, nor is it good advice; and so I feel no remorse at all for disregarding it. Should I have been more polite about pointing out my disregard? Perhaps. But it doesn't make me wrong.
Oh, no, you miss my point. My point is that blanket statements like, "I don't have any children, but I know how to raise 'em right!" are not just useless, but annoying as well. Grandparent poster says, e.g., that he would solve the problem by not taking them down that aisle any more. Which, of course, simply avoids the problem instead of solving it. Or "I'd teach them not to want stuff just because it's shiny!" as if reasoning with a 2-year-old is like coding in Basic. I mean, duh! Who DOES want to raise their kids to be mindless consumers?
But, in case you really do want parenting advice from someone on Slashdot (advice that's worth the paper it's printed on), here's my advice on trying not to raise a mindless consumer: less TV. Especially broadcast TV. So far, Noggin seems to be pretty good (commercial-free). Realize that your child will learn to want things BEFORE he or she is capable of discussing the matter rationally, and that having an unfortunate scene isn't always avoidable. Try to establish as early as possible that "No." isn't negotiable. Try to accommodate requests for books whenever possible. Also, remember that each child is different and what works on one doesn't always work on another. And that advice, my friend, is worth what you paid for it. Remember - you asked for it, I didn't push it on you.
So you, a non-parent, compare me to a drug-addicted, unintelligent, sanctimonious prick because I don't value the child-rearing advice of a non-parent?
[blink]
What is this, stupid comment day on Slashdot? You win a prize for writing the least insightful comment? You appear to have first place locked up.
I must thank you, though, for that swell hint on not feeding your children ice cream for breakfast every day. That must be what got you a "+1, Insightful" mod. Nice one. Sure wish *I* had an IQ.
Yup. You are right. And, chances are, it will be a physicist or a mathematician who does it. Not a hairdresser.
Well, I'm not a physicist, but I think Einstein was full of shit.
When you HAVE raised a child or two, we'll be interested in hearing your opinions about how to raise them.
...and 90% of Windows problems are caused by admins / users who don't know what they are doing ;-)
Oh, yeah. I'd forgotten how "easy to use" Windows is. Thanks, but no thanks.
But were you avoiding AMEX to prevent their uncovering your Krispy Krimes? "... And I've have gotten away with it, too, if it hadn't been for you darned meddling KIDS!"
"Douche?"
OK, calm down, now. I'm really sorry, here. Nobody needs to get hurt over this. It was a simple mistake, and I'm really very sorry, OK? Now just back away from the keyboard. Let's try to relax, just a little bit. Deep breaths. Deep breaths. Yeah, that's better.
I think perhaps next time you should insert a smaller stick. Hint: not necessary to use the entire broomstick. Your ass will thank you. It may be worth ramping down the coffee consumption, too -- and I am only saying that because I care -- there's a lot of decaffeinated brands on the market that are just as tasty as the real thing.
Sony cans over-rated, check. AKG's kickin' ass, check. Hey wait, you forgot about Grado! Not really studio cans, but trés sweet, clean, and flat.
And I will promptly turn around and disagree with you. I have a Fuji (which I love), two Sonys (both of which are better cameras than the Fuji), and an Olympus.
That Olympus is the single worst digital camera I've ever owned, or even seen. It's the only one I've ever owned which actually needed repair due to defects in materials or workmanship (I take care of my electronics - it was a crappy part), it has the worst autofocus I can imagine someone trying to market, and it's slower than a molasses-covered septuagenarian driver license office worker after lunch in January. It takes forever to turn on, takes forever to set focus and adjust exposure, and takes at least three eternities to actually take the photo when you depress the shutter button the rest of the way. On a camera without manual focus available, you HAVE to have *good* AF (and AE), and the Olympus has neither. I absolutely and categorically disagree with any statement which associates "Olympus digital camera" with "unquistionable quality (sic)", unless it's as a counter-example thereof. This camera, you see, is a flaming piece of shit. People - complete strangers! - have been known to see me trying to take a picture with it, take pity on me, and actually write me a check for my "Buy Rob a new, functional digital camera" fund.
Now I've got a Sony that's smaller, faster, has more resolution, and has both AF and AE far superior to the Olympus, and for that matter to any other consumer camera I've ever used, mine or anyone else's. I include in that dataset several of Canon's series of Digital Elph cameras, which are nice but I don't like 'em as well as this Sony DSC-T1. I don't think I'd have bought the Sony myself (it was a gift), but I sure do like it. It's a relief and a pleasure to use a camera that works as it ought.
Word.
Not, you know, like, "Use Word!" I mean, like, "Werd. I agree with you. Homie."
Seriously, LaTeX is the bizzomb. Use LyX, and it's even easy.
"PDF documents are not handled directly by your browser."
They most certainly are. Of course, I'm not using IE or FF. In any case, that doesn't really justify the warning.
Quoth bobbozzo: "1080i != 1920x1080."
," coming on that you stop and check your facts before you correct someone. I see that sort of behavior far too often on Slashdot. I realize that in meatspace, most of us are the most technically savvy people we know - but here on Slashdot, we're all technocrati. You're almost guaranteed NOT to be the most knowledgeable person here on any given subject, unless it's your Ph.D. topic or something. I am (relatively speaking) an expert in video. I have 10 years of broadcast video engineering experience, a bachelor's and master's in EE, and am A.B.D. for my Ph.D. in EE. I have designed and built several functional, used-in-the-field video circuits and devices. I am currently a paid consultant in video circuit design. I'm not just guessing, or making shit up.
I humbly beg to differ. Actually, almost everything you wrote was wrong.
Here's the info you wanted but apparently couldn't Google for: The 'p' or 'i' part refers to 'progressive' or 'interlaced', not to a specific resolution. In terms of video bandwidth, you're right - 1080i30 is the same as 540p60. But in terms of pixel resolution, you couldn't be more wrong. Sorry.
1080i is the shorthand term for a video resolution of 1920H x 1080V, with 60 interlaced 1920Hx540V fields per second, 2 fields per frame - effectively 30 1920Hx1080V frames per second. So the first field in a frame will display the even (or odd, can't remember which and it doesn't matter) lines, and then the second field will display the other lines interlaced between the first field's lines. It's not the same lines on the screen updated twice.
1080p30 is 30 progressive 1920H x 1080V frames per second. No interlacing, hence no fields.
1080p60 is 60 1920H x 1080V frames per second, with no interlacing. That requires considerably more bandwidth than 1080i OR 720p - which is 60 full 1280H x 720V frames per second, non-interlaced. Nobody broadcasts in 1080p60 right now. It's basically all 720p (ABC, ESPN, FOX) or 1080i.
540p, incidentally, is not a standard resolution in the ATSC spec.
"HD Ready" means that the set is capable of accepting an HD signal, but does not have an ATSC tuner.
'EDTV' displays are not capable of displaying HD signals at full resolution, so they downsample the incoming HD image to some resolution that they can display - my 800x600 LCD projector will do that, but of course can't display anything better than 480p without downconversion.
To be a true HD set, and not an EDTV set, it must be capable of displaying at least 720p, or (preferably) 1080i or greater. Most current CRT and projection HDTV sets are completely capable of displaying 1080i at full resolution. If you buy an "HDTV" and its native resolution is any lower than 1280x720, you got screwed. Interestingly, lots of HD LCD panels are actually WXGA, or something along the lines of (get it? lines? Ah, I kill me!) 1280x768 - clearly adapted from computer display panels, as evidenced by the '768' part. There's no reason for having 768 lines to display a 720 line image.
Now, if you want to get into the relative merits of 1080i vs. 720p, I'm ready; be warned, though, the answers aren't as clear here. Much of the issue has to do with a) personal preference and b) the nature of the source material.
I'm trying really hard here not to be insulting or dismissive, but I'd really appreciate it if next time you feel the urge for an, "ummm...
By the way, if you ever get the urge to correct someone else here on Slashdot about rocket-triggered lightning, come ask me first.
Indeed. However, the grandparent referred to neither a 17" screen nor a laptop screen. He referred to a 15" widescreen desktop LCD. While your find is intriguing, it in no way qualifies for my next meal.
Aside: Why, STILL, can we not get desktop screens in the same pixel densities as laptop screens? I'd love a pair of 17" 1920x1280 desktop LCD screens. If you can get one in a ~$1500 laptop, why can't you buy a desktop version for $500 or so?
... work this around to be Microsoft's fault? Was SCO somehow involved? The RIAA? Hey, let's blame it on overpriced Apple hardware!
Well, HDTV's that can only do 720p natively don't have resolution greater than that of a desktop 15" widescreen LCD, it's true. However, most of the HDTV's that *I've* seen are capable of 1080i, and if you can find me any significant number of 15" widescreen desktop LCD's that display 1920x1080, I'll eat 'em. That's 23" territory, there.
Otherwise, spot on.
Really? Reeks of bullshit? That's funny...
...because your statement reeks of ignorance. FYI, what's 2 years old is DVD *burners* capable of writing to Dual-Layer discs. Your ancient DVD player does, in fact, read dual-layer mass-produced DVD videos. IOW, you are wrong. Why is it that people on Slashdot feel the need to declaim endlessly on subjects they don't understand, and then jump all over the people who do?
This ought to enlighten you a bit, and hopefully you'll learn to shut up (and do a quick Google) when those more knowledgeable than yourself attempt to educate you. You might wait on using the word "bullshit" until you've checked your facts.
No, it's simply an example of redundant redundancy, with a spare redundancy just in case.
What's different about it is that it's made out of the exact same stuff that your CPU is made of. So you could make a CPU with lasers on the die , reducing complexity and increasing compactness and integration. It's not that they're better lasers, it's that it opens the door to do more stuff with optical computing, networking, etc, ON CHIP. It's a real PITA to try to, e.g., combine GaAs lasers with a Si IC.
Will it make it possible for your computer to have sex with you tomorrow? No. But it's important nonetheless.
Yes. Because the laser is made with SILICON. Coincidentally, that's the same stuff your CPU was made from. You could, then, in theory, fabricate a laser on the same die as the CPU... or fabricate hundreds or thousands of on-die lasers for communications between regions or between IC's. The advantage of using Si is that it's cheap and well-understood, and we're already making the chips out of those. You can't fabricate a GaAs laser on the die with the CPU, you have to bond two different dice together.
So the advantage is that you could fabricate the laser on the same die as the CPU, and the wavelength isn't as important as the tight integration and reduction of processing complexity. Yes, that's important.
Well, they do run MXC, which is based on dialog-replaced Japanese enactments of life-size video game-style contests. So it's kinda about video games. Funny as shit, too, if your tastes aren't too fastidious.
No, sorry. Everybody knows that physics and engineering majors (especially EE majors) are much cooler than CS majors.