1 - Although some crazy, obsessive people pay $3000-$4000 for a gaming PC, for most people the difference between a gaming PC and the PC they would of bought anyway is the price of the video card.
2 - The games are different. This is mostly due to the controllers and the interface. A keyboard, a mouse, and a monitor a few inches from your face makes for the best experience when playing simulation, RTS, and FPS games. Lounging in the living room several feet from a TV with a gamepad is better for just about everything else. (Particularly if you are interested in playing games with the other people in the room).
But, yes, I think that PC gaming is dying and will end up like Apple is. That is, PC gaming isn't going away, but it will turn into a fairly small niche of the market.
Actually, us Gen-X's grew up with video games, so I wouldn't say our attitude towards games stems from a lack of familiarity. Instead, perhaps it stems from the fact that many of us grew out the hobby as we grew older. Since we only played the games as kids, we see it as a kid's activity. In addition, even as kids, video games were never considered a "cool" activity the way sports were. So now that we are older, that stigma remains.
TV is considered something everyone just does, so there's little social stigma attached to simply watching TV. However, there may be social stigma attached to what you watch. (American Idol anyone? Someone must be watching it, but no one seems to admit it).
More likely the next Tapwave. Except unlike Tapwave, they'll have more than 2 or 3 mediocre exclusive games for it, and it won't have a controller that breaks within a week after you buy it.
Unfortunately, unlike the Tapwave, it won't run any emulators, at least not unlicensed ones. Maybe this is the real reason Nintendo went after that emulator?
Anyway, back to my point... if the rumors we've been hearing are true then this system is fixing up to be a combination PDA/entertainment device, like the Tapwave. It's got movie and mp3 playing, game playing, and probably a touch sensitive screen. All that you need to add is the PDA software.
The N-Gage failed because as you said it didn't have good games, and it had a bad interface. However, there's no inherent reason a combination PDA and gaming device must have bad games and a bad interface. (Many PDA's devices already have a control disk that looks suspiciously like a gaming contoller). Adding a phone to the mix, however, doesn't really work though. The form factors are just incompatible.
Is there a market for such a beast? I don't know. With the PDA functionality, and higher price, they would be going after an older demographic than the GBA. Unlike the Tapwave, this sounds more like a game playing first, PDA second kind of machine. (I viewed the Tapwave as a PDA first, and a game machine second, since it ran the Palm OS). In other words the market for this are those people who want a gaming device, but could be swayed to buy this one by the additional gaming features.
I thought the Tapwave had a chance, but the lack of games, poor marketing, and the poor quality of the controller is going to be the end of them. Nintendo is unlikely to make these mistakes, but they may fail to have good PDA applications. I think the product really is an experiment to test the market, and they know it.
I really need to go, but I'll try to make a quick comment...
My opinion is probably somewhere between 2 and 3. I don't think the Bush administration out and out lied, but I think they looked at the evidence too biasedly. At some point they decided to go to war, and to use this as their justification. As you pointed out, they weren't the first to believe in the existance of WMDs, so this was a good approach for them to take.
So, they gather evidence for WMDs. Any evidence that points to WMDs is highlighted, and evidence that points away is buried. Again, this is very similar to what they are being accused of in the current topic. It also is hard to prove this sort of behaviour since they aren't lying about a black and white subject, they are just altering the shades of grey to suit their needs. I don't think that the administration knew that they wouldn't find any WMDs, but I bet they aren't as surprised as you are that they didn't.
Thanks for an intellegent but divergent answer to a political comment I made on Slashdot. (I don't know if I've ever had one of those before).
No arguement here. (I had pretty much agreed with everything you just said in my second paragraph). I was just giving some background on Marburger for those who might not realize he does have some scientific knowledge.
It is impossible to know how much influence Marburger has over the current administration's policies. It also been my experience (when dealing with certain funding agencies) that the current administration is more autocratic, as you put it.
I've never know Marburger to be evil in the way I often find this administration to be, so I like to believe that it's not his fault when things like this happen. (Although I have known him to frequently sound like a politician. I guess it comes with the territory). Maybe he points out the increases in funding for his own personal rationalization. Yes, I am part of this (evil) administration, but I am trying to at least do some good while I'm here.
Number one: Even though the answer changed because the question did, it still doesn't answer really the question. If it was a sham, admit it, or at least admit your mistakes.
Number two: If the answer is truly "Saddam needed to go and you and I both know it", or as the real quote says "Saddam was an evil man who tortured his citizens", then why wasn't this the justification for going to war in the first place. The answer is, of course, that there wouldn't have been a lot of support for starting a war on this basis. There are a lot of evil people in the world, some of whom are in positions of power. I don't think most Americans feel it is our job to go around the world and take these people out, except perhaps under extreme circumstances.
Now maybe Saddam was evil enough to meet these circumstances, but that wasn't the justification that was made to the American people. Instead, the justification was that Saddam has or will shortly have WMDs and we are in immediate peril because of this. There is a big difference between these two justifications, and I doubt we'd have invaded Iraq if the original justification for the invasion was simply "Saddam needs to go".
I believe the country was intentionally mislead to start a war, and I am very upset by this. I am even more upset that the country is not up in arms about this.
I am not that upset that the war happened. It may, in fact, have been the right thing to do. (We really won't know until years after a stable and reasonable government replaces the one we kicked out). But in all likelyhood the current administration distorted and misrepresented facts in order to force it's will upon the American people. (See a pattern here. Maybe this isn't so off topic after all). I'm sure all administrations do this to some degree, but the current administration seems out of hand.
John Marburger actually isn't a politician, at least not by training. He was a physicist in the field of QEX (quantum electrodynamics - i.e. lasers, atoms, etc.). He was actually on my PhD defense committee during the brief time he returned to being a professor after serving as the president of the university for a number of years. The man is not a politician who knows nothing about science. He was actually a respected scientest before going into politics.
On the other hand, he's been in administration or politics now a long time, so acting like a politician is perhaps unavoidable. In addition, he has no choice but to toe the party line, so it's impossible to know what he really thinks.
What guarantees that all developers are using the abstraction layer? Some might be programing to the metal to get better performance, unique functionallity, etc. (I don't know if this is true, but I certainly wouldn't write off the possibility).
I think backwards compatibility will be even more of an issue for the X-Box 2, since they are coming out with it so soon. In some sense the short time between X-Box versions 1 and 2 is Microsoft saying, "Hey, we screwed up, let us try again." However true, that is not exactly the message you want to give. Having backwards compatibility gives the impression that you are building on previous success rather than trying to start over again.
In the practical sense backwards compatibility gives you two things: 1- for people who don't own the older system it means access to an instant library of old games for a new system. 2- For those who do own the older system, you don't need to keep that old system around anymore to play your older games. I think both these issues are worse when the two generations are so close together. 1- because the games aren't out of date yet, so they are still worth buying. 2- because "I just bought this console a couple years ago and now you want me to replace it. What and I can't even use it to play the games I just bought, so I have to keep the old box around, too!"
(On the other hand, if your first system truly is a flop, then backwards compatibility may not be as much of a big deal. If there's not much a library of games, and no one bought the console, then neither of the 2 points above matter. I don't think the X-box was enough of a flop for this to be true, though).
Your reasons make sense, in particular the cost issue of a hard drive is very important particularly as a console ages. Microsoft made a lot of bad decisions in the design of the X-Box from a future cost point of view. The hard drive never gets much cheaper over the life of the console, plus since they are buying the chips (rather than licensing the technology), the chips don't necessarily get much cheaper either. Microsoft is clearly trying to correct these mistakes in the next version.
However, I'm not sure I buy that people don't care about backwards compatibility. Before the PS2, no one had backwards compatibility, so it didn't matter. The PS2 had backwards compatibility and was quite successful. This may be an indication that it does matter - who knows. You can bet the PS3 will have backwards compatibility and that Sony's PR machine will be throwing this in Microsoft's face.
I think backwards compatibility will be even more of an issue for the X-Box 2, since that are coming out with it so soon. In some sense the short time between X-Box versions 1 and 2 is Microsoft saying, "Hey, we screwed up, let us try again." However true, that is not exactly the message you want to give. Having backwards compatibility gives the impression that you are building on previous success rather than trying to start over again.
In the practical sense backwards compatibility gives you two things: 1- for people who don't own the older system it means access to an instant library of old games for a new system. 2- For those who do own the older system, you don't need to keep that old system around anymore to play your older games. I think both these issues are worse when the two generations are so close together. 1- because the games aren't out of date yet, so they are still worth buying. 2- because "I just bought this console a couple years ago and now you want me to replace it. What and I can't even use it to play the games I just bought, so I have to keep the old box around, too!"
On the other hand, if your first system truly is a flop, then backwards compatibility may not be as much of a big deal. If there's not much a library of games, and no one bought the console, then neither of the 2 points above matter. I don't think the X-box was enough of a flop for this to be true, though.
Absolutely. There's no way this is going to replace a fitting room. But it could improve the process of deciding which garments to take into fitting to try. (I'm skeptical, but the concept has some merit if done well).
Ok, I'll continue with the somewhat off-topic thread...
Personally, I hate, hate, hate d-pads, thumbpads, or anyother controller that relies on the thumb to control movement.. It's one of the reasons I stopped playing video games from '86-'93. Maybe it's a bias because I grew up in the classic video game era, but I don't understand why anyone would find it preferable to control movement with small thumb motions rather than movement of an entire hand. (Of course, my wife, who is slightly younger and grew up with a Nintendo in the house has the opposite bias, so what do I know). I have no idea which type of controller is worse RSI-wise. I suspect that if you are having problems either way, you are playing too damn many video games.
Now where gamepads wins hands down is that it is much cheaper to make, and it is smaller. This is especially important for portables, and perhaps the d-pad is a large part of Nintendo's success in this area.
If you want to use your gamecube controller on your PC, there are a couple adapters available at www.lik-sang.com. (Look under Smartjoy Corner). No need to hack or mod your controller, unless you are into that sort of thing.
You are absolutely right, the tapwave is no threat to the GBA. But I don't think that's the point. The question is does it have to threaten the GBA to succeed? I don't think it does. PC games exist separately from console games, and I think the same comparison can be drawn here. PCs are multifunction devices that can be souped up (by added 3-D cards, etc.) to play games well. Similarly, the Tapwave is portable multifunction device that's been souped up to play games well. There's no doubt that there's a market for PC games, but in general the market for console games eclipses it. The same thing could happen in the PDA vs. GBA market.
This product is really aimed at adults, not kids. Keep in mind, that a lot of adults can't justify buying a GBA, since it's really just a toy. (That's not meant as an insult; it's just that all it does is play games). However, if they are going to by a PDA, it is easy to justify getting one that plays games well (and is an mp3 player, too). In addition, people my age may be very interested in emulators, so we can replay our favourite games in a portable format. If Tapwave allows emulators to flourish on their system, this could really work to their advantage. (Although it could backfire with developers).
However, you bring up several disturbing indicators for this product in particular. (Except for the price, which I don't think is out of line when you consider it as a PDA first). They really need to get the product out there and known, and get more developer support. It's still early, so I wouldn't call it dead yet.
I'll going to reiterate what I wrote in an earlier post to a related article. This product may have a chance, even if it's much more expensive than a GBA. As others have said, you need to think of it as a PDA plus gaming, not the other way around.
Consider PC's either before soundblasters. (Or you could make a similar arguement pre-3DFX). Before soundblasters came out PC's seemed like a silly place to play games. Consoles were much cheaper and had better games. Never-the-less PC's became a popular platform for games once the hardware could support it. This is despite the fact that a soundblaster costed as much as the game console did alone. That's because people need computers anyway, so they might as well have fun with them. Likewise, people need PDAs anyway, so if this isn't priced too high it has a decent chance. I haven't shopped for a PDA, but it seems (and others seem to agree) that the price is not out of line for this device as a PDA without gaming.
Now, I can't predict whether or not it succeeds. A lot will depend on marketting. The fact that there's been a number of front page stories on Slashdot about other PDA's, but this device repeattedly only appears on the gaming page is worrysome. It will also help a lot if the system is open enough to let anyone write games for it. Remember the best computer games in the early soundblaster era were shareware games from small companies like Epic, Apogee, and of course ID. Also, being able to run somewhat questionable software such as emulators, etc, would be a big win, (for me at least).
I was there, too, and certainly remember the missnamed but very usefull "All About the Commodore 64, volume 2". I even complied the SIDeditor using Austro-compiler, which helped speed it up a lot. I think I have a cassette tape somewhere where I recorded the music I wrote using it.
Today, my $40 Soundblaster Live has the power of a $10,000 Fairlight from back then. Still, I miss those days. Must be getting old.
There's a simple way to use the Wingman Warrior (WW) spinner in WinXP, etc. Plug in a standard com port mouse when you start up your computer. (The computer will recognize that you have two mice, and they will work simulataneously). Then hot swap the WW for the mouse. The spinner will now work as a second mouse.
I bought a com port extension cord so I can easily do the hot swapping without reaching behind the computer. Unfortunately, the joystick will not work in this configuration, but at least the spinner will. (I think the first two buttons will be recognized as mouse buttons, too). I've read about someone who hacked his together a com mouse and a WW to solve this problem properly, but I haven't had the time to try it.
I missed the orginal slashdot article, so I'm going to take the opportunity to make some comments here. I've long thought that a product like this would be a good idea, and I've made posts before stating such. For those who think of this as an expensive GBA competitor, you should instead think of it as a PDA that can play games (and MP3s).
Consider PC's either before soundblasters. (Or you could make a similar arguement pre-3DFX). Before soundblasters came out PC's seemed like a silly place to play games. Consoles were much cheaper and had better games. Never-the-less PC's became a popular platform for games once the hardware could support it. This is despite the fact that a soundblaster costed as much as the game console did alone. That's because people need computers anyway, so they might as well have fun with them. Likewise, people need PDAs anyway, so if this isn't priced too high it has a decent chance. (It will also help a lot if the system is open enough to let anyone write games for it. Remember the best computer games in the early soundblaster era were shareware games from small companies like Epic, Apogee, and of course ID).
I haven't shopped for a PDA lately, but the price for this does not seem out of line for a PDA alone with such a high resolution screen. Even if it's a little more expensive it is often easier to justify an incremental increase in price in a product you were going to buy anyway than it is to justify a completely new purchase.
Thank you, thank you, thank you. I work in a related field, and I have to tell you that all this discussion about nanotech is very premature. Except for the simpliest of systems (such as self-assembled super lattices), it's pure science fiction. Might as well talk about the environmental impact of warp drives.
I agree mostly. However, it seems that many people, myself included, feel that artists aren't getting a fair deal. They enter into contracts which resemble indentured servatude, and then they get surprising little of the money that's made off of their art.
Now, you could argue that they entered the contract of their own free will, so that's their tough luck. However, I feel that just because the record industry wields enough power to get artists to sign such loosy deals doesn't make it the right thing to do. It certainly doesn't seem ethical. So as long as the industry does it, it is hard to have any sympathy for them.
My feeling also is that there are two possible solutions. One is a legal limit to what a contract can say. Any contract that puts such limits on what individuals can do, (such as go to another record company and get a better deal), should be illegal. I also think music artists need to form a union. I'm not a big fan of unions, (unions are often corrupt and more concerned with their own gain rather than the gain of their members), but this is exactly the sort of abuse unions are good at correcting.
That was one of my favourite movies growing up. A couple years when I was at a movie rental place with friends I suggested renting it. The reaction I got was "Barbara Streisand?! Ryan O'Neal?! What are you: Nuts?" I admitted that I hadn't seen it in a long time, but I remember it being hysterical. We didn't rent it, and still haven't seen it in a long time. I think I should remedy that. Thanks for the reminder!
I really should stop responding and get some work done, but I'll go ahead and bite one more time.
Lack of demagnification is not a show-stopper, but it makes the masks much more expensive. Fabrication, inspection, and repair become way more challenging.
A vacuum is not sufficient to make the sort of contact necessary. Yesterday someone showed me the set-up necessary to do near field lithography. Think lots of pressure points with a lot of pressure at each point. This is still doable, (as long as you can come up with a way of using transparent materials to apply such pressure). It's just that I'm not sure applying that sort of pressure to a mask that costs 50K is going to be a hit.
I'm not sure what you were talking about with the layers of lithography. The negative index technique would produce a very small depth of focus, so yes doing multilayer lithography (i.e. over topography) would be very difficult. Planarization techniques (CMP) do exist, though, so this can be dealt with to some degree.
Imprint lithography is a technique that is much easier, can also get to very high resolution, but also shares all the dissadvantages just listed. I predict that imprint lithography is going to find some uses, but it is unlikely to be used by Intel or TSMC any time soon (or probably ever).
A show-stopping problem with using the negative index technique is that it may be impossible to get light through the mask. The subwavelength openings that would exist on such a mask do not let a lot of light through.
A lot of what you say is true, but what determines whether or not a technology gets used is determined by economic reasons and competition. Therefore solutions not only must exist, but the system as a whole must be better than the competition.
Some of those equations are approximations that rely on the fact that the permeability of most materials is approximately 1. This approximation is of course not valid if the permeability is -1.
This doesn't explain everything, though, but it might be a good place to start.
I wouldn't get too excited about chipwafer lithography. You are correct that this would seem to be an idea application for this phenomenom. However, there are a lot of practical problems that would exist even if this meta-material worked great. (Right of the top of my head: Lack of demagnification and need to put mask in perfect contact with this material).
Actually, all the quotes you pulled are correct, in a manner of speaking...
"Light passing through a flat glass lens will diverge." - Light passing through a flat glass most certainly will diverge, just like light passing through air diverges. Refraction (such as in a curved glass surface), and diffraction (such as in a hologram) can be used to refocus or make light converge.
"allows focusing almost two orders of magnitude higher than is possible with conventional lenses'..." - This one does have a bit of hype, but it could be correct if you consider spot size the figure of merit. See my comment below with the subject "More info". Ditto for the next quote you pulled.
As far as flipping signs in long-accepted equations, that's exactly what's special here. They've simulated a material which actually has the properties that these signs flip! (Similar materials have been experimentally verified by others). The answer to part 2 of your comment is "no". No conventional optical system provides a means to do what is happening here, although lenses have some similar properties.
I'm not sure about the Scientific American artilcle of which you speak, but it is very likely they are related. I'm not really sure what is new in this article. As you point out, this article is high on hype and low on facts/details.
For those scratching their heads at this one, maybe I can help. (I'm not an expert in this field, but I do related work).
First off, the article mentions three properties: permittivity, permeability and refractive index. To keep the discussion simple, lets only consider refractive index, which is negative here.
So what does that mean? It in some sense it means that light is traveling backward in such a material. Not in the reflected sense of backward, but in the time reversal sense. For example, lets say you have light from a light bulb incident on such a material. In air, the light is divergerging (spreading out) from the light bulb. When the light enters this material, it no longer is diverging, but it is instead now converging.
It's certainly not hard to think of a different way of making light converge: use a lens. Indeed, at first glance a material with a negative index of refraction would seem to act very much like a lens. However there are some important differences.
In particular, lets say you wanted to make a very small spot of light (useful for reading CD's, or making IC's). A lens can at best focus light down to a spot roughly equal to the size of the wavelength of light. (This is why blue lasers are wanted for advanced CD/DVD's: shorter wavelength gives a smaller spot which gives greater density). A material with a negative index can get around this limitation.
How? There is one conventional way of making a spot of light smaller than the wavelength. That's by simply using a pinhole (or a capillary, which is esentially a pinhole with a funnel to push more light through pinhole). The problem with a pinhole, is the small spot of light only exists in the plane of the pinole. The light diverges very quickly so it's hard to do anything useful with it. (There is some interest in doing near field microscopy this way). However, if you had some of this magic material, you could recreate the small spot in a different plane. (You can't do this with a lense because it is impossible to capture the entire wavefront exiting the pinhole. This material has no such limitation - you can put this material right up against the pinhole).
This explains why this material might be interesting for CD technology. I have no idea about the other applications they mention.
Slashdot Mirror
two points:
1 - Although some crazy, obsessive people pay $3000-$4000 for a gaming PC, for most people the difference between a gaming PC and the PC they would of bought anyway is the price of the video card.
2 - The games are different. This is mostly due to the controllers and the interface. A keyboard, a mouse, and a monitor a few inches from your face makes for the best experience when playing simulation, RTS, and FPS games. Lounging in the living room several feet from a TV with a gamepad is better for just about everything else. (Particularly if you are interested in playing games with the other people in the room).
But, yes, I think that PC gaming is dying and will end up like Apple is. That is, PC gaming isn't going away, but it will turn into a fairly small niche of the market.
Actually, us Gen-X's grew up with video games, so I wouldn't say our attitude towards games stems from a lack of familiarity. Instead, perhaps it stems from the fact that many of us grew out the hobby as we grew older. Since we only played the games as kids, we see it as a kid's activity. In addition, even as kids, video games were never considered a "cool" activity the way sports were. So now that we are older, that stigma remains.
TV is considered something everyone just does, so there's little social stigma attached to simply watching TV. However, there may be social stigma attached to what you watch. (American Idol anyone? Someone must be watching it, but no one seems to admit it).
More likely the next Tapwave. Except unlike Tapwave, they'll have more than 2 or 3 mediocre exclusive games for it, and it won't have a controller that breaks within a week after you buy it.
Unfortunately, unlike the Tapwave, it won't run any emulators, at least not unlicensed ones. Maybe this is the real reason Nintendo went after that emulator?
Anyway, back to my point... if the rumors we've been hearing are true then this system is fixing up to be a combination PDA/entertainment device, like the Tapwave. It's got movie and mp3 playing, game playing, and probably a touch sensitive screen. All that you need to add is the PDA software.
The N-Gage failed because as you said it didn't have good games, and it had a bad interface. However, there's no inherent reason a combination PDA and gaming device must have bad games and a bad interface. (Many PDA's devices already have a control disk that looks suspiciously like a gaming contoller). Adding a phone to the mix, however, doesn't really work though. The form factors are just incompatible.
Is there a market for such a beast? I don't know. With the PDA functionality, and higher price, they would be going after an older demographic than the GBA. Unlike the Tapwave, this sounds more like a game playing first, PDA second kind of machine. (I viewed the Tapwave as a PDA first, and a game machine second, since it ran the Palm OS). In other words the market for this are those people who want a gaming device, but could be swayed to buy this one by the additional gaming features.
I thought the Tapwave had a chance, but the lack of games, poor marketing, and the poor quality of the controller is going to be the end of them. Nintendo is unlikely to make these mistakes, but they may fail to have good PDA applications. I think the product really is an experiment to test the market, and they know it.
I really need to go, but I'll try to make a quick comment...
My opinion is probably somewhere between 2 and 3. I don't think the Bush administration out and out lied, but I think they looked at the evidence too biasedly. At some point they decided to go to war, and to use this as their justification. As you pointed out, they weren't the first to believe in the existance of WMDs, so this was a good approach for them to take.
So, they gather evidence for WMDs. Any evidence that points to WMDs is highlighted, and evidence that points away is buried. Again, this is very similar to what they are being accused of in the current topic. It also is hard to prove this sort of behaviour since they aren't lying about a black and white subject, they are just altering the shades of grey to suit their needs. I don't think that the administration knew that they wouldn't find any WMDs, but I bet they aren't as surprised as you are that they didn't.
Thanks for an intellegent but divergent answer to a political comment I made on Slashdot. (I don't know if I've ever had one of those before).
No arguement here. (I had pretty much agreed with everything you just said in my second paragraph). I was just giving some background on Marburger for those who might not realize he does have some scientific knowledge.
It is impossible to know how much influence Marburger has over the current administration's policies. It also been my experience (when dealing with certain funding agencies) that the current administration is more autocratic, as you put it.
I've never know Marburger to be evil in the way I often find this administration to be, so I like to believe that it's not his fault when things like this happen. (Although I have known him to frequently sound like a politician. I guess it comes with the territory). Maybe he points out the increases in funding for his own personal rationalization. Yes, I am part of this (evil) administration, but I am trying to at least do some good while I'm here.
Very off-topic, but what the hell...
The problems I have with the above are
Number one: Even though the answer changed because the question did, it still doesn't answer really the question. If it was a sham, admit it, or at least admit your mistakes.
Number two: If the answer is truly "Saddam needed to go and you and I both know it", or as the real quote says "Saddam was an evil man who tortured his citizens", then why wasn't this the justification for going to war in the first place. The answer is, of course, that there wouldn't have been a lot of support for starting a war on this basis. There are a lot of evil people in the world, some of whom are in positions of power. I don't think most Americans feel it is our job to go around the world and take these people out, except perhaps under extreme circumstances.
Now maybe Saddam was evil enough to meet these circumstances, but that wasn't the justification that was made to the American people. Instead, the justification was that Saddam has or will shortly have WMDs and we are in immediate peril because of this. There is a big difference between these two justifications, and I doubt we'd have invaded Iraq if the original justification for the invasion was simply "Saddam needs to go".
I believe the country was intentionally mislead to start a war, and I am very upset by this. I am even more upset that the country is not up in arms about this.
I am not that upset that the war happened. It may, in fact, have been the right thing to do. (We really won't know until years after a stable and reasonable government replaces the one we kicked out). But in all likelyhood the current administration distorted and misrepresented facts in order to force it's will upon the American people. (See a pattern here. Maybe this isn't so off topic after all). I'm sure all administrations do this to some degree, but the current administration seems out of hand.
John Marburger actually isn't a politician, at least not by training. He was a physicist in the field of QEX (quantum electrodynamics - i.e. lasers, atoms, etc.). He was actually on my PhD defense committee during the brief time he returned to being a professor after serving as the president of the university for a number of years. The man is not a politician who knows nothing about science. He was actually a respected scientest before going into politics.
On the other hand, he's been in administration or politics now a long time, so acting like a politician is perhaps unavoidable. In addition, he has no choice but to toe the party line, so it's impossible to know what he really thinks.
What guarantees that all developers are using the abstraction layer? Some might be programing to the metal to get better performance, unique functionallity, etc. (I don't know if this is true, but I certainly wouldn't write off the possibility).
I think backwards compatibility will be even more of an issue for the X-Box 2, since they are coming out with it so soon. In some sense the short time between X-Box versions 1 and 2 is Microsoft saying, "Hey, we screwed up, let us try again." However true, that is not exactly the message you want to give. Having backwards compatibility gives the impression that you are building on previous success rather than trying to start over again.
In the practical sense backwards compatibility gives you two things: 1- for people who don't own the older system it means access to an instant library of old games for a new system. 2- For those who do own the older system, you don't need to keep that old system around anymore to play your older games. I think both these issues are worse when the two generations are so close together. 1- because the games aren't out of date yet, so they are still worth buying. 2- because "I just bought this console a couple years ago and now you want me to replace it. What and I can't even use it to play the games I just bought, so I have to keep the old box around, too!"
(On the other hand, if your first system truly is a flop, then backwards compatibility may not be as much of a big deal. If there's not much a library of games, and no one bought the console, then neither of the 2 points above matter. I don't think the X-box was enough of a flop for this to be true, though).
Your reasons make sense, in particular the cost issue of a hard drive is very important particularly as a console ages. Microsoft made a lot of bad decisions in the design of the X-Box from a future cost point of view. The hard drive never gets much cheaper over the life of the console, plus since they are buying the chips (rather than licensing the technology), the chips don't necessarily get much cheaper either. Microsoft is clearly trying to correct these mistakes in the next version.
However, I'm not sure I buy that people don't care about backwards compatibility. Before the PS2, no one had backwards compatibility, so it didn't matter. The PS2 had backwards compatibility and was quite successful. This may be an indication that it does matter - who knows. You can bet the PS3 will have backwards compatibility and that Sony's PR machine will be throwing this in Microsoft's face.
I think backwards compatibility will be even more of an issue for the X-Box 2, since that are coming out with it so soon. In some sense the short time between X-Box versions 1 and 2 is Microsoft saying, "Hey, we screwed up, let us try again." However true, that is not exactly the message you want to give. Having backwards compatibility gives the impression that you are building on previous success rather than trying to start over again.
In the practical sense backwards compatibility gives you two things: 1- for people who don't own the older system it means access to an instant library of old games for a new system. 2- For those who do own the older system, you don't need to keep that old system around anymore to play your older games. I think both these issues are worse when the two generations are so close together. 1- because the games aren't out of date yet, so they are still worth buying. 2- because "I just bought this console a couple years ago and now you want me to replace it. What and I can't even use it to play the games I just bought, so I have to keep the old box around, too!"
On the other hand, if your first system truly is a flop, then backwards compatibility may not be as much of a big deal. If there's not much a library of games, and no one bought the console, then neither of the 2 points above matter. I don't think the X-box was enough of a flop for this to be true, though.
Absolutely. There's no way this is going to replace a fitting room. But it could improve the process of deciding which garments to take into fitting to try. (I'm skeptical, but the concept has some merit if done well).
Ok, I'll continue with the somewhat off-topic thread...
Personally, I hate, hate, hate d-pads, thumbpads, or anyother controller that relies on the thumb to control movement.. It's one of the reasons I stopped playing video games from '86-'93. Maybe it's a bias because I grew up in the classic video game era, but I don't understand why anyone would find it preferable to control movement with small thumb motions rather than movement of an entire hand. (Of course, my wife, who is slightly younger and grew up with a Nintendo in the house has the opposite bias, so what do I know). I have no idea which type of controller is worse RSI-wise. I suspect that if you are having problems either way, you are playing too damn many video games.
Now where gamepads wins hands down is that it is much cheaper to make, and it is smaller. This is especially important for portables, and perhaps the d-pad is a large part of Nintendo's success in this area.
If you want to use your gamecube controller on your PC, there are a couple adapters available at www.lik-sang.com. (Look under Smartjoy Corner). No need to hack or mod your controller, unless you are into that sort of thing.
You are absolutely right, the tapwave is no threat to the GBA. But I don't think that's the point. The question is does it have to threaten the GBA to succeed? I don't think it does. PC games exist separately from console games, and I think the same comparison can be drawn here. PCs are multifunction devices that can be souped up (by added 3-D cards, etc.) to play games well. Similarly, the Tapwave is portable multifunction device that's been souped up to play games well. There's no doubt that there's a market for PC games, but in general the market for console games eclipses it. The same thing could happen in the PDA vs. GBA market.
This product is really aimed at adults, not kids. Keep in mind, that a lot of adults can't justify buying a GBA, since it's really just a toy. (That's not meant as an insult; it's just that all it does is play games). However, if they are going to by a PDA, it is easy to justify getting one that plays games well (and is an mp3 player, too). In addition, people my age may be very interested in emulators, so we can replay our favourite games in a portable format. If Tapwave allows emulators to flourish on their system, this could really work to their advantage. (Although it could backfire with developers).
However, you bring up several disturbing indicators for this product in particular. (Except for the price, which I don't think is out of line when you consider it as a PDA first). They really need to get the product out there and known, and get more developer support. It's still early, so I wouldn't call it dead yet.
I'll going to reiterate what I wrote in an earlier post to a related article. This product may have a chance, even if it's much more expensive than a GBA. As others have said, you need to think of it as a PDA plus gaming, not the other way around.
Consider PC's either before soundblasters. (Or you could make a similar arguement pre-3DFX). Before soundblasters came out PC's seemed like a silly place to play games. Consoles were much cheaper and had better games. Never-the-less PC's became a popular platform for games once the hardware could support it. This is despite the fact that a soundblaster costed as much as the game console did alone. That's because people need computers anyway, so they might as well have fun with them. Likewise, people need PDAs anyway, so if this isn't priced too high it has a decent chance. I haven't shopped for a PDA, but it seems (and others seem to agree) that the price is not out of line for this device as a PDA without gaming.
Now, I can't predict whether or not it succeeds. A lot will depend on marketting. The fact that there's been a number of front page stories on Slashdot about other PDA's, but this device repeattedly only appears on the gaming page is worrysome. It will also help a lot if the system is open enough to let anyone write games for it. Remember the best computer games in the early soundblaster era were shareware games from small companies like Epic, Apogee, and of course ID. Also, being able to run somewhat questionable software such as emulators, etc, would be a big win, (for me at least).
I was there, too, and certainly remember the missnamed but very usefull "All About the Commodore 64, volume 2". I even complied the SIDeditor using Austro-compiler, which helped speed it up a lot. I think I have a cassette tape somewhere where I recorded the music I wrote using it.
Today, my $40 Soundblaster Live has the power of a $10,000 Fairlight from back then. Still, I miss those days. Must be getting old.
There's a simple way to use the Wingman Warrior (WW) spinner in WinXP, etc. Plug in a standard com port mouse when you start up your computer. (The computer will recognize that you have two mice, and they will work simulataneously). Then hot swap the WW for the mouse. The spinner will now work as a second mouse.
I bought a com port extension cord so I can easily do the hot swapping without reaching behind the computer. Unfortunately, the joystick will not work in this configuration, but at least the spinner will. (I think the first two buttons will be recognized as mouse buttons, too). I've read about someone who hacked his together a com mouse and a WW to solve this problem properly, but I haven't had the time to try it.
I missed the orginal slashdot article, so I'm going to take the opportunity to make some comments here. I've long thought that a product like this would be a good idea, and I've made posts before stating such. For those who think of this as an expensive GBA competitor, you should instead think of it as a PDA that can play games (and MP3s).
Consider PC's either before soundblasters. (Or you could make a similar arguement pre-3DFX). Before soundblasters came out PC's seemed like a silly place to play games. Consoles were much cheaper and had better games. Never-the-less PC's became a popular platform for games once the hardware could support it. This is despite the fact that a soundblaster costed as much as the game console did alone. That's because people need computers anyway, so they might as well have fun with them. Likewise, people need PDAs anyway, so if this isn't priced too high it has a decent chance. (It will also help a lot if the system is open enough to let anyone write games for it. Remember the best computer games in the early soundblaster era were shareware games from small companies like Epic, Apogee, and of course ID).
I haven't shopped for a PDA lately, but the price for this does not seem out of line for a PDA alone with such a high resolution screen. Even if it's a little more expensive it is often easier to justify an incremental increase in price in a product you were going to buy anyway than it is to justify a completely new purchase.
Thank you, thank you, thank you. I work in a related field, and I have to tell you that all this discussion about nanotech is very premature. Except for the simpliest of systems (such as self-assembled super lattices), it's pure science fiction. Might as well talk about the environmental impact of warp drives.
I agree mostly. However, it seems that many people, myself included, feel that artists aren't getting a fair deal. They enter into contracts which resemble indentured servatude, and then they get surprising little of the money that's made off of their art.
Now, you could argue that they entered the contract of their own free will, so that's their tough luck. However, I feel that just because the record industry wields enough power to get artists to sign such loosy deals doesn't make it the right thing to do. It certainly doesn't seem ethical. So as long as the industry does it, it is hard to have any sympathy for them.
My feeling also is that there are two possible solutions. One is a legal limit to what a contract can say. Any contract that puts such limits on what individuals can do, (such as go to another record company and get a better deal), should be illegal. I also think music artists need to form a union. I'm not a big fan of unions, (unions are often corrupt and more concerned with their own gain rather than the gain of their members), but this is exactly the sort of abuse unions are good at correcting.
That was one of my favourite movies growing up. A couple years when I was at a movie rental place with friends I suggested renting it. The reaction I got was "Barbara Streisand?! Ryan O'Neal?! What are you: Nuts?" I admitted that I hadn't seen it in a long time, but I remember it being hysterical. We didn't rent it, and still haven't seen it in a long time. I think I should remedy that. Thanks for the reminder!
I really should stop responding and get some work done, but I'll go ahead and bite one more time.
Lack of demagnification is not a show-stopper, but it makes the masks much more expensive. Fabrication, inspection, and repair become way more challenging.
A vacuum is not sufficient to make the sort of contact necessary. Yesterday someone showed me the set-up necessary to do near field lithography. Think lots of pressure points with a lot of pressure at each point. This is still doable, (as long as you can come up with a way of using transparent materials to apply such pressure). It's just that I'm not sure applying that sort of pressure to a mask that costs 50K is going to be a hit.
I'm not sure what you were talking about with the layers of lithography. The negative index technique would produce a very small depth of focus, so yes doing multilayer lithography (i.e. over topography) would be very difficult. Planarization techniques (CMP) do exist, though, so this can be dealt with to some degree.
Imprint lithography is a technique that is much easier, can also get to very high resolution, but also shares all the dissadvantages just listed. I predict that imprint lithography is going to find some uses, but it is unlikely to be used by Intel or TSMC any time soon (or probably ever).
A show-stopping problem with using the negative index technique is that it may be impossible to get light through the mask. The subwavelength openings that would exist on such a mask do not let a lot of light through.
A lot of what you say is true, but what determines whether or not a technology gets used is determined by economic reasons and competition. Therefore solutions not only must exist, but the system as a whole must be better than the competition.
I'm not sure about this, but I'll try...
Some of those equations are approximations that rely on the fact that the permeability of most materials is approximately 1. This approximation is of course not valid if the permeability is -1.
This doesn't explain everything, though, but it might be a good place to start.
I wouldn't get too excited about chipwafer lithography. You are correct that this would seem to be an idea application for this phenomenom. However, there are a lot of practical problems that would exist even if this meta-material worked great. (Right of the top of my head: Lack of demagnification and need to put mask in perfect contact with this material).
Actually, all the quotes you pulled are correct, in a manner of speaking...
"Light passing through a flat glass lens will diverge." - Light passing through a flat glass most certainly will diverge, just like light passing through air diverges. Refraction (such as in a curved glass surface), and diffraction (such as in a hologram) can be used to refocus or make light converge.
"allows focusing almost two orders of magnitude higher than is possible with conventional lenses'..." - This one does have a bit of hype, but it could be correct if you consider spot size the figure of merit. See my comment below with the subject "More info". Ditto for the next quote you pulled.
As far as flipping signs in long-accepted equations, that's exactly what's special here. They've simulated a material which actually has the properties that these signs flip! (Similar materials have been experimentally verified by others). The answer to part 2 of your comment is "no". No conventional optical system provides a means to do what is happening here, although lenses have some similar properties.
I'm not sure about the Scientific American artilcle of which you speak, but it is very likely they are related. I'm not really sure what is new in this article. As you point out, this article is high on hype and low on facts/details.
For those scratching their heads at this one, maybe I can help. (I'm not an expert in this field, but I do related work).
First off, the article mentions three properties: permittivity, permeability and refractive index. To keep the discussion simple, lets only consider refractive index, which is negative here.
So what does that mean? It in some sense it means that light is traveling backward in such a material. Not in the reflected sense of backward, but in the time reversal sense. For example, lets say you have light from a light bulb incident on such a material. In air, the light is divergerging (spreading out) from the light bulb. When the light enters this material, it no longer is diverging, but it is instead now converging.
It's certainly not hard to think of a different way of making light converge: use a lens. Indeed, at first glance a material with a negative index of refraction would seem to act very much like a lens. However there are some important differences.
In particular, lets say you wanted to make a very small spot of light (useful for reading CD's, or making IC's). A lens can at best focus light down to a spot roughly equal to the size of the wavelength of light. (This is why blue lasers are wanted for advanced CD/DVD's: shorter wavelength gives a smaller spot which gives greater density). A material with a negative index can get around this limitation.
How? There is one conventional way of making a spot of light smaller than the wavelength. That's by simply using a pinhole (or a capillary, which is esentially a pinhole with a funnel to push more light through pinhole). The problem with a pinhole, is the small spot of light only exists in the plane of the pinole. The light diverges very quickly so it's hard to do anything useful with it. (There is some interest in doing near field microscopy this way). However, if you had some of this magic material, you could recreate the small spot in a different plane. (You can't do this with a lense because it is impossible to capture the entire wavefront exiting the pinhole. This material has no such limitation - you can put this material right up against the pinhole).
This explains why this material might be interesting for CD technology. I have no idea about the other applications they mention.