From the company's website you can download a rather disturbing flyer for RealDoom, which includes the following exciting concepts:
"Real Doom turns the real world into a gaming environment." - Which is the last thing I would want; I mean how much of a saddo geek would I have to be to turn the real world into a virtual one, when I spend most of my day trying to turn the virtual world into a real one.
"Any location can be turned into a gaming area." - Well when I tried this years ago, in my local library, they threw me out! I even had that special pass from a Paranoia supplement.
"With communications via CDMA, GPRS or WiFi Real Doom is multi-playable, with the ability to play against other real world
competitors or even play against console or pc
opponents!" - Nothing new here is there?
"GeoVector takes a simple concept and applies advanced technology to create a compelling new kind of interface. By combining a userâ(TM)s location with the heading of their device, GeoVector technology can determine what the user is pointing at." - Oh my god! They've patented finger pointing! I knew it was rude to point, but now it will be illegal!
All joking aside, RealDoom has to be the dumbest idea I've ever heard of. Apart from the risk of causing oneself or others serious damage whilst playing RealDoom, only the Japanese would have the 'balls' (?) to play this sort of thing out in public; I can't see many US & UK gamers willing to look like d***ks on the high street (apart from those LRP players - and even they seem to restrict their playtime to indoors).
I like the humour in this post - but you may have concealed it a little too much;)
Just a couple of points:
- Jurassic Park didn't show us that GM'ifying animals has a bad result, it showed us that you should never employ chubby Linux gurus to run your secruity systems.
- How come Taiwan gets a bad rep? The US is just as likely to corrupt this technology (as is the UK).
Good point about playing God though - it really is a bit creepy (but this one idea is a good'un I think;)
What a c*** article! The author seems to have shoe-horned every alarmist notion in the tabloids' dictionary - cloning dead pets, outraged pet dealers (can you even imagine an outraged pet dealer?), the word 'fruit' in an article about fish, a totally unrelated issue (tropical fish that can live in cold water), and false selling (i.e. a kitten that doesn't look like it's clone-parent).
Personally, I think this is a great idea - normal tropical fish are pretty useless - but now they can be used to provide the sort of ambient lighting that was once the preserve of candles, child-safety lights and nuclear reactors. Pretty romantic alternative I would think!
Anyway, I'm sure natural selection would have produced the same result eventually - don't tropical fish live very close to the marine coral that contributes genes to the glowing fish? It is only a matter of time until one of the coral starts to get fresh ideas about a zebra fish...
Sounds like a great idea, if a little worrying at first.
I think the article gives slightly the wrong impression; implying that the car takes control if it detects a crash is likely to happen - a good trick if a piece of hardware can predict a crash before a human can;)
In fact the system seems to detect the liklehood of a crash and warn the driver, tightening seatbelts and readying brakes, and if the driver agrees that a crash is possible and applies the brakes, the system helps this process.
Some good info on the Honda site (good graphics too), here's a snippet:
"This system determines the likelihood of a collision based on driving conditions, distance to the vehicle ahead, and relative speeds, and uses visual and audio warnings to prompt the driver to take preventative action. "... and I suspect that radar is not the only component.
Seems like this is part of a long term drive in Japan to make safer cars: remember the device that sprayed the driver with lemon scented water if it sensed him/her getting drowsy? Or the breath-alcohol test device that prevented drunk drivers from starting their vehicles?
Apparently, part of the CMS system will also keep the driver in their lane too.
Not sure why such systems are not more available in the West, maybe Japan's drivers are more ready to accept such restrictions on their driving freedom. Whatever the reason they seem to have reasonably safe roads even by Nordic standards
I guess in the West drivers are keener to protect their driving freedoms; this is certainly the case in the UK, but let's face it, most people can't drive well most of the time because driving is risky and stressful. Speeding, driving whilst talking on a mobile phone, driving when sleepy, driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs or prescribed medicines, are too common - and at the end of the day it's just another poor working stiff who ends up in hospital or the cemetery.
When V was all the rage in the UK, so was Billy Graham (the US preacher). His posters were all over the church boards in my home town.
One day I saw a couple of people hanging around my local church notice board, laughing.
When I went up to see the gag, I saw that someone had sprayed a big red V on a Billy Graham poster.
At first I laughed along with the rest. But later, my joy turned to confused terror, when I read of David Ickes horrific theories about reptiles (load of c**p really, but quite funny - but please don't follow the link if you are easily offended, or seriously stupid, like this guy;)...
Seems to me that Icke's theories started around the time V was broadcast in the UK - so the original series has a lot to answer for;) Bring on the next series (we need more nuts!)
Maybe Billy should wear a pair of these to stop people spotting his weird, reptilian eyes.. darn that reptilian agenda...
Say what? Gaming is very popular in mainstream, non-geek, society, I though that was commonly accepted! Look at all the rap and movie stars that proudly display their gaming gear on MTV Cribs!
And isn't it _supposed_ to be a waste a time? I mean, that's how we demonstrate that we are wealthy and better than our peers - by wasting time that other people might have to spend working.
I'm not saying that a documentary of a LAN party isn't a great idea ('cause I've never been to one and I'd love to see how it works) but just like that Haystack thing, is it really just a solution looking for a problem, or in this case, a student looking for a film grant? (only joshing;)
Listen, I remember when the term "geeky gaming" really meant something... D&D, CoC, Paranoia, that-one-with-the-ducks... ten saddos sitting around a kitchen table pretending to be in a far away land with only dice and notepads for company (we couldn't afford the lead figures). Now _that_ was a geeky waste of time... I should've been down the shopping centre (the mall to you US kids) chatting up shop girls and getting frisked by security guards with big moustaches...
Not sure I agree with you, but I guess you are entitled to your opinion (even if it includes calling me clueless;)
Note that I said that the BBC attacks and derides the govt, IMHO that is very different from making valid criticisms and reporting the hard facts.
If you think that transparent govt is determined by a press that derides the govt then I have to disagree - 'freedom of information' and fair & informed comment are, to my mind, more important in achieving this end.
The media are not just kept around to attack the govt; when they do only that, then all we have is a govt so occupied with 'spin' that real poilices, real changes to society and the world at large, are lost in a frenzy of pre-deadline policy shifts and announcements: all to the tune of the unelected press.
The media could just report the news, inform common opinion and support reasoned debate, maybe you would see this as a lowly task but I would say that is the most important responsibilty of the media.
That would leave the people to elect a govt, which in turn could focus on developing our society.
And hell, if you think that the media is 'allowed to exist', then who is allowing them to exist? What is the agenda of these people that do all this 'allowing'? Are you paranoid or what? (That was the rant bit - apologies if it caused offence).
I know it maybe hard to believe, but sometimes a govt is trying to do the right thing, and maybe the BBC is getting on my nerves so much because they seem to focus on the trivial (e.g. why did the govt say that Saddam's chemical weapons could be ready in 45 minutes when an unamed source says that they couldn't?) instead of the bigger picture (e.g. Saddam was an evil tyrant and Iraq is better off without him, or not, as the case maybe).
I mean, why keep a dog if it tries to bite everyone, even your mother?
... a wallplanner, coloured marker pens and sticky shapes - a laptop or pda will never beat this combo for giving you a sense of the big picture at the end of a 3am revision session.
... a read&black bound notebook, to write down important information (lecturer's instructions, girls' phone numbers, etc.)
... an a3 drawing pad - for mind maps during lectures.
Spend the rest on good food and not-recommended text-books in your chosen subject matter (e.g. the Anatomy Colouring Book taught me all I need to know about the 'bag-o-bones' and at 1/10th the price of the recc'd texts).
Get an old desktop for your dorm room (not so easy to steal, great for frag-fests with neighbours, oh, and writing essays).
Laptops are great for email and IM and web browsing, but isn't that what computer labs are for?
PS: All you need is... love (which is easier to come by if you haven't spent all your money on a laptop...)
The BBC is always biased against the UK govt - I think it's in their
charter.
Bit of shame, because the UK population votes for the
government and then is compelled to pay a tax to the BBC so it can attack and
deride that very same govt. Hey, it even uses large amounts of this tax to create
(and subsequently
re-create) digital channels that most of the UK population can't receive
(thought that is changing thanks to rivals Sky and the ill-fated ITV Digital).
The BBC also uses it's massive income stream to start new
channels and enterprises that effectively destroy legitimate competition (e.g. Artschannel
channel), and uses it's multiple channels to cross-advertise other BBC channels
(so not really advert-free).
News stories are not always well researched or written
(c.f. the one about broadband
barrage balloons reported on Slashdot - pure puff and ill-considered
comments).
The sheer size and bias of 'auntie' (as it is 'affectionally'
known) makes many other media organisations feel free to take rather obvious
pot-shots at it (e.g. The Times newspaper has a story that the BBC was known as
the Baghdad Broadcasting Corp by the British Navy and sailors switched to Sky
News to avoid the overwhelmingly anti-UK bias on the BBC - of course this might
have something to do with Murdoch owning
both The Times and Sky News).
The BBC's 'unique way of funding' has crippled objective
political reporting and media output in the UK; pro- and anti- govt propaganda
bounces back and forth between so-called independent news organisations; as do
irrelevant TV programmes (independent TV does a reality show, the BBC does a
reality show and props it up through its many output formats and channels,
etc.).
Did I hear someone say that the BBC's musical radio
channels are the best in the UK? Of course they are! However, this might have
something to do with the BBC having the almost all the national music channels in the UK.
Effective competition again stifled by the fact that BBC radio does not
have to make a profit because it is funded in it's own 'unique way', i.e. by
enforced taxation; oh, and they shut down pirate
stations using govt-biased legislation (I'd like to say that this
legislation is BBC-biased but I'm not sure emergency crews would agree, then
again it does get some geek-points for coolness.)
Though even I would admit that BBC music radio is 'ok' sometimes, nothing will eras the memories of
DLT and never-ending Fleetwood Mac
from the p***-poor Radio 1 of old (and, alas poor controller, it isn't much better
now).
They don't do anything new or innovative (except deliberately
mess up the scheduling for top-class programming like Seinfeld,
Larry Sanders, Star Trek: TNG etc. so no-one realises how bad BBC stuff really
is, oh, and show pictures of dead
soldiers). Not unless they are coming up to the regular review of the BBC
tax by parliament; such a review is coming up, and those of us who loathe the
BBC (but still have to pay it's tax but never watch any of their TV channels)
can only hope an pray that the govt finally sees sense and makes them pay their
own way in this world. Hey, it might
happen!
Seems like a great idea, a neat way of overcoming the last-mile and bringing broadband to a lot more people in the UK.
IMHO, major obstacles stand in its way:
1) Cost. Each balloon may take millions
(of
UK pounds) to put up so any cost savings assume a sufficient subscriber base; and don't forget the satellite-TV style transceiver
dish required for each customer site.
Once the first one goes up, what's to stop existing providers dropping their prices to compensate?
2) Available bandwidth. Isn't unlikely that the system will "not slow down as more and more people use the service",
especially as SkyLinc themselves state that the system is scaleable
(i.e. why would it need to be scalable if performance never degraded with load?)
3) Weather. As every English-person knows, the weather in the UK can be erratic and extreme
(for example, more tornadoes per unit area than anywhere in the
world). Relying on an "antenna stabilisation system" may sound like a good idea, and it may even work, but who would believe it enough to spend the installation fee on it?
4) Coverage. Despite the article's optimistic "18 base stations" providing "total UK coverage, from densely populated towns to the remotest cottage in the Scottish Highlands"
the SkyLinc website claims only "87% of UK SME business locations" for the same number of base stations - which I suspect counts out most remote
locations.
5) CAA approval - SkyLinc might expect to make most money out of densely populated areas, but as these are often near airports what's the chance of CAA approval in all but a couple of test sites?
Of course, it serves the UK govt. to support this scheme and make encouraging sounds about it. At the very least it will stop most people from wondering why the govt. pushes 'broadband Britain' but allows a practical monopoly, paid for by the taxpayer, to slow the spread of broadband (hey, even remote cottages in the Scottish Highlands have BT phone lines).
Personally, I'm all for the idea, but I don't think it will ever get off the
ground but if Guy Kewney says/implies/suggests it's a good idea
then who am I to disagree! Hey, I even like the idea of having my own balloon to tow 'behind' my car in case of emergencies and traffic jams.
Slashdot Mirror
From the company's website you can download a rather disturbing flyer for RealDoom, which includes the following exciting concepts:
"Real Doom turns the real world into a gaming environment." - Which is the last thing I would want; I mean how much of a saddo geek would I have to be to turn the real world into a virtual one, when I spend most of my day trying to turn the virtual world into a real one.
"Any location can be turned into a gaming area." - Well when I tried this years ago, in my local library, they threw me out! I even had that special pass from a Paranoia supplement.
"With communications via CDMA, GPRS or WiFi Real Doom is multi-playable, with the ability to play against other real world competitors or even play against console or pc opponents!" - Nothing new here is there?
"GeoVector takes a simple concept and applies advanced technology to create a compelling new kind of interface. By combining a userâ(TM)s location with the heading of their device, GeoVector technology can determine what the user is pointing at." - Oh my god! They've patented finger pointing! I knew it was rude to point, but now it will be illegal!
All joking aside, RealDoom has to be the dumbest idea I've ever heard of. Apart from the risk of causing oneself or others serious damage whilst playing RealDoom, only the Japanese would have the 'balls' (?) to play this sort of thing out in public; I can't see many US & UK gamers willing to look like d***ks on the high street (apart from those LRP players - and even they seem to restrict their playtime to indoors).
I like the humour in this post - but you may have concealed it a little too much ;)
Just a couple of points:
- Jurassic Park didn't show us that GM'ifying animals has a bad result, it showed us that you should never employ chubby Linux gurus to run your secruity systems.
- How come Taiwan gets a bad rep? The US is just as likely to corrupt this technology (as is the UK).
Good point about playing God though - it really is a bit creepy (but this one idea is a good'un I think ;)
What a c*** article! The author seems to have shoe-horned every alarmist notion in the tabloids' dictionary - cloning dead pets, outraged pet dealers (can you even imagine an outraged pet dealer?), the word 'fruit' in an article about fish, a totally unrelated issue (tropical fish that can live in cold water), and false selling (i.e. a kitten that doesn't look like it's clone-parent).
Personally, I think this is a great idea - normal tropical fish are pretty useless - but now they can be used to provide the sort of ambient lighting that was once the preserve of candles, child-safety lights and nuclear reactors. Pretty romantic alternative I would think!
Anyway, I'm sure natural selection would have produced the same result eventually - don't tropical fish live very close to the marine coral that contributes genes to the glowing fish? It is only a matter of time until one of the coral starts to get fresh ideas about a zebra fish ...
Sounds like a great idea, if a little worrying at first.
I think the article gives slightly the wrong impression; implying that the car takes control if it detects a crash is likely to happen - a good trick if a piece of hardware can predict a crash before a human can ;)
In fact the system seems to detect the liklehood of a crash and warn the driver, tightening seatbelts and readying brakes, and if the driver agrees that a crash is possible and applies the brakes, the system helps this process.
Some good info on the Honda site (good graphics too), here's a snippet:
"This system determines the likelihood of a collision based on driving conditions, distance to the vehicle ahead, and relative speeds, and uses visual and audio warnings to prompt the driver to take preventative action. " ... and I suspect that radar is not the only component.
Seems like this is part of a long term drive in Japan to make safer cars: remember the device that sprayed the driver with lemon scented water if it sensed him/her getting drowsy? Or the breath-alcohol test device that prevented drunk drivers from starting their vehicles?
Apparently, part of the CMS system will also keep the driver in their lane too.
Not sure why such systems are not more available in the West, maybe Japan's drivers are more ready to accept such restrictions on their driving freedom. Whatever the reason they seem to have reasonably safe roads even by Nordic standards
I guess in the West drivers are keener to protect their driving freedoms; this is certainly the case in the UK, but let's face it, most people can't drive well most of the time because driving is risky and stressful. Speeding, driving whilst talking on a mobile phone, driving when sleepy, driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs or prescribed medicines, are too common - and at the end of the day it's just another poor working stiff who ends up in hospital or the cemetery.Though after a quick read, I can see why ...
When V was all the rage in the UK, so was Billy Graham (the US preacher). His posters were all over the church boards in my home town.
One day I saw a couple of people hanging around my local church notice board, laughing.
When I went up to see the gag, I saw that someone had sprayed a big red V on a Billy Graham poster.
At first I laughed along with the rest. But later, my joy turned to confused terror, when I read of David Ickes horrific theories about reptiles (load of c**p really, but quite funny - but please don't follow the link if you are easily offended, or seriously stupid, like this guy ;)...
Seems to me that Icke's theories started around the time V was broadcast in the UK - so the original series has a lot to answer for ;) Bring on the next series (we need more nuts!)
Maybe Billy should wear a pair of these to stop people spotting his weird, reptilian eyes .. darn that reptilian agenda ...
Totally agree - in the UK the true killer-app for BT, the BT headset, costs £60 for generic models and £100 for proprietary brands.
Mobile phones cost less than that here!
Say what? Gaming is very popular in mainstream, non-geek, society, I though that was commonly accepted! Look at all the rap and movie stars that proudly display their gaming gear on MTV Cribs!
And isn't it _supposed_ to be a waste a time? I mean, that's how we demonstrate that we are wealthy and better than our peers - by wasting time that other people might have to spend working.
I'm not saying that a documentary of a LAN party isn't a great idea ('cause I've never been to one and I'd love to see how it works) but just like that Haystack thing, is it really just a solution looking for a problem, or in this case, a student looking for a film grant? (only joshing ;)
Listen, I remember when the term "geeky gaming" really meant something ... D&D, CoC, Paranoia, that-one-with-the-ducks ... ten saddos sitting around a kitchen table pretending to be in a far away land with only dice and notepads for company (we couldn't afford the lead figures). Now _that_ was a geeky waste of time ... I should've been down the shopping centre (the mall to you US kids) chatting up shop girls and getting frisked by security guards with big moustaches ...
Not sure I agree with you, but I guess you are entitled to your opinion (even if it includes calling me clueless;)
Note that I said that the BBC attacks and derides the govt, IMHO that is very different from making valid criticisms and reporting the hard facts.
If you think that transparent govt is determined by a press that derides the govt then I have to disagree - 'freedom of information' and fair & informed comment are, to my mind, more important in achieving this end.
The media are not just kept around to attack the govt; when they do only that, then all we have is a govt so occupied with 'spin' that real poilices, real changes to society and the world at large, are lost in a frenzy of pre-deadline policy shifts and announcements: all to the tune of the unelected press.
The media could just report the news, inform common opinion and support reasoned debate, maybe you would see this as a lowly task but I would say that is the most important responsibilty of the media.That would leave the people to elect a govt, which in turn could focus on developing our society.
And hell, if you think that the media is 'allowed to exist', then who is allowing them to exist? What is the agenda of these people that do all this 'allowing'? Are you paranoid or what? (That was the rant bit - apologies if it caused offence).
I know it maybe hard to believe, but sometimes a govt is trying to do the right thing, and maybe the BBC is getting on my nerves so much because they seem to focus on the trivial (e.g. why did the govt say that Saddam's chemical weapons could be ready in 45 minutes when an unamed source says that they couldn't?) instead of the bigger picture (e.g. Saddam was an evil tyrant and Iraq is better off without him, or not, as the case maybe).
I mean, why keep a dog if it tries to bite everyone, even your mother?
... a wallplanner, coloured marker pens and sticky shapes - a laptop or pda will never beat this combo for giving you a sense of the big picture at the end of a 3am revision session.
... a read&black bound notebook, to write down important information (lecturer's instructions, girls' phone numbers, etc.)
... an a3 drawing pad - for mind maps during lectures.
Spend the rest on good food and not-recommended text-books in your chosen subject matter (e.g. the Anatomy Colouring Book taught me all I need to know about the 'bag-o-bones' and at 1/10th the price of the recc'd texts).
Get an old desktop for your dorm room (not so easy to steal, great for frag-fests with neighbours, oh, and writing essays).
Laptops are great for email and IM and web browsing, but isn't that what computer labs are for?
PS: All you need isBit of shame, because the UK population votes for the government and then is compelled to pay a tax to the BBC so it can attack and deride that very same govt. Hey, it even uses large amounts of this tax to create (and subsequently re-create) digital channels that most of the UK population can't receive (thought that is changing thanks to rivals Sky and the ill-fated ITV Digital).
The BBC also uses it's massive income stream to start new channels and enterprises that effectively destroy legitimate competition (e.g. Artschannel channel), and uses it's multiple channels to cross-advertise other BBC channels (so not really advert-free).
News stories are not always well researched or written (c.f. the one about broadband barrage balloons reported on Slashdot - pure puff and ill-considered comments).
The sheer size and bias of 'auntie' (as it is 'affectionally' known) makes many other media organisations feel free to take rather obvious pot-shots at it (e.g. The Times newspaper has a story that the BBC was known as the Baghdad Broadcasting Corp by the British Navy and sailors switched to Sky News to avoid the overwhelmingly anti-UK bias on the BBC - of course this might have something to do with Murdoch owning both The Times and Sky News).
The BBC's 'unique way of funding' has crippled objective political reporting and media output in the UK; pro- and anti- govt propaganda bounces back and forth between so-called independent news organisations; as do irrelevant TV programmes (independent TV does a reality show, the BBC does a reality show and props it up through its many output formats and channels, etc.).
Did I hear someone say that the BBC's musical radio channels are the best in the UK? Of course they are! However, this might have something to do with the BBC having the almost all the national music channels in the UK. Effective competition again stifled by the fact that BBC radio does not have to make a profit because it is funded in it's own 'unique way', i.e. by enforced taxation; oh, and they shut down pirate stations using govt-biased legislation (I'd like to say that this legislation is BBC-biased but I'm not sure emergency crews would agree, then again it does get some geek-points for coolness.) Though even I would admit that BBC music radio is 'ok' sometimes, nothing will eras the memories of DLT and never-ending Fleetwood Mac from the p***-poor Radio 1 of old (and, alas poor controller, it isn't much better now).
They don't do anything new or innovative (except deliberately mess up the scheduling for top-class programming like Seinfeld, Larry Sanders, Star Trek: TNG etc. so no-one realises how bad BBC stuff really is, oh, and show pictures of dead soldiers). Not unless they are coming up to the regular review of the BBC tax by parliament; such a review is coming up, and those of us who loathe the BBC (but still have to pay it's tax but never watch any of their TV channels) can only hope an pray that the govt finally sees sense and makes them pay their own way in this world. Hey, it might happen!
Forgive the rant (but it's not as bad as
Seems like a great idea, a neat way of overcoming the last-mile and bringing broadband to a lot more people in the UK.
IMHO, major obstacles stand in its way:
1) Cost. Each balloon may take millions (of UK pounds) to put up so any cost savings assume a sufficient subscriber base; and don't forget the satellite-TV style transceiver dish required for each customer site. Once the first one goes up, what's to stop existing providers dropping their prices to compensate?
2) Available bandwidth. Isn't unlikely that the system will "not slow down as more and more people use the service", especially as SkyLinc themselves state that the system is scaleable (i.e. why would it need to be scalable if performance never degraded with load?)
3) Weather. As every English-person knows, the weather in the UK can be erratic and extreme (for example, more tornadoes per unit area than anywhere in the world). Relying on an "antenna stabilisation system" may sound like a good idea, and it may even work, but who would believe it enough to spend the installation fee on it?
4) Coverage. Despite the article's optimistic "18 base stations" providing "total UK coverage, from densely populated towns to the remotest cottage in the Scottish Highlands" the SkyLinc website claims only "87% of UK SME business locations" for the same number of base stations - which I suspect counts out most remote locations.
5) CAA approval - SkyLinc might expect to make most money out of densely populated areas, but as these are often near airports what's the chance of CAA approval in all but a couple of test sites?
Of course, it serves the UK govt. to support this scheme and make encouraging sounds about it. At the very least it will stop most people from wondering why the govt. pushes 'broadband Britain' but allows a practical monopoly, paid for by the taxpayer, to slow the spread of broadband (hey, even remote cottages in the Scottish Highlands have BT phone lines).
Personally, I'm all for the idea, but I don't think it will ever get off the ground but if Guy Kewney says/implies/suggests it's a good idea then who am I to disagree! Hey, I even like the idea of having my own balloon to tow 'behind' my car in case of emergencies and traffic jams.
It's so wondefully clear, with no menus and several interesting photos ;)