Maybe not in the classic sense of turning iron to gold, but hear me out.
This actually hit me back in grade school when we first learned about basic chemistry.
1) If all matter is essentially made up of the same stuff--protons, neutrons, and electrons--in different arrangements, couldn't there logically be some way to rearrange the particles into any substance we want?
2) Given the laws of conservation of both matter an energy, the resources we "use up" don't just magically disappear. They are either misplaced or transformed, So shouldn't we be able to some how recover the matter and energy in some way?
These two combined give me the impression that we should some how be able to turn anything into whatever we want, displacing less desirable or more abundant materials into ones of greater use.
I'm not so naive to think that it would be so simplistic. Obviously the actual process, feasibility and practicality is much more complicated, but simple logic seems to say that there must be some, if very advanced, way to create a sustainable resource cycle, much like every other sustainable cycle in nature.
While information itself should exist in a 'spaceless' form, people themselves still exist in a space filled reality. When it comes to information about people, where things happen is very relevant.
As difficult as it may be, just ignore the "microgeoblogging" buzzword and look at the big picture here:
Despite the antisocial tendencies of the majority of the Slashdot crowd, a good deal of people actually give a shit about others and what they are up to.
A personal example:
I don't get to see many of the people I used to hang around with in high school. It's a bit much to call or e-mail everyone each week. By the same token, a full scale blog is a bit much to maintain especially if your life is mundane in general.
Now consider the micro concept: Most Information only requires the basic W's. Who when where what.
[Jerry tomorrow downtown coffee.]
Now if I happen to be near downtown tomorrow I might be inclined to call him and try to meet him for coffee. Otherwise, I'll have something to talk to later. But calling him each day to say "are you having coffee" is a bit much, especially with so many other people for both myself and Jerry to interact with.
The micro concept allows us to make better use of the small windows of time me have, and automating the mundane aspects of "who", "when", and "where, allow more focus of the substantial aspects of "what" and 'how".
It's engineered serendipity, which is much more important as free time becomes more sparse and our friends become more spread out over the globe.
Shorter and immediate is better. Just look at the progression of remote communication:
mail->phone->email->text->sms->twitter. Shorter, quicker, more people!
It deals with the trivialities and allows for more substance when we actually sit down to talk or communicate in person.
I understand how easy it is to just throw off the next buzzword you hear, but look beneath the hype and look at the actual revolutionary possibility.
Rather than a replacement to human interaction (which I'm rather fond of) it could augment it allowing us to have more meaningful face time with others.
I don't think there is any way to make processor naming and branding less confusing to the average consumer because the average consumer mostly doesn't care. The terms mobile, dual core, hyperthreaded etc, etc mean nothing. All they want to know is if it's "fast (enough)".
Meanwhile rebranding does litlle for tech heads like us because what you call a processor isn't as important as what it does. We already know what we're looking for in a processor. We understand what kind of processor suits our needs and look at the acual numbers: clock frequency, number of cores, data bus, cache, as well as the actual performance benchmarks--all things that mean NOTHING to a general consumer.
So really there isn't much processor companies can do to make their product lines easier to understand. The general consumers don't care, and tech people already know all they're looking for. So rather than market to the consumer, just throw up the processor and the specs to the guys who really choose the chips--the hobbyists and guys in IT and engineering who actually build/choose the computers. It doesn't matter what you call it, we'll figure out what to use any way.
But by the same logic, playstations controller isn't stolen either. Since PS was originally supposed to be part of the SNES
That's why I said "It is a bit forgivable though given the origins of the PlayStation".
What is interesting is that Sony did consider slightly different controller designs. One had more square-ish buttons, and the other had 6 face buttons a-la Sega Saturn (reference).
It's always been amazing that of all the mistakes video game platforms have made, Sony seems to have made amazingly few of them. However you have to wonder if "playing it safe" might have hurt innovation in the long run.
Have CR2032's become hard to find now? I used to replace them all the time in my Sharp scientific calculator.
Not hard to find, so much as pain-in-the-ass to have to get from the pharmacy counters, and then wait while they try to find it and more often than not they would only have one (VMU required 2). I think it would have been better to throw in a recargable that charged through the system, tack on an extra $5 if necessary and call it a day.
Another gripe I was how often the cap got lost. Should have taken a note from the average pen and allowed you to keep the cap on the opposite end. Not only that, but the nubs that kept it on in the first place would wear out.
Don't get me wrong, I loved the VMU system mostly and wanted to see it go farther, but it only takes a few nuisances to make an innovative idea unappealing on a massive scale.
Microsoft didn't quite 'steal' the controller. When Sega of America's hardware days came to an end, I'd imagine a GOOD number of designers went over to Microsoft for the Xbox project. Hell, even Peter Moore (SoA) President became the marketing manager.
The VMU was a great idea, but really flawed. Biggest problem was that it ran on two, very hard to find, and equally hard to replace watch batteries (CR2032 - I replaced enough that I still remember), that drained faster if you left them plugged in the controller when the system was off.
Other main problem was the limited storage capacity. Sports games and VMU games often took up most of the card space. Unfortunately the memory capacity wasn't scalable (the system could only recognize 200 blocks (128 KiB). There was a prototype MP3 player VMU that popped up near the end, but that obviously fell through.
Now if you want to look to stolen controllers, I direct your attention to the original PlayStation and the SNES. The only real change on the original PSXcon were extended grips and two extra shoulder buttons. It is a bit forgivable though given the origins of the PlayStation.
I remember reading that Nolan Bushnell (Atari Founder) once had a discussion on the "phallic" nature of a joystick.
The result was this amusing setup.
I'm still undecided on whether it was an act of stupidity or genius.
The Z trigger was put "out of place" on purpose. It's supposed to be a 'special' button that's slighly out of the way so it isn't hit accidentally. By requiring you to move your finger to press it makes for a more deliberate action. Same reason why Black and White were placed where they were on the Xbox controllers.
It's true, actually. Especially around major cities, many younger generations are caring less about religion.
It's just the relatively few, but extremly loud religious zealots that make it seem otherwise. The fact that said zealots often end up in Congress doesn't help much either.
Is the USA the last place to abandon them, or does your Networking and Telecomm professor (somewhat ironically) not realise that there is a world outside the USA?
I think it's safe to say most people over here are unaware that there's another world outside of this country.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe not in the classic sense of turning iron to gold, but hear me out.
This actually hit me back in grade school when we first learned about basic chemistry.
1) If all matter is essentially made up of the same stuff--protons, neutrons, and electrons--in different arrangements, couldn't there logically be some way to rearrange the particles into any substance we want?
2) Given the laws of conservation of both matter an energy, the resources we "use up" don't just magically disappear. They are either misplaced or transformed, So shouldn't we be able to some how recover the matter and energy in some way?
These two combined give me the impression that we should some how be able to turn anything into whatever we want, displacing less desirable or more abundant materials into ones of greater use.
I'm not so naive to think that it would be so simplistic. Obviously the actual process, feasibility and practicality is much more complicated, but simple logic seems to say that there must be some, if very advanced, way to create a sustainable resource cycle, much like every other sustainable cycle in nature.
You are missing the point.
While information itself should exist in a 'spaceless' form, people themselves still exist in a space filled reality. When it comes to information about people, where things happen is very relevant.
As difficult as it may be, just ignore the "microgeoblogging" buzzword and look at the big picture here:
Despite the antisocial tendencies of the majority of the Slashdot crowd, a good deal of people actually give a shit about others and what they are up to.
A personal example:
I don't get to see many of the people I used to hang around with in high school. It's a bit much to call or e-mail everyone each week. By the same token, a full scale blog is a bit much to maintain especially if your life is mundane in general.
Now consider the micro concept: Most Information only requires the basic W's. Who when where what.
[Jerry tomorrow downtown coffee.]
Now if I happen to be near downtown tomorrow I might be inclined to call him and try to meet him for coffee. Otherwise, I'll have something to talk to later. But calling him each day to say "are you having coffee" is a bit much, especially with so many other people for both myself and Jerry to interact with.
The micro concept allows us to make better use of the small windows of time me have, and automating the mundane aspects of "who", "when", and "where, allow more focus of the substantial aspects of "what" and 'how".
It's engineered serendipity, which is much more important as free time becomes more sparse and our friends become more spread out over the globe.
Shorter and immediate is better. Just look at the progression of remote communication:
mail->phone->email->text->sms->twitter.
Shorter, quicker, more people!
It deals with the trivialities and allows for more substance when we actually sit down to talk or communicate in person.
I understand how easy it is to just throw off the next buzzword you hear, but look beneath the hype and look at the actual revolutionary possibility.
Rather than a replacement to human interaction (which I'm rather fond of) it could augment it allowing us to have more meaningful face time with others.
I don't think there is any way to make processor naming and branding less confusing to the average consumer because the average consumer mostly doesn't care. The terms mobile, dual core, hyperthreaded etc, etc mean nothing. All they want to know is if it's "fast (enough)".
Meanwhile rebranding does litlle for tech heads like us because what you call a processor isn't as important as what it does. We already know what we're looking for in a processor. We understand what kind of processor suits our needs and look at the acual numbers: clock frequency, number of cores, data bus, cache, as well as the actual performance benchmarks--all things that mean NOTHING to a general consumer.
So really there isn't much processor companies can do to make their product lines easier to understand. The general consumers don't care, and tech people already know all they're looking for. So rather than market to the consumer, just throw up the processor and the specs to the guys who really choose the chips--the hobbyists and guys in IT and engineering who actually build/choose the computers. It doesn't matter what you call it, we'll figure out what to use any way.
Don't underestimate the man. He makes for a very convincing Professor X, though its nothing compared to his Christopher Reeve costume.
That's why I said "It is a bit forgivable though given the origins of the PlayStation".
What is interesting is that Sony did consider slightly different controller designs. One had more square-ish buttons, and the other had 6 face buttons a-la Sega Saturn (reference).
It's always been amazing that of all the mistakes video game platforms have made, Sony seems to have made amazingly few of them. However you have to wonder if "playing it safe" might have hurt innovation in the long run.
Not hard to find, so much as pain-in-the-ass to have to get from the pharmacy counters, and then wait while they try to find it and more often than not they would only have one (VMU required 2). I think it would have been better to throw in a recargable that charged through the system, tack on an extra $5 if necessary and call it a day.
Another gripe I was how often the cap got lost. Should have taken a note from the average pen and allowed you to keep the cap on the opposite end. Not only that, but the nubs that kept it on in the first place would wear out.
Don't get me wrong, I loved the VMU system mostly and wanted to see it go farther, but it only takes a few nuisances to make an innovative idea unappealing on a massive scale.
Microsoft didn't quite 'steal' the controller. When Sega of America's hardware days came to an end, I'd imagine a GOOD number of designers went over to Microsoft for the Xbox project. Hell, even Peter Moore (SoA) President became the marketing manager. The VMU was a great idea, but really flawed. Biggest problem was that it ran on two, very hard to find, and equally hard to replace watch batteries (CR2032 - I replaced enough that I still remember), that drained faster if you left them plugged in the controller when the system was off. Other main problem was the limited storage capacity. Sports games and VMU games often took up most of the card space. Unfortunately the memory capacity wasn't scalable (the system could only recognize 200 blocks (128 KiB). There was a prototype MP3 player VMU that popped up near the end, but that obviously fell through. Now if you want to look to stolen controllers, I direct your attention to the original PlayStation and the SNES. The only real change on the original PSXcon were extended grips and two extra shoulder buttons. It is a bit forgivable though given the origins of the PlayStation.
I remember reading that Nolan Bushnell (Atari Founder) once had a discussion on the "phallic" nature of a joystick. The result was this amusing setup. I'm still undecided on whether it was an act of stupidity or genius.
The Z trigger was put "out of place" on purpose. It's supposed to be a 'special' button that's slighly out of the way so it isn't hit accidentally. By requiring you to move your finger to press it makes for a more deliberate action. Same reason why Black and White were placed where they were on the Xbox controllers.
What state is that in?
It's true, actually. Especially around major cities, many younger generations are caring less about religion. It's just the relatively few, but extremly loud religious zealots that make it seem otherwise. The fact that said zealots often end up in Congress doesn't help much either.
Is the USA the last place to abandon them, or does your Networking and Telecomm professor (somewhat ironically) not realise that there is a world outside the USA? I think it's safe to say most people over here are unaware that there's another world outside of this country.