Wednesday, July 16, 2003

The Great Gaming Divide

Yes ladies and gentlemen, today I want to talk about videogames...I guess the nature of life, the universe, and everything can wait a day or so (hehehe)...

Have you ever noticed the, shall we say, tension between PC gamers and console gamers? At times it's almost like two rival gangs. On the one hand, PC gamers rib console gamers for tollerating 640x480 screens and playing FPSs with no mouse. They lambast the lack of strategy games and chuckle at the thought of "multiplayer" meaning four people in front of one TV. On the other hand, console gamers have this general distaste for PC gaming. They complain about the price of a decent PC rig and sneer at the lack of console style RPGs. Then they mutter something about how FPSs and startegy games are the only well maintained PC genres.

What strikes me here is that these are perceptions generated entirely by the gaming populace, and not corporate hype machines. Think about it...Console giants such as EA, Codemasters, Rockstar, Konami, and THQ have all seen fit to release PC versions of prominent console games. Even Square, Sega, and Sony-era Psygnosis supported PC from time to time. Conversely, PC-centric companies such as ID, Epic, DICE, Bethesda, and others have brought famous PC games to consoles. It's definately not in these companies interests to bash either side.

There is, of course, the perception that PC gaming is somehow very seperate from console gaming. When Rockstar signed a single platform exclusivity agreement with Sony for Grand Theft Auto, nothing prevented PC versions of GTA3 and VC. Back when the only way to play Sega games was supposed to be a Sega console, PC version of Sega classics from Outrun to Sega Rally 2 were made.

And yet, though there may be divide in software, there has never been a divide between PC hardware (in the sense of all personal computers and not the Wintel sense) and console hardware. The NES and SNES shared CPUs with models on the Apple II line (6502 and 65c816 respectively). The Sega Master System and Gameboy were both powered by a Z80, an infamous and widely used copy of the Intel 8080. The Genesis and Sega CD shared CPUs with the early Macintosh line (the 68000). N64, Playstation, and Playstation 2 both drew upon technology from SGI's workstation lines (MIPS cores). Dreamcast is well known for having a PC graphics chip at it's heart, but the SH series of CPUs had also been used in handheld PCs running WindowsCE. Gamecube, of course uses a video chip from ATI and a modified version of the G3 chip that powered Macintosh a few years back. From a hardware perspective, XBox is only unique because it uses an official Intel CPU. In a very real sense, at the most basic levels, console and PC gaming are just branches on one big videogaming tree.

However, as many have come to find out, facts are quickly lost on the gaming masses. Nearly every message board has some misguided soul who will complain that the XBox is too much like a PC, or that he hates PC gaming in general. Really, I think it's time for gamers of all creeds to just get over it and become one big gaming continuum.

Tuesday, July 15, 2003

On the Uranium Question

Woah, it's been awhile since I updated...That's not good...As I said when I started this blog, I don't want to just be talking about what I do all day; that's just boring. So, the challenge for me is to come up with interesting things to talk about here, and after a week, I think I have a few.

Now, on to today's topic...The issue of the President's african uranium statement from January's State of the Union address. Quite frankly, I think this is a non issue. That may sound like I'm simply brushing the issue off, but I don't think it was ever an issue to begin with...Did that make any sense?

Allow me to explain. First, as I recall, the Administration never used nuclear weapons as a reason to go into Iraq. Even before the war it was pretty clear that Iraq was not actively persuing nuclear weapons. That was just plain common knowledge. Recall that Colin Powell demonstrated simulated chemical weapons at the UN Security Council, not simultated nuclear material. What is being said now about the african uranium line implies that uranium was really an issue for Iraq. No, it was more like the little sprinkles on top of a large, multilayered cake.

Second, it's clear that the fact that the sixteen words that are in question got into the Address because several groups with the Executive branch screwed up. What's not clear is why they screwed up. Did they screw up because they honestly believed the bad intelligence? Did they screw up because they needed more evidence and were grasping at straws? My problem with this issue being raised in the way it has, as some sort of backhanded credibility issue, is that we have nothing that speaks to motive (I have in fact been watching too much Law and Order). It's pretty clear that those that are opposed to the President, i.e. the people who are raising this issue, are trying to imply that in making the incorrect statement about african uranium, the President lied...And that's just a bunch of BS (or just plain bull, heh). For the President to lie, the President would have to know that the statement he was about to speak was blatently untrue (as was clearly the case with Clinton). We have no evidence that is the case.

Third, the timing of how this issue is hitting the front pages bothers me. I distinctly remember hearing/seeing news reports that the documents used to support the President's statement on african uranium were not believable as far back as late April or early May. Now it's July and this is suddenly a Presidential issue. It just gives me the impression that someone opposed to the President sort of slipped this into the media...Is that how we want our news media to work?

Friday, July 04, 2003

Stuff that Really Matters

I found this "Ask Slashdot" question to be extremely disturbing: "In all seriousness, I need a RAID that supports at least level 3 and stores > 500 GB, and I need to it work in zero-G (but not in a vacuum)". Yes ladies and gentlement, this man is actually asking a question about space equipment on Slashdot. I mean, the only places that I can think of that are in zero-G but not in a vacuum are the interior of the space shuttle and the International Space Station. The person who is asking the question works for Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory. Apparently, they send all kinds of things into space, including hard drives...

In a coincidence worthy of a Police album, Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory is also working on a "New Fuel for Hypersonic Ramjet". They say that, "Striking time-critical, heavily defended, or deeply buried targets while protecting our forces is an important role for future hypersonic weapons." These guys must read the Guardian.

In other news, the launch of NASA's "Opportunity" Mars Exploration Rover has been delayed until July 6th...Which is very cool since I have plans Saturday night. I watched the launch of sister-rover "Spirit" and it was extremely neat to watch.

Thursday, July 03, 2003

The Coming Living Room Superstorm

There has been some talk lately that Microsoft's XBox console is faltering. The "gloom and doom" crowd, spured on by a recent John C. Dvorak piece in PC Magazine entitled The XBox Quagmire, claims that XBox, having too few exclusive "AAA" games, is bound for failure in a PlayStation 2 dominated world.

In my opinion, these people are missing the point. This is about much, much more then games. Microsoft is taking the long view here...They intend XBox to be the first part of a long term strategy to compete with Sony for the blossuming digital home entertainment market. In essence, these are first drops of rain in a looming battle of corporate giants to create the equipment that will power the HDTV-centered living room of tomorrow.

For example, Microsoft is trying to push Windows Media technology as the software side for a hi-definition DVD replacement. Check out the demos here. Just look at the new T2 DVD release. It comes with a WM9-encoded version of the movie to be viewed on PCs that's higher resolution then the DVD. With resolutions like that, there's no doubt in my mind that Microsoft is serious about the next DVD standard being Windows Media based. Think of the T2 HD disc as a sort of prototype of the next generation in home video. Sony, of course will undoubtedly have their own codec to counter Microsoft. And why not? Whoever controls that codec will be receiving lisencing fees from each HD-DVD player slod, even if that player is a competing company's videogame console.

This is bigger then just DVD. With PSX (Sony's new Tivo-like PlayStation 2 model), Sony is trying to create a centralized digital home entertainment machine. This is an attempt by Sony to undercut Microsoft's Windows Media Center initative.Microsoft thinks Sony wants to leverage their Playstation empire to start to compete against Microsoft in the home entertainment world.

While most people see very definite borders between PC's, consoles, Tivos, and DVD players, Microsoft and Sony see this as all one big market. The same technology drives all four markets. A Tivo is just a PowerPC running Linux. A PS2 is not just a game console, it's a MIPS based Linux platform as well. Microsoft understands that in the home market their Windows monopoly on PC is dependant on people needing Wintel PCs for everyday tasks. They fear Sony wants to "come in the back door" so to speak by creating products that people use instead of their Wintel-based PC. So, to compete, Microsoft competes with Sony on a one-to-one basis, with a Wintel-based console, which could easily become a Wintel based home-entertainment center.

Therefore, I'm saying that Microsoft is willing to fund XBox until Sony gives up their home entertainment ambitions. XBox is the moat that lies between the Sony hoards and Microsoft's Windows monopoly. As a result, it doesn't matter how good or bad XBox does at this point. It's a hedge for the future.

Wednesday, July 02, 2003

Much Ado About Nothing

The way the media, especially the British media covers the U.S. Military is very odd. Today The Guardian reports:

"The Pentagon is planning a new generation of weapons, including huge hypersonic drones and bombs dropped from space, that will allow the US to strike its enemies at lightning speed from its own territory."

Now, I would have to say that's a pretty important story. Some people have even commented on how unusual it is that the mainstream U.S. press isn't covering this.

The answer is that this is old news. The very public, 1996 "Air Force 2025" study contains this statement about the one of the types of weapons the Air Force wants by 2025:

"Hypersonic Attack Aircraft A high-speed strike vehicle capable of projecting lethal force anywhere in the world in less than four hours. Operating at Mach 12 and a cruise altitude of 100,000 ft, this vehicle is a reusable two-stage system comprised of an unmanned boost vehicle and a manned hypersonic strike aircraft. The gas turbine-engined boost vehicle requires a conventional runway and accelerates the strike vehicle to Mach 3.5 and 65,000 ft. The strike vehicle then separates and uses a ramjet/scramjet engine to reach its cruise condition. The total system range is 10,000 nautical miles (NM); the hypersonic strike vehicle has an unrefueled range of 5,000 NM. It is capable of launching precision-guided munitions, including the hypersonic air-to-ground missile described in system 5.4, at a standoff distance of 1,450 NM. Alternatively, the platform may be used to transport an uninhabited unmanned air vehicle described in system 4.2."

In other words, this is simply not news. Similarly, a 2001 Global Security.org article describes the military's HyperSoar project...

"HyperSoar could fly at approximately 6,700 mph (Mach 10), while carrying roughly twice the payload of subsonic aircraft of the same takeoff weight. As a military aircraft, a HyperSoar bomber the size of an F-22 could take off from the U.S. and deliver its payload from an altitude and at a speed that would defy all current defensive measures. It could then return directly to the continental U.S. without refueling and without the need to land at forward bases on foreign soil."...

Gee, sound familiar? This is old news.

In fact, this idea is really, really not new. The Nazis dreamed up the A9, a giant manned version of the V-2 which could strike at America that is similar to the "HCV" concept the Guardian speaks of. Hypersonic bombers have long been a dream of aircraft designers, a fact that these media reports ignore.

In any event, the HCV, aka FALCON, aka HyperSoar is a good idea. Unlike ICBMs, this weapon could be considered a precision weapon. Current ICBMs are so inaccurate that they need to use nuclear weapons as warheads. With a nuke, there are no near-misses. What this new concept envisions is something with the precision bombing capability of a B-2 (recall the "decapitation strike" on the first night of the Iraq War) combined with most of the speed and range of an ICBM. As of right now, ICBMs are only options for madmen. With a hypersonic strike capability, we get all of their advantages with none of their disadvantages.

Even more interesting is the notion that at hypersonic speeds, one no longer needs bombs. A precision guided rod of titanium traveling at Mach 10 would be just as effective as most bomb, without the danger of unexploded bomb fragments...And all of this, at two hours notice.

Tuesday, July 01, 2003

The Right Takes a Wrong Turn

I was watching a discussion on CNN's NewsNight about the political views of Ben Franklin, the founding father...In particular, the biographer spoke of Franklin's dislike of partisanship, and his belief in compromise. Aaron Brown asked, "Would he have been a Republican or Democrat?", and the answer was "he would have been a centrist". That sounds so foreign in a political discussion, doesn't it? We're so focused on "Left or Right", "Liberal or Conservative", that it almost seems like we've forgotten the vast expanse in between. Sadly, our politics has become so partisan and the center seems so barren.

I get into a lot of politcal arguements, and someone usually accuses me of being on one side or another. I am not on the Left or Right. I'm a Centrist by reason. For example, I take issue with much of the Liberal agenda, such as Affirmative Action, expanding Welfare, and to great an emphesis on environmentalism. I am vocal in my disgust for Marxism, which in my opinion seems all too often to drip into the agenda of the Left.

For that reason, I'm often accused of being a Conservative. But I'm not. How could I associate myself with a movement that could produce this?:

"WASHINGTON - The Senate majority leader said Sunday he supported a proposed constitutional amendment to ban homosexual marriage in the United States."

That's just plain sick. Two things strike me here the most. First, as a heterosexual male who is free to marry at any time, it deeply saddens me that in this nation built on freedom, where we are supposed to be guaranteed “pursuit of Happiness” that homosexuals are not given the same right. Is not marriage one of our greatest institutions of happiness? Conservatives paint homosexual marriage as a moral issue. No, it is plainly a civil rights issue. Frist wants to alienate a minority in this nation through constitutional amendment. If that minority was black, Asian, Jewish, or anything other then homosexual, there would be riots in the streets.

Secondly, how could Bill Frist, one of our nation's top legislators, even think of trying to legislate morality through constituional amendment? Didn't his predeccessors early in the 20th Century learn how poor a choice that was with the 18th Amendment? That "noble experiment" failed.