Hooray for History Fans!

And I mean fans in the fangirl/fangent/otakuish sense. Hmm. I just realized something. I used "fangent" to mean a tangent indulged in by fans (a more random and less canonical relative of the fan theory) but when paired with fangirl, it could also be a gentleman who is a fan. This all makes me very happy.

BUT!

Not as happy as this web comic, which I stumbled across by way of Twitter (because random steampunk tidbits soothe my fevered brow better than actual sleep {my brow is fevered because I recently became a computer teacher, while keeping my part-time job at Barnes and Noble.})

It reminds me in a way of Five Fists of Science, but, dare I say(?) better. I feel that there should be a question mark in the previous sentence, so I put one in. And I do dare say it, because FFoS is pretty entertaining, but kind of meh. Any hoo, "The Thrilling Adventures of Lovelace and Babbage" is about Charles Babbage, creator of the first computer, and Ada Lovelace, creator of the first computer program. Apparently they fight crime? It's fantastic.

Even more fantastic (but actually less fantastic inasmuch as it's actually true) are all the links to Primary Source Documents by about the protagonists. I dare not start clicking on any more of them tonight or I really won't get any sleep. And then I won't be able to set up the computers for next week's classes. Maybe I should give the middle school kids a project later to research the history of computers on the interwebz. Whoever can go back the farthest gets a prize.

Of course, depending on how broadly one defines computers, there were even earlier examples of machines that used basic logic, but not to do math. So, since a computer ought to compute, the Difference Engine was the first one.

The Coming Thing! (I want it)

So, the new version of the Mac OS X came out recently. It's called Lion. I read this nineteen page review of it, and I totally want it! Now! Unfortunately, I would need to install the previous OS X, Snow Leopard, in order to install Lion, because of some kind of magic regarding how it partitions some disk space for itself. Oh, I wish I had money, then I would just get a fancy new Mac that already had Lion.....

At first I was a bit distressed to see that they'd really flattened the look of all the buttons and widgets and icons and things, because I liked the candy-coated look of the OS X. But when they got to the part about the scroll bars, I began to think it was really beautiful and clean, like the more recent versions of iTunes. On the whole, I like Apple's design philosophy, and I like that this is more on the sleek side, rather than the cutesy side. The only caveat I have is, they got rid of the clicky arrows for the scroll bars - I hate having to move the mouse if I don't want to, although you can still use the arrow keys of course. However, I think this is more than made up for by the fact that you can resize windows from any edge! Not just the bottom right corner.

It has autosave on everything (everything native, that is, you still have to hit apple-S for most third-party programs). Now, ordinarily, I turn autosave off, because half the time I make changes I'm not sure about, and only save them if I'm sure. I get really paranoid about saving over the good version of things. But Lion makes a previous version every time it saves, so you can go back and recover stuff in a neat new application. It also saves your last window arrangement from the last time you were using it. That is cool. I'm looking at you, Final Cut Pro....

The second half of the review is about technical stuff. I only understood part of it, and it took me a couple nights to get through, but it's pretty amazing how smart they made it. The way it uses memory, the way it allows applications to talk to each other, and the way it lets you customize different screens are all quite cool. As I was reading it, it totally seemed like Tron.

Also, at first it seemed like they were getting it a little too dumbed-down for new users, but the fact that it is actually more customizable than previous Macs, and has much more powerful tools, is awesome. I think it's important for computers to be intuitive enough not to intimidate new (usually old) users, but offer enough depth to get them to do all the stuff you need without jumping through hoops and wasting time.

Yep, if I ever get a real job, the first thing I will buy, even before a new tattoo, will be a sweet new Mac....I can dream can't I?

Whooooo HOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!

So JK Rowling is finally - FINALLY! - releasing all the Harry Potter books as ebooks. She was one of the most vocal opponents of digital publishing, because it's cool if wizard books have changing pages and pictures, but it's not cool if muggles get ideas above their station. It would be lovely to be a wizard and have all your stuff look like it's the 19th century but magically have all the advantages of the 21st century, but some of us embrace technology (and then steampunk it so it looks like the 19th century). Ahem. Anyway, this is awesome, and it will make my customers very very happy in NOOKland.

Now for a touch of irony. Those of you hang on my every post will recall that I said Amazon's insistence on a proprietary format for the Kindle was not at all the Coming Thing. Well now they've met with a dose of their own medicine, since Rowling is releasing the books solely through a website of her own called Pottermore, which will apparently offer content beyond just downloading the books. Here's the kicker - it may just have them available as epub. I'm chuckling. My guess is that she may give in and offer Amazon's ridiculous format, but I hope not. It's about time Amazon got into the real ereader market. If they think they can't make a profit selling hardware and using convenience to incentivize customers to shop their ebook store, then that's their tough luck. You don't see Barnes and Noble complaining about NOOK customers buying books through Google and Gutenberg. One of the NOOK's biggest selling points is the fact you can get ebooks from the library for free. That's the Coming Thing.

I just thought I'd share. Proprietary formats get my dander up. If you can't keep your customers by giving the best product and service, then you probably don't deserve them.

A Coming Thing - the eReader!

So - eReaders. I think they are the coming thing, especially the Nook and sort of the iPad (not because it is a particularly good ereader, but because it can run ereader apps and also does a bajillion other things). I say "sort of" for the iPad because it's dead to me. When Mac comes out with a computer where I can draw on the screen in Photoshop and dump my drawings into Final Cut to animate them, then we'll talk.

Anyway, ereaders: In the interest of full disclosure, I work at Barnes and Noble, but even if I didn't I would think the Nook is better than the other readers, including Kindle. Sadly, Kindle is the next best one, but it's miles behind the Nook. This post isn't really about consumer information, but just a quick note - the Kindle uses a proprietary format so you have to get your ebooks from Amazon, and that is not and will never be the coming thing (that's not to say it won't become more common in the future, but that is not what makes something the coming thing. I also don't think it will be more common - I've heard Amazon is going to cave and start allowing epub on the kindle). Nook is open-source and uses epub and pdfs, so you can get books from every site except Amazon, including libraries for free. That is the coming thing.

As much as I like the Nook Color, I really think the new Nook, with the e-ink touchscreen is the best. What I like about it is how it seems very simple, and in fact it is, but only because it's very high tech.

When the Kindle came out, followed closely by the Nook, e-ink was pretty new, with a really slow refresh rate, and a longish black flash when you turned the page. The cool thing is, during that black flash, magnets are pushing ink around into little grids, like an etch-a-sketch, basically. Now the refresh rate is much faster, and the screen looks crisper and more contrasty. The old Nook had an e-ink reading screen on top and a touch screen on the bottom, and weighed about two ounces more than the kindle, which only has a keypad on the bottom. The touchscreen allowed for menus to be rearranged and added via software updates so people can get much more use out of the same hardware. It's a little awkward, however, to perform tasks such as highlighting passages using two different screens.

Then the Nook Color came out. It's really fun! It has a full web browser, and it has apps (don't start playing Angry Birds or Flight Control - they're like crack. Actually Angry Birds reminds me a bit of Super Artillery, an Apple II game I loved in my childhood). It has better reading software and tools because the whole screen is touch. It also weighs a pound and has only eight hours of battery life, unless you kill the battery faster playing Angry Birds. Still, at $249, it's one of the best Andriod Tablet values on the market. If I had the money I might get one just for Epicurious.

But, really, if I had the money, I'd get the new Nook and be glad I waited. It's the most advanced, since it's an e-ink touchscreen. They stacked them on top of each other, yet it's thinner than both other Nooks and weighs just under 8 ounces. This is because the new e-ink parts are so small and the touchscreen is infrared, rather than detecting the electricity in the salts on your skin. It uses so little battery that you go up to 2 months without charging it, and it has a much more consistent sensitivity than the color LCD touch screen.

Ereading is the coming thing, especially for people who like old or unusual books, or are poor. It is not for everyone, like people who feel the need to snort the musty fragrance of paper books. My response to them - buy the ebook of stuff you kinda like, and save your money for the hardcover of books you will treasure. It's like people who only buy DVDs and refuse to rent them. It's weird. I think e-reading is awesome. For example, I like to write in books, especially since I read nonfiction for fun. Some books, like the Summa Theologica, are too big and printed too small to write in. A double spaced version would be prohibitively massive and expensive. There is a beautifully formatted eBook of it for 99¢, and you can put as many notes as you want, highlight it different colors, and send your notes to your email or facebook (or to your friends). It even adds the notes to the book's table of contents so you can find them easily. That's why it's awesome.

e-ink is also the coming thing. I'm very impressed how fast they got it to be in a touch screen, and I can't wait until they have color e-ink. I hear they are working on it, but I imagine the refresh rate on all the colors you'd have to mix would be very very slow. Also, the screen is opaque, so you could not stack black, magenta, yellow and cyan screens on top of each other, which is basically how printing is done, as well as real Technicolor film. I love how it looks though, and I think it is more futuristic than backlit screens. Anybody can imagine how an LCD screen is to read on, having at some point stared at a computer screen for hours (it's not very nice), but having changing ink is very cool and new. It also shows that the companies thought about how people like to read, and what they might enjoy. The best thing about e-ink is that it is very human, and very easy on the eyes. Ereading is a pleasure, and that makes me feels good about the future, which is precisely what "The Coming Thing" is all about.

Not the Coming Thing

or, For Science!

~ a short rant ~

I was looking at light bulbs last night, pondering stocking up on a few more incandescent bulbs before they become illegal. But I was also looking at compact fluorescent bulbs, because I do use them in most of my lights, especially the ones I use for extended periods.

I couldn't find any that were the right color, only the hideous bright blue ones, or "Daylight". I prefer "soft white" whereas in incandescent bulbs I prefer "soft white", "Edison", or "reveal", although only in my living room, because it's already purple and looks lovely with the slightly purple light.

All these names are, frankly, ridiculous, with the exception of "soft white", which is pretty understandable. Another point of confusion is brightness. We are used to measuring brightness in watts (this hurts me) despite the fact that the coating on white light bulbs slightly affects the brightness. Watts are a measure of how much power they draw, which is different for fluorescent lamps. At least they tell you what wattage of normal light bulb they look like. LED lights are hopeless in this regard, and they will never ever be able to force me to buy one. They'll have to kill me first.

The proper measure of brightness is lumens, or, alternatively, foot candles. We have a standard, folks, why not use it?

But my biggest problem with all these different bulbs is the color and quality of light. LEDs are out of the question because the quality of light is just not there - it has a weird focus because of the shape of the plastic bubble, and this gives it hideous shadows that I find distracting. The color is also quite ugly - the white light from LEDs is just too blue for my taste, for most applications.

Fluorescent bulbs are ok in terms of quality of light - the shadows are a little murky, but I'll live. My problem with fluorescent bulbs is the color. Not all of them are hideous - they do come in a soft white that looks pretty good to the eye. However, usually they have a horrible green or yellow tinge to them that you can see on film or even in digital photos. It's why most photos taken indoors look yellower than they used to, unless your camera has a specific white balance setting for fluorescent.

One of the settings where they'll have to pry the incandescent bulbs out of my cold dead hands is the bathroom mirror. Fluorescent bulbs make me even paler, the circles under my eyes even bluer, and various blotches even redder. It also makes my makeup look gray and dull. The ladies room at my church has overhead fluorescents, which is a problem because that's where brides get ready. They are nervous enough without looking in the mirror and seeing a Tim Burton character!

But there is a solution, offered to us by science! Colors of light can be expressed in numbers! Any photographer knows this. It's called color temperature. Sunlight is 5600K, and incandescent light is 3200K. It's the reason why shooting indoor film outside gives you bluish pictures, and outdoor film will give you orange pictures if you use it inside. There are filters to correct this. Why aren't light bulb colors expressed this way.

Or maybe they are. As I was looking at light bulbs, I saw that some of them did in fact have the color temperature written on the box. The "Daylight" compact fluorescents had "6500K" written down the side. The only problem is, that's 900K bluer than daylight, which I can attest to, having accidentally bought two of the hideous things. One actually worked quite well up inside the ductwork in my former mad science lab. But I have no place where the other doesn't offend the eye. There is no bulb that looks like daylight, except those ones that plants like, and they're too hot to use. Now, color temperature is hardly common knowledge, but you would think that someone involved in the manufacture of light bulbs would have studied lighting at some point.

So, nice try, but until somebody puts a real measure of both brightness and color temperature on light bulbs, I don't think everyone should be forced to make the switch. It's just one example of ecomentalists making our lives smaller, meaner, and less beautiful. That and Sunchip bags.

The Coming Thing!

So, after watching the live broadcast of this year's E3, I believe I can safely say I have found another Coming Thing. And it's weird for me to pick this one out, given my skepticism for Nintendo's recent gimicky junk. Drumroll please:

The 3DS! Its marvelous! It's 3D, without glasses (I think the screen is polarized?) Now I am not a fan of 3D movies. I think it's a fad that should have died with poodle skirts and radium watches and stayed dead. The new gray glasses really don't make it any better. My biggest problem with 3D, as with any technology in a movie, is that filmmakers use it as a crutch. Look at the slew of really terrible CGI movies out there, before Pixar dominated that niche (not that people don't continue to make bad ones). If a movie needs 3D to make it fun to watch, then not only is it not worth the extra 3 bucks, it's probably not worth the regular price either. If the movie is good anyway, maybe 3D is kind of fun, but again, not worth the extra money. I like the use of 3D in one place - the Bug's Life show at Disney's California Adventure. Not to give anything away, but it's how William Castle would have done 3D if he'd had lots of money. It's the perfection of the technology used in "Honey I Shrunk the Audience".

Enough about movies and shows. We're talking games here! Going back to Disneyland (I wish I was) the Toy Story game is a good example of how this is successful. It's a shooting game, with 3D stages and projectiles projected on the screen, that totally look like they're coming out of your gun. The depth looks very realistic, and adjusting your aim is very intuitive. That's what Nintendo has done with the 3DS. One of the developers explained how they thought it was important to be able to judge the distance between yourself and your target. You can also adjust the level of depth, and even turn the 3D off (it's truly magical). I think games are better for 3D, since they would not just use it for a different look, but for a whole different way of interacting (imagine the Zelda puzzles!!!!!). Developers are going to have a field day making games for this.

And what game are they launching with the handheld? KID ICARUS!!!!!!!! I turned to my brother when they showed the 3DS and said "I hope they make good flying games for this" and then they announced Kid Icarus and I squeed. They made it specially for the 3DS, under a secret project called Project Sora (mysterious). The part with the lasers will look awesome in 3D.

Which brings me to Zelda..... no, there's not a 3D Zelda yet (can't wait though). I'm talking about Legend of Zelda Skyward Sword!!!!! For the Wii, and for the win! It's beautiful, and has realistic swordfighting! It's also pretty! It's bright, but not cartoony, keeping the realistic style but with nifty painterly cel-shading. It kind of reminds me of Ocarina of Time, but without the polygons. The environments are huge and gorgeous, and you can use items in awesome new ways. All my horrifying doubts and sickening imaginings evaporated in the glow of the new trailer. I can't wait!

Also, if anyone from Nintendo is reading this (one of my five readers is a Nintendo developer, right? Right?) .....Zelda.... has gone from sailboats....to steamboats.....to trains......there needs to be an airship Zelda games for the 3DS!

The best steam car ever made!

Jay Leno's got a little steampunk in him it seems. Here's his Doble steam car. The video is long, but totally worth it.

update: 5/25/11 The video disappeared so I updated the link. Now you have to watch commercials before the video plays, but it's still very cool.