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.

Newfangledness Versus the Coming Thing

So I was thinking about newfangledness, mostly because I really like the word. I also think a lot of things are newfangled, but that is not always such a terrible thing. However, I don't think every departure from old ways and tech is newfangled. Sometimes it's the Coming Thing.

I think the difference is why the thing is new. If it is new just for the sake of having something new, I think it's newfangled. Sometimes I like it though, and I think newfangledness is somewhat subjective. Take Mountain Dew flavors. Every year they have a contest where you can vote on which of their new flavors they will keep, although most of these seem to be a flash in the pan. Some of them are very gross, but some are good, like "Game Fuel". All of them are newfangled. Things like dark chocolate KitKats and Reeses Cups are, I think, a worse kind of newfangled, because the normal variety used milk chocolate to go better with peanut butter. Dark chocolate actually makes these things worse. Consider why Mounds bars have dark chocolate and Almond Joy have milk chocolate. These classic candy bars were painstakingly designed, and the newfangled versions with some swapped ingredients just mess it up.

I think the Coming Thing is new because there was a need to fill, or a real chance of doing something either better, or perhaps for the first time. Automobiles, computers, and the like are good examples, but they make it seem like the difference is one of scale or importance. It's not. The Take 5 bar is a good example of a candy bar that was a new type, and was designed with ingredients that match and contrast perfectly. It could become a new classic.

Another way to think of it is like the 1920s, one of my favorite time periods. We think of the twenties as a free-for-all, full of crazy kids doing crazy things. Flagpole sitting, bobbed hair, the Charleston - all these things were fads, and were newfangled (but occasionally awesome). Also in that decade, however, with the increase in real wages and record low unemployment, middle class families could finally get their hands on refrigerators, radios, cars, phones, fans, and the electricity to run them. That was the coming thing, and it lasted.

Some things are both. I previously said that I think the 3DS is a coming thing, and I still think so, although they better get some good games soon. It's also a newfangled contraption though. There's not really a need for 3D games (although, done right it could be fantastic), but the technological development of a glasses-free 3D screen is amazing, and it will be used for more than toys.

Anyway, yeah, this was supposed to be an a post about eReaders, some of which are the coming thing.... but I got hungry.

Chap Hop! Ukuleles! WAR!

This is kind of weird.... so, I've meaning to write a post for a while about ukuleles. No, really. I find it is impossible to feel sad when someone is playing a ukulele, particularly if it is 20s-ish music. For example, this is a delightful song I stumbled across on youtube.

Then I was reading The Chap, one of my favorite magazines of all time (on their website), and they mentioned Mr B the Gentleman Rhymer, who is performing at this year's ball. I remembered him because of the Chap Manifesto, which he set to rap in honor of the publication's tenth birthday. Anyway, here is one of his videos:

I think his banjolele is quite catchy, but apparently there is already a king of chap hop, and he is Professor Elemental. Here is what he has to say:

And the response? I think it's a response....?

Apparently some of the fans are pretty die-hard, but I like them both. Although, Prof. E. does have an album called Indifference Engine, so that gets him brownie points. Anyway, there is one thing we can all agree on:

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 Coming Thing!

...or, Steampunk and Technological Optimism.

There are a couple of reasons I like steampunk more than other subcultures, particularly the ones that are based on aesthetics, music and clothing (music was actually a late comer to mainstream steampunk, if there is such a thing, but now with Abney Park and some other bands, there is definitely that force in the subculture). Also, as far as trends based on literature are concerned, it's less horrifying than most. The first is just the cool style and the fun of it, obviously, the fun coming largely from going "hm, how would you power that with steam?"The other is the optimism. Steampunk takes place in a past with a bright future.

In the nineteenth century, there was the feeling that science would ease the labor of mankind, and free us up for pursuits of art and intellect. We will forget for now that the intellectual movements in the nineteenth century led to slaughter on a scale never before imagined. Anyway, that was the feeling, as demonstrated in the Universal Expositions and Worlds Fairs. Good steampunk reflects this - technology makes the world better, not worse. Our ability to imagine and create is a great strength. New worlds of discovery were being opened up all the time. Even though the technology in steampunk is primitive by today's standards, because it is alternate history, it is forward-looking, and it also keeps alive the idea that the things we make should be beautiful (look at an iPod and try to stay awake). Besides, the stories are usually more about people than machines, which is another nice thing about the genre. Not all steampunk is optimistic, however, and I think it suffers.

Some examples of both types:

The original steampunk (no, not Difference Engine, which I haven't read) - I mean, of course, Jules Verne! As a good science fiction writer, he dreamed up all kinds of new technology, as well as better and more useful versions of existing tech, and portrayed them as wondrous. He also had a number of mad scientist characters. Consider "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea". Captain Nemo is crazy! He's kind of a bad dude! It's interesting that he is a pacifist and believes that society must be controlled through force to protect all the stupid, dangerous people - did Verne recognize something about 19th c. society and science that others, like Wells, did not? Hold that thought. Anyway, the Nautilus itself, and the underwater paradise that Nemo would like to retreat to when he's not terrorizing the seas, is marvelous and good, and who wouldn't want one? It's how Nemo uses it that's wrong, not the science itself. I think, though this is sort of a generalization, that the technological advancements in the 19th c. were good for the world, while the social science was disastrous. Science can't perfect society, or people, but it is worth pursuing . . . FOR SCIENCE!!!

For another, ultimately frustrating, take on that, let's consider "Steamboy". Now, this film is cool-looking. It has some really neat steam machines, and cool action sequences. The animation is very smooth and expensive. It's fun to watch, for the first half of it. The story is just lame. Basically, this kid's father and grandfather are scientists. They invent a magic steam valve that apparently can concentrate steam at low temperatures . . .or something? Anyway, the experiment blows up in the dad's face, boiling him alive and leaving only a damp skeleton covered in pulp- I mean, causing mild skin irritation. They secretly send the valve to the kid and bad guys come after it, until he gets it back to them at the Crystal Palace Exposition. . . and hilarity ensues. Really boring eye-rolling hilarity, until the explosions start. And don't stop. For like an hour. It is Katsuhiro Otomo, after all.

There's some rubbish about what science should be used for, and the characters, who are just stand-ins for cliched concepts, talk about it for ages. On the one hand, science should never, ever, ever be used for war. On the other hand, when dewy-eyed scientists try to use it for peace, the government, or actually the military, will corrupt it for war. But on the other hand, or C, it's kinda fun, for amusement park rides, and barrel organs, and other sundries. And that's pretty much the conclusion we're left with. Science as an amusing sideshow!?!? What kind of steampunk is this?

I think the steampunk work that best sums up the spirit of the times is Brisco County Junior, from which the title of this post is taken. Brisco is a bounty hunter, drifting around the west, looking for the Coming Thing. He doesn't know what it is, but he can feel it. After all, it's almost a new century. Throughout the show, he and his friends discover many coming things, clever, often hilarious, steampunk versions of all kinds of modern items. Sometimes they are devices the bad guys are using, other times they are made by the good guys and help our heroes out. Usually though, they are just the hard work of regular people that Brisco encounters. He's pleased to see what their dreams are, and how the future is being made. It's the spirit of the west. It's a pretty Shonen Jump-like philosophy for a show that's really just meant to be fun, and is certainly not scientifically rigorous. I guess you could say it's steam-pulp.

They also have the Orb, a magically powerful device that can do many things to advance the plot. It's also kind of like science, and in fact at one point is described simply as "potential". When the bad guys get ahold of it, it is terribly dangerous, and ultimately self-destructive, but it helps the good guys a lot, while tempting and leading astray some of the minor characters. It's not actually deep, per se, it's just a handy plot device, used to reveal things about the characters.

That's my lengthy two cents.

"Steam Airships (Real Ones)" or "They said it couldn't be done!"

So, while I'm writing a steampunk story, I've been getting all these gloomy nay-sayers telling me you couldn't really have steam-powered airships. Now, obviously, the water tank would be pretty heavy, and you'd have to have a really good condenser so you don't boil all your water out into the atmosphere, but those are just details. What is even cooler, as this page shows, is that you can actually use steam as your lift gas!

This eliminates the danger of running a coal fire under a giant bag of hydrogen (anyone who's ever ridden on a steam train can tell you about the burning cinders blowing around). Also, it is a much cheaper option for pirate crews and the like. Your balloon and its boiler could be their own closed system, with the steam trap pipes dumping the condensed steam back into the boiler. A pressure valve would turn the steam off to prevent the balloon from bursting, and turn it back on as you gain altitude and the temperature drop condenses the steam at a faster rate. You could combine steam and other lift gases perhaps, in separate envelopes, since you would need a pretty big balloon to displace the weight of the boiler, the water tank, the coal or oil, your crew, and all your weapons, and a bigger steam balloon would necessitate a bigger water tank and more weight.

The next question I would try to answer is whether you ought to use normal steam or "dry" or superheated steam. Dry steam can perform an enormous amount of work, but is it lighter? It's hotter, so it's probably less dense. You just need to send the steam back through a separate section of the boiler to get it hotter. Jay Leno explains a bit about a compact version of this technology in his video about the amazing Doble Steam car. If you were going to use steam power to run your propellers as well, you certain would like to have a superheater.

So, I would just like to say, "They said it couldn't be done! But I'll show them all! Mwahahahaaaa!" (fires lightning cannon from airship)