May 2008 Archives

I see the MOD has launched a scheme for wannabe military scientists to come forward with ideas for battlefield weapons and equipment.

It's being billed as a kind of 'Dragons' Den for Weapons' although some might say that is trivialising it a bit.

After all what does the winner get? The chance to see their dream killing device put into production with the ultimate goal of seeing it in action - no doubt blasting some Iraqi family to bits in a 'collateral damage' incident?

A really revolutionary device would be one that actually works - we all know about the problems about the British SA80 rifle which didn't work in the desert because sand got into it, and had the annoying and slightly dangerous quirk of going off when you dropped it (now rectified I might add).

Perhaps someone might invent bullet proof vests which actually deploy themselves to the battlefield, so saving British soldiers' lives by actually being around their torso, stopping bullets and shrapnel from puncturing vital organs, rather than in some depot in Kent.

After all lest we forget in Iraq the soldiers didn't have enough of these items because Blair and his cronies didn't want to tip anyone off we were going to invade by actually issuing them to the soldiers!

Actually on reflection perhaps the best innovation might be a device fitted around the neck of every politician - an explosive collar which detonates when they are about to invade another country for spurious reasons - problem solved!

I saw a really positive piece on the BBC news the other night about monkeys who have been 'adapted' to control robot arms with their minds.

The piece was overwhelmingly in favour, saying this was a step forward and could help people who have been paralysed and so on.

Fair enough, but I did notice something rather odd.

If you look at the picture here, you'll notice something blocking out the top of the little chap's head.

It's not attached to to monkey, the silver metal thing is in the foreground. Now, this device works by connecting electro circuits to their brains.

So presumably behind this blocking bit of metal, the poor thing's head has been sawn off with large crocodile clips clamped to its brain.

I suppose it wouldn't have garnered such positive coverage if this had been visible...

Online web search engine colossus Google is being sued by Belgian newspapers who claim it is infringing copyright by publishing and archiving their articles.

This follows on from a similar case in the same contry by a French language group who won, forcing Google to take down cached versions of articles from its news service.

It's an interesting case - on the one hand papers and writers have a compelling argument that their copyrighted content is being used by another organisation to make profit for themselves.

After all Google, by providing 'news', although it generates no content whatsoever itself, gains hits, traffic and can sell advertising and other services, so making a profit by operating in a parasitic manner.

On the other hand newspapers are usually desperate to get their articles featured on Google News because it leads to a load of click throughs, increased traffic and so more revenue for them.

On balance most are more than happy to have their content used by search engines in this way, making the lawsuit all the more strange.

Of course they stand to gain from a big fine from Google - and perhaps it's no bad thing - after all why should an organisation effectively stealing content from someone else be allowed to make a profit on the back of it without asking for anyone's permission before publishing?

Yes another study and amazingly this time it's pro-gamers.

I've never heard the like before, and one presumes the Daily Mail won't be reporting on it.

According to Patrick Kierkegaard of the University of Essex in the International Journal of Liability and Scientific Enquiry (a tome I'm sure you all subscribe to) video games are 'harmless' and don't lead to real world aggression.

He based his conclusions on research papers published since the 1980s, and claims previous studies were unfairly biased against video games.

Well it certainly makes a change - I must admit the only time I've felt a touch of aggression is when I've wanted to nut the screen after a 12-year-old from Germany has shot me in the face for the 13th time in a row in Counter Strike!

Did anyone see Charlie Brooker's column in the Grauniad's Guide section yesterday?
It gave me quite a chortle - readers sent in their ideas for names on Gladiators...

Well here it is:

Don't know why but personal favourite was the female suggestion of 'binlids'. Although the punch in the stomach starter for ten in the female section of 'Gash' came close.

I haven't laughed so much since he described a pre-slimmed down Alan Sugar as looking like "a water buffalo straining for a shit in the middle of a lake".

And the technology line? Well as any good pc gamer should know, Mr Brooker started out writing on seminal magazine PC Zone!

I see environmental do-gooders Greenpeace are complaining that games console manufacturers aren't green enough.

That's an interesting one guys - I could understand moaning about the world's oil companies not paying enough lip service to your perfectly reasonable goal to save the plant.

Zeina Al-Hajj, Greenpeace's International Toxic Campaign co-ordinator lashed out at famous oil-slick causer and tree molester Nintendo saying: "Nintendo doesn't have any environmental policies."

Like what? I reckon they should create a special box which looks, to all intents and purposes, like a Wii.

But in reality it's made out of recycled cardboard, with a fake on switch so as to not use any power.

That would be much more preferable to the current version, which is made out of a combination of Dolphin fins, whale blubber and cfcs.

On the BBC story, it says: "The report found that the PS3 and 360 both contained "very high" levels of chemicals, called phthalates, which are used to "soften" flexible materials like wires and cable coatings.

"They are not permitted in toys sold in Europe but under EU regulations games consoles are not classed as toys. Ms Al-Hajj said: "We see a gap there. For us this is still a toy.""

Ah - but Ms Al-Hajj, the reason they're not allowed in toys is because children put them in their mouths and chew them, poisoning themselves. Wiis aren't actually for that.

No-one from Microsoft was available for comment on the findings of the Greenpeace report as they were designing whale finding radar for Japanese factory ships (I made the last bit up).

MODERN games are too complex.

There's a bold statement for a PC gamer to make, especially as I'm someone who looks down on titles released on consoles as being, shall we say, produced for the mass market.

I'm increasingly aware of friends who have got loads of games they have bought but have never really got into, or even started.

Some even sit on the shelf still wrapped in their cellophane. Heavy duty strategy games I know I'd love.... if I could just be bothered.

Perhaps it's because strategy games have got a bit samey. They all seem to operate at the same level of complexity so in some ways there's not a vast amount to take on board.

But for every one there's a whole new research tree to learn, the quirks of the game have to be got to grips with - and that only happens with a fair amount of play.

As someone who is not 'time rich' with young children, investing several hours in a game you might not even like much before you learn to play it properly is sometimes hard to justify.

So you almost get to the point where you just dig out an old title you know well for ease of use.

It even happens some times with more easily accessible genres. For example with Crysis I took a look at all the gubbins with the special power suits and wondered if I could face learning it all.

But then again - I'm glad I did take the trouble as it's such a great game.

Have you ever bought something and never actually got round to playing it, and why?

THE perils of a game being made with cutting-edge technology was brought home to me recently when I dusted off an old favourite for a blast.

As a bit of a strat fan I loaded up turn based shooter Incubation - similar in many ways to the classic X-Com series.

At the time it was pretty cutting edge, and utilised a facility only available to people who had bought the latest graphics card.

Those who have gamed on the PC for some time might remember 3dfx - and Incubation had a special enhanced graphics mode which would take advantage of the new hardware.

Sadly my more modern ATI Radeon 3870 512mb card was deemed by the game to be unable to cope in the full 3dfx mode.

It would, however, work fine in the basic graphics mode, although it keeps asking me to load directx 5.0...

How to get it working in full 3d mode? Answers on a postcard to ben.hurst@birminghammail.net please!

I keep seeing the new BBC advert showcasing new high definition services in what can only be described as explosive adverts on their channels.

The ads have obviously had a huge amount of cash spent on them - involving large sets being destroyed.

The 'theme' is the Antiques Roadshow being involved in some kind of cataclysmic car crash, with what is presumably a priceless vase being saved by TV news lovely Helen Bruce in Hong Kong action movie style.

Clearly they're taking a recognised BBC signature 'brand' such as the Antiques Roadshow and reimagining it in an exciting 'high definition' way. showing how 'Auntie' is moving with the times.

But why? Who really cares about high def except TV tekkies, and journos who have been set up by Sky TV for free in exchange for numerous plugs (you know who you are).

Is it an improvement? Yes - but it's not like the leap forward from video cassettes to DVD.

Also why is a public service broadcaster effectively running ads aimed at selling expensive TVs to people who already have something which will do the job just as well?

There is also the point that if the same production values and budgets were available to, say, a new science fiction series, we might actually have something worth watching, other than repeats of Dad's Army.

After all the BBC has been cutting jobs left right and centre - often in drama - so those concerned must be delighted at such a large amount of cash being spent on ads like this.

I see that a team of British scientists have somehow managed to scoop a one million euro grant to create a robot which can stir soup.

I must confess I had thought that technology had come a bit further than this.

After all haven't we created robot planes to fly over enemy lines spotting Osama Bin Laden? (ok, ok, bad example)

In the story linked to above it says the robot must understand that the goal is to create soup.

If we're getting into the understanding by artificial intelligence of philosophical questions of that magnitude, where will it all stop?

Will we have kitchen droids contemplating the endless conundrum: "If the universe is infinite and god is also infinite.....would you like some oxtail, sir?"

I await the next huge European project - "Can we create artificial intelligence capable of putting the correct amount of sugar in tea?"

And to think we're worried about the Chinese technology boom taking industry away from the EU - with projects like that I'm sure our supremacy is assured.