We have narrowed down the buttons that we want, but really need to understand how we are going to light them before we make a final decision. It is probably easiest to buy the buttons and the LED controllers from the same place as you would expect that they have been tested to work together. So, since we previously established that we were down to the Groovy Game Gear and Ultimarc buttons, it makes sense to look at the controllers they sell as well.
Groovy Game Gear sells the LED-Wiz32 which can control 32 LEDs. Ultimarc has the PACLED64 that can contol 64 LEDs. If you will recall, we have 43 buttons, plus 5 sticks, and 1 track ball that we need to light. So, we have 49 LEDs total that need to be lit. So, we can order 2 LED-Wiz32s or 1 PACLED64, right?
Not so fast there. The devil is in the details. If you read carefully, you will discover that 1 single color LED uses fewer leads than 1 RGB LED. A single color LED has 2 leads. An RGB LED has 4! In addition, the RGB LED needs one lead for each of the three colors, and one lead for ground. So, we can think of an RGB LED as actually being 3 single color LEDs, which changes the math a bit. We still have 49 physical LEDs, but since we want to be able to control all three colors in the RGB LEDs, we actually need controls for 49*3, or 147 LEDs. This means that we need 5 LED-Wiz32s, or 3 PACLED64 boards to drive all of those colors.
Suddenly, the pricing for getting all of this light looks a bit different. However, there is another factor to consider that is more aesthetic. The PACLED64 requires power in addition to the USB cable, where the LED-Wiz32 seems to pull its power from the USB bus. So, the PACLED64 is going to require some extra wires be extended in to your control panel to light all of the buttons. However, the LED-Wiz32 will either require additional USB cables going in to the control panel, or a powered USB hub to be installed. However, one thing to be aware of with powered USB hubs is most HUBs aren't built to provide maximum power to all of the ports on the hub. So, finding a hub to use with the LED-Wiz32 may well be a guess and check type of proposition.
My decision ultimately came down to cost and difficulty. While I am not jazzed about pulling extra power wires in to the control panel to power the PACLED64, I am even less jazzed about finding a USB hub with enough power in it to feed the LED-Wiz32. Not to mention, both basically require pulling power in to the control panel to run the LEDs. Then, factor in the cost difference between the two, and I elected to go with the PACLED64. However, it is important to note that my decision was based purely on cost. How well either board works is something I don't have the money to compare. So, I am taking a roll of the dice that they both perform similarly.
So, I elected to purchase the LED controller and buttons from Ultimarc. However, there was an issue when I went to order them. I needed 43, but the on-line site claimed they only had 20. So, I shot a quick e-mail over to Andy at Ultimarc to ask when more buttons would be in. Andy responded within 24 hours saying that it was an issue with the web site, and he had plenty in stock. The issue was fixed, and I was able to order.
So, the only other things that I needed to sort out is getting the quick connects and wire ordered. In part 1, I mentioned that I ordered those parts from AllElectronics.com. The order was pretty much a couple spools of wire, a couple hundred quick connects in a couple of sizes to be safe, and some 24 pin D-Sub connectors (both male and female).
The D-Subs probably seem to come out of left field. Why the heck would you need them!? Well, back in part 1 of this effort, I mentioned that I wanted to have the option to wire in a JAMMA harness in the future, so that I could collect the hardware versions of my favorite games. I figure that if I solder all of the wires from the switches in to some D-Sub connectors then I can later wire a JAMMA harness to the opposite gender D-Sub connectors, and I have a quick way to switch between the systems. How well this idea works remains to be seen. However, I figure worst case I end up wasting some time to add some flexibility to the overall project.
Thursday, September 19, 2013
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
My Insane Arcade System Build (Part 4)
Since I decided to go with the U-HID for the primary control method, it seemed that my best option for a trackball and a spinner was to just order them from Ultimarc. Groovy Game Gear had a much less expensive spinner, which was enticing, but it was unclear how hard it would be to hook to the U-HID, so I decided to pay a bit more and go with the spinner from Ultimarc. The Ultimarc spinner appears to be the same price as the one at Groovy Game Gear until you realize that you need to purchase the spinner cap in addition to the spinner at Ultimarc. Then it becomes more expensive. If you are more confident in your wiring abilities than I am, you can save yourself some money here and order from Groovy Game Gear.
For the trackball, I really liked the idea of not having to deal with a top mount plate. Ultimarc has a track ball kit that doesn't require a top mount kit. However, if you go back and look at the pictures for the Ultimate Quad control panel at North Coast Custom Arcades, you will see that it is clearly cut to be used with the top mount plate. Reading through the various bits of information that I could find, it also became unclear to me if the ball on the Ultimarc U-trak would be too big to fit in the control panel. It was also unclear if using that track ball would be considered "custom" by North Coast, which would add an additional charge to the purchase of the control panel kit. However, after talking to the guys at North Coast, I was told that it was not an additional charge, but to get the panel cut for the U-trak track ball, I needed to specify that I planned to use that track ball in the comments section of the order. (Which is a good reason to know what you are ordering before you do it!) They also told me that the U-trak is what they used in their own builds, so it should work great.
So, we now have the leg work done for all of the controls except the RGB LED buttons. Finding the right buttons ended up taking a lot more time than I had expected. First, I had to try to track down who I could actually order the buttons from, and what kind of buttons are available. Ultimarc, Groovy Game Gear, and Paradise Arcade Shop all had RGB buttons. Ultimarc and Groovy Game Gear also appeared to have controllers to run the LEDs. (Paradise Arcade Shop appeared to sell a controller as well, but it wasn't in stock.) Ultimarc and Groovy Game Gear sold the complete RGB buttons as a kit, while Paradise Arcade Shop sold the buttons and the RGB lights separately. With Paradise Arcade shop, they sell at least two different types of RGB LED inserts. It was unclear to me which inserts went with which buttons. However, a quick e-mail to them asking if a certain button and light worked together resulted in an answer that I had picked the correct light to match with the button.
I quickly discovered that I had too many choices of buttons, for my desired goal. So, I set about trying to narrow down which ones I wanted. Paradise Arcade Shop has a video on their site about lighted buttons that shows the difference in how buttons can look based on where the LED inside them is positioned. This was good information that I had not considered previously. After watching the video, I decided that I wanted buttons that didn't have a significant "hot spot" in the button. Having a hot spot when the button is pushed is probably less of an issue, since it will be under your finger, but having hot spots when the button is not pushed could result in the buttons not looking as good as I would like.
So, how do I figure out how the different buttons look? Fortunately, someone on the Arcade Control Forms had the same question, and did some testing to find out. You can find the post about the different buttons here. As a quick aside, there seems to be a lot more than just how the buttons look that will factor in to how much you like them. As I was researching everything there was a lot of discussion about the different types of switches that were used in the buttons. If you think you are going to be picky about how your buttons respond, I suggest you do some reading on that. For me, I figured I would go with whatever the default is with the buttons and replace the switches later if I don't like them.
After looking at the forum post, I came to the conclusion that I didn't want clear buttons. This shrunk my choices a little bit. However, after looking at the site for Paradise Arcade Shop, I discovered that the non-translucent buttons weren't in stock, which basically brought me down to a decision between the Groovy Game Gear, and the Ultimarc buttons. But, like the controller for the buttons and sticks, it makes sense to understand how we are going to control the LEDs before we make a final decision.
For the trackball, I really liked the idea of not having to deal with a top mount plate. Ultimarc has a track ball kit that doesn't require a top mount kit. However, if you go back and look at the pictures for the Ultimate Quad control panel at North Coast Custom Arcades, you will see that it is clearly cut to be used with the top mount plate. Reading through the various bits of information that I could find, it also became unclear to me if the ball on the Ultimarc U-trak would be too big to fit in the control panel. It was also unclear if using that track ball would be considered "custom" by North Coast, which would add an additional charge to the purchase of the control panel kit. However, after talking to the guys at North Coast, I was told that it was not an additional charge, but to get the panel cut for the U-trak track ball, I needed to specify that I planned to use that track ball in the comments section of the order. (Which is a good reason to know what you are ordering before you do it!) They also told me that the U-trak is what they used in their own builds, so it should work great.
So, we now have the leg work done for all of the controls except the RGB LED buttons. Finding the right buttons ended up taking a lot more time than I had expected. First, I had to try to track down who I could actually order the buttons from, and what kind of buttons are available. Ultimarc, Groovy Game Gear, and Paradise Arcade Shop all had RGB buttons. Ultimarc and Groovy Game Gear also appeared to have controllers to run the LEDs. (Paradise Arcade Shop appeared to sell a controller as well, but it wasn't in stock.) Ultimarc and Groovy Game Gear sold the complete RGB buttons as a kit, while Paradise Arcade Shop sold the buttons and the RGB lights separately. With Paradise Arcade shop, they sell at least two different types of RGB LED inserts. It was unclear to me which inserts went with which buttons. However, a quick e-mail to them asking if a certain button and light worked together resulted in an answer that I had picked the correct light to match with the button.
I quickly discovered that I had too many choices of buttons, for my desired goal. So, I set about trying to narrow down which ones I wanted. Paradise Arcade Shop has a video on their site about lighted buttons that shows the difference in how buttons can look based on where the LED inside them is positioned. This was good information that I had not considered previously. After watching the video, I decided that I wanted buttons that didn't have a significant "hot spot" in the button. Having a hot spot when the button is pushed is probably less of an issue, since it will be under your finger, but having hot spots when the button is not pushed could result in the buttons not looking as good as I would like.
So, how do I figure out how the different buttons look? Fortunately, someone on the Arcade Control Forms had the same question, and did some testing to find out. You can find the post about the different buttons here. As a quick aside, there seems to be a lot more than just how the buttons look that will factor in to how much you like them. As I was researching everything there was a lot of discussion about the different types of switches that were used in the buttons. If you think you are going to be picky about how your buttons respond, I suggest you do some reading on that. For me, I figured I would go with whatever the default is with the buttons and replace the switches later if I don't like them.
After looking at the forum post, I came to the conclusion that I didn't want clear buttons. This shrunk my choices a little bit. However, after looking at the site for Paradise Arcade Shop, I discovered that the non-translucent buttons weren't in stock, which basically brought me down to a decision between the Groovy Game Gear, and the Ultimarc buttons. But, like the controller for the buttons and sticks, it makes sense to understand how we are going to control the LEDs before we make a final decision.
Tuesday, September 17, 2013
My Insane Aracde System Build (Part 3)
With the sticks selected and ordered, it was time to move on to the next most easy thing. The light guns. If you search around a lot, you will discover that there are a surprising number of options for light guns out there. Since I plan to use a CRT monitor, I really wanted the classic optical light guns to go along with it. However, it seems that those just aren't that easy to get integrated with a build like this. (Not to say it is impossible, just that it is currently beyond the skills of this newbie.) So, I looked at what was available, did some research, and found a few sets of guns.
At least one set of guns was wireless. While this sounds like it would be cool, the thought of keeping batteries in the darn things just sounds like a pain. And, to keep things as authentic as possible, I really wanted something with a wire hanging, just like it would in the arcade. So, I eventually narrowed myself down to the Arcade Guns light guns, and the AimTrak gun from Ultimarc. From what I could find, the Ultimarc AimTrak guns sound like they work really well. I also liked the option of being able to add a recoil function to them to keep things even more authentic. However, two things kept me from getting the AimTrak guns. 1) They only had the black ones in stock when I tried to order. 2) Adding the recoil functionality requires soldering skills that are probably beyond mine.
After digging in a bit more, I found that the Arcade Guns light guns actually use the AimTrak internals. They also had the red and blue kits in stock, which would more closely match what I remember from my arcade days. On closer look, I also think I like the button positioning on the Arcade Guns units. So, I went ahead and ordered a set of those. I also opted to save myself a few bucks by ordering the IR bar without a case. I plan to install it directly in to my cabinet.
As a quick aside, I spoke to the folks at North Coast Custom Arcades, and was assured that once I get my system all assembled, there will be enough space around the control panel to put the light gun cables through. But, I'll get to the discussions with them in another post.
Ordering the remaining parts ended up becoming an interesting exercise in finding the controller components I wanted, mixed with pricing, and what was available. While asking some questions on the Arcade Controls Forum, I discovered that there are multiple ways to "implement" a joystick in a MAME cabinet. You can wire a stick up to send keyboard codes to your computer, or you can wire it up to look to the machine like a standard USB joystick. It seems to me that the key difference in which method you want to use is based on how you intend to use the sticks, and if they are analog sticks. If the sticks are only going to be used for emulators, then it shouldn't matter which method you use. However, if you are using analog sticks, then key presses won't provide the full sweep of options that you would get from an analog stick. So, the "correct" answer is largely a matter of what hardware you use, and how you plan to use it. For my build, I wanted the maximum possible flexibility. After digging around, I came upon the Ultimarc U-HID controller, which seems to be programmable to allow it to show up as either a joystick, or key presses. However, it is unclear if it would work with an analog joystick, or even how programmable it is. But, knowing that I plan to primarily use emulators, I should be fine with whatever it ends up being able to do.
However, one aspect to consider with the controllers is how many devices and switches you need to control. We know that we have 43 buttons, with one switch each. We also know that we have 5 sticks. Each stick is going to have 4 switches for a total of 20 switches. So, we will have 63 switches plus a track ball and spinner. Since the U-HID only has 50 controls, we will either need 2 of them, or 1 of them and 1 of something else. (As I write this, I realized I only ordered 1! Looks like I need to figure out how to support the remaining 13 switches + track ball and spinner! More on that later, I guess..)
At least one set of guns was wireless. While this sounds like it would be cool, the thought of keeping batteries in the darn things just sounds like a pain. And, to keep things as authentic as possible, I really wanted something with a wire hanging, just like it would in the arcade. So, I eventually narrowed myself down to the Arcade Guns light guns, and the AimTrak gun from Ultimarc. From what I could find, the Ultimarc AimTrak guns sound like they work really well. I also liked the option of being able to add a recoil function to them to keep things even more authentic. However, two things kept me from getting the AimTrak guns. 1) They only had the black ones in stock when I tried to order. 2) Adding the recoil functionality requires soldering skills that are probably beyond mine.
After digging in a bit more, I found that the Arcade Guns light guns actually use the AimTrak internals. They also had the red and blue kits in stock, which would more closely match what I remember from my arcade days. On closer look, I also think I like the button positioning on the Arcade Guns units. So, I went ahead and ordered a set of those. I also opted to save myself a few bucks by ordering the IR bar without a case. I plan to install it directly in to my cabinet.
As a quick aside, I spoke to the folks at North Coast Custom Arcades, and was assured that once I get my system all assembled, there will be enough space around the control panel to put the light gun cables through. But, I'll get to the discussions with them in another post.
Ordering the remaining parts ended up becoming an interesting exercise in finding the controller components I wanted, mixed with pricing, and what was available. While asking some questions on the Arcade Controls Forum, I discovered that there are multiple ways to "implement" a joystick in a MAME cabinet. You can wire a stick up to send keyboard codes to your computer, or you can wire it up to look to the machine like a standard USB joystick. It seems to me that the key difference in which method you want to use is based on how you intend to use the sticks, and if they are analog sticks. If the sticks are only going to be used for emulators, then it shouldn't matter which method you use. However, if you are using analog sticks, then key presses won't provide the full sweep of options that you would get from an analog stick. So, the "correct" answer is largely a matter of what hardware you use, and how you plan to use it. For my build, I wanted the maximum possible flexibility. After digging around, I came upon the Ultimarc U-HID controller, which seems to be programmable to allow it to show up as either a joystick, or key presses. However, it is unclear if it would work with an analog joystick, or even how programmable it is. But, knowing that I plan to primarily use emulators, I should be fine with whatever it ends up being able to do.
However, one aspect to consider with the controllers is how many devices and switches you need to control. We know that we have 43 buttons, with one switch each. We also know that we have 5 sticks. Each stick is going to have 4 switches for a total of 20 switches. So, we will have 63 switches plus a track ball and spinner. Since the U-HID only has 50 controls, we will either need 2 of them, or 1 of them and 1 of something else. (As I write this, I realized I only ordered 1! Looks like I need to figure out how to support the remaining 13 switches + track ball and spinner! More on that later, I guess..)
Monday, September 16, 2013
My Insane Aracde System Build (Part 2)
As with all "simple" projects, this one got out of hand in a hurry. The first thing I needed to do was to figure out all of the things I didn't know I needed to know about. That is always a fun thing. So, with a little Googleing, I tracked down the Arcade Controls Forum. This place is an insane wealth of information about every aspect of arcade game systems you could imagine. Perhaps the worst thing about the forum is that there is SO MUCH information that it can be really hard to track down exactly what you are looking for. However, when I couldn't find what I wanted to know, I found that registering and asking a question in the forum usually netted useful information, with few exceptions.
But, lets start with a quick recap of what we know, and what we need to figure out.
1. The arcade cabinet will be a North Coast Custom Arcade Ultimate Arcade II Cabinet kit.
2. The control panel (where the sticks and buttons are installed) will be North Coast Custom Arcade Ultimate Quad kit. (I chose not to have the pinball buttons added, as the size of the control panel seemed like it would put them too far apart for comfort.)
3. I want RGB lighted sticks, buttons, and trackball.
4. I need some kind of computer to run it all.
5. I want the computer to boot up and be ready to play without needed to use a keyboard or mouse.
Tracking down a computer was pretty easy. I have an old AMD Phenom 1.9 Ghz Quad Core system that badly needed to be upgraded to support my wife's need for the latest versions of PhotoShop. So, I ordered parts for a new system from NewEgg, and decided to convert the old system to be my arcade machine.
With the machine figured out, I needed to get the parts ordered so that I could start to assemble my control panel. After doing some Google searches, and reading through a bunch of posts on the Arcade Controls Forum, I game up with a list of a few places to order parts for the control panel.
But, lets start with a quick recap of what we know, and what we need to figure out.
1. The arcade cabinet will be a North Coast Custom Arcade Ultimate Arcade II Cabinet kit.
2. The control panel (where the sticks and buttons are installed) will be North Coast Custom Arcade Ultimate Quad kit. (I chose not to have the pinball buttons added, as the size of the control panel seemed like it would put them too far apart for comfort.)
3. I want RGB lighted sticks, buttons, and trackball.
4. I need some kind of computer to run it all.
5. I want the computer to boot up and be ready to play without needed to use a keyboard or mouse.
Tracking down a computer was pretty easy. I have an old AMD Phenom 1.9 Ghz Quad Core system that badly needed to be upgraded to support my wife's need for the latest versions of PhotoShop. So, I ordered parts for a new system from NewEgg, and decided to convert the old system to be my arcade machine.
With the machine figured out, I needed to get the parts ordered so that I could start to assemble my control panel. After doing some Google searches, and reading through a bunch of posts on the Arcade Controls Forum, I game up with a list of a few places to order parts for the control panel.
- Ultimarc - Has quite a good selection of buttons, sticks, trackballs, and light guns. The web site was also reasonably easy to navigate for a newbie like me.
- Groovy Game Gear - Also has a good selection of buttons, sticks, and trackballs. The web site was also reasonably easy to navigate for a newbie, but did take a bit more effort as they seemed to have a larger selection than Ultimarc.
- Paradise Arcade Shop - Has one of the largest selections of buttons and sticks of all the places I looked. The web site was a bit more difficult to navigate for a newbie. But, once you figure out who the different vendors for sticks and buttons are, it becomes a bit easier to understand the layout.
- Arcade Guns - Strangely enough, it is a source for light guns for building arcade systems. With deeper digging, you will find they use the same innards as the Ultimarc guns. However, the button layout, and shells are different. They also don't seem to offer a recoil add-on like Ultimarc does.
Finally, you will need a bunch of wire and quick connects. While some of the shops above offer these things, I found they were a tad cheaper at AllElectronics.com.
But, before I could start going crazy with the credit card, I needed to figure out exactly what parts I wanted to use so I could be sure that the control panel kit fit them all correctly. The easiest thing to do is figure out a list of all of the obvious parts that are needed to assemble the control panel. If you go to the page for the North Cost Custom Arcade Ultimate Quad kit, and scroll down a bit, you can find a template that is to be used to design an overlay for the panel. The overlay graphic is perfect for getting a count of what we need. By my count, we need the following :
- 43 (total) buttons. 7 for each of the 8-way stick positions, 4 for players 1-4, 4 for coin inputs for the 4 players, and 7 more for the trackball, 4-way sitck, and asteroids buttons.
- 1 spinner
- 1 track ball
- 4 8-way sticks
- 1 4-way stick
- 2 light guns (not part of the control panel, but we need them anyway)
Then, of course, we need all of the gear to actually wire up those devices to be used by the computer.
But, lets start with the easy decision. Of all of the places I listed, the only one that had the RGB LED joysticks that I wanted was Paradise Arcade Shop. At Paradise Arcade Shop, they sell complete sticks with the RGB LEDs, along with kits to add RGB LEDs to other sticks. Since I am a newbie to all of this, I opted to go with the Paradise Arcade sticks, rather than buy other sticks and retro fit them with kits. One thing that was really unclear to me is if they offered a 4-way stick, or if I would need to customize one to work. So, I e-mailed them to see what they had to say, while I continued to research 4-way sticks. In my research, I discovered that most 8 way sticks could have a restrictor plate inserted in them that would convert them to a 4-way stick. In addition, I discovered that both 4 way and 8 way sticks only use 4 switches for control. 8 way sticks were just able to hit 2 switches at once, where 4 way sticks couldn't. So, there is not a lot of difference between the two. However, many comments on the Internet indicated that a stick in 8 way mode can cause strange behavior on emulators with a game that is made for a pure 4 way stick. So, I wanted to make sure I had a "pure" 4 way stick for those games.
After more research, and an e-mail response from Paradise Arcade Shop, I found that the 8 way LED sticks actually include the restrictor plate to force the stick to a 4 way, or even a 2 way stick. (Bonus!) So, the decision on which sticks to buy was complete. I ordered 5 of the RGB LED sticks from Paradise Arcade Shop.
Sunday, September 15, 2013
My Insane Arcade System Build (Part 1)
I am a child of the 80s and 90s. When I was young, there was very little in the world better than spending an insane amount of time playing video games. The grocery stores near my house had a hand full of different game systems that I would save my quarters to go play. I had my favorites, but in general I was a huge fan of having a hand full of change and landing in an arcade full of cabinets. The more games the better.
I remember distinctly thinking to myself, "When I am old enough to own a house, the whole basement will be decked out with every game I can get my hands on!" My basement would rival the arcades I grew up with.
Unfortunately, like many childhood dreams, I didn't end up becoming filthy rich enough to own the 10,000+ sq.ft. house I would need to store all of those systems, let alone have enough cash to buy them all. I did, however amass a large collection of home video game systems and games that I plan to have in a prominent place once I finish my basement.
Which brings me to the fun part. I must have talked about my arcade dream enough, that my wife picked up on how much I would love to own a cabinet. When it came time to finish the basement, I started looking in to what it would cost to have one, and promptly told her it was just too much money. She insisted that it was something I get because I have dreamed of it for so long. So, I started looking. While I would love to have a JAMMA cabinet and start to collect boards, I figured I would start with a MAME cabinet that I could easily rewire to support JAMMA boards in the future.
And thus began my hunt for the ultimate home arcade system. The first thing I needed to do was figure out the parameters for the system I wanted. My wife started by telling me what she would require to allow me to display the cabinet in the basement once it was finished :
1. It can't look like a crappy home built system made from parts found at the hardware store. -- While there are lots of folks on the Internet that have the skills to build something that looks great using parts from the hardware store, I know I am not one of them. So, reality dictates that I start to look at what I could buy pre-made.
2. It *HAS* to play light gun games. -- While dating, and even on our honeymoon, my wife and I loved to play games like House of the Dead and Area 51. If she is going to let me build this, she insisted that her favorite games be playable.
Simple enough, right? I figured I would just buy a pre-made system and then tweak it for my own needs. I was aware of the X-Arcade systems, so I figured I would start there. This looked like a nice system, and having tried out the X-Arcade controller at Fry's years ago, it seemed like it would be a great first system. However, the more I thought about it, the more I realized that I wanted a 4 player system. So, I started to look around at other places such as Dream Arcades, and North Coast Custom Arcades.
I loved the North Coast Ultimate Arcade II cabinet with the 4 player controls. Even more, I loved the pictures of that system using the RGB LED lighted buttons and sticks. But, my concern was how hard it was going to be to move a fully assembled system down in to my basement, along with the cost of buying that unit outright. So, I decided to purchase the various parts, and put it together myself. It should be much easier to move individual pieces of the system in to the basement. In addition, I could order the control panel now and start to put it together while I wait for the basement work to be finished. When the basement is nearly done, I can order the main cabinet along with the other large and heavy pieces like the monitor.
Pretty simple, right?
I remember distinctly thinking to myself, "When I am old enough to own a house, the whole basement will be decked out with every game I can get my hands on!" My basement would rival the arcades I grew up with.
Unfortunately, like many childhood dreams, I didn't end up becoming filthy rich enough to own the 10,000+ sq.ft. house I would need to store all of those systems, let alone have enough cash to buy them all. I did, however amass a large collection of home video game systems and games that I plan to have in a prominent place once I finish my basement.
Which brings me to the fun part. I must have talked about my arcade dream enough, that my wife picked up on how much I would love to own a cabinet. When it came time to finish the basement, I started looking in to what it would cost to have one, and promptly told her it was just too much money. She insisted that it was something I get because I have dreamed of it for so long. So, I started looking. While I would love to have a JAMMA cabinet and start to collect boards, I figured I would start with a MAME cabinet that I could easily rewire to support JAMMA boards in the future.
And thus began my hunt for the ultimate home arcade system. The first thing I needed to do was figure out the parameters for the system I wanted. My wife started by telling me what she would require to allow me to display the cabinet in the basement once it was finished :
1. It can't look like a crappy home built system made from parts found at the hardware store. -- While there are lots of folks on the Internet that have the skills to build something that looks great using parts from the hardware store, I know I am not one of them. So, reality dictates that I start to look at what I could buy pre-made.
2. It *HAS* to play light gun games. -- While dating, and even on our honeymoon, my wife and I loved to play games like House of the Dead and Area 51. If she is going to let me build this, she insisted that her favorite games be playable.
Simple enough, right? I figured I would just buy a pre-made system and then tweak it for my own needs. I was aware of the X-Arcade systems, so I figured I would start there. This looked like a nice system, and having tried out the X-Arcade controller at Fry's years ago, it seemed like it would be a great first system. However, the more I thought about it, the more I realized that I wanted a 4 player system. So, I started to look around at other places such as Dream Arcades, and North Coast Custom Arcades.
I loved the North Coast Ultimate Arcade II cabinet with the 4 player controls. Even more, I loved the pictures of that system using the RGB LED lighted buttons and sticks. But, my concern was how hard it was going to be to move a fully assembled system down in to my basement, along with the cost of buying that unit outright. So, I decided to purchase the various parts, and put it together myself. It should be much easier to move individual pieces of the system in to the basement. In addition, I could order the control panel now and start to put it together while I wait for the basement work to be finished. When the basement is nearly done, I can order the main cabinet along with the other large and heavy pieces like the monitor.
Pretty simple, right?
Monday, May 27, 2013
Why all the Google Glass hate?
I suspect I am opening a can of worms here, and will probably end up getting flamed wildly in the comments telling me that I am stupid or whatever else. However, I can't help but notice that most of the complaints about Google Glass are either based on a completely flawed understanding of what Glass is, and can do, or fears of a surveillance society that already exists in much worse ways.
Let me start by saying, I have Google Glass. But, I also take my privacy really seriously. I don't have a Facebook account and have requested that anyone I know not post pictures of my family to Facebook or any other social networking sites without my approval. I do have a twitter account, but I don't ever use it. I got it so that I could develop some software for a friend that he wanted to use with twitter. I also take the time to go to as many sites like Spokeo as possible and ask them to remove my information. When a store asks me for anything but the money to pay for my purchase my response is "Why?". Finally I am the bane of TSA's existence because I believe that if some stranger playing police officer hasn't touched my junk, the flight will almost certainly have some horrible ending. So, I always opt out. While I am sure there is more I can do to protect my privacy, hopefully you will understand that I take my privacy very seriously.
When Google Glass was originally announced I had some concerns about privacy myself. However, because of the industry I am in, I need to stay on top of the latest technology when it incorporates wireless networks. What I have found in Glass is far less concerning than what I had imagined in my mind. (You'll have to trust me. The technology in your mind is far superior to what currently exists!) So, I would like to address some of the paranoid fantasies that people have about Glass.
I don't want to have a conversation with someone wearing Glass. They could be checking Facebook, or Twitter, or something else and not paying attention to me.
Let me start with the obvious. It doesn't matter if you have Glass or not. If someone would rather be checking Facebook or Twitter while talking to you, you are either boring to talk to or that person isn't worth talking to.
However, this is really a non-issue with Glass for several reasons. First, contrary to what people seem to think, Glass does not provide a heads up display (HUD). Rather, when properly worn the screen is just above your line of sight. To see the screen, you have to look up. If you are really engaged in a conversation with someone, you will notice if they start looking up. But, lets assume for a second that you don't manage to notice that someone is looking up. The second reason it is a non-issue is that the Glass cube above your eye will light up when it is turned on. The amount it lights up allows for someone standing close enough to you to have a conversation will clearly see that you have something up on the screen. In fact, it is light enough that when my sister used my Glass, I was able to see enough of the screen while looking at her to tell her how to navigate!
But, lets go crazy and assume that you have some kind of weird spot blindness that prevents you from seeing the screen and noticing it is on. There are currently two ways to interact with Glass. You can reach up to the side of your head and use the touch pad on the frame, or you can nod your head to wake it up and then speak to it. Again, you will notice if someone is using Glass while talking to them. If you don't, then you should question why you are talking to that person as you aren't engaged with them enough to notice.
But, since Glass is always recording and streaming data to Google, people will always be able to see what I am doing!
Let me ask you this. Can your cell phone record an entire day of video? No? Then, consider that the battery in your cell phone is larger than the entire volume of Glass, even if you include the frames which have not electronics in them! But maybe Glass is using some super secret system that uses less power than a cell phone which allows you to record all day! The specs for Glass are openly available. The hardware in Glass is basically the same as an under-clocked Galaxy Nexus. Don't know about you, but the battery on my Galaxy Nexus lasts about a day when I use it lightly. During heavy usage, like when I was at Google I/O, I am lucky to get half a day. In addition, I tried recording video constantly while at I/O just to see how long it would last. At about 55 minutes, Glass powered down. (I had taken one or two pictures prior to recording, so I would put the actual recording time around 1 hour total on a fully charged battery.)
The fact is that Glass doesn't have the hardware that would be needed to record video all day. And when you consider the weight issues with a pair of glasses, it is unlikely that such a device will exist in the near term. Sure, you could wear a backpack full of batteries that connect to the micro USB port on Glass and probably get more recording done, but would you? In reality, if someone really wants to record constantly, they will use a device that doesn't do anything but record. Why waste battery power on processing other stuff when all you want to do is record video?
Okay, but when Glass is used to take a picture, the picture is uploaded to Google where they can tag my face and determine where I am.
This argument just floors me. My response to it is, "And so does every other device that you have that can take a picture!" But, you argue "Not my camera that isn't Internet connected!" That is true for the automatically uploaded portion. But, lets face it. Most pictures will eventually find their way on line. Plus, even with all of the steps I take trying to keep myself from being tagged in pictures, doing a Google Image Search on my name turns up at least one picture that is of me. (Granted, it is over a decade old, but that is really beside the point.) Your friends will tag you in the pictures, maybe you should start there. Plus, governments and big business already know what you look like. They already know what size your underwear is, what health problems you have, and where you like to get takeout from. Google generally doesn't care where you are, or what you are doing. (Not to mention they already have that information based on the location of your cell phone.) And, given the number of various types of cameras all over our world, there is a pretty good chance that you were recording by someone else at the exact same time. In the world we live in, there is only one place that you can be sure you aren't be recorded. Your home. (And even that may be questionable at times.) When you are in the bathroom you can be somewhat more assured that no one is recording you, but are you sure? There are cases all over the place about people hiding cameras in all kinds of bathrooms around the world.
Thank you! You brought up the bathroom issue. I don't want someone filming my junk while I am using the can or doing something else I don't want people to see!
A few years ago, a friend showed me a video that was recorded, in secret, of a guy playing Guitar Hero at Best Buy, jumping around like a rock star would on stage. This video was recorded on a normal cell phone camera. For videos in the bathroom, you don't have to search very hard to find articles about the early days of cell phone cameras and people taking pictures of other naked people while in a locker room. Yet, today, people go in to locker rooms all the time with a cell phone and it doesn't bother people much. They may keep an eye on that person to make sure they don't do anything that appears to be taking a picture. But, in reality it is easy enough to modify a cell phone so that it doesn't make a sound when taking a picture.
Then, there is this :
http://www.allpredatorcalls.com/i-kam-xtreme-3-0-mega-pixel-video-recording-sunglasses-4-gb-internal-memory-expandable-to-32gb-flat-black-frame-50029/?gclid=CKPvhO61t7cCFStp7AodZGQAUg
Yup, $99 for a set of glasses with a camera built in that you would probably look at and think to yourself "those are ugly" and go on your way. If you search around, I know you can find other similar glasses that are even less obvious that you would never notice. Basically, this problem already exists. The main difference with Glass is that the glasses upload the images to Google, and Google never deletes anything. So, Glass would make it easier to throw someone in jail when they went around using the camera for something it wasn't intended. Further, with the current generation of Glass, it is plainly obvious that someone is wearing it!
But, in addition to this already being easily (and far less expensively) available, my point is that there are societal norms that people will conform to. I have never worn my Glass glasses in to a bathroom outside of my house. *IF* I ever did, you can be sure that I would point them at the ceiling so that they couldn't possibly be recording anything. But, in general, I would leave them with my wife or stuff them in a bag. I realize that not everyone would think of this, but people will eventually catch on after someone makes a comment to them in the bathroom. In short, this is already an existing problem, but not one that people with any common courtesy would run in to.
Okay, but what about creep shots? Guys taking pictures of girls chests (or worse) when they are unaware of it. (Like I saw in the parody video on YouTube.)
First, please refer to the question above. It is already easily done with existing technology in ways that are FAR less obvious. But, I have also overheard conversations where some dude-bro was talking about how he pretended to be texting so that he could get a shot of the cans on some "hottie" across the room. It doesn't matter if the camera is obviously pointed at you, you don't know what someone is doing and will usually not confront them unless they make a mistake that convinces you they are doing something. Cameras are on the back of the phone, taking pictures without someone knowing is a reality in out lives. We deal with it with cell phones, why is Glass any different?
But, I would argue that the real problem here is societal. Why do the dude-bros think this type of behavior is okay in the first place? The deeper issue is that they view women as objects meant to excite them. As a male, I understand that looking at women and assessing their attractiveness is built in to us. We all do it, and I believe it is a primal instinct that we have that was used to make sure the best genes survived in to the future. The question is, what do we do after that? If you don't find yourself thinking, "Gee, I bet she wouldn't be too happy that I just rated her in my mind based on how she looks." then you may want to reconsider how you treat people in general. But, I'll get off my feminist soap box as I could easily go on and on about things like that.
Short version, people need to teach their children that everyone is a person with thoughts and feelings. Objectifying anyone in a way they don't approve of is wrong.
But, the difference is that with Glass nobody would know you were taking a picture or recording video.
This argument is interesting, and when taken at face value doesn't work. There are two ways to take pictures build in to Glass. The first requires that you reach up and press a button on the frames to take the picture. The second is to wake the device up and say, "Okay glass, take a picture". You would notice both of these things just like you would notice someone using a phone to take a picture.
But, there is the hack out there that lets people take pictures of you just by winking. That is more subtle, but I would bet still requires that Glass be awake before it would work. Waking Glass up requires tapping the frame or jerking your head up. Then, there is the issue of strange people winking at you. And finally, see the spy glasses link above. The problem already exists, and while I agree that it is disturbing it really isn't a good reason not to allow Glass to exist. Rather, Google should take this criticism to heart and make a small modification that would make a huge difference. Put a super bright LED on the glasses that is connected to the camera with hardware such that the camera cannot be operated without the LED being on. Most people wouldn't have the expertise to disconnect the LED in such tiny electronics. And of the few that do, most wouldn't waste the time. The remaining tiny percentage is people that have real issues and will do inappropriate things no matter what you try to do to stop them.
Okay, but when people have to use their cell phones to take a picture or video, there is the time needed to pull it out of their pocket before they start recording.
As I have already stated, Glass doesn't record all the time. So, something has to be done to it to wake it up and make it take a picture. So taking a picture with Glass probably isn't much faster than taking it with a cell phone. In fact, there are many phones out there that have a dedicated button for taking pictures. Those devices can probably take a picture FASTER than Glass can.
But, I also noticed something interesting while wandering around downtown San Francisco during the Google I/O 2013. Most of the people walking around already had their phones in their hands. Granted, there were a lot of people playing Ingress, which would account for some of it. But, for the people that looked like they actually lived there, most of them had their phones out. And a good number of those phones were iPhones, which currently can't play Ingress.
If you already have your phone in your hand, the time needed to take a picture usually drops. I would argue that you may be able to take a picture faster using a phone already in your hand than reaching up, waking up Glass, and telling it to take a picture. Add to that, the fact that even after pressing the button there is a noticeable lag before Glass takes the picture, and you may realize that for "OMG this is happening NOW" pictures you are probably still better off with your phone!
Yeah, but I heard that Glass constantly uploads your location when they are on.
Again, another argument that floors me. First, Glass only uploads your location once every 10 minutes. Granted, that is a setting that Google should allow people to turn on and off, but they already have that information anyway. Your cell phone has a GPS in it, and there is nothing that would stop Google from turning it on every 10 minutes and uploading your location. (Who knows, they may already!) Then, there is location data from cell towers and wifi access points. Even without turning on the GPS, you can be triangulated to a very small area for a possible location. Small enough that it doesn't matter if it is pinpoint accurate. They can find you if they want. If you are REALLY concerned about this, you should turn off your phone, never use the Internet, and move out to a cabin in the woods somewhere and have no contact with the outside world.
They already know where you are, and what you are doing. And they have tweaked the laws so that it is perfectly legal. That ship has sailed.
Okay, but what about the ads? I don't want ads popping up throughout my day!
In the current developer specification, showing ads is forbidden. If a developer started to provide unwanted ads with Glass, I think it would sink the whole system. I realize that Google makes most of its money off of advertising. However, I think they also see that people don't want to be bugged by ads all the time.
I honestly believe that Google will continue to keep the "no ads" requirement in their apps. Glass doesn't have a large enough screen to stick a banner add at the bottom where it is out of the way and still have it be readable. So, ads would have to take over the whole screen for some amount of time. Further, if ads popped up randomly throughout the day, early adopters would throw Glass in a drawer and tell people not to buy it. I am honestly not sure how Google intends to make money off of Glass. It is possible that the revenue they get from selling Android apps is enough of an incentive to do the same thing on Glass. But, if Google wants Glass to be successful, they need to make it something people want to use. Annoying ads popping up at random would kill the user experience.
Yeah, but the glasses themselves look really stupid and ugly.
Perhaps one of the silliest comments I have heard. I would agree that most of the time the glasses look silly. I suspect Google agrees and that is why they are working with a sunglasses designer to make the final product look better. However, when Glass is worn with the included sunglasses shades, they really don't look as horrible. I wore them with the sunglasses shade today going through a drive-thru and nobody seemed to care.
Which brings me to perhaps the most important point of that argument. If it were illegal to have bad fashion sense, many of us would already be in jail. Further, if it were up to me to decide what looked good, most "high fashion" would land people in jail. Fortunately, for the entire world, bad fashion choices won't land you in jail, and usually won't have people mocking you. (Unless you are still in High School, or perhaps the fashion industry.)
We can hope that once Glass is released to the public that it looks better. If it doesn't, that may well kill the project.
But Glass doesn't do anything my cell phone can't. And how come Google owns the glasses even after I paid for them?
In general, I agree. Which I consider to be an argument for why people freaking out about Glass is silly. At the same time, I also see why it is a valid argument for not using or having Glass. What this argument fails to take in to consideration is what state Glass is currently in.
There is a reason that existing versions of Glass cost $1500+tax. The same reason accounts for why you are not allowed to resell them. Not surprisingly, that same reason accounts for why the software is rough around the edges and loaning Glass is not allowed. (Even though one of the Glass developers made a comment at I/O about asking someone with Glass if you could try it.) Glass is not a finished product! Google wants to get it in the hands of people that will be excited for the potential sooner rather than later. (Which means developers.) Those developers will experiment with things and create new apps for it. The same developers will give feedback to Google about what is good, and what isn't. And hopefully the final product will be better because of it!
Consider the case of Microsoft and their recently announced Xbox One. Do a search for "Microsoft Durango". You will quickly find out that there are a LOT of developers that had access to the development platform long before it was released. You may even come across an article talking about the "zebra stripes" on the console. The developers needed access to the development kits early on. I am sure they signed agreements preventing them from letting non-developers from seeing the prototype hardware along with giving Microsoft piles of cash while the agreement said that Microsoft obtained ownership of the development kit. In the console industry, the quantity and quality of the launch titles can really help or hurt the adoption of the new hardware. Microsoft wants to get developers working on top quality titles as early as possible so they can be successful. At the same time, they are giving those developers an unfinished product to work with so that they can create those titles. Google is doing the same thing with Glass. The high price is because so few were made, and to keep out people that probably won't contribute to the success of Glass. It was primarily available through a developer conference so that developers would get it, and provide feedback while working on new uses for the technology.
I would almost bet money that once the final version of Glass is announced that Google stops caring if you resell the developer versions. It is just that right now, they want to keep the audience to a group of people that will forgive them for having the software not be polished while hopefully contributing to its success.
Okay, but I don't want Google snooping on me!
The EFF recent put out a report on the privacy policies of various companies. Of Google, Apple, and Microsoft, Google ranked the highest for privacy. Hopefully this means that the snooping they are doing isn't as bad as other companies are. (Source : https://www.eff.org/who-has-your-back-2013 )
But, there is also something that Google has going for it. Glass runs Android! Given the significant number of custom Android ROMs out in the wild, it is reasonable to believe that something similar will happen with Glass. Google also has a history of making their hardware fairly easy to unlock for people that know what they are doing. So, I suspect that if Glass is successful there will be a vibrant custom ROM scene. That scene will probably have at least one "anti-Google" ROM in it that strips out any reporting that Google may have put in. And the best part is, I don't think Google will really care!
Wow. You actually read this far! I am impressed. I would imagine that at this point you are either thinking, "You know, he has a point." Or, you are so pissed off at my obvious lack of understanding of the situation that you could throw your computer out the window. Please feel free to ask questions and make constructive comments in the comments area of this post. If you read this whole thing, hopefully you have come away with the impression that I don't believe that Glass is a perfect product. In addition, if Glass were released today, it would be a huge flop. But, I would love to know what I am missing, that doesn't already exist in the world in an easier and less expensive solution, that makes Glass so scary it should be banned or hated so much?
Let me start by saying, I have Google Glass. But, I also take my privacy really seriously. I don't have a Facebook account and have requested that anyone I know not post pictures of my family to Facebook or any other social networking sites without my approval. I do have a twitter account, but I don't ever use it. I got it so that I could develop some software for a friend that he wanted to use with twitter. I also take the time to go to as many sites like Spokeo as possible and ask them to remove my information. When a store asks me for anything but the money to pay for my purchase my response is "Why?". Finally I am the bane of TSA's existence because I believe that if some stranger playing police officer hasn't touched my junk, the flight will almost certainly have some horrible ending. So, I always opt out. While I am sure there is more I can do to protect my privacy, hopefully you will understand that I take my privacy very seriously.
When Google Glass was originally announced I had some concerns about privacy myself. However, because of the industry I am in, I need to stay on top of the latest technology when it incorporates wireless networks. What I have found in Glass is far less concerning than what I had imagined in my mind. (You'll have to trust me. The technology in your mind is far superior to what currently exists!) So, I would like to address some of the paranoid fantasies that people have about Glass.
I don't want to have a conversation with someone wearing Glass. They could be checking Facebook, or Twitter, or something else and not paying attention to me.
Let me start with the obvious. It doesn't matter if you have Glass or not. If someone would rather be checking Facebook or Twitter while talking to you, you are either boring to talk to or that person isn't worth talking to.
However, this is really a non-issue with Glass for several reasons. First, contrary to what people seem to think, Glass does not provide a heads up display (HUD). Rather, when properly worn the screen is just above your line of sight. To see the screen, you have to look up. If you are really engaged in a conversation with someone, you will notice if they start looking up. But, lets assume for a second that you don't manage to notice that someone is looking up. The second reason it is a non-issue is that the Glass cube above your eye will light up when it is turned on. The amount it lights up allows for someone standing close enough to you to have a conversation will clearly see that you have something up on the screen. In fact, it is light enough that when my sister used my Glass, I was able to see enough of the screen while looking at her to tell her how to navigate!
But, lets go crazy and assume that you have some kind of weird spot blindness that prevents you from seeing the screen and noticing it is on. There are currently two ways to interact with Glass. You can reach up to the side of your head and use the touch pad on the frame, or you can nod your head to wake it up and then speak to it. Again, you will notice if someone is using Glass while talking to them. If you don't, then you should question why you are talking to that person as you aren't engaged with them enough to notice.
But, since Glass is always recording and streaming data to Google, people will always be able to see what I am doing!
Let me ask you this. Can your cell phone record an entire day of video? No? Then, consider that the battery in your cell phone is larger than the entire volume of Glass, even if you include the frames which have not electronics in them! But maybe Glass is using some super secret system that uses less power than a cell phone which allows you to record all day! The specs for Glass are openly available. The hardware in Glass is basically the same as an under-clocked Galaxy Nexus. Don't know about you, but the battery on my Galaxy Nexus lasts about a day when I use it lightly. During heavy usage, like when I was at Google I/O, I am lucky to get half a day. In addition, I tried recording video constantly while at I/O just to see how long it would last. At about 55 minutes, Glass powered down. (I had taken one or two pictures prior to recording, so I would put the actual recording time around 1 hour total on a fully charged battery.)
The fact is that Glass doesn't have the hardware that would be needed to record video all day. And when you consider the weight issues with a pair of glasses, it is unlikely that such a device will exist in the near term. Sure, you could wear a backpack full of batteries that connect to the micro USB port on Glass and probably get more recording done, but would you? In reality, if someone really wants to record constantly, they will use a device that doesn't do anything but record. Why waste battery power on processing other stuff when all you want to do is record video?
Okay, but when Glass is used to take a picture, the picture is uploaded to Google where they can tag my face and determine where I am.
This argument just floors me. My response to it is, "And so does every other device that you have that can take a picture!" But, you argue "Not my
Thank you! You brought up the bathroom issue. I don't want someone filming my junk while I am using the can or doing something else I don't want people to see!
A few years ago, a friend showed me a video that was recorded, in secret, of a guy playing Guitar Hero at Best Buy, jumping around like a rock star would on stage. This video was recorded on a normal cell phone camera. For videos in the bathroom, you don't have to search very hard to find articles about the early days of cell phone cameras and people taking pictures of other naked people while in a locker room. Yet, today, people go in to locker rooms all the time with a cell phone and it doesn't bother people much. They may keep an eye on that person to make sure they don't do anything that appears to be taking a picture. But, in reality it is easy enough to modify a cell phone so that it doesn't make a sound when taking a picture.
Then, there is this :
http://www.allpredatorcalls.com/i-kam-xtreme-3-0-mega-pixel-video-recording-sunglasses-4-gb-internal-memory-expandable-to-32gb-flat-black-frame-50029/?gclid=CKPvhO61t7cCFStp7AodZGQAUg
Yup, $99 for a set of glasses with a camera built in that you would probably look at and think to yourself "those are ugly" and go on your way. If you search around, I know you can find other similar glasses that are even less obvious that you would never notice. Basically, this problem already exists. The main difference with Glass is that the glasses upload the images to Google, and Google never deletes anything. So, Glass would make it easier to throw someone in jail when they went around using the camera for something it wasn't intended. Further, with the current generation of Glass, it is plainly obvious that someone is wearing it!
But, in addition to this already being easily (and far less expensively) available, my point is that there are societal norms that people will conform to. I have never worn my Glass glasses in to a bathroom outside of my house. *IF* I ever did, you can be sure that I would point them at the ceiling so that they couldn't possibly be recording anything. But, in general, I would leave them with my wife or stuff them in a bag. I realize that not everyone would think of this, but people will eventually catch on after someone makes a comment to them in the bathroom. In short, this is already an existing problem, but not one that people with any common courtesy would run in to.
Okay, but what about creep shots? Guys taking pictures of girls chests (or worse) when they are unaware of it. (Like I saw in the parody video on YouTube.)
First, please refer to the question above. It is already easily done with existing technology in ways that are FAR less obvious. But, I have also overheard conversations where some dude-bro was talking about how he pretended to be texting so that he could get a shot of the cans on some "hottie" across the room. It doesn't matter if the camera is obviously pointed at you, you don't know what someone is doing and will usually not confront them unless they make a mistake that convinces you they are doing something. Cameras are on the back of the phone, taking pictures without someone knowing is a reality in out lives. We deal with it with cell phones, why is Glass any different?
But, I would argue that the real problem here is societal. Why do the dude-bros think this type of behavior is okay in the first place? The deeper issue is that they view women as objects meant to excite them. As a male, I understand that looking at women and assessing their attractiveness is built in to us. We all do it, and I believe it is a primal instinct that we have that was used to make sure the best genes survived in to the future. The question is, what do we do after that? If you don't find yourself thinking, "Gee, I bet she wouldn't be too happy that I just rated her in my mind based on how she looks." then you may want to reconsider how you treat people in general. But, I'll get off my feminist soap box as I could easily go on and on about things like that.
Short version, people need to teach their children that everyone is a person with thoughts and feelings. Objectifying anyone in a way they don't approve of is wrong.
But, the difference is that with Glass nobody would know you were taking a picture or recording video.
This argument is interesting, and when taken at face value doesn't work. There are two ways to take pictures build in to Glass. The first requires that you reach up and press a button on the frames to take the picture. The second is to wake the device up and say, "Okay glass, take a picture". You would notice both of these things just like you would notice someone using a phone to take a picture.
But, there is the hack out there that lets people take pictures of you just by winking. That is more subtle, but I would bet still requires that Glass be awake before it would work. Waking Glass up requires tapping the frame or jerking your head up. Then, there is the issue of strange people winking at you. And finally, see the spy glasses link above. The problem already exists, and while I agree that it is disturbing it really isn't a good reason not to allow Glass to exist. Rather, Google should take this criticism to heart and make a small modification that would make a huge difference. Put a super bright LED on the glasses that is connected to the camera with hardware such that the camera cannot be operated without the LED being on. Most people wouldn't have the expertise to disconnect the LED in such tiny electronics. And of the few that do, most wouldn't waste the time. The remaining tiny percentage is people that have real issues and will do inappropriate things no matter what you try to do to stop them.
Okay, but when people have to use their cell phones to take a picture or video, there is the time needed to pull it out of their pocket before they start recording.
As I have already stated, Glass doesn't record all the time. So, something has to be done to it to wake it up and make it take a picture. So taking a picture with Glass probably isn't much faster than taking it with a cell phone. In fact, there are many phones out there that have a dedicated button for taking pictures. Those devices can probably take a picture FASTER than Glass can.
But, I also noticed something interesting while wandering around downtown San Francisco during the Google I/O 2013. Most of the people walking around already had their phones in their hands. Granted, there were a lot of people playing Ingress, which would account for some of it. But, for the people that looked like they actually lived there, most of them had their phones out. And a good number of those phones were iPhones, which currently can't play Ingress.
If you already have your phone in your hand, the time needed to take a picture usually drops. I would argue that you may be able to take a picture faster using a phone already in your hand than reaching up, waking up Glass, and telling it to take a picture. Add to that, the fact that even after pressing the button there is a noticeable lag before Glass takes the picture, and you may realize that for "OMG this is happening NOW" pictures you are probably still better off with your phone!
Yeah, but I heard that Glass constantly uploads your location when they are on.
Again, another argument that floors me. First, Glass only uploads your location once every 10 minutes. Granted, that is a setting that Google should allow people to turn on and off, but they already have that information anyway. Your cell phone has a GPS in it, and there is nothing that would stop Google from turning it on every 10 minutes and uploading your location. (Who knows, they may already!) Then, there is location data from cell towers and wifi access points. Even without turning on the GPS, you can be triangulated to a very small area for a possible location. Small enough that it doesn't matter if it is pinpoint accurate. They can find you if they want. If you are REALLY concerned about this, you should turn off your phone, never use the Internet, and move out to a cabin in the woods somewhere and have no contact with the outside world.
They already know where you are, and what you are doing. And they have tweaked the laws so that it is perfectly legal. That ship has sailed.
Okay, but what about the ads? I don't want ads popping up throughout my day!
In the current developer specification, showing ads is forbidden. If a developer started to provide unwanted ads with Glass, I think it would sink the whole system. I realize that Google makes most of its money off of advertising. However, I think they also see that people don't want to be bugged by ads all the time.
I honestly believe that Google will continue to keep the "no ads" requirement in their apps. Glass doesn't have a large enough screen to stick a banner add at the bottom where it is out of the way and still have it be readable. So, ads would have to take over the whole screen for some amount of time. Further, if ads popped up randomly throughout the day, early adopters would throw Glass in a drawer and tell people not to buy it. I am honestly not sure how Google intends to make money off of Glass. It is possible that the revenue they get from selling Android apps is enough of an incentive to do the same thing on Glass. But, if Google wants Glass to be successful, they need to make it something people want to use. Annoying ads popping up at random would kill the user experience.
Yeah, but the glasses themselves look really stupid and ugly.
Perhaps one of the silliest comments I have heard. I would agree that most of the time the glasses look silly. I suspect Google agrees and that is why they are working with a sunglasses designer to make the final product look better. However, when Glass is worn with the included sunglasses shades, they really don't look as horrible. I wore them with the sunglasses shade today going through a drive-thru and nobody seemed to care.
Which brings me to perhaps the most important point of that argument. If it were illegal to have bad fashion sense, many of us would already be in jail. Further, if it were up to me to decide what looked good, most "high fashion" would land people in jail. Fortunately, for the entire world, bad fashion choices won't land you in jail, and usually won't have people mocking you. (Unless you are still in High School, or perhaps the fashion industry.)
We can hope that once Glass is released to the public that it looks better. If it doesn't, that may well kill the project.
But Glass doesn't do anything my cell phone can't. And how come Google owns the glasses even after I paid for them?
In general, I agree. Which I consider to be an argument for why people freaking out about Glass is silly. At the same time, I also see why it is a valid argument for not using or having Glass. What this argument fails to take in to consideration is what state Glass is currently in.
There is a reason that existing versions of Glass cost $1500+tax. The same reason accounts for why you are not allowed to resell them. Not surprisingly, that same reason accounts for why the software is rough around the edges and loaning Glass is not allowed. (Even though one of the Glass developers made a comment at I/O about asking someone with Glass if you could try it.) Glass is not a finished product! Google wants to get it in the hands of people that will be excited for the potential sooner rather than later. (Which means developers.) Those developers will experiment with things and create new apps for it. The same developers will give feedback to Google about what is good, and what isn't. And hopefully the final product will be better because of it!
Consider the case of Microsoft and their recently announced Xbox One. Do a search for "Microsoft Durango". You will quickly find out that there are a LOT of developers that had access to the development platform long before it was released. You may even come across an article talking about the "zebra stripes" on the console. The developers needed access to the development kits early on. I am sure they signed agreements preventing them from letting non-developers from seeing the prototype hardware along with giving Microsoft piles of cash while the agreement said that Microsoft obtained ownership of the development kit. In the console industry, the quantity and quality of the launch titles can really help or hurt the adoption of the new hardware. Microsoft wants to get developers working on top quality titles as early as possible so they can be successful. At the same time, they are giving those developers an unfinished product to work with so that they can create those titles. Google is doing the same thing with Glass. The high price is because so few were made, and to keep out people that probably won't contribute to the success of Glass. It was primarily available through a developer conference so that developers would get it, and provide feedback while working on new uses for the technology.
I would almost bet money that once the final version of Glass is announced that Google stops caring if you resell the developer versions. It is just that right now, they want to keep the audience to a group of people that will forgive them for having the software not be polished while hopefully contributing to its success.
Okay, but I don't want Google snooping on me!
The EFF recent put out a report on the privacy policies of various companies. Of Google, Apple, and Microsoft, Google ranked the highest for privacy. Hopefully this means that the snooping they are doing isn't as bad as other companies are. (Source : https://www.eff.org/who-has-your-back-2013 )
But, there is also something that Google has going for it. Glass runs Android! Given the significant number of custom Android ROMs out in the wild, it is reasonable to believe that something similar will happen with Glass. Google also has a history of making their hardware fairly easy to unlock for people that know what they are doing. So, I suspect that if Glass is successful there will be a vibrant custom ROM scene. That scene will probably have at least one "anti-Google" ROM in it that strips out any reporting that Google may have put in. And the best part is, I don't think Google will really care!
Wow. You actually read this far! I am impressed. I would imagine that at this point you are either thinking, "You know, he has a point." Or, you are so pissed off at my obvious lack of understanding of the situation that you could throw your computer out the window. Please feel free to ask questions and make constructive comments in the comments area of this post. If you read this whole thing, hopefully you have come away with the impression that I don't believe that Glass is a perfect product. In addition, if Glass were released today, it would be a huge flop. But, I would love to know what I am missing, that doesn't already exist in the world in an easier and less expensive solution, that makes Glass so scary it should be banned or hated so much?
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
PPPoE with Zyxel Q1000Z and Cisco 2600 router with CenturyLink DSL
Comcast's service broke and their customer support was rude one too many times, so I switched to CenturyLink. Being that I am not a "normal" customer by any stretch of the imagination, I wanted to set up something a bit more advanced than a simple NATted connection. Specifically, I wanted to get an IPv6 tunnel to Hurricane Electric while also keeping my corporate VPN connection up and running. (Ideally, get my VPN running on the same box as the tunnel and other services.) I have an old Cisco 2621 kicking around that seems it should be up to the task.
Getting this going was surprisingly difficult. Initially, I had the 2600 plugged in behind Q1000Z with the 2600 running in NAT mode providing access to the networks in my house. I was double NATted because the Q1000Z didn't seem to want to set up static routes in any sane way. Obviously, not an ideal setup.
There are numerous configurations around the net on how to do PPPoE from a Cisco device to a possible non-Cisco remote end. (I say "possible" because CenturyLink doesn't advertise what their back-end network looks like. Not surprising since most people wouldn't understand it anyway.) Most of these configurations look very similar to each other.
The configuration that finally worked for me is this (some important information replaced with Xs, you will have to fill in your own values. Also, the configuration has been edited to remove irrelevant settings.) :
Most of this is taken almost verbatim from the numerous example sites. However, when I originally set this up, FastEthernet0/1 was set to auto for both speed and duplex. When the 2600 was set up in NAT mode behind the Q1000Z, the auto mode worked fine. But, once I got the PPPoE session up, I got lots of random drop-outs in my connectivity. Some things worked fine, others would load slowly, and still others just plain wouldn't work. After digging around forever, I found a site that suggested setting the speed and duplex to 100-half instead of auto. There were no obvious signs on a duplex mismatch on the Cisco side of the link, and the Zyxel didn't have any obvious way to look for errors. So, I decided to give it a shot and see what happened.
Strangely enough, it worked. My connectivity was nice and speedy again, and all sites are coming up correctly.
Hopefully this helps someone else that might be struggling to get a similar setup going. Next, for the v6 tunnel and the VPN.
Getting this going was surprisingly difficult. Initially, I had the 2600 plugged in behind Q1000Z with the 2600 running in NAT mode providing access to the networks in my house. I was double NATted because the Q1000Z didn't seem to want to set up static routes in any sane way. Obviously, not an ideal setup.
There are numerous configurations around the net on how to do PPPoE from a Cisco device to a possible non-Cisco remote end. (I say "possible" because CenturyLink doesn't advertise what their back-end network looks like. Not surprising since most people wouldn't understand it anyway.) Most of these configurations look very similar to each other.
The configuration that finally worked for me is this (some important information replaced with Xs, you will have to fill in your own values. Also, the configuration has been edited to remove irrelevant settings.) :
!
version 12.3
service timestamps debug datetime msec
service timestamps log datetime msec
service password-encryption
!
hostname frontdoor-with-v6
!
boot-start-marker
boot-end-marker
!
!
no aaa new-model
ip subnet-zero
!
!
ip name-server X.X.X.X
ip name-server X.X.X.X
ip name-server X.X.X.X
!
ip cef
vpdn enable
!
vpdn-group 1
request-dialin
protocol pppoe
!
interface FastEthernet0/0
ip address 192.168.0.1 255.255.255.0
ip nat inside
no ip mroute-cache
duplex auto
speed auto
!
interface FastEthernet0/1
no ip address
speed 100
half-duplex
pppoe enable
pppoe-client dial-pool-number 1
!
interface Dialer1
ip address negotiated
ip mtu 1492
ip nat outside
encapsulation ppp
ip tcp adjust-mss 1450
no ip mroute-cache
dialer pool 1
dialer-group 1
ppp authentication pap chap callin optional
ppp chap hostname XXXXXXX@qwest.net
ppp chap password 0 XXXXXXXXX
ppp pap sent-username XXXXXXXXXX password 0 XXXXXXXXXXXX
!
ip nat inside source list 1 interface Dialer1 overload
ip classless
ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 Dialer1
ip route 10.1.0.0 255.255.0.0 192.168.0.2
!
access-list 1 permit 10.1.0.0 0.0.255.255
dialer-list 1 protocol ip permit
!
end
Most of this is taken almost verbatim from the numerous example sites. However, when I originally set this up, FastEthernet0/1 was set to auto for both speed and duplex. When the 2600 was set up in NAT mode behind the Q1000Z, the auto mode worked fine. But, once I got the PPPoE session up, I got lots of random drop-outs in my connectivity. Some things worked fine, others would load slowly, and still others just plain wouldn't work. After digging around forever, I found a site that suggested setting the speed and duplex to 100-half instead of auto. There were no obvious signs on a duplex mismatch on the Cisco side of the link, and the Zyxel didn't have any obvious way to look for errors. So, I decided to give it a shot and see what happened.
Strangely enough, it worked. My connectivity was nice and speedy again, and all sites are coming up correctly.
Hopefully this helps someone else that might be struggling to get a similar setup going. Next, for the v6 tunnel and the VPN.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)