You appear to be agreeing with my proposition that we need to be smarter about how we live if we intend to survive even near term.

No, I mean that people will think about the big-picture consequences of their actions, and give some weight to this.
You don't have to "see into the future" to realize that if you're spending more than you're making, you'll likely go broke.
Yes, I know that we can't predict with absolute clarity exactly what will happen in the future. You might win the
lottery, and therefore never go broke. But it's generally not wise to bank on such hopes. You have to go with the odds.

Okay, you have a point; I left out "without much social stigma attached" to my unstated list of requirements.

I suppose, if you want to market to all population segments, you need both a version that's considered "socially acceptable" and a version that's not, in order to attract the rebellious types.

You're looking at a different problem. I'm trying to figure out how to en-smarten people by tapping into already existing addictive behaviors.
I suppose it would be even easier if you could just put drugs in the water supply, but that runs into ethical issues. You want to give people
a choice, but you can of course make the desired choice the easy one.

Btw, I'd define "stupidity" (in this case) as all those tendencies which will tend to send us (ie, earth inhabitants) toward a premature doom.

For example, while the desire to procreate might be necessary for our survival, the tendency to over-procreate is a sure recipe for early demise.

This is what I meant when I said that "good" is hard to define: things that are good on a small scale can be bad at a big scale. Everything has its level of balance, if continuity is the goal.

This leads to some interesting thoughts: let's suppose that mankind is doomed, but that the planet will continue on for millenia and eventually spawn intelligent life again. What should we do to inform our successors of all that we know? Aside from creating space probes that provide hallucinogenic memories to whatever random aliens it encounters, that is?

Someone needs to invent an addictive "junk food" that promotes logical thinking as well as an instinct for "good" (trying to define that concisely is not so easy).

Then I think the first thing we need to do is fix stupidity (thus I chose "the human mind").
That ought to keep us going until we find a better rock to cling to (and a way to get there).

I can think of many uses, assuming it's paired with a system for figuring out what you're looking at:
- nanny device (think of the children)
- automatic censorship device (nothing to see here; move along)
- DRM (the MPAA says you really can't watch this)
- court-ordered anti-stalker protection
- witness protection program ...

It is possible to have a display on your cornea that can show images you can focus on. However, it would work differently than other displays.

Once light is at your cornea, a pixel corresponds to a direction instead of a location. That is, for far away objects, all the rays coming from one point (location) enter your cornea as rays traveling in the same direction; it doesn't matter where they enter. For objects that are closer than "very far away", they produce a bundle of rays that are slightly diverging as they enter your cornea. In either case, your eye converges these rays to meet at a given point on your retina.

Thus for a display on your cornea to work, it has to be able to send out distinct light ray bundles in different directions, with each direction corresponding to a different logical pixel that you'd perceive spatially.

Figure out how to actually do that, and the world will beat a path to your door.

It has an achievable termination condition: When you get bored.

10 Print [a truly random character]; : Goto 10

Should suffice to print everything that ever was or will be, given enough time.

That's almost certainly a display post-processing step after the Wii's usual graphics pipeline.

I'd imagine that when running in Wii mode, the clock rate is exactly the same as the Wii's.

Nintendo aims to make a profit on its hardware. Microsoft and Sony are willing to support massive losses on the hardware sales in order to gain market share. Both those companies have other businesses that can support them while doing this. Nintendo doesn't really.

Nintendo's competitors will always put out much more powerful hardware platforms because they're willing to lose a lot of money to do so, gambling that they will eventually become profitable over the long run. This generation, that gamble doesn't seem to have paid off well for Sony. I'm not sure how Microsoft did. They lost quite a big bundle on those pre-Jasper Xbox 360s, but they seem to have climbed out of that pit.

Given that their competition is willing to push those stakes so high, you could argue that it's essential that Nintendo take a different tack.

Having said that, it really seems like they should consider commodity hardware platforms as a base for future products. When you've got a bunch of companies who are already taking the performance/cost gamble for you, and who are coming up with hardware that beats most custom products, it's almost silly to ignore it.

> Let's see: there's iOS and Android, and what else really?

You're not a developer, I see. You need to multiply all the commonly-used versions of iOS and Android by all the different base hardware platforms, then figure out other factors such as screen size & density and platform-specific quirks. Compound that by the fact that new OS versions and new hardware platforms come out every month, and you've got quite an impressive matrix, assuming you care about supporting them well.