I have the urge to commit my 24" Core 2 Duo iMac to a single Linux operating system; thus giving up the goodness of my beloved Mac OS X. I am not a stranger to Linux, but I am a stranger to the concept of running Mac apps on Linux. On my PowerPC, I can use SheepShaver to run Classic apps. The Mac-on-Linux project can run OS X apps, but it requires a PowerPC, not x86.

Virtualizing and emulating is inefficient, especially given the wonderful results the WINE project has had in getting Windows apps to run on Linux. What I would like is an equivalent; a software compatibility layer that will allow Linux to run Mac OS X apps at native performance. I believe there is some additional complexity in accomplishing this. Mac OS X apps aren't just Mac OS X apps. They are Carbon. They are Cocoa. They are universal binaries. They are PPC code with Altivec. Does such a project exist yet? If not, why?

I have decided to declare war on absolutism and jingoism. Everybody loves a good slogan, and I admit I'm no more immune to a clever bit of marketingese than the next guy. How can I be? I own a PS2 and a Nintendo DS, and I just shelled out for an authographed copy of Disney starlette Ashley Tisdale's debut album... I don't even listen to dance music.

My motivation is this. We live in superfluous times. I feel this is the consequence of being in an always-connected society. Because information moves more quickly, information absorption is bottlenecked by our ability to process the incoming flood. Thus, in order for select information to move faster through the channel, it musted be bumped up. At some point in time, perhaps in the hallowed halls of Madison Avenue, someone realized that by using key phrases such as always, never, best, worst, most evil, coolest ever, never before, and shocking; one's message can be processed with more velocity. This logic has become core to the operations of news services and pundits who saturate the media, and are trying to get as many listeners as they can. Suddenly, the dictator of some dive banana republic is the worst dictator ever. Suddenly the self-destructive actions of a has-been celebrity are the most shocking ever. Suddenly, we have never lived in worst times.

Yes, the world we live in isn't perfect. Yes, it seems that with each passing news day, the world is spinning faster off its axis into Hell. But this is all a mirage. The digital age, the always-on information connectivity we enjoy; these things enable us to capture bad events and report them faster than ever before. The result is, our world is smaller, more intimate. Unlike the so-called "greatest generation" who lived in a world without 24-hour news or the God-fearing colonists of the 17th century who waited months for news, we know what's going on around the world as it happens. Our information transparency is coupled with our psychological need for sensationalism, so we seek out negative news with glee. The world is not getting worse. We're just becoming more aware of the bad. If we tried... if we wanted, we could use the Internet to search for good news; and we'd happily find some.

But there is a part of society that do not like this. Like ghouls feeding on the dead, they feed on our fear and discomfort. They use superfluous adverbs and adjectives to create emotional responses which they can then use to advance their own agendas. No one side is to blame alone. If we reject jingoistic slogans, if we reject the use of such words as best and worst as well as great and evil, we might find that the news is not only less interesting, but less nerve-wracking. Moreover, if we reject the use of absolutist words like always, all, and never, we might find that our words will be more accurate, if not more insightful.

I think I'm going to write a python program that filters out my RSS feeds to remove phrases I don't like. I challenge you all to do the same. Must you do it in python? Yes. Yes you should, and why? Cause python is the greatest programming language ever - PHP being the worst.

I haven't decided which console I will get next. I probably shouldn't play into this idea of there being sides in a war between Xbox 360 and PS3 where there can be but one winner. Still, whether I like it or not, the act of settling on one console is an act of choosing a side; and I've already decided against getting the Nintendo Wii. Innovative gameplay is important to me as a game designer, but when I sit down to play a home console, I tend to migrate towards more mature (as in adult) games, and rarely platformers or puzzles. That said, I love my DS which has precisely the kind of games I like to play when on the go or vegging out in front of the TV.

For me, either the Xbox 360 or the PS3 offer the best entertainment possibilities. As it is now, Xbox 360 has games that I am very eager to play. A few are simultaneously availabe on Xbox and PS2: Splinter Cell 4, Call of Duty 3, Tony Hawk's Project 8, and Need For Speed: Most Wanted. Gears of War and Dead Rising are currently out of my reach. PS3 has Resistance: Fall of Man which I anticipate will be an exclusive. Otherwise of the 20+ launch titles Sony has listed, the only remaining titles coming soon that interest me are third party games already available for XBox 360, Xbox, or PS2.

The Xbox 360 gives me a more immediate return on my investment with its exclusives than does the PS3 at this point. However, I know the PS3's has long term value. It is the machine I suspect will be actively developed for longer than the 360. It's a nice machine, and I can appreciate the hardware innovation it represents, but I don't plan on runnning Linux on it, even if that might give me a shot at having my single console emulation dream machine. I'd rather try turning an Xbox 360 into a Mac. ;-)

As I stare at my Xbox and my PS2 which has been in its original box for the last 2 months for no reason than lack of space, I am curious how much longer I can expect new titles to come to these last gen systems.