The lowest risk option is to focusing on the controller/biofeedback stuff, provide drivers for Windows, and expect people to buy Windows Media Center with the requisite video cards. Going further with a SteamBox would be a gusty move. It would run either on Linux or bare metal -- not Windows. I wonder if Valve and Google are talking about this and ChromeOS. Valve (as successful as it has been) can't lose the kinda money Microsoft, Sony, or Nintendo can on each console, but if they don't play the game that way, there is also no need to lock down the box. It would need to be a market-priced PC box. The DRM is there to protect the software from being duplicated -- not the hardware from being re-purposed. Look for a video card partner or two (ones with existing Linux drivers). Look for a PC vendor partner. Controller/biofeedback stuff is the missing piece. Unlike software, hardware still has to go through the channel. Maybe Valve and Steam are established enough that CostCo/Target carries it, or maybe it is only available for purchase on-line. Returns would be deadly. Spec'ing a platform, providing or guiding the biofeedback elements, and partnering with existing PC vendor would be lower risk. Still, it would be very gusty. Microsoft did the X-Box to forestall someone making a beach head like this. To just make the beach head anyway will not go unnoticed. Still, look at the risks to Valve if they don't do anything. PCs giving way to mobile and in this economy, Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo controlling the the power and time frame of their consoles, and unwilling to give Steam a place on the menu.

A man with one watch always knows what time it is. A man with two is never sure.

I guess after you finish labeling them with nutjob, denialist, hardcore, conspiracist, un- or non-scientific, crusaders (I particularly like that one), and lunatics, and after you associate them them creationists, there's nothing left to talk about? Well, count me convinced. I don't know why I didn't see it sooner.

And, yet, still strangely appropriate.

With both AC and DC distribution, there are losses due to the resistance of the wire (I-squared-R losses). The way to minimize these losses is to increase the voltage (V) and decrease the current (I) while transmitting the same power, but there is a limit to how high the voltage can be increased. Air breaks down at about 3x10^6 V/m. To avoid this dialectic break-down, you continue to raise the height of the power line as you increase the voltage.

With AC distribution lines, there are also losses related to the capacitance between the power line and the ground. Increasing the height of the power also minimizes the capacitive losses.

With both AC and DC there are reflections between the source and load which cause further trips from one end to the other. Each reflection is smaller than the previous one, but remember how many people are using electricity and the fact that everyone is constantly adding and removing load from the system. So, even in a DC system, the line voltage will be constantly changing.

Then, we have the conversions. Conversions from one AC voltage to another AC voltage is accomplished with a step-up or step-down transformer. This converstion isn't free, and it doesn't work for DC. It is very efficient and economical however, to convert from a higher DC voltage down to a lower one -- even for moderately high currents. it is very painful however to step a lower DC voltage up to a higher one. There are circuits to do it, but typically (or at least through 1990), it has been easier to convert to AC, go through a step-up transformer, and and then convert to DC. Also, the circuits for up-converting DC to DC are usually fixed at multiples of 2x, 3x, 4x, etc. using diodes.

So, let's put it all together. I can believe there are long-distance DC transmission lines where the savings in capacitive losses are worth the significant capital investment required at both ends of the line for the conversions, conditioning, and to match the source to the line and the line to the load, but in general, in a DC distribution scheme, the DC voltage drops continuously along the line and must be periodically stepped-up by some hard-to-determine amount because it depends on the age of the wire, the distance from the last step-up, and the demands of the load at that moment in time, but the circuits for doing it are inflexible (can only do multiples).

With AC, you get the flexibility that each sub-station is monitoring its own load and it can control the variable-step-down transformers to achieve the desired neighborhood voltages. Ready to increase the height of the lines? Step-up. Ready to drop the height of the lines? Step-down.

In a data center, as several people have said, everything is in one place, so the problem is different. You want to pick a high enough DC voltage so that it is always higher (even at maximum load across the entire room) than any voltage you might need. Then, you use the cheap and economical DC-to-DC conversions _at the point of use_ to take that down to the +5V and +12V that your equipment needs. You may pay marginally extra for larger cabling to handle higher currents, but you save money by not needing step-down transformers in each power supply. Let weight, more compact, and more efficient.