Technology evolves in amazingly rapid speeds. If you need any real observable proof of the speedy advancement of digital technology over the years, take a look at the gaming industry. From the very early years of black-and-white 2D games like Pong (1972) to the first 3D game, 3D Monster Maze in 1981, and from primitive first-person shooters like Wolfenstein 3D (1992) to complex, life-like shooters like Battlefield 3 (2011), there’s no doubt that the gaming industry has seen its fair share of technological evolution.

We tend to see gaming as one all-encompassing genre under a capital "G." But within that genre, many sub-classifications will rise, thrive, endure and fail. Just as reality-based fare is among the most successful television of the last decade, it's possible that the new massive, multiplayer online games will follow a similar course. It's feasible that millions of people will soon compete in a virtual world for the right to become Donald Trump's Apprentice. Perhaps an enterprising designer will create an educational game that rivals the social significance of Sesame Street. And maybe a group of prescient developers will make a game series that allows participants to see what it's like to perform in a real-life ER.
Because game designers are inhibited only by creativity and available technology, the potential will grow as their capability to move more polygons cheaply comes to fruition — something that the computer industry is working on every day.
Just like with television, we'll have to take the good with the bad. As more 18- to 34-year-olds check out of network television and check into gaming, marketers will go after that valuable consumer demographic. Product placement may become so abundant in games that NASCAR will look like NPR in comparison. Play a driving game and you'll see familiar landmarks: the Shell gas station on the corner, the McDonald's on Main Street, the Budweiser billboards near highway exits.
As the music industry looks for new ways to recapture its youthful audience, record labels will find even greater ways to cross-promote. Want to hear the latest Beastie Boys single? The place to hear it first could be in Grand Theft Auto 6.
With games' ever-growing online components, game companies will also try to create massive shared experiences online. They'll launch "must see" events in an attempt to draw millions of players online simultaneously.
The makeover craze that continues to inhabit cable television may lead to players creating virtual models of their homes. For a fee, professionals might come into their virtual world and remake it, giving the player ideas for their real-world home. Or perhaps you'll be able to participate in an online amateur talent contest where the winner becomes an overnight sensation like American Idol.
The future of gaming will not be all that different than the future of any other form of entertainment. As the masses of players determine what they want to get out of gaming, large corporations will throw their money and workforce into providing it.  
http://www.hongkiat.com/blog/future-of-gaming/
http://www.pbs.org/kcts/videogamerevolution/impact/future.html

 

After the conclusion of World War II, the military industrial complex truly began to produce some simply amazing technological breakthroughs. As countries around the globe were engaged in a competition to produce the best technologies the fastest we began to see the inventions of man-portable missiles, spy satellites, and a plethora of other gadgets that are still used in today’s combat operations.
Critically examining the inventions and uses of these technologies helps to gauge the level of technological advancement in modern warfare. These often impersonal devices can bring about changed feelings towards war on the global stage. The issues of sovereignty and civilian casualties are at the forefront of such discussions, and should be considered when examining the following technologies.
Rocket Propelled Grenade (RPG) – Coming to prominence shortly after World War II, the RPG is a shoulder-fired anti-tank weapon, firing rockets equipped with an explosive warhead. While the accuracy will only remain intact within a few hundred feet of firing, it is easily portable while still maintaining the same explosive force as a stick of dynamite upon impact.
Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) – The terminology of this weapon was first used  the 1970’s, when British forces were dealing with the Irish Republic Army insurgency, and their use of fertilizer and semtex to create improvised yet highly effective surprise traps for their foes. The use of IED’s in modern warfare shows the truly indiscriminate nature of battle-field technology in the 21st century. These devices can and do harm not only to military personnel, but to innocent civilians who make the fatal flaw of walking or driving over such devices.
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) – Functioned by a remote controlled navigator often far away from the battle field, UAV’s saw their official indoctrination to the United states military in the early 1970’s. Highly useful in a hazardous territory, a UAV can be used by its controllers to conduct reconnaissance, to provide logistical support, to target enemies, and much more. While many UAV’s are simply used as an “eye in the sky”, there are other uses as well used specifically for combat.
Reconnaissance Satellite – With early development dating back to the 1950’s, the United States and Russia initially began trying to garner this technology in their great ‘space race’. This technological competition was exemplified the quest for global hegemony.
In modern warfare, this technology provides never before access to high resolution photographs (IMINT), communications eavesdropping (SIGINT), as well as the ability to detect the launch of any missiles. This technology is popularly referred to as “spy satellites.”
The topic of civil rights and the usefulness of SIGINT remains an issue of high contention around the globe, with ardent proponents citing the need to eavesdrop on others to prevent potential terrorist plots, as well as those who believe this is a flagrant violation of individual rights that has taken “the desire to protect” a step too far.
 http://www.globalization101.org/modern-warfare/

In just a few years, smartphones have taken over our lives – half of the UK population now owns one. We’re hooked on touchscreens, apps and smartphone smugness but there are still plenty of surprises in store.

Here’s a taster of the innovations you might carry in your pocket in years to come.

Bendy screens

Touchscreens made phones more intuitive than ever, and the next generation of screens promises to revolutionize our habits yet again. Several companies are working on the first phones with flexible screens, expected to hit the shops by late 2012.
The innovation inside these bendy screens is OLEDs (Organic Light Emitting Diodes) - thin films of organic molecules that produce light when you run an electric current through them. Often less than a millimeter thick and offering a bright, crisp image with low power consumption, it’s not just flexibility that makes OLEDs a popular choice.

OLEDs could pave the way for bigger screens that fold away neatly,  and new ways of controlling your phone by bending or twisting its screen.

Self-powered phones

It’s a simple trade off:  the more processing power is packed into your smartphone, the faster its battery charge vanishes. A phone that powers itself sounds like a dream come true – and it might just happen.

Piezoelectric devices can convert mechanical movement into electric current. They rely on piezoelectric materials, which generate a tiny electric current when flexed or pressed. Microphones, amongst other things, use this effect to turn sound into an electrical signal.

The amount of power produced by piezoelectricity is usually miniscule, but at the Nano scale, even the tiniest of movements can be harnessed. The latest research into nanomaterial promises ultra efficient systems that could power your phone using the vibrations of your voice or the tapping of your fingertips on a touchscreen. 

Instead of waiting for handsets to come with higher-capacity batteries, I'd like to go one further and envision a smartphone that runs on an alternative power source altogether. That'll eliminate the need to plug it in for charging, and I won't have to worry about saving my device's energy if I'm miles away from an outlet.
I know that solar-powered battery packs already exist, but I want a polished, modern phone with charging panels built in. Manufacturers have attempted this somewhat: back in 2009, Samsung unveiled its E1107, the first solar-powered GSM feature phone that would require 1 hour of solar charging per 10 minutes of talking. Later that year, LG released its solar-charging GD510 Pop, and CNET reviewed its Blue Earth handset, which also had solar panels on the rear.
Personally I think in the future we will have things never thought of before like instead of 3g, 4g LTE we will have 5g and crazy speeds of internet to download movies steam music and everything we do in our daily lives.
http://www.cnet.com/news/smartphone-future-tech-where-can-we-possibly-go-from-here/
http://www.physics.org/article-questions.asp?id=83

SOPA is an acronym for the Stop Online Piracy Act. It's a proposed bill that aims to crack down on copyright infringement by restricting access to sites that host or facilitate the trading of pirated content.
SOPA's main targets are "rogue" overseas sites like torrent hub The Pirate Bay, which are a trove for illegal downloads. Go to the The Pirate Bay, type in any current hit movie or TV show like "Glee," and you'll see links to download full seasons and recent episodes for free.
The reason all of this is bad is because all the producers and film directors are not getting credit and the money they should get.  Think of all the time the movie makers took to make a film then someone comes along and records the film with a cheap device and puts it up for download for free.
The idea behind these bills sounds reasonable. They came about in order to try and snuff out piracy online, as the entertainment industry is obviously not excited that many people are downloading their products without payment or permission. The issue is, however, that it doesn't really matter whether you're in support of piracy, against it, or just don't care. The methods are ineffective.

While SOPA and PIPA have the same goals, and much of the same provisions, they are not identical. The wording of each section is often only slightly different, though the meaning is the same, making these differences meaningless.

There are a number of key differences, however. Unlike SOPA, PIPA lacks a provision that requires search engines (like Google and Bing) to remove a “foreign infringing site” from their indexes. This provision in SOPA is one of the most highly criticized.

PIPA also contains provisions that require greater court intervention to go after an accused website than SOPA does.

So does that mean that if the laws were passed everything on the internet would be censored?  Maybe yes, maybe no. For the most part, critics of these bills are basing their arguments on the potential for abuse — a hypothetical worst-case scenario. In other words, if copyright holders and the US government never exploit the powers granted to them in SOPA/PIPA, no innocent website will be affected. In fact, that is the argument of these bills’ supporters; that law-abiding, US-based websites and companies have nothing at all to worry about. But the critics (which include more than a hundred law experts from places like Stanford and Harvard Law) say that the bills are too broad in their language, making them ripe for abuse. The Electronic Frontier Foundation cites instances in which current copyright laws, like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DCMA), have been used by companies to silence speech that they found distasteful.

Mac VS. Windows

 With Windows and Mac having two very different operating systems they are very easy to compare and contrast.
  Although OS X doesn't suffer from Apple's "walled garden" philosophy as its mobile counterpart iOS, it's hard to argue that Macs offer as much flexibility as Windows PC. From a hardware standpoint, most Windows PCs let you upgrade whatever you like whereas Macs do not. Windows users also have the benefit of everything being made specifically for them. With software, you'll find Apple drops compatibility with old applications far faster.  With Apple you get what you get and don't pitch a fit.
 Even though PCs are much more customizable in the Mac world there is almost no such thing as a virus.  PCs need lots of antivirus software just to keep there computer running smoothy!  Over all if your are someone who constantly downloads junk Macs are the way to go.
 The simple fact is that Apple produces only five kinds of OS X computer. Two types of laptop, the Mac mini, the iMac all-in-one and the Mac Pro. They are all fine products, and they will satisfy plenty of people's needs. But not by any means all of them.
Missing from that list of Apple products: convertible laptops and tablets, tablets themselves (iPads don't run OS X software), and gaming rigs. You don't get tabletop slabs like the Sony Tap 20. There's no equivalent to the Surface Pro 2 or the Asus Transformer Book T100T.
 Probably the most striking difference between Macs and PCs is in customer satisfaction. In the most recent surveys conducted by both PCWorld and PCMag, readers chose Apple computers over every single brand of PC available. Macs scored high marks in categories like reliability, service experience and even phone hold time. The only category in which Mac scored low was percentage of laptops needing repairs. It didn't seem to matter, though, as Mac also topped the category, "likelihood of recommending."
These high rankings are probably due in part to the way that Apple provides service. At a time when many PC manufacturers have shipped their service centers overseas, Mac users can get face-to-face assistance from a technician at the Genius Bar help desk located in any Apple Store.
 I believe that many people like Apple lots more just because how well they treat their customers.  Say you have a problem understanding the software you can just go to your closest Apple store and they will help you understand your problem.
Gaming is another big reason people like Windows.  With Macs there just isn't many good games out their.  For a true gaming experience you will defiantly need a PC with a very powerful RAM and hardrive that can run games with at least 30 FPS for no lag.
  Basically if you just want the beauty and speed of a Mac but want to run Windows you can get the best of both worlds buy getting a program called Boot camp.  You can easily run Windows with any Mac computer. 
Credits: PC Advisor Life Hacker How Stuff Works

Now which looks more appealing to you?

WOW!

Be sure to follow my other blog with a bunch of random games. http://www.aydensgamingblog.blogspot.com