Remember Nintendo? The original, I mean. I remember when it first came out, it was THE THING. Everybody had to get one. If you weren't playing Nintendo, you were behind the times, man. But now, what has happened? Are games and game systems still that important?

I'd say yes if you're a gamer, but no if you're not. If you're heavy into video games, then of course the newest, coolest system is where it's at. But Nintendo broke down barriers when it came onto the market. Are there systems that still do that?

Sega Genesis came out, and it was a competitor. It took things to the next level, but it wasn't amazing the way the Nintendo was. The NES was outstanding because there wasn't really anything like it (if you weren't into Atari). So all the systems that came after it were really just upgrades, but not earth-shatteringly new, completely unique, never-seen-before inventions. Even the X-Box and PS3 seem just like faster, cleaner, more powerful systems. I guess it depends on the game.

Except the Wii is so unique and different, it looks like Nintendo's changing the face of gaming again. I read that the Wii isn't for hardcore gamers. That means it's one of those things that everybody can enjoy. Which means that we just might be entering a new golden age of gaming.

What if the Wii is just the first step toward a world of active games, where you've got to move to play? How much further can we take it? And will Nintendo be the only brand to explore the potential of active gaming? Or will Sony and Microsoft follow suit? And will Apple finally develop a new system? A devastatingly awesome system? Only time will tell!

Today I had the idea that you could walk into a room and your friends, who were watching TV, were now on the other side of the screen. That would mean that the TV screen is really a portal to another location. Or, it could be a monitor with a feed from a camera somewhere.

It got me thinking: What if in the future, technology is so advanced that it allows us to get complacent, lazy even? Say you want to go see a friend. As it used to be, you'd give him a call. Before phones, you could write a letter or go in person. Now, we can instant message each other. In the future, what if we take things one step further?

Imagine a room in your house in which the walls act as both cameras and televisions. So you enter the room, and say, "Let me see Jenny." Your house calls her house, or apartment, or wherever she is. How does it know where to find her? Maybe she's got a chip in her head. Let's not worry about that. Ok, so the network finds her, and a CGI operator comes on the screen wherever she is, saying, "Your friend Jimmy would like to speak with you. Is that OK?" She says sure, and BAM — you're having a two-way visual meeting, live.

Sounds cool, right? You don't have to do anything when you're in that room except issue voice commands. Now here's where things get scary (unless the chip-in-the-head thing already got to you). Jenny's out and about, right? Maybe at an art museum? Now imagine she's at her house. You're at your house. Everybody is at their own home. Nobody goes anywhere, because they can all link up virtually.

But I don't think that will really happen. I'll bet the technology will reach and surpass that level, sure, but I think we'll have plenty of reasons to keep active.

We'll have to fight the robots!

This article spells out how inventor Ray Kurzweil, who's been making frighteningly accurate predictions about the future for years, sees our future. His whole take on the level of society's progress differs from your Average Joe's concept of the same in one basic way: Joe sees things moving linearly, but Ray sees them progressing exponentially!

Take for example the human genome project. Originally scheduled to finish up in its fifteenth year, it had only completed mapping 1% of the human genome by year 7. Nobody thought it would be on time. But every subsequent year, the amount of progress doubled, until it did indeed encompass 100% in year 15.

Kurzweil says that most people can't comprehend the nature of the future as he sees it, because they look at things from a point of view ground in the present rate of things. But if you take into consideration things like, "Moore's Law," which says that processing power for computers will double each year (as it has shown to be doing), then within 20 years we should have computers that are smarter than people.

Kurzweil predicted back in the 80's that some sort of computer network would arise to connect us all, and he was right. He also said that a computer would beat the world chess champion in 1998. It did happen, but in 1997!

Among Kurzweil's ideas for the future are the interconnectedness between humans and machines. By around 2045, if you're not hooked in in some way, perhaps with nanobots complementing your brainpower, you may not be able to understand the changing technology. At that point, he says, we'll likely have reached the Technological Singularity, in which AI is coming up with new technology faster than ordinary humans can contribute.

What's the best part? Kurzweil sees nanotechnology, genetics, and robotics reaching a point where human life can be sustained indefinitely. He takes a lot of vitamins, and for good reason. If you take care of yourself, "you may just live long enough to live forever."