They are already. You can go to their homepage and pre-order one right now. The next batch of orders is currently expected to ship out in September, hence the "pre-order" bit. So if you actually want one you can get them within a few months by ordering now, or faster if you get one from eBay (will cost extra though). =)

Though if you're sensible you'd wait for the consumer model, which will have a better screen (higher pixel density to lower the "screendoor" effect, lower switch times for less motion blur, better contrast) as well as other nice features (positional tracking on top of directional tracking, so you can actually look around corners, not just pivot your head). You'll be waiting for those for a year or two though. =)

The console market ruined vector games by their foolish attempt to convert them to pixels.

a law firm can't afford a surveillance camera that records more than two pixels of a person's face?

Make food 3d printers that can "print" each "pixel" in any color, taste, and consistency.

Then print corgi puppies with properly colored crunchy bones, and meat that taste like chicken.

You can tell by the pixels.

Chrome (latest) on XP and it's been doing it for me for ages!
If you mouse over/off the title text (link) of the video it moves a pixel each time.
Great fun getting the video thumbnails to "race" each other down the page but I don't quite think that's what you had in mind!

What I don't understand, @newtboy, is why otherwise rational, logical, and intelligent atheists even bother trying to talk a religious person out of their views?

To me, that is irrational, illogical, and quite frankly unintelligent.

Who was it above who said you aren't going to argue strangers' out of their beliefs? Right on. So why do otherwise intelligent atheists come back to the well, over and over and over again?

Shiny ain't in this alone. It takes two to tango.

And. Y'all can do what you like. It's just pixels.

I don't think we need a moderator either. If someone is egregiously and personally attacking someone, they can get temporarily or permanently banned by our Benevolent Dictator @dag. Some folks don't like that, but I think it is why the Sift is such a grand place -- the trolls are moderated and if they DON'T self censor, out they go. That doesn't bother me in the least (even though I miss Bone, I get why he is gone.)

What bothers me -- and I have started to write this a couple of times, but I SELF CENSORED -- is when these long "discussions" devolve to essentially two people going back and forth. It ceases to be about the particular video, and becomes about the two Sifters. Nothing wrong with the exchange, but why can't they move it to their personal profiles? Anyone who wants to follow it, can.

But I have learned here on the Sift to never ask anyone to do anything, because all of Holy Hell will descend upon my head, and I will be accused of a host of sins for making a request.

So no request here. Just a suggestion that maybe if you find yourself in a duo-logue (or dueling monologues?), you might consider just sliding over to your personal page.

Or not. Whatever. It's just pixels.

You might like this discussion - http://videosift.com/talk/What-Is-Your-Favourite-Video-Game-Music

If you want to embed a yt video (which, uhm, not sure probies can do actually...) try old embed format, custom size, 500 pixels wide.

You could otherwise sift the vid you want to attach, then you wouldn't be a probie any more... win win!

Pretty cool that he made it functional, but I'd rather have a display piece that looked a little more like the "real" sword, maybe using blue glass or something. I mean, if you are going to make it RL functional, then why make it pixelated? I'd rather he either stayed true to the look in the video game, pixels and all, or made a functional non-pixelated RL representation. He chose to do a little of both.

They stay that way in all proceeding pictures? Or just the long exposure ones?

I would assume the latter, cosmic rays slow down and lose quite a bit of their energy by the time they hit us down here on the ground....exposure to one in space though will certainly kill a pixel for good.

Saturation of light sensitive photodiodes (ill call them PD's henceforth) (essentially what the CCD is PACKED with) causes damage over time. You can just over-saturate the PD, to the point of damage (usually around 3dBm above its rated saturation point), and it will bounce back ok. The sensitivity of the pixel will be harmed dependant on the time and the level above saturation it was exposed at.

You can see a similar phenomenon in video footage of nuclear reactor survey footage from drones, or....stupid people that are way too close....where the reactors have a nasty event.

Interesting info:
The colourful dots you see all over the shot at the start as he is talking, are pixels in the CCD of the camera that have been hit by radiation from space!

The pixels have been exposed to energetic particles with such intensity that they no longer see a gradient between light and dark, its all light....the pixel has been 'saturated' to the point of damage.

The detail is best seen in full screen @720p. You wont see them in the lower-resolution streams.

We are kind programmed to make snap judgements about people, to classify them and quickly extrapolate from low information. I guess that pattern detecting/creating algorythm served us very well in the past, its just a shame that we have to fight our lowly origins on the daily.

You photograph somebody far away and they are simplified into maybe 100 boxes of colour. The closer you get the more pixels you get to describe the reality. Just gotta hope people can revise their low resolution perceptions.

I agree with you in general. I think it will be a successful product potentially. I just think people are going to find themselves disappointed given all the hype. I just don't think the technology is satisfactory even on the cutting edge. It would be like all (even the best) portable mp3 players sounded like finger nails on chalk boards. Apple came along and made an affordable "finger nails on chalk board sounding portable mp3 player" and we all expected everyone was going to be jumping to buy one rather than simply continuing to listen to their nice home stereo instead.

Just as a first order critique. Do you really think gamers are going to settle for 640x800 screens that subtend even wider visual angles? With 800 pixels over 90 degrees you're talking about a nyquist frequency of 5ish cycles per degree. That ain't exactly a retina display. That's like a tenth the resolution of a retina display on a linear dimension, or one one-hundredth the number of total pixels.

I think this thing will have a highly anticipated launch and peter out as people find themselves preferring to game with their traditional interfaces instead.