btw, OLED is useless in direct sunlight. From certain point, certain amount of lightning, screen (especially in a battery-powered device) needs to reflective.
Not sure I understand the first part. I'm not in marketing, nor am I trying to be. I just want a better portable computer than what we have available today. As for OLED, it remains brighter and consumes less power than an LCD, both characteristics can help give me what I want. A laptop that uses less energy and is easier to see the screen. It's kind of a 'duh' point, but I'm simply optimistic that portable computers will be much better a few years from now. To me that makes the current debate of netbook versus notebook a short-lived, transitory argument.
It seems there are two reasons that netbooks are attractive. The size and the cost. I'd venture that the ideal is a convergence of high-end features such as SSD and OLED with low cost. In a few years we could be looking at a complete convergence between laptop and netbook that offers an affordable, appliance-like experience without compromising functionality. Combine SSD and OLED with highly efficient processing and state of the art battery technology and all of a sudden you have a device that can run on battery all day long. Imagine a portable computing platform that has a screen visible in direct sunlight that doesn't constantly blow hot air on your left thigh. I honestly believe that this is a converging category over the course of the next two to three years, where the end product is far better than either end of the spectrum we have available today.
As others have pointed out, most access points require some sort of fee, or at bare minimum an access code or agreement to terms of services. I've always thought that free and unfettered WiFi would have gone a great way to increase foot traffic around establishments, and if enough like-minded businesses provide free service that an area would start to become known as WiFi-friendly. I think the real folks who missed the mark are landlords of malls and other areas where multiple businesses lease space.
As it stands today most people rely on Verizon, AT&T, etc. for their mobile Internet access on a device-by-device basis. I don't think people would need to know that an entire city is WiFi enabled to succeed. I think that as long as people know certain general areas they're likely to frequent are hot, then behavior would change. As it stands, I can't see public Internet access making inroads anytime soon, regardless of the delivery technology. That's too bad for a lot of reasons
I always get confused with the use of the word holiday. I tend to think of a holiday as a day that everyone takes off work and engages in some sort of traditional activity, whether it be gift giving, a celebration meal, etc. I know we have used the term 'appreciation day' or 'recognition day' in other similar cases. The first similar day that came to mind for me was 'secretary appreciation day', which of course was promptly renamed 'administrative assistant appreciation day.' It seems to me this is the kind of bone you throw towards a profession that is under appreciated and underpaid.
I loved the Dreamcast and was a huge fan when it was released. Soul Calibur on the DC was the most visually stunning game available in the home at that time. However, there were a few things that hindered the platform in the US. The catalog of software was large, but was largely tailored to the tastes of the Japanese player. Lack of strong US-style franchises left an opening for Sony and others. Also, within a few years there began a rise in PC games with broadband/network capabilities that drew some loyal console players into the PC world - e.g. Battlefield 1942, Unreal Tournament, etc. It would be a few years later with the introduction of Xbox Live before consoles really could play in the new, connected experience. The Dreamcast modem was a nice try, but clearly even with software and supporting infrasturcture the prospects for a good connected experience were dim in the days prior to the rise of pervasive broadband at the home. Still, the DC remains one of my all-time favorite platforms, and was a massive visual step forward for consoles in its day.
I thought the article was moderately interesting, and didn't differ all that much from what anyone in IT would expect. I think what it represents is the nature of systems purchased over time when it comes to things like CPU and RAM. It's not as if all of the choices were popular configurations available on the shelf at once. Mostly, it speaks to inertia and apathy as it intersects with de facto technology. For every person who is passionate about their favorite browser, there are a dozen people who barely know what a browser is, yet alone are aware of the fact that you can install a different browser other than what came along with the OS. I think the point of the article was trying to drive at was user preference, but what we're really seeing is a lot of people going to Best Buy and buying whatever meets their budget, and then simply using the computer 'as is' without putting further thought into it. In a sense, the PC is being treated more like an appliance and less like a PC with each passing generation of technology. I'm not sure that's surprising, and not even sure if that's really a problem.
That's funny. The last time I bought an OS that wanted me to pay more money every year it turned out to be from Red Hat. Ok, technically I bought the 'support', but at 12-months-plus-one-second all of a sudden my Red Hat updates stopped working.
Give MS a break. At least you can buy the OS, instead of leasing it.
Having a tough time understanding the off topic rating here. Girlintraining specifically mentioned an annual renewal in the Fluffybunny comment that got a plus-5 for insightful. My reply was merely pointing out that the behavior cited isn't present in Windows licensing, but ironically is present elsewhere. Am I off topic, or do I appear to have opinions from the wrong side of the track?
I got what I paid for from both. However, after the support period expires Windows is still eligible for updates. The only 'support' I no longer have access to is actual 'support.' Guess what? I don't recall ever contacting MS or Red Hat for support.
Why does MS always become an emotional issue? I was merely pointing out that MS does not in fact want people to pay money for the OS every year, whereas at least some other vendors do. Why is paying for an OS an issue anyway? I spent at least an order of magnitude more on hardware and software, so why would I concern myself with whatever the cost of the OS might be? Because there's a passionate community on a mission to tell me I'm an idiot for paying for an OS when there are better, free alternatives? I don't care. It's just one of dozens of technologies that I employ to get a certain job done.
How is this hijacking a topic, and who are you exactly to admonish me for it? This was a direct response to an inaccurate assertion. Can't I be neutral here, or is it a prerequisite to be an OpenSource fanboy and MS hater to post an opinion?
I don't know how your post is considered insightful. Honestly. I couldn't care less about any OS or cost structure so long as the job I want gets done.
That's funny. The last time I bought an OS that wanted me to pay more money every year it turned out to be from Red Hat. Ok, technically I bought the 'support', but at 12-months-plus-one-second all of a sudden my Red Hat updates stopped working.
Give MS a break. At least you can buy the OS, instead of leasing it.
This hits the nail on the head. I would bet that iTunes generates far more revenue for artists than this tax. Furthermore, iTunes has a capitalist element that pays money to artists when you actually buy their songs. When the free market functions better than government, it should be a signal to government to leave it alone.
How would you feel knowing a small amount of your fee winds up in the pockets of Bryan Adams and Anne Murray?
Component is a viable analog option, but there are two issues that might be present. First, I have observed some equipment (most recently at a friend's house this past weekend) where the use of component led to some unusual skewing on a larger (55"+) screen. This might be mitigated if someone were to use higher quality cables, or it might just be the marriage of a cable box and TV that don't like each other all that much. But it opens up the second issue which is cable quality. HDMI as a digital standard doesn't require blinged cables. You could argue that component video quality may be impacted by cable quality. As a tertiary issue, in most cases you can avoid using an audio cable altogether with HDMI. That, combined with the smaller footprint of the HDMI cable versus component can lead to far less clutter, especially when you have multiple sources and a relatively confined media cabinet. The net of it all is that if your source and target both support HDMI, then it's going to be the better choice 9 times out of 10, and I honestly can't think of when that tenth time might be.
All very good points. The main theme however is that different methods of communicating are good for different things. Comparing texting to an in-person conversation or a phone call is like comparing a Blu-ray disc to a blog or a podcast. These are all simply tools in the toolbox. The efficiency of texting is measured in clock time. However, like any good thing, you can defeat the efficiency by misuse. At some point, certain conversations would suggest picking up the phone is a better route. And of course some things should be saved for in-person conversations - especially breaking-up. I'd be scared to run into any woman who'd been recently dumped via SMS.
As a communicator, you have an obligation to understand the limits of the medium you employ. Lack of body language and eye contact have been a limitation of written communication for the past 5,000 years. You make a good case to use texting in situations where the persons are well-known to each other, and the subjects are either mundane such as logistics (when are you going to be somewhere?) or where views are usually shared (that girl has an awesome [insert feature here].) The idea that we will eschew in-person contact for texting doesn't float. We're simply displacing other, less efficient but equally distanced mediums.
Yes and no. It's not the technology, it's the use habits. Many of us assume that email is read periodically in batch mode. There's a lot going on in the inbox that is more persistent and requires longer to respond to (e.g. electronic bills, work requests, etc.) Text messages are assumed to be read with somewhat greater frequency due to both the portability of the device to which they are targeted and the lesser effort required to field them.
Therefore, at the end of the day my wife texts me 'heading home now' as a means of coordinating our schedules without taking more than 10 seconds of either of our time, compared to the minute-plus of either a phone call or call + vm + retrieval. 'Heading home now' wouldn't make much sense as an email, or would at least have far less benefit based on my use of either technology.
People, this is getting silly. The whole issue boils down to one thing: COGS. The 'cost of goods and services' is the primary factor when Sony and Microsoft decide what to put in the box. Console hardware is often sold at a loss, at least for the first year or more after release. While Sony and Microsoft both have huge buying power, they still can't justify including a relatively expensive cable that not everyone will need. Let the consumer decide what cable length and quality they need. Sure, Monster cable mentality is BS that lingers with us from the analog era, but so what? Let retailers sell whatever they can. It's far better to put the choice in the consumer's hands and let the smarter ones go out and buy a budget HDMI cable of the appropriate length.
Texting is popular because it is an extremely efficient method to keep in touch. It's half-duplex, so both parties don't have to be available at the same time. Text messages are brief and quickly digestible, unlike email. One point the story doesn't address is the idea of how many text messages constitute a conversation. Sure, sometimes it's a single message, but often you might find that over the course of an hour you have exchanged more than a dozen messages with the same friend. Given that, I don't think 60 messages a day for a teenager is all that high. It means they have somewhere between two to four friends. And unlike a phone call, you can actually do homework between messages.
How much more convoluted do we have to make things? We've got all this great technology, and then we hobble it to make it safe for the MPAA.
I purchase my Blu-Ray discs, and if I'm not sure I want to own it, I'll rent HD via Amazon downloads. Nothing illegitimate there. Half of the discs these days have a digital copy, which is great for downloading to the iPod. The other half, well let's just say there's nothing in my Blu Ray collection that couldn't potentially end up on my iPod.
Having said that, I'll also say that I never had nor ever will participate in file sharing in any form. The balance between free and illicit material versus trusting the content provided by people who gravitate towards free and illicit is a no-brainer to me. I'll remain a regular, paying customer who simply has a very correct and righteous view of fair use.
Now lately I bought a new Sony TV and decided to take the opportunity to simplify the wiring between the devices (Tivo, BD, PS3) and the TV. Since there are plenty of HDMI ports, I decided to take out an intermediate HDMI switch, and run audio through HDMI to the TV, and then back out to the sound system via optical. Pretty neat arrangement. Never need to switch inputs on the receiver, and only four cables. Right? Wrong! Everything works great *unless* you try to play a BD in the BD player. (Works fine with a DVD by the way) Due to HDCP the TV won't output the digital audio that came in over HDMI. The solution, a separate optical cable from the BD player to the receiver, and the additional programming of the remote to switch inputs on both. Why? What possible purpose is there for forcing this HDMI-bypass surgery? And this is for the normal use-case. This is a TV, a Blu Ray player, and an audio receiver.
The more *holes* the MPAA tries to plug, the more holes I'm convinces there are... in their heads.
Slashdot Mirror
Worked too long in marketing department?...
btw, OLED is useless in direct sunlight. From certain point, certain amount of lightning, screen (especially in a battery-powered device) needs to reflective.
Not sure I understand the first part. I'm not in marketing, nor am I trying to be. I just want a better portable computer than what we have available today. As for OLED, it remains brighter and consumes less power than an LCD, both characteristics can help give me what I want. A laptop that uses less energy and is easier to see the screen. It's kind of a 'duh' point, but I'm simply optimistic that portable computers will be much better a few years from now. To me that makes the current debate of netbook versus notebook a short-lived, transitory argument.
It seems there are two reasons that netbooks are attractive. The size and the cost. I'd venture that the ideal is a convergence of high-end features such as SSD and OLED with low cost. In a few years we could be looking at a complete convergence between laptop and netbook that offers an affordable, appliance-like experience without compromising functionality. Combine SSD and OLED with highly efficient processing and state of the art battery technology and all of a sudden you have a device that can run on battery all day long. Imagine a portable computing platform that has a screen visible in direct sunlight that doesn't constantly blow hot air on your left thigh. I honestly believe that this is a converging category over the course of the next two to three years, where the end product is far better than either end of the spectrum we have available today.
As others have pointed out, most access points require some sort of fee, or at bare minimum an access code or agreement to terms of services. I've always thought that free and unfettered WiFi would have gone a great way to increase foot traffic around establishments, and if enough like-minded businesses provide free service that an area would start to become known as WiFi-friendly. I think the real folks who missed the mark are landlords of malls and other areas where multiple businesses lease space.
As it stands today most people rely on Verizon, AT&T, etc. for their mobile Internet access on a device-by-device basis. I don't think people would need to know that an entire city is WiFi enabled to succeed. I think that as long as people know certain general areas they're likely to frequent are hot, then behavior would change. As it stands, I can't see public Internet access making inroads anytime soon, regardless of the delivery technology. That's too bad for a lot of reasons
I always get confused with the use of the word holiday. I tend to think of a holiday as a day that everyone takes off work and engages in some sort of traditional activity, whether it be gift giving, a celebration meal, etc. I know we have used the term 'appreciation day' or 'recognition day' in other similar cases. The first similar day that came to mind for me was 'secretary appreciation day', which of course was promptly renamed 'administrative assistant appreciation day.' It seems to me this is the kind of bone you throw towards a profession that is under appreciated and underpaid.
I loved the Dreamcast and was a huge fan when it was released. Soul Calibur on the DC was the most visually stunning game available in the home at that time. However, there were a few things that hindered the platform in the US. The catalog of software was large, but was largely tailored to the tastes of the Japanese player. Lack of strong US-style franchises left an opening for Sony and others. Also, within a few years there began a rise in PC games with broadband/network capabilities that drew some loyal console players into the PC world - e.g. Battlefield 1942, Unreal Tournament, etc. It would be a few years later with the introduction of Xbox Live before consoles really could play in the new, connected experience. The Dreamcast modem was a nice try, but clearly even with software and supporting infrasturcture the prospects for a good connected experience were dim in the days prior to the rise of pervasive broadband at the home. Still, the DC remains one of my all-time favorite platforms, and was a massive visual step forward for consoles in its day.
I thought the article was moderately interesting, and didn't differ all that much from what anyone in IT would expect. I think what it represents is the nature of systems purchased over time when it comes to things like CPU and RAM. It's not as if all of the choices were popular configurations available on the shelf at once. Mostly, it speaks to inertia and apathy as it intersects with de facto technology. For every person who is passionate about their favorite browser, there are a dozen people who barely know what a browser is, yet alone are aware of the fact that you can install a different browser other than what came along with the OS. I think the point of the article was trying to drive at was user preference, but what we're really seeing is a lot of people going to Best Buy and buying whatever meets their budget, and then simply using the computer 'as is' without putting further thought into it. In a sense, the PC is being treated more like an appliance and less like a PC with each passing generation of technology. I'm not sure that's surprising, and not even sure if that's really a problem.
That's funny. The last time I bought an OS that wanted me to pay more money every year it turned out to be from Red Hat. Ok, technically I bought the 'support', but at 12-months-plus-one-second all of a sudden my Red Hat updates stopped working. Give MS a break. At least you can buy the OS, instead of leasing it.
Having a tough time understanding the off topic rating here. Girlintraining specifically mentioned an annual renewal in the Fluffybunny comment that got a plus-5 for insightful. My reply was merely pointing out that the behavior cited isn't present in Windows licensing, but ironically is present elsewhere. Am I off topic, or do I appear to have opinions from the wrong side of the track?
I got what I paid for from both. However, after the support period expires Windows is still eligible for updates. The only 'support' I no longer have access to is actual 'support.' Guess what? I don't recall ever contacting MS or Red Hat for support.
Why does MS always become an emotional issue? I was merely pointing out that MS does not in fact want people to pay money for the OS every year, whereas at least some other vendors do. Why is paying for an OS an issue anyway? I spent at least an order of magnitude more on hardware and software, so why would I concern myself with whatever the cost of the OS might be? Because there's a passionate community on a mission to tell me I'm an idiot for paying for an OS when there are better, free alternatives? I don't care. It's just one of dozens of technologies that I employ to get a certain job done.
How is this hijacking a topic, and who are you exactly to admonish me for it? This was a direct response to an inaccurate assertion. Can't I be neutral here, or is it a prerequisite to be an OpenSource fanboy and MS hater to post an opinion?
I don't know how your post is considered insightful. Honestly. I couldn't care less about any OS or cost structure so long as the job I want gets done.
That's funny. The last time I bought an OS that wanted me to pay more money every year it turned out to be from Red Hat. Ok, technically I bought the 'support', but at 12-months-plus-one-second all of a sudden my Red Hat updates stopped working. Give MS a break. At least you can buy the OS, instead of leasing it.
This hits the nail on the head. I would bet that iTunes generates far more revenue for artists than this tax. Furthermore, iTunes has a capitalist element that pays money to artists when you actually buy their songs. When the free market functions better than government, it should be a signal to government to leave it alone.
How would you feel knowing a small amount of your fee winds up in the pockets of Bryan Adams and Anne Murray?
Component is a viable analog option, but there are two issues that might be present. First, I have observed some equipment (most recently at a friend's house this past weekend) where the use of component led to some unusual skewing on a larger (55"+) screen. This might be mitigated if someone were to use higher quality cables, or it might just be the marriage of a cable box and TV that don't like each other all that much. But it opens up the second issue which is cable quality. HDMI as a digital standard doesn't require blinged cables. You could argue that component video quality may be impacted by cable quality. As a tertiary issue, in most cases you can avoid using an audio cable altogether with HDMI. That, combined with the smaller footprint of the HDMI cable versus component can lead to far less clutter, especially when you have multiple sources and a relatively confined media cabinet. The net of it all is that if your source and target both support HDMI, then it's going to be the better choice 9 times out of 10, and I honestly can't think of when that tenth time might be.
All very good points. The main theme however is that different methods of communicating are good for different things. Comparing texting to an in-person conversation or a phone call is like comparing a Blu-ray disc to a blog or a podcast. These are all simply tools in the toolbox. The efficiency of texting is measured in clock time. However, like any good thing, you can defeat the efficiency by misuse. At some point, certain conversations would suggest picking up the phone is a better route. And of course some things should be saved for in-person conversations - especially breaking-up. I'd be scared to run into any woman who'd been recently dumped via SMS.
As a communicator, you have an obligation to understand the limits of the medium you employ. Lack of body language and eye contact have been a limitation of written communication for the past 5,000 years. You make a good case to use texting in situations where the persons are well-known to each other, and the subjects are either mundane such as logistics (when are you going to be somewhere?) or where views are usually shared (that girl has an awesome [insert feature here].) The idea that we will eschew in-person contact for texting doesn't float. We're simply displacing other, less efficient but equally distanced mediums.
Yes and no. It's not the technology, it's the use habits. Many of us assume that email is read periodically in batch mode. There's a lot going on in the inbox that is more persistent and requires longer to respond to (e.g. electronic bills, work requests, etc.) Text messages are assumed to be read with somewhat greater frequency due to both the portability of the device to which they are targeted and the lesser effort required to field them.
Therefore, at the end of the day my wife texts me 'heading home now' as a means of coordinating our schedules without taking more than 10 seconds of either of our time, compared to the minute-plus of either a phone call or call + vm + retrieval. 'Heading home now' wouldn't make much sense as an email, or would at least have far less benefit based on my use of either technology.
People, this is getting silly. The whole issue boils down to one thing: COGS. The 'cost of goods and services' is the primary factor when Sony and Microsoft decide what to put in the box. Console hardware is often sold at a loss, at least for the first year or more after release. While Sony and Microsoft both have huge buying power, they still can't justify including a relatively expensive cable that not everyone will need. Let the consumer decide what cable length and quality they need. Sure, Monster cable mentality is BS that lingers with us from the analog era, but so what? Let retailers sell whatever they can. It's far better to put the choice in the consumer's hands and let the smarter ones go out and buy a budget HDMI cable of the appropriate length.
Texting is popular because it is an extremely efficient method to keep in touch. It's half-duplex, so both parties don't have to be available at the same time. Text messages are brief and quickly digestible, unlike email. One point the story doesn't address is the idea of how many text messages constitute a conversation. Sure, sometimes it's a single message, but often you might find that over the course of an hour you have exchanged more than a dozen messages with the same friend. Given that, I don't think 60 messages a day for a teenager is all that high. It means they have somewhere between two to four friends. And unlike a phone call, you can actually do homework between messages.
How much more convoluted do we have to make things? We've got all this great technology, and then we hobble it to make it safe for the MPAA.
I purchase my Blu-Ray discs, and if I'm not sure I want to own it, I'll rent HD via Amazon downloads. Nothing illegitimate there. Half of the discs these days have a digital copy, which is great for downloading to the iPod. The other half, well let's just say there's nothing in my Blu Ray collection that couldn't potentially end up on my iPod.
Having said that, I'll also say that I never had nor ever will participate in file sharing in any form. The balance between free and illicit material versus trusting the content provided by people who gravitate towards free and illicit is a no-brainer to me. I'll remain a regular, paying customer who simply has a very correct and righteous view of fair use.
Now lately I bought a new Sony TV and decided to take the opportunity to simplify the wiring between the devices (Tivo, BD, PS3) and the TV. Since there are plenty of HDMI ports, I decided to take out an intermediate HDMI switch, and run audio through HDMI to the TV, and then back out to the sound system via optical. Pretty neat arrangement. Never need to switch inputs on the receiver, and only four cables. Right? Wrong! Everything works great *unless* you try to play a BD in the BD player. (Works fine with a DVD by the way) Due to HDCP the TV won't output the digital audio that came in over HDMI. The solution, a separate optical cable from the BD player to the receiver, and the additional programming of the remote to switch inputs on both. Why? What possible purpose is there for forcing this HDMI-bypass surgery? And this is for the normal use-case. This is a TV, a Blu Ray player, and an audio receiver.
The more *holes* the MPAA tries to plug, the more holes I'm convinces there are ... in their heads.