I agree. One of the things that Palm got right was Graffiti. Although it takes a little time to get used to, Graffiti allows you to input text so much faster than text recognition, and with much better accuracy. That was one of the main things that pushed me towards getting a Palm rather than a WinCE device.
One thing that Graffiti provided was the ability to do true "heads-up" writing. I could hold my Palm device, and use Graffiti to write without having to constantly look at the screen--I could actually look at the person I was speaking with while writing. And accuracy was very, very high. Yes, I did have to go back and correct the occasional mistake, but Graffiti let me enter text quickly and accurately without needing to watch every single letter entered. Kind of an "enter now and edit later" scenario. (Yet, on-the-fly editing was still very easy.)
Once Palm caved in to Graffiti 2, the rules changed, and for me, stylus input became more difficult.
In the end, Graffiti was really an input method, not handwriting recognition. The user learned to write Graffiti--Graffiti did not learn the user's writing style. This is a huge difference because it made things more predictable, and the computing power required to do it was minimal (consider the Casio "Zoomer" PDA that came out around the time of the Newton. It had minimal computing power, yet could handle Graffiti extremely well.)
The down side to all this, of course, was that when I wrote with pen and paper, I found myself writing Graffiti letters....
I don't think this is a misleading argument. You are absolutely correct in that Google providing email hosting for an ISP is nothing new. And it's certainly no different from an ISP outsourcing its email hosting to any of the countless email hosting services. But the confusion could come in the ISP user's "mis-perceptions". The ISP's users may THINK they are using Gmail accounts, not understanding that they are using Google-hosted accounts that are tied to that specific ISP. If they move from one ISP to another, they will have to give up their email address--something you don't have to do if you use a "real" Gmail account (or Hotmail, YahooMail, etc.)
Not least is in its reinforcing of the attachment people have to their ISP's email address, making it harder to change ISPs if a better deal comes along.
And... ?
I don't see what the difference would be. Whether your email is hosted by your ISP or by Google for your ISP. It's the same account name.
There's a HUGE difference. I think you are misunderstanding the parent's point. We're not talking about Google being your ISP, but the email host for the ISP. An email address of "user.name@gmail.com" is very different from a "user.name@someISP.com" address provided by an ISP, but hosted by Google. People who rely on their ISP's email address (in this case, an ISP using Google-hosted email) will have to change their email address when they move to a different ISP. By using an email address that is ISP-independent (like Gmail, Hotmail or Yahoo mail), you remove the need to change email addresses just because you change ISP's.
Google's ISP email hosting provides all the nice Gmail features, but removes the portability, or more specifically, it removes the separation of email hosting from Internet access through an ISP.
The problem is that Joe Sixpack doesn't know this, and happily assumes that he MUST get his email access from his ISP.
When I forgot the password to access the CPanel account to modify my website and I sent an email requesting that it be changed, the ISP owner left a voicemail on my cell phone with the new password and I was charged five bucks.
I don't know. That sounds quite reasonable to me. It provided security and a modest charge for your negligence. BUT God help you if you had, say, 50 domains, and someone maliciously sent requests for all of those on your behalf, and then you got dinged $5.00 each....
Many of us had solid, reliable, moderately-priced hosting accounts through RegisterFly for MANY years, and then one day, the world just turned upside down. The proverbial cover on the book always looked great, and they, in fact, proved themselves to be very reliable for a long time. But just like that, it just fizzled away. And related to the article, I managed to transfer 23/23 domains away from Registerfly.com, but interestingly, the last 2 transferred with zero notification. The "standard 5 days" just lapsed, and the domain was moved by default. Had I not initiated the transfer, someone else could have simply snagged my domains without any involvement from me.
Also, consider NetIdentity.com and their vanity email address service. Again, solid and reliable for many, many years. Then, they get bought out by Tucows, and all Hell broke loose.
The cost of services does not always reflect the quality.
Simple. I wouldn't own a device whose functionality was tied to it contacting some company that could disappear whenever its business plans failed.
While I agree with your sentiment, the reality is that the consumer is too often tied to only what is available. Yes, the "speak with your wallet" argument is certainly valid here, but then it also means that the consumer may not receive ANY services.
For example, say I want a DVR to record my TV shows. That means that I either have to purchase or rent a 100% compatible DVR from a cable or satellite provider--a provider who maintains absolute control over what features and services are available to me. Or, I could provide my own (ReplayTV or TiVo) or build my own (which I did by building a SageTV-based HTPC.) But in either case, I am still stuck with needing a digital STB because the cable company won't send all channels "in the clear".
And frankly, Joe Sixpack has it harder than me because he isn't savvy enough to deal with the do-it-yourself issues. I end up having to work out his issues...;-)
But all of my guests do have cell phones, and wouldn't even think about asking to use my phone (landline or cell) because they'd just use their own.
But if a guest didn't have a cell phone, how would you initially react? Would you say, "Sure, here you go" or would you say, "What, you don't have a cell phone?!?"
I think the parent's point is that it's not so much relying on others as it is providing for others--that's a big difference. Too often, self-sufficiency leads to selfishness.
Every time the topic comes up people always pull out the "offline" card as if that is just so important. I just can't keep from wondering how many people ever work on their computer in an "offline" mode. Maybe if you use dial-up, but if you do, then online apps such as those from Google are not for you.... not to mention the fact that you must still be in the stone age.
It really has nothing to do with how often you need it or if you are living in the stoneage. It's all about who has control over your computing capabilities. There are still many areas that don't have the best broadband connectivity, so the ability to work with the proper tools regardless of available connectivity becomes important. (Of course, defining "proper tools" becomes the key.) Why rely on an either/or scenario when you could provide both integrated with some collaboration and innovative application design?
Since moving to broadband years ago, I can't say that I have ever worked "offline" by choice. I personally see no problem whatsoever in online apps that don't have "offline" counterparts. However, in Googles defense, their Docs and Spreadsheets apps work with file formats compatible with Microsoft Word and OpenOffice and even provide for synchronization to update from your "offline" changes. For photos, Google Picasa works both online and offline and as for E-Mail, I think that is a given, why would you even think of working on E-Mail when you are not connected?
Because composing and managing email doesn't require an online connection--it's only the act of sending and receiving that really requires it. Say I have my laptop with me, but I have no Wi-fi connection. (And if you think this is an unlikely scenario, then you need to get outside of congested, metro areas more.) And if I have free time while not connected, it could certainly be spent responding to and composing new email or working on other documents.
And what about battery life? Today, laptops sport batteries mere hours. Shutting off wireless can significantly lengthen battery use time, and that time could be put to very good, productive use. Maybe always-on online access will be more prevalent in the future, but until we get batteries with usage times measured in days instead of hours, we'll need to conserve power-draining functions.
The bottom line is that providing offline, syncable applications puts my computing use on MY terms, not on the terms of available online connectivity.
OK, I admit that I never caught the cell phone bug. I have one, but it's provided by work, so what model I have is their choice. I got one for my wife for emergencies and occasional use, and we talk with each other on it, but that's about all.
So how do you handle extensions? You know, someone calls you, and you want to say, "Honey, pick up an extension." so you can talk together. Do you just 3-way the call?
And how do you handle guests? Do you simply assume that if they want to make a call, they just use their own cell phone?
I certainly have nothing against cell phones, I jut never really felt a pressing need.
Oh, and how do you handle devices that need to "dial home" periodically? (ReplayTV box, DirecTV box, etc.)
If only they could work WITH Google to provide the offline client component.
Google's online offerings have matured, and are quite powerful, but there's still the disconnect when going offline. Not until I can work offline and seamlessly integrate/sync when I go back online will it be really effective.
I just won't be signing up for this idiotic service. As the other poster said, MythTV for me.
You make a good point. Though I opted to go the SageTV route, we pared back the premiums somewhat. My "tri-tuner" setup provides all the content we need. Two Hauppauge PVR-150's nicely record analog and digital content (one from a "raw" analog cable feed, and the other from a digital cable box providing premium, On-Demand, and PPV content.) And an HDHomeRun tuner records all the "clear" HD local channels right off of cable. It all looks sweet on a 42" LCD with HD recordings displaying as "true" HD.
And as for On-Demand or PPV, we can still watch then either directly through another input on our TV, or by doing a "workaround" by setting SageTV to a digital channel, and then manually tuning the cable box to the On-Demand/PPV channel with the cable remote. It's a bit of a kludge, but it works. And the bonus is that if we want, we can record what we watch if it's piped through SageTV.
And the reality is that with the number of "standard" channels that we have (we have a "mid-grade" cable package) we have more than enough content to suck up our time.
Oh, and remote Web access to most of SageTV's functions is stellar--it's nice to be able to schedule a show from just about anywhere!
If we do live longer to say 150 and you retire at say 70 would you really want to spend 80 years doing nothing..
I'm more worried that things like Social Security, 401(k) redemption, and the like will get bumped up to say, 120 years. Lotsa people investing and paying into systems, the fruits of which they will ultimately never see.
Hacking Windows XP Pro or using Server 2003 certainly would provide multi-user access, but you still need additional client boxes to access the multi-user environment, and that's not what he's looking for. He wants to leverage the "extra" keyboards, mice, and monitors on a limited number of PC's. In effect, he wants to create "multi-head" PC's, not multiple client boxes accessing a multi-user PC.
Elite. Ahh, now there's an amazing blast from the past!
My first exposure to Elite was on an Apple ][ and then on a C-64, and I simply couldn't get enough.
Later, when I got hooked on PalmOS devices, there came an excellent knockoff called Void which, though not perfect and sometimes hard to navigate on a Palm, provided hours of Elite-like fun. It also appears that Elite was actually written for the Palm by a third-party developer, but disagreements about distribution by the original Elite developers caused the project to be canceled.
One thing I find so amazing about Ubuntu is that initially, you can boot it live from the CD to at least see if it is compatible with your system. Then, it's just a simple matter of just initiating an install to the HD. This is a huge improvement over the sometimes hit-or-miss nature of some Windows installs.
The Sony Reader's form factor is pretty much what I'm looking for, but if I read the specs correctly, it only does "reading"--no PIM functions, no wireless, etc. And the UI appears to be controlled with the buttons only--no stylus or fingertip "on-screen" interaction.
Pull all THOSE features together in the Sony form factor, and I'd buy it.
I think we're finally getting closer to what I have been wanting all along: A PDA-like device with a decent screen. I'm a long-time proponent of PDA's, having owned numerous models since the Pilot 1000 over a decade ago, and the one thing that has annoyed me about the latest offerings is the limited screen size. The form factors are slick and usable, specifically noting the old Palm Vx, the Palm Z22, and the Palm TX, but they all share one thing in common: The screen displays only a small fraction of a "regular" page.
My dream device is one that uses a thin rugged design, has LONG battery life, provides effective finger or stylus input, has a screen that is readable in bright sunlight, provides a large enough screen to provide really productive information access, and is small enough to fit in a typical cargo-pants pocket. Front-pocketable or shirt-pocketable sizes are nice, but really make the viewing area too small. Go larger than a cargo-pants pocket size, and you can't easily take it with you everywhere.
Let's hope that the larger tablet form factor catches on.
"Back in the day" my Pilot 1000, Palm iii, and Palm Vx PDA's all had monochrome, backlit displays that were very viewable in the dark, in normal office lighting, and in bright sunlight. No, they weren't color, but I NEVER had to worry about being able to read the screens. Now, over a decade later we have PDA's that rival small laptops, have amazing storage capacities, execute applications unheard of in the past,but are COMPLETELY USELESS in bright sunlight. Despite all of the advances, I sometimes long for the days of simpler designs. I would personally love to see the Palm Vx resurrected with some of today's features but a high resolution monochrome screen.
And the same holds true for cell phones. I have a typical LG phone from Verizon (provided by work, do I have no choice in the model) and it has a great battery life, the features are decent, and the voice quality is better than most, but in the sinlight, the internal screen is completely unusable. The monochrome external screen is amazingly clear in sunlight, but it is useless in that it doesn't match the internal screen. Thank, God for speed dials.
And it's easy as long as your source doesn't have macrovision.
There's the rub. I have a small library of commercial VHS tapee, and I would like to convert some (not all) to digital. Most are certainly available on DVD format, so I've already "paid the tax" of re-buying most of them on DVD, but a small handful of tapes are not available on DVD. They are obviously MacroVision-protected, so what is a good solution to convert those few tapes?
I was the recipient of part of a "settlement" in an class action suit against AT&T a number of years ago, and the settlement I got was an AT&T calling card with free minutes on their service.
"Theoretically, life is far more documented than it's ever been in the past," said Fred Farrell, manager of private sector records. However, he adds it's not unrealistic to think all that documentation will be lost to deterioration over time.
Is this really that bad a thing? Do we really want everything preserved forever? Obviously, there are important exceptions (historical records, artwork, family "heirloom"-type information, etc. but do we really want all the day-to-day minutia to be so documented--forever?
Slashdot Mirror
Once Palm caved in to Graffiti 2, the rules changed, and for me, stylus input became more difficult.
In the end, Graffiti was really an input method, not handwriting recognition. The user learned to write Graffiti--Graffiti did not learn the user's writing style. This is a huge difference because it made things more predictable, and the computing power required to do it was minimal (consider the Casio "Zoomer" PDA that came out around the time of the Newton. It had minimal computing power, yet could handle Graffiti extremely well.)
The down side to all this, of course, was that when I wrote with pen and paper, I found myself writing Graffiti letters....
I don't think this is a misleading argument. You are absolutely correct in that Google providing email hosting for an ISP is nothing new. And it's certainly no different from an ISP outsourcing its email hosting to any of the countless email hosting services. But the confusion could come in the ISP user's "mis-perceptions". The ISP's users may THINK they are using Gmail accounts, not understanding that they are using Google-hosted accounts that are tied to that specific ISP. If they move from one ISP to another, they will have to give up their email address--something you don't have to do if you use a "real" Gmail account (or Hotmail, YahooMail, etc.)
Google's ISP email hosting provides all the nice Gmail features, but removes the portability, or more specifically, it removes the separation of email hosting from Internet access through an ISP.
The problem is that Joe Sixpack doesn't know this, and happily assumes that he MUST get his email access from his ISP.
Case in point: the RegisterFly.com debacle.
Many of us had solid, reliable, moderately-priced hosting accounts through RegisterFly for MANY years, and then one day, the world just turned upside down. The proverbial cover on the book always looked great, and they, in fact, proved themselves to be very reliable for a long time. But just like that, it just fizzled away. And related to the article, I managed to transfer 23/23 domains away from Registerfly.com, but interestingly, the last 2 transferred with zero notification. The "standard 5 days" just lapsed, and the domain was moved by default. Had I not initiated the transfer, someone else could have simply snagged my domains without any involvement from me.
Also, consider NetIdentity.com and their vanity email address service. Again, solid and reliable for many, many years. Then, they get bought out by Tucows, and all Hell broke loose.
The cost of services does not always reflect the quality.
For example, say I want a DVR to record my TV shows. That means that I either have to purchase or rent a 100% compatible DVR from a cable or satellite provider--a provider who maintains absolute control over what features and services are available to me. Or, I could provide my own (ReplayTV or TiVo) or build my own (which I did by building a SageTV-based HTPC.) But in either case, I am still stuck with needing a digital STB because the cable company won't send all channels "in the clear".
And frankly, Joe Sixpack has it harder than me because he isn't savvy enough to deal with the do-it-yourself issues. I end up having to work out his issues...
I think the parent's point is that it's not so much relying on others as it is providing for others--that's a big difference. Too often, self-sufficiency leads to selfishness.
And what about battery life? Today, laptops sport batteries mere hours. Shutting off wireless can significantly lengthen battery use time, and that time could be put to very good, productive use. Maybe always-on online access will be more prevalent in the future, but until we get batteries with usage times measured in days instead of hours, we'll need to conserve power-draining functions.
The bottom line is that providing offline, syncable applications puts my computing use on MY terms, not on the terms of available online connectivity.
OK, I admit that I never caught the cell phone bug. I have one, but it's provided by work, so what model I have is their choice. I got one for my wife for emergencies and occasional use, and we talk with each other on it, but that's about all.
So how do you handle extensions? You know, someone calls you, and you want to say, "Honey, pick up an extension." so you can talk together. Do you just 3-way the call?
And how do you handle guests? Do you simply assume that if they want to make a call, they just use their own cell phone?
I certainly have nothing against cell phones, I jut never really felt a pressing need.
Oh, and how do you handle devices that need to "dial home" periodically? (ReplayTV box, DirecTV box, etc.)
If only they could work WITH Google to provide the offline client component.
Google's online offerings have matured, and are quite powerful, but there's still the disconnect when going offline. Not until I can work offline and seamlessly integrate/sync when I go back online will it be really effective.
if I claim 00000000000000000000000008675309
You make a good point. Though I opted to go the SageTV route, we pared back the premiums somewhat. My "tri-tuner" setup provides all the content we need. Two Hauppauge PVR-150's nicely record analog and digital content (one from a "raw" analog cable feed, and the other from a digital cable box providing premium, On-Demand, and PPV content.) And an HDHomeRun tuner records all the "clear" HD local channels right off of cable. It all looks sweet on a 42" LCD with HD recordings displaying as "true" HD.
And as for On-Demand or PPV, we can still watch then either directly through another input on our TV, or by doing a "workaround" by setting SageTV to a digital channel, and then manually tuning the cable box to the On-Demand/PPV channel with the cable remote. It's a bit of a kludge, but it works. And the bonus is that if we want, we can record what we watch if it's piped through SageTV.
And the reality is that with the number of "standard" channels that we have (we have a "mid-grade" cable package) we have more than enough content to suck up our time.
Oh, and remote Web access to most of SageTV's functions is stellar--it's nice to be able to schedule a show from just about anywhere!
Hacking Windows XP Pro or using Server 2003 certainly would provide multi-user access, but you still need additional client boxes to access the multi-user environment, and that's not what he's looking for. He wants to leverage the "extra" keyboards, mice, and monitors on a limited number of PC's. In effect, he wants to create "multi-head" PC's, not multiple client boxes accessing a multi-user PC.
Not currently doable in Windows AFAIK.
..."chokolate" and be done with it. Then, there won't be any confusion.
Elite. Ahh, now there's an amazing blast from the past!
My first exposure to Elite was on an Apple ][ and then on a C-64, and I simply couldn't get enough.
Later, when I got hooked on PalmOS devices, there came an excellent knockoff called Void which, though not perfect and sometimes hard to navigate on a Palm, provided hours of Elite-like fun. It also appears that Elite was actually written for the Palm by a third-party developer, but disagreements about distribution by the original Elite developers caused the project to be canceled.
One thing I find so amazing about Ubuntu is that initially, you can boot it live from the CD to at least see if it is compatible with your system. Then, it's just a simple matter of just initiating an install to the HD. This is a huge improvement over the sometimes hit-or-miss nature of some Windows installs.
The Sony Reader's form factor is pretty much what I'm looking for, but if I read the specs correctly, it only does "reading"--no PIM functions, no wireless, etc. And the UI appears to be controlled with the buttons only--no stylus or fingertip "on-screen" interaction.
Pull all THOSE features together in the Sony form factor, and I'd buy it.
I think we're finally getting closer to what I have been wanting all along: A PDA-like device with a decent screen. I'm a long-time proponent of PDA's, having owned numerous models since the Pilot 1000 over a decade ago, and the one thing that has annoyed me about the latest offerings is the limited screen size. The form factors are slick and usable, specifically noting the old Palm Vx, the Palm Z22, and the Palm TX, but they all share one thing in common: The screen displays only a small fraction of a "regular" page.
My dream device is one that uses a thin rugged design, has LONG battery life, provides effective finger or stylus input, has a screen that is readable in bright sunlight, provides a large enough screen to provide really productive information access, and is small enough to fit in a typical cargo-pants pocket. Front-pocketable or shirt-pocketable sizes are nice, but really make the viewing area too small. Go larger than a cargo-pants pocket size, and you can't easily take it with you everywhere.
Let's hope that the larger tablet form factor catches on.
"Back in the day" my Pilot 1000, Palm iii, and Palm Vx PDA's all had monochrome, backlit displays that were very viewable in the dark, in normal office lighting, and in bright sunlight. No, they weren't color, but I NEVER had to worry about being able to read the screens. Now, over a decade later we have PDA's that rival small laptops, have amazing storage capacities, execute applications unheard of in the past,but are COMPLETELY USELESS in bright sunlight. Despite all of the advances, I sometimes long for the days of simpler designs. I would personally love to see the Palm Vx resurrected with some of today's features but a high resolution monochrome screen.
And the same holds true for cell phones. I have a typical LG phone from Verizon (provided by work, do I have no choice in the model) and it has a great battery life, the features are decent, and the voice quality is better than most, but in the sinlight, the internal screen is completely unusable. The monochrome external screen is amazingly clear in sunlight, but it is useless in that it doesn't match the internal screen. Thank, God for speed dials.
...get a job that does nothing more than publish studies that point out the obvious? I really can't believe money was spent to determine this.
There's the rub. I have a small library of commercial VHS tapee, and I would like to convert some (not all) to digital. Most are certainly available on DVD format, so I've already "paid the tax" of re-buying most of them on DVD, but a small handful of tapes are not available on DVD. They are obviously MacroVision-protected, so what is a good solution to convert those few tapes?
I was the recipient of part of a "settlement" in an class action suit against AT&T a number of years ago, and the settlement I got was an AT&T calling card with free minutes on their service.
...just very deep, unremarkable holes.