You're not up on the piracy scene. I've been downloading true DVD quality movies for a while now.
I think he meant legally.
A TiVo is essentially a computer. You can make your own with MythTV. It is more controllable and has better features.
Yes, and I've build a HTPC. However, you still have an issue getting DVD's onto it. (Of course, I can just stick in the DVD to watch it, but then it can't act as a server). You can either find a program to rip the DVD (but these possibly are all illegal) or you can find it on the internet (definitely illegal). You may have no qualms doing either of these, but it's not an acceptable solution for the masses. (Or, more importantly, Microsoft or some other company can't make this a feature of their product).
I'm really not so sure. You can't even download DVD quality movies off the internet yet, and with ('unrippable') HDDVD or BluRay being the next big thing, it seems even less likely that a computer will be the center of media. Then there's TV shows, which look better ripped off analog cable into a TiVo (which is cheaper than an Apple TV) than bought and paid for from iTMS.
You've touched about a topic that isn't covered too well in the article. There are a lot of players, here, and Apple and Microsoft may not be the most influential. As I see it, the players are:
The media companies: They'd like to keep selling you upgraded versions of the same things on shiny disks.
The cable and telcos: They'd like to sell you a big fat pipe, and then sell you TV episodes/movies as pay-per-view.
The computer companies: They'd like to sell you a place to put all this media (or at least the interface to it).
The customers: We want it all, we it cheap, and we want it to be easy. We also don't want anything we buy to be locked into something proprietary.
The media companies love DRM and other lock-ins. The consumer hates DRM (or at least would if they had any real choice in the matter). The computer companies are caught in the middle. DRM limits their ability to offer the consumers many of the products they might sell. (As you point out, if you can't get the media into hardware, the hardware's useless). However, DRM also allows them to lock you into using their hardware and software, so they could view DRM as a benefit. (Itunes and Ipods are a good example of this).
I don't where all this will end up. Us geeks might envision a system where we can store everything (TV shows recorded off the air, DVD rips, video downloads, plus similar for all our music), control it from almost anywhere, and then transfer it for viewing on any platform we wish. This doesn't mean that we'll get it.
1. Lots of people already have an Xbox 360, so the cost of the HD-DVD addon really doesn't seem so bad, compared to the $600 or $1000+ Blu-Ray players.
Perhaps true, but the reality is a year from now a lot less people will own the HD-DVD add-on then a PS3. Sony will win in a pure numbers game. However, Microsoft may introduce a new premium XBOX360 with the HD-DVD built in, which could keep HD-DVD on top.
2. I can't think of many Blu-ray movies that I just can't live without. There are loads of HD-DVD movies I would love to own.
I really haven't paid attention to what's available in each format. Since Sony owns a studio, they can keep those titles exclusive to Blue-Ray. (I don't know if they're doing this or not). The other studios will eventually go where the numbers are, unless they are paid off to do otherwise.
I do think the combination of Sony forcing the units out there (through the PS3) and forcing exclusives will ultimately doom HD-DVD, unless they can do simliar (by making HD-DVD standard on the XBOX360 and paying off studios for exclusives). Unfortunately, if the formats try to compete by getting exclusives then neither will win for a while, and the consumer looses.
As a side note, even though I think Blue-ray is better positioned to win the format war, Sony may loose the video game war in the process. By forcing Blue-ray through the PS3, they've made the PS3 way too expensive. A few people might buy the PS3 as a cheap Blue-ray player, but they are probably going loosing more people who aren't goint to buy the PS3 because it's too expensive for video games. After the success of PS1 and PS2, this video game round was Sony's to loose. It's not clear if Microsoft will be able to capitilize on Sony's mistakes. Clearly Nintendo's Wii is doing well, but only time will tell if that takes over the market or competes in a different space.
While I'll agree with your assesment that this is really cool work, (the first demonstration of a coaxial cable at optical frequencies), I'm not sure if any of the applications you list are likely.
NSOM: You really want something that's much smaller than the wavelength. This isn't. Lithography: Optically lithography works well because you project trillions of pixels at once. Something like this could only approach maybe a million or so. And like NSOM, you want something smaller than this will ever be. Optical computing: Maybe, but there are already plenty of ways to guide light using strictly dielectrics. If the materials could do interesting things, then maybe it could be useful.
Of course, if it has bluetooth and/or a headphone jack, it is no longer cumbersome to use as a phone (and you don't have to hold it up to your head, either.)
Ah, but if you are carrying around a headset, you are carrying two devices. (And the whole point of this convergence thing is to have one device do everything).
Your phone sounds pretty nice. Can you play music from the uSD card, or is the memory only used for storing pictures?
the coked-out mofos at Edge Wireless want $50/mo for unlimited EDGE GPRS.
See, as I was saying, they're always going to try to find a way to squeeze you. In this case it's the GPS instead of the camera that's suboptimum unless you fork over the $$$$.
You also bring up another problem with convergence devices: battery life.
I do agree that eventually it'll make sense to have one device do all of these things. As you point out, most people don't need a full fledged PDA (or GPS), so a smaller screen isn't a big deal. Eventually, memory will get small enough that 30 GB will easily fit in a phone. Battery life can probably be made good enough that you can listen to music all day without draining your phone. And hopefully, competition will force the phone companies to give us a phone that doesn't make us pay outrageous rates to use its features.
The biggest problem I have with a MP3/camara/Cellphone/PDA/GPS is the form factor. Cellphones need to have an appropriate shape and size to be held by hand to your ear and mouth. PDA's and GPS's benefit from big screens. If you make a cellphone with a big enough screen to be a useful PDA and GPS it is cumbersome to use as a phone, and visa versa. The MP3 player and camera also might add size and cost to the phone (particularly if you want 30 GB of space for your music), but this will decrease with time.
My other issue with these convergence devices is that the companies design the devices to squeeze money out of you, rather than making the devices you really want. For instance, my wife's phone can take pictures, but you need to email the pictures to get them off the phone, (and it'll cost you). Similarly, with other phones, they want you to buy music (again) just to put it on your phone. (My wife's phone doesn't have mp3 capabilities). Maybe some of the devices don't squeeze you like this, but I haven't got the time or the interest to figure out which is which.
Computers are already all-in-one devices, so this does make some sense. After all, a computer has all the pieces of a DVD player (or a HD player with the right drive), a PVR (if you have a TV card), a mp3 jukebox, and a front end for media stored anywhere (including the web), and perhaps a game machine. So, if you are going to make a computer based set-top box, you might as well include all these things. (For the games, downloadable retro games or similar are probably all you should attempt, though).
This box proposed by AMD does go a bit too far in that the box also functions as a receiver. Most people are probably going to prefer to be able to buy/use their own receiver which this box feeds.
One thing that is notable about this box is that it also functions as a cable box. If there is a true and useful cable card built into the box (Does such a thing exist?), then this is a good thing, and actually quite necessary for the PVR part of the box to be useful. Unfortunately, those evil letters you mentioned (DRM) are certainly going to rear their heads here, and probably neuter the box to the point of uselessness.
The issues facing any of these boxes are cost, existance of a market, and, as you point out, ease of use. The ease of use thing could be tackled, but no one has done it properly, yet. (Like you, I'd have the biggest faith in Apple for this part). Cost is a serious issue. As TiVo is finding out, the cable companies can subsidize their boxes, and then you can't compete on cost. As far as the market goes, most people will only want to use this box as PVR and maybe a jukebox. PVR's are already being supplied (cheaply) by the cable companies. As far as a jukebox goes, people already have their ipods. True Geeks like myself, will just build our own (at least until HD and DRM kills us). So, yes, this product is going to go nowhere.
If I can plug in a camara, edit the video, splice it with a movie (PVR) or sound file(MP3), and dump it to a DVD so that I can watch it anytime, then woo hoo, that makes sense.
I disagree here. Although it might be nice to easily plug in a camera to show friends pictures on the TV, I'd rather do any video editting on a PC at a desk. It would be great if the box they are selling will allow me to transfer videos to a PC, but again those ugly three letters (DRM) are probably going to rear their heads.
You do have a good point: A lot of money is spent by BigPharma (in both research and marketting) on things which aren't cures, but are instead on-going treatments. Many of these products make up the cash cows of the industry.
However, I'm not so cynical to believe companies would prevent a cure for cancer from happening. They are simply guilty of not making big investements in this area, because of lack of profit.
There are a number of practical reasons why it would be foolish for a company to try to prevent such a cure from happening, (and also why a company might still make some investments in this area). First off, if they don't do it, someone else will. Second, being able to brag "we're the company that cured cancer" is a marketting dream.
Even though the bean counters at BigPharma might only care about money, I can assure you the people doing the research care about other things, too. If one of these scientists thinks he/she has a cure for cancer, you'd need that ninja squad (as someone else suggest) to shut them up.
The rear view mirror had two controls, one to illuminate the compass the other simply labeled "mirror," which lit a small red light when depressed.
Sounds like the mirror has a night mode on it, which you can turn off if you wish. (This keeps the cars behind you from being too bright in your mirror. Older mirrors usually had two surfaces that you could choose between by tilting the mirror. Fancy new mirrors can dim automatically).
Next...
Simple or complex depends on your user, and whether that user is an expert. When ever we use something at first we don't want to be bombarded with lots of options. It's too much to learn at once. However, if we are very familar with the equipment, it's better to have all the options at our fingertips. Most of us are very familar with cars, and all these buttons have been added gradually. Therefore we are OK with it. A new driver might not feel the same way.
One of my examples at work is with a type of microscope that has become more computerized with time. The old interfaces had more than 20 dials and buttons on it. The new ones are run by computers with a couple of buttons. (Of course, many of those buttons open other buttons. So, it's not really simpler, it's just that the a lot of the complication is buried). New systems are much easier to use at first. However, an expert will be able to work at lot faster on the old system, since all those controls are at his/her fingertips.
And I still find time to e-mail, post on various forums, compose original music, make movies, work on my photography hobby, work on a variety of computer projects, etc
Damn, I don't know you find all that time. Do you sleep or spend any time alone with your wife? I'm in a vitually identical situation and pretty much all my hobbies have gone away to lack of time. (OK, I find a few minutes here and there to read and post on Slashdot). After the kid is in bed, I've only got an hour and half or so to do the chores, hang out with my wife, and maybe sit at the computer for a little bit.
Generations of kids survived mom's gossiping on the kitchen phone in the past.
That's a really good point. Really there are two issues here: 1. spending enough time with your kids. 2. Paying proper attention to them when you are spending time with them. For issue 1, the blackberry is no different then the phone (except it is more accessible), as you point out. For issue 2, however, the blackberry can be much worse, since the parent can be pretending to spend time with their children while they are distracted by typing/reading their blackberry. That's just rude, and hardly the way to treat your kids.
You have a point, but you are looking at carefully chosen examples. That $5 might mean a lot to those families if it can feed them for a while. Of course, after a while, those families will just have the same problem again. So, yes, you also need to grow the economy, and that will mean some people will get rich. The question isn't whether some people should be able to get rich, the question is how much do you tax the rich to feed the poor? It's a balancing act. You certainly don't want to stiffle businesses. However, you also need to tax people to provide services and a cushion for the very poor. People feel it is just to tax the rich more than the poor or even middle class since they are the ones who can afford it.
As far as your last statement goes, it really doesn't matter much whether that $5 mil is spent on luxury goods by the rich person, or whether it spent on food and clothes by the poor. Either way that money goes back into the economy. The only way that money leaves the economy is if it ends up stuffed in someone's pillow.
As the Grandparent points out, housing prices are what kills you. Pretty much everything else (cars, toys, eating out) has not increased at the rate of real estate. This is particularly true if you want to live near a city where there is no room to build any more, and if you want your kids to go to decent schools. A large home under these conditions isn't an option even if you have two incomes, unless you are very well off. Just ask anyone living in or near NY, Boston, or San Francisco or many other citys.
My own experience is that I make a lot more in real dollars than my father did, and yet, my house is much smaller. A large part of that may be due to the fact that I live near a city and I grew up way out in the suburbs. However, if you look at the older people in my neighborhood, it was strictly blue collar at one time. The people moving in today are all professionals, often with two incomes. There is no way the people who lived in my neighborhood 25 years ago could afford to move there today.
My wife also works, even though we probably could squeek by if she didn't and we didn't haven't to pay for daycare. Because she works, we can afford many luxuries I didn't have as a kid. We can afford nicer cars, clothes, eat out a lot, etc. However, buying a signficantly nicer house would be tough even with her additional income.
Even though I may agree that global warming is occuring, it is often difficult to relate the cause to the symptom. For instance...
Desertification of the US midwest - underway. I live in Alberta (Canada), and we expect to run out of glacial runoff in the next 15-20 years, leaving our river and main source of water bone dry for half the year. On top of that, the climate is getting dryer, and the water shelf is dropping. These are known to most residents here.
Glacial runoff may be a good indication. However, I wonder if the water shelf is dropping due to the large number of wells pulling water out of it.
Decline of coral reefs - underway. Most of the reefs affected by El Nino (Belize's great barrier reef in particular) are almost completely dead. Scuba diving was a lot more interesting about 15 years ago.
A serious environmental problem, but I always thought the decline of the reefs is due to other problems, such as fertilizer run-off and other pollution. (The reef in Belize, however, may be one example where the problems are from El Nino, but I don't think that's true of most reefs).
Disruption of Antarctic ice shelves - underway. There has been massive breakups of ice shelves in the last few years. Actually the predictions were mostly wrong; this is happening faster than we thought.
This, along with the glacier example above, is perhaps a good indication of warming. Unfortunately, it's often hard to separate the short term fluctuations from long term disasters.
I'm not saying you are wrong, it's just that climate prediction is complicated. Because few people in the world really understand things well enough to make a meaningful prediction, these discusions seem to take almost a religious tone - no one really listens, they just insist they are right. Global warming may be impossible to prove to many people's satisfaction until it's too late.
You have to use a "special" FAA approved cable to connect to the video input of the screen as well as the charging unit. The airline will provide this to you for $5 which includes the rental price of the monitor.
Is that a one time purchase, or am I actually just renting the cable? $5 per flight is a little steep, but not horrible depending on the length of the flight. If it's a one time purchase, then who cares, (except for the fact that now you have to carry around the extra cable)?
Or, are you just joking? Sarcasm is sometimes hard to read.
Sorry me again. I just realized you posted the Grandparent on total war. The problem with that option is that part of the population who doesn't want us to leave now, very quickly will want us to leave if we go that route.
Seriously though, I agree that just pulling out would probably be a disaster. But, I'm not convinced a disaster of some sort isn't inevitable. We've set in motion a really big mess. Is there really a solution? If you have one, can you share it with Robert Gates?
The ethnic/religious power struggle in Iraq is going to shake out with lots of blood, and it won't be over any time soon. There is no reason for us to lose countless more lives over a process that will have no effect on the final results. Americans don't care as much about Iraq as Iraqis do. They are going to fight stronger, longer, and harder. It's their country and their future.
You know what, I think you pretty much nailed it right there.
I'm not quite as convinced that we can't have a positive influence, but I'm not sure it's worth the cost. I think we can do a lot more good over there if we lower our troop numbers, concentrate on training, rebuilding infrastructure, and leave policing the population to the Iraqis. (We'll off course need military protection for our people). Things will definitely get worse before they get better no matter what we do.
The battle is really for the hearts and minds of people. We aren't going to be able to win over people with military force. I think our only hope is to win them over by helping them to help themselves. I suspect I'm dreaming, but I just feel it would be wrong for us to give up after we helped create this mess.
As far as appearing weak, there is no reasonable option which doesn't have this effect. As you quoted me, "we are weak when we try to influence what happens inside other countries", for the very reasons you state.
I agree with your general sentiment, but not everything...
I don't blame us for not winning these wars. I don't think there's anything wrong with not being willing to fight a total war unless your own survival is at stake. Since our own safety was not at stake with any of these wars, it doesn't seem right for us to cause the kind of distruction a total war would cause.
What I blame us for is getting involved with the many of these fights in the first place. None of these countries were any threat to us. How many of them attacked us or had any real plans to? Occasionally military action is justified - Afghanistan, who, in effect, did attack us, or Kuwait, who we did succeed in "freeing" from Iraq. However, getting involved in Cival Wars (Vietnam, Korea) or overthrowing leaders (Iraq) is just a bad idea. Even with Afghanistan, where we did overthrow the leaders, we aren't out of the woods. In that case, though, we didn't have much choice.
One way out is to give up. This will make us look weak. (The reality is, when it comes to controlling what happens inside other countries we are weak).
The other way out is to be ruthless. Worse than Saddam Hussein ruthless. Even if we had the stomach for this, it might not work without at least some support from some of the population. (Saddam had the support of his Baath party). It would be pretty horrible to be worse than the govenment we (rightfully) called so evil.
The only other option is to stay the course. Essentially, influence Iraq the best we can without giving up or becoming evil. Unfortunately, there's no guarantee we'll get the results we want. (In fact, it currently looks like it won't). In addition, who knows how many lives it will cost? It's a pretty expensive gamble.
Anyone with half a brain could have predicted this before we invaded Iraq. (Just ask G. Bush, Sr.) Unfortionately, we broke it, and now we bought it. I don't see any good solutions. The best suggested I've seen was mentioned by the senator who was interviewed here recently. He suggested letting the Iraqqies (sp?) vote. If they want us to leave, we'll leave. There's no disgrace in doing what the Iraqqies want us to. If they want us to stay, then it might not solve everything, but at least it will give us some legitimacy.
The bandwidth is NOT the issue, the selection is an issue.
I'm going to disagree with you here, at least if you consider your competition rentals and not purchases. When people want to watch a movie, they want to watch it now, or at least that evening. Downloading kiosks are an interesting idea, but I'm not sure they have enough of an advantage over the current rental system to make it worthwhile. What people really want is to push a button in their living and instantly start watching. A minute delay while a buffer fills might be acceptable, but waiting until the next day probably isn't.
Having said this, a Netflix like scheme where you always have a few new movies on hand might work.
For music itunes is for mostly people who only want to buy one or two songs and not the album. As others have pointed out, this model translates reasonably well for TV shows where itunes allows you to buy one episode and not the entire season. For movies, however, itunes offers no such advantage, since the competing product (a DVD) is already cut to as small a product as someone would buy. So, I agree with you. Why would someone buy such an inferior product just for a small amount of convenience? The one way to sell someone a smaller product is by limited the time, instead of the content - in other words a rental. This is why I sort of agree with...
DRM rentals, $1-$2 each is the MAGIC spot and will be norm in 2010.
I do think we are heading this way. However, I don't think it'll be that cheap, at least not for new releases. (Where can you rent DVD's for $2, anyway)? The real question is, who is going to provide you with the rental? Apple, Microsoft, Sony, the cable company, or your phone company? My money is on the cable companies since they are already beginning the process with pay-per-view. This is also why the telecos want a teired internet. With a teired internet, they can lock out the competition, or at least be assured they can make a hefty profit no matter who wins, (with the exception of the cable companies who can use their own lines).
Uhm, if bored teenagers acted out a violent scene today (in a location where people would notice), a cop still will show up. So, what's changed? All that's changed is people are going to be able to notice more locations.
Why do so many people think such a system will automatically trigger the cops? All that such a system will trigger is someone to look at the camera video to make a decision. This will allow a person to monitor more cameras, but nothing else changes. (Of course, if a person can monitor more cameras we are likely to end up with more cameras and that is important).
A system like this could actually help privacy when compared to an alternative: a human being monitoring every camera. A computer watching me has no effect on my privacy, it's only when a person sees what the computer recorded that my privacy is affected. (What that person sees doesn't have to be a video, it could be the computers report, etc.). If a computer is monitoring a bunch of cameras but only flagging a few minutes here and there for human inspection, then only those minutes invade anyone's privacy. If the algorithms mostly catch what they are supposed to, and not Joe-shmoe going into a porn store (flagged for later blackmailing) then I don't necessarily see the problem.
On the other hand, such a system would encourage many more cameras, since cameras are cheap and people to watch them are expensive. In addition, no doubt the computers will record everything permanently so that criminals can later be identified. This is not a bad thing if the proper safeguards are in place. For example, no one should get to look at those recordings without a court order. Unfortunately, I don't have any confidence that such safeguards will exist.
Slashdot Mirror
You're not up on the piracy scene. I've been downloading true DVD quality movies for a while now.
I think he meant legally.
A TiVo is essentially a computer. You can make your own with MythTV. It is more controllable and has better features.
Yes, and I've build a HTPC. However, you still have an issue getting DVD's onto it. (Of course, I can just stick in the DVD to watch it, but then it can't act as a server). You can either find a program to rip the DVD (but these possibly are all illegal) or you can find it on the internet (definitely illegal). You may have no qualms doing either of these, but it's not an acceptable solution for the masses. (Or, more importantly, Microsoft or some other company can't make this a feature of their product).
I'm really not so sure. You can't even download DVD quality movies off the internet yet, and with ('unrippable') HDDVD or BluRay being the next big thing, it seems even less likely that a computer will be the center of media. Then there's TV shows, which look better ripped off analog cable into a TiVo (which is cheaper than an Apple TV) than bought and paid for from iTMS.
You've touched about a topic that isn't covered too well in the article. There are a lot of players, here, and Apple and Microsoft may not be the most influential. As I see it, the players are:
The media companies: They'd like to keep selling you upgraded versions of the same things on shiny disks.
The cable and telcos: They'd like to sell you a big fat pipe, and then sell you TV episodes/movies as pay-per-view.
The computer companies: They'd like to sell you a place to put all this media (or at least the interface to it).
The customers: We want it all, we it cheap, and we want it to be easy. We also don't want anything we buy to be locked into something proprietary.
The media companies love DRM and other lock-ins. The consumer hates DRM (or at least would if they had any real choice in the matter). The computer companies are caught in the middle. DRM limits their ability to offer the consumers many of the products they might sell. (As you point out, if you can't get the media into hardware, the hardware's useless). However, DRM also allows them to lock you into using their hardware and software, so they could view DRM as a benefit. (Itunes and Ipods are a good example of this).
I don't where all this will end up. Us geeks might envision a system where we can store everything (TV shows recorded off the air, DVD rips, video downloads, plus similar for all our music), control it from almost anywhere, and then transfer it for viewing on any platform we wish. This doesn't mean that we'll get it.
1. Lots of people already have an Xbox 360, so the cost of the HD-DVD addon really doesn't seem so bad, compared to the $600 or $1000+ Blu-Ray players.
Perhaps true, but the reality is a year from now a lot less people will own the HD-DVD add-on then a PS3. Sony will win in a pure numbers game. However, Microsoft may introduce a new premium XBOX360 with the HD-DVD built in, which could keep HD-DVD on top.
2. I can't think of many Blu-ray movies that I just can't live without. There are loads of HD-DVD movies I would love to own.
I really haven't paid attention to what's available in each format. Since Sony owns a studio, they can keep those titles exclusive to Blue-Ray. (I don't know if they're doing this or not). The other studios will eventually go where the numbers are, unless they are paid off to do otherwise.
I do think the combination of Sony forcing the units out there (through the PS3) and forcing exclusives will ultimately doom HD-DVD, unless they can do simliar (by making HD-DVD standard on the XBOX360 and paying off studios for exclusives). Unfortunately, if the formats try to compete by getting exclusives then neither will win for a while, and the consumer looses.
As a side note, even though I think Blue-ray is better positioned to win the format war, Sony may loose the video game war in the process. By forcing Blue-ray through the PS3, they've made the PS3 way too expensive. A few people might buy the PS3 as a cheap Blue-ray player, but they are probably going loosing more people who aren't goint to buy the PS3 because it's too expensive for video games. After the success of PS1 and PS2, this video game round was Sony's to loose. It's not clear if Microsoft will be able to capitilize on Sony's mistakes. Clearly Nintendo's Wii is doing well, but only time will tell if that takes over the market or competes in a different space.
While I'll agree with your assesment that this is really cool work, (the first demonstration of a coaxial cable at optical frequencies), I'm not sure if any of the applications you list are likely.
NSOM: You really want something that's much smaller than the wavelength. This isn't.
Lithography: Optically lithography works well because you project trillions of pixels at once. Something like this could only approach maybe a million or so. And like NSOM, you want something smaller than this will ever be.
Optical computing: Maybe, but there are already plenty of ways to guide light using strictly dielectrics. If the materials could do interesting things, then maybe it could be useful.
Of course, if it has bluetooth and/or a headphone jack, it is no longer cumbersome to use as a phone (and you don't have to hold it up to your head, either.)
Ah, but if you are carrying around a headset, you are carrying two devices. (And the whole point of this convergence thing is to have one device do everything).
Your phone sounds pretty nice. Can you play music from the uSD card, or is the memory only used for storing pictures?
the coked-out mofos at Edge Wireless want $50/mo for unlimited EDGE GPRS.
See, as I was saying, they're always going to try to find a way to squeeze you. In this case it's the GPS instead of the camera that's suboptimum unless you fork over the $$$$.
You also bring up another problem with convergence devices: battery life.
I do agree that eventually it'll make sense to have one device do all of these things. As you point out, most people don't need a full fledged PDA (or GPS), so a smaller screen isn't a big deal. Eventually, memory will get small enough that 30 GB will easily fit in a phone. Battery life can probably be made good enough that you can listen to music all day without draining your phone. And hopefully, competition will force the phone companies to give us a phone that doesn't make us pay outrageous rates to use its features.
The biggest problem I have with a MP3/camara/Cellphone/PDA/GPS is the form factor. Cellphones need to have an appropriate shape and size to be held by hand to your ear and mouth. PDA's and GPS's benefit from big screens. If you make a cellphone with a big enough screen to be a useful PDA and GPS it is cumbersome to use as a phone, and visa versa. The MP3 player and camera also might add size and cost to the phone (particularly if you want 30 GB of space for your music), but this will decrease with time.
My other issue with these convergence devices is that the companies design the devices to squeeze money out of you, rather than making the devices you really want. For instance, my wife's phone can take pictures, but you need to email the pictures to get them off the phone, (and it'll cost you). Similarly, with other phones, they want you to buy music (again) just to put it on your phone. (My wife's phone doesn't have mp3 capabilities). Maybe some of the devices don't squeeze you like this, but I haven't got the time or the interest to figure out which is which.
Computers are already all-in-one devices, so this does make some sense. After all, a computer has all the pieces of a DVD player (or a HD player with the right drive), a PVR (if you have a TV card), a mp3 jukebox, and a front end for media stored anywhere (including the web), and perhaps a game machine. So, if you are going to make a computer based set-top box, you might as well include all these things. (For the games, downloadable retro games or similar are probably all you should attempt, though).
This box proposed by AMD does go a bit too far in that the box also functions as a receiver. Most people are probably going to prefer to be able to buy/use their own receiver which this box feeds.
One thing that is notable about this box is that it also functions as a cable box. If there is a true and useful cable card built into the box (Does such a thing exist?), then this is a good thing, and actually quite necessary for the PVR part of the box to be useful. Unfortunately, those evil letters you mentioned (DRM) are certainly going to rear their heads here, and probably neuter the box to the point of uselessness.
The issues facing any of these boxes are cost, existance of a market, and, as you point out, ease of use. The ease of use thing could be tackled, but no one has done it properly, yet. (Like you, I'd have the biggest faith in Apple for this part). Cost is a serious issue. As TiVo is finding out, the cable companies can subsidize their boxes, and then you can't compete on cost. As far as the market goes, most people will only want to use this box as PVR and maybe a jukebox. PVR's are already being supplied (cheaply) by the cable companies. As far as a jukebox goes, people already have their ipods. True Geeks like myself, will just build our own (at least until HD and DRM kills us). So, yes, this product is going to go nowhere.
If I can plug in a camara, edit the video, splice it with a movie (PVR) or sound file(MP3), and dump it to a DVD so that I can watch it anytime, then woo hoo, that makes sense.
I disagree here. Although it might be nice to easily plug in a camera to show friends pictures on the TV, I'd rather do any video editting on a PC at a desk. It would be great if the box they are selling will allow me to transfer videos to a PC, but again those ugly three letters (DRM) are probably going to rear their heads.
You do have a good point: A lot of money is spent by BigPharma (in both research and marketting) on things which aren't cures, but are instead on-going treatments. Many of these products make up the cash cows of the industry.
However, I'm not so cynical to believe companies would prevent a cure for cancer from happening. They are simply guilty of not making big investements in this area, because of lack of profit.
There are a number of practical reasons why it would be foolish for a company to try to prevent such a cure from happening, (and also why a company might still make some investments in this area). First off, if they don't do it, someone else will. Second, being able to brag "we're the company that cured cancer" is a marketting dream.
Even though the bean counters at BigPharma might only care about money, I can assure you the people doing the research care about other things, too. If one of these scientists thinks he/she has a cure for cancer, you'd need that ninja squad (as someone else suggest) to shut them up.
This will be similar to Never Say Never Again, when Sean Connery returned as an old-ass James Bond, making Roger Moore look better than ever
True, but the funny thing about this is that Roger Moore is actually older than Sean Connery (by about 3 years).
First off...
The rear view mirror had two controls, one to illuminate the compass the other simply labeled "mirror," which lit a small red light when depressed.
Sounds like the mirror has a night mode on it, which you can turn off if you wish. (This keeps the cars behind you from being too bright in your mirror. Older mirrors usually had two surfaces that you could choose between by tilting the mirror. Fancy new mirrors can dim automatically).
Next...
Simple or complex depends on your user, and whether that user is an expert. When ever we use something at first we don't want to be bombarded with lots of options. It's too much to learn at once. However, if we are very familar with the equipment, it's better to have all the options at our fingertips. Most of us are very familar with cars, and all these buttons have been added gradually. Therefore we are OK with it. A new driver might not feel the same way.
One of my examples at work is with a type of microscope that has become more computerized with time. The old interfaces had more than 20 dials and buttons on it. The new ones are run by computers with a couple of buttons. (Of course, many of those buttons open other buttons. So, it's not really simpler, it's just that the a lot of the complication is buried). New systems are much easier to use at first. However, an expert will be able to work at lot faster on the old system, since all those controls are at his/her fingertips.
And I still find time to e-mail, post on various forums, compose original music, make movies, work on my photography hobby, work on a variety of computer projects, etc
Damn, I don't know you find all that time. Do you sleep or spend any time alone with your wife? I'm in a vitually identical situation and pretty much all my hobbies have gone away to lack of time. (OK, I find a few minutes here and there to read and post on Slashdot). After the kid is in bed, I've only got an hour and half or so to do the chores, hang out with my wife, and maybe sit at the computer for a little bit.
Generations of kids survived mom's gossiping on the kitchen phone in the past.
That's a really good point. Really there are two issues here: 1. spending enough time with your kids. 2. Paying proper attention to them when you are spending time with them. For issue 1, the blackberry is no different then the phone (except it is more accessible), as you point out. For issue 2, however, the blackberry can be much worse, since the parent can be pretending to spend time with their children while they are distracted by typing/reading their blackberry. That's just rude, and hardly the way to treat your kids.
Which question are you answering (the first or second one)?
You have a point, but you are looking at carefully chosen examples. That $5 might mean a lot to those families if it can feed them for a while. Of course, after a while, those families will just have the same problem again. So, yes, you also need to grow the economy, and that will mean some people will get rich. The question isn't whether some people should be able to get rich, the question is how much do you tax the rich to feed the poor? It's a balancing act. You certainly don't want to stiffle businesses. However, you also need to tax people to provide services and a cushion for the very poor. People feel it is just to tax the rich more than the poor or even middle class since they are the ones who can afford it.
As far as your last statement goes, it really doesn't matter much whether that $5 mil is spent on luxury goods by the rich person, or whether it spent on food and clothes by the poor. Either way that money goes back into the economy. The only way that money leaves the economy is if it ends up stuffed in someone's pillow.
As the Grandparent points out, housing prices are what kills you. Pretty much everything else (cars, toys, eating out) has not increased at the rate of real estate. This is particularly true if you want to live near a city where there is no room to build any more, and if you want your kids to go to decent schools. A large home under these conditions isn't an option even if you have two incomes, unless you are very well off. Just ask anyone living in or near NY, Boston, or San Francisco or many other citys.
My own experience is that I make a lot more in real dollars than my father did, and yet, my house is much smaller. A large part of that may be due to the fact that I live near a city and I grew up way out in the suburbs. However, if you look at the older people in my neighborhood, it was strictly blue collar at one time. The people moving in today are all professionals, often with two incomes. There is no way the people who lived in my neighborhood 25 years ago could afford to move there today.
My wife also works, even though we probably could squeek by if she didn't and we didn't haven't to pay for daycare. Because she works, we can afford many luxuries I didn't have as a kid. We can afford nicer cars, clothes, eat out a lot, etc. However, buying a signficantly nicer house would be tough even with her additional income.
Even though I may agree that global warming is occuring, it is often difficult to relate the cause to the symptom. For instance...
Desertification of the US midwest - underway. I live in Alberta (Canada), and we expect to run out of glacial runoff in the next 15-20 years, leaving our river and main source of water bone dry for half the year. On top of that, the climate is getting dryer, and the water shelf is dropping. These are known to most residents here.
Glacial runoff may be a good indication. However, I wonder if the water shelf is dropping due to the large number of wells pulling water out of it.
Decline of coral reefs - underway. Most of the reefs affected by El Nino (Belize's great barrier reef in particular) are almost completely dead. Scuba diving was a lot more interesting about 15 years ago.
A serious environmental problem, but I always thought the decline of the reefs is due to other problems, such as fertilizer run-off and other pollution. (The reef in Belize, however, may be one example where the problems are from El Nino, but I don't think that's true of most reefs).
Disruption of Antarctic ice shelves - underway. There has been massive breakups of ice shelves in the last few years. Actually the predictions were mostly wrong; this is happening faster than we thought.
This, along with the glacier example above, is perhaps a good indication of warming. Unfortunately, it's often hard to separate the short term fluctuations from long term disasters.
I'm not saying you are wrong, it's just that climate prediction is complicated. Because few people in the world really understand things well enough to make a meaningful prediction, these discusions seem to take almost a religious tone - no one really listens, they just insist they are right. Global warming may be impossible to prove to many people's satisfaction until it's too late.
You have to use a "special" FAA approved cable to connect to the video input of the screen as well as the charging unit. The airline will provide this to you for $5 which includes the rental price of the monitor.
Is that a one time purchase, or am I actually just renting the cable? $5 per flight is a little steep, but not horrible depending on the length of the flight. If it's a one time purchase, then who cares, (except for the fact that now you have to carry around the extra cable)?
Or, are you just joking? Sarcasm is sometimes hard to read.
Sorry me again. I just realized you posted the Grandparent on total war. The problem with that option is that part of the population who doesn't want us to leave now, very quickly will want us to leave if we go that route.
If you want to win, you've got to play the game.
OK, sounds simple enough. I like games...
Seriously though, I agree that just pulling out would probably be a disaster. But, I'm not convinced a disaster of some sort isn't inevitable. We've set in motion a really big mess. Is there really a solution? If you have one, can you share it with Robert Gates?
The ethnic/religious power struggle in Iraq is going to shake out with lots of blood, and it won't be over any time soon. There is no reason for us to lose countless more lives over a process that will have no effect on the final results. Americans don't care as much about Iraq as Iraqis do. They are going to fight stronger, longer, and harder. It's their country and their future.
You know what, I think you pretty much nailed it right there.
I'm not quite as convinced that we can't have a positive influence, but I'm not sure it's worth the cost. I think we can do a lot more good over there if we lower our troop numbers, concentrate on training, rebuilding infrastructure, and leave policing the population to the Iraqis. (We'll off course need military protection for our people). Things will definitely get worse before they get better no matter what we do.
The battle is really for the hearts and minds of people. We aren't going to be able to win over people with military force. I think our only hope is to win them over by helping them to help themselves. I suspect I'm dreaming, but I just feel it would be wrong for us to give up after we helped create this mess.
As far as appearing weak, there is no reasonable option which doesn't have this effect. As you quoted me, "we are weak when we try to influence what happens inside other countries", for the very reasons you state.
I agree with your general sentiment, but not everything...
I don't blame us for not winning these wars. I don't think there's anything wrong with not being willing to fight a total war unless your own survival is at stake. Since our own safety was not at stake with any of these wars, it doesn't seem right for us to cause the kind of distruction a total war would cause.
What I blame us for is getting involved with the many of these fights in the first place. None of these countries were any threat to us. How many of them attacked us or had any real plans to? Occasionally military action is justified - Afghanistan, who, in effect, did attack us, or Kuwait, who we did succeed in "freeing" from Iraq. However, getting involved in Cival Wars (Vietnam, Korea) or overthrowing leaders (Iraq) is just a bad idea. Even with Afghanistan, where we did overthrow the leaders, we aren't out of the woods. In that case, though, we didn't have much choice.
You are right, we are now trapped in Iraq.
One way out is to give up. This will make us look weak. (The reality is, when it comes to controlling what happens inside other countries we are weak).
The other way out is to be ruthless. Worse than Saddam Hussein ruthless. Even if we had the stomach for this, it might not work without at least some support from some of the population. (Saddam had the support of his Baath party). It would be pretty horrible to be worse than the govenment we (rightfully) called so evil.
The only other option is to stay the course. Essentially, influence Iraq the best we can without giving up or becoming evil. Unfortunately, there's no guarantee we'll get the results we want. (In fact, it currently looks like it won't). In addition, who knows how many lives it will cost? It's a pretty expensive gamble.
Anyone with half a brain could have predicted this before we invaded Iraq. (Just ask G. Bush, Sr.) Unfortionately, we broke it, and now we bought it. I don't see any good solutions. The best suggested I've seen was mentioned by the senator who was interviewed here recently. He suggested letting the Iraqqies (sp?) vote. If they want us to leave, we'll leave. There's no disgrace in doing what the Iraqqies want us to. If they want us to stay, then it might not solve everything, but at least it will give us some legitimacy.
The bandwidth is NOT the issue, the selection is an issue.
I'm going to disagree with you here, at least if you consider your competition rentals and not purchases. When people want to watch a movie, they want to watch it now, or at least that evening. Downloading kiosks are an interesting idea, but I'm not sure they have enough of an advantage over the current rental system to make it worthwhile. What people really want is to push a button in their living and instantly start watching. A minute delay while a buffer fills might be acceptable, but waiting until the next day probably isn't.
Having said this, a Netflix like scheme where you always have a few new movies on hand might work.
For music itunes is for mostly people who only want to buy one or two songs and not the album. As others have pointed out, this model translates reasonably well for TV shows where itunes allows you to buy one episode and not the entire season. For movies, however, itunes offers no such advantage, since the competing product (a DVD) is already cut to as small a product as someone would buy. So, I agree with you. Why would someone buy such an inferior product just for a small amount of convenience? The one way to sell someone a smaller product is by limited the time, instead of the content - in other words a rental. This is why I sort of agree with...
DRM rentals, $1-$2 each is the MAGIC spot and will be norm in 2010.
I do think we are heading this way. However, I don't think it'll be that cheap, at least not for new releases. (Where can you rent DVD's for $2, anyway)? The real question is, who is going to provide you with the rental? Apple, Microsoft, Sony, the cable company, or your phone company? My money is on the cable companies since they are already beginning the process with pay-per-view. This is also why the telecos want a teired internet. With a teired internet, they can lock out the competition, or at least be assured they can make a hefty profit no matter who wins, (with the exception of the cable companies who can use their own lines).
Uhm, if bored teenagers acted out a violent scene today (in a location where people would notice), a cop still will show up. So, what's changed? All that's changed is people are going to be able to notice more locations.
Why do so many people think such a system will automatically trigger the cops? All that such a system will trigger is someone to look at the camera video to make a decision. This will allow a person to monitor more cameras, but nothing else changes. (Of course, if a person can monitor more cameras we are likely to end up with more cameras and that is important).
A system like this could actually help privacy when compared to an alternative: a human being monitoring every camera. A computer watching me has no effect on my privacy, it's only when a person sees what the computer recorded that my privacy is affected. (What that person sees doesn't have to be a video, it could be the computers report, etc.). If a computer is monitoring a bunch of cameras but only flagging a few minutes here and there for human inspection, then only those minutes invade anyone's privacy. If the algorithms mostly catch what they are supposed to, and not Joe-shmoe going into a porn store (flagged for later blackmailing) then I don't necessarily see the problem.
On the other hand, such a system would encourage many more cameras, since cameras are cheap and people to watch them are expensive. In addition, no doubt the computers will record everything permanently so that criminals can later be identified. This is not a bad thing if the proper safeguards are in place. For example, no one should get to look at those recordings without a court order. Unfortunately, I don't have any confidence that such safeguards will exist.