Then of course, there's the "half-yoke" used in the http://www.cirrusdesign.com/ Cirrus Design SR series of aircraft. Looks for all the world like a joystick, but flies like a one-handled yoke. Unusual, but since you usually fly a two-handled yoke one-handed anyway it's easily adapted to.
For those who aren't pilots, normal procedure is to have one hand on the yoke and the other operating all the other controls (radios, fuel, throttle etc.).
I'm British. There, got that out of the way. I'm a British citizen still working and living in the USA after 10 years, so my viewpoint on the British workforce is probably a little different than the linked reporter.
There's a pervasive attitude in British industry that the work is just a job until something better comes along. I think it really is a deep-seated feeling that the British Empire is smaller than it used to be, but its citizens should be above tedious menial labor. Now, this attitude isn't as pervasive now as it probably was in the past, but it's there and it's addictive. I know, I felt exactly that way when I lived and worked in London.
Now, I'm not saying the report is invalid but I do feel like other posters that the report is too focused on IT. If you did the same survey with accountants you'd probably find very similar numbers.
I'm also not saying that this is unique to Britain. I'd say the figures would be very similar in the USA if not more so. One need only look at the humor of a culture to get a good idea of how it views work. OK, so the British have The Office... but the USA has probably longer history of work-related comedy than the British do: Dilbert, Office Space, you name it.
I'd say from my non-scientific and unstudied viewpoint here working for an American company with American colleagues that generally people are somewhat disenchanted with their jobs, but generally seem to be relatively happy with their lot. Remembering my colleagues in Britain, it seemed they were never happy. This was not limited to IT either; it was true of everyone.
Ironically, I'd also say that the British people I still work with today within this American company tend to be more focused on their work... but maybe that's just because of the type of people I deal with.
During my long years I've been both a software engineer and a systems engineer (and a brief stint as a manager that we just won't talk about, mmmmkay?)
Anyway, the choice basically comes down to what you prefer. Both are heavily analytical but software engineering is probably a little less "dynamic" (not in the good sense) than systems. The reason is that systems primarily deals with hardware and operating systems; stuff that changes often. You get behind and it's tough to catch up. It's not often that you get a new language to work with as a software eng, but sometimes concepts change.
I personally have gravitated recently toward being a systems engineer (R&D) because I actually get a kick out of the dynamic nature of systems at the moment. However, stability isn't really there; there's plenty of people younger than I who are quite willing and able to do some of the same stuff I do... but often I bring a level of experience to the table that they can't beat. On the other hand, software engineers are easier to outsource / offshore!
Do whatever you think you will enjoy. Myself I find that systems engineering can be tedious; I've just spent an entire day at work troubleshooting problems with Lights Out cards on HP Blades (turned out to be another engineer had cocked up the IP subnets on 2/3 of them!), and so to be honest I feel like I've come full circle and accomplished next to nothing today. I must admit I had fewer days like this in Software because at the end of the day no matter what I had usually made strides in the code I was working with.
I guess this might help; if you enjoy massive bugfixing sessions in your current software engineering job, then you might be a good match for systems engineering. If you prefer the creative element to software engineering then systems is probably not for you.
Sci-Fi channel hasn't been "the one to watch" for probably at least the last 5 years, maybe more. I remember about 9 or 10 years ago they actually produced some oddball but sometimes good quality shows and movies. One I particularly remember was Mr. Stitch (hey, CleverNickName!) which I found a little off-beat but actually really enjoyed. I actually had it on video until I finally got rid of my VCR.
Anyway, there have been a few bright spots during the intervening years (Farscape and Battlestar Galactica spring to mind), but note that neither of these was actually a product of Sci-Fi. Both of these were products of other networks and companies that just happened to be partially funded/bought with Sci-Fi dollars.
Now, the problem has become even more obvious in the last two years; Sci-Fi has become the "crap horror channel" rather than anything resembling science fiction (good or bad). Their Saturday lineup these days seems to consist of indentical monster movies with different casts. I have literally flipped over to Sci-Fi while watching something else (during commercial breaks) and found myself unable to discern one movie from another. This doesn't speak well of their quality.
As far as TV Sci-Fi is going, we're returning to the early 90's: Basically we have one or two actually good SF shows on TV which aren't really SF; recently BSG has become the big name, but it's a drama with a sci-fi setting, not true sci-fi... in the early 90's I could've probably named Star Trek TNG as the name back then. I digress. The only source of good Sci-Fi today is in books... and have you actually been to the sci-fi section at Barnes and Noble lately? There's an awful lot of schlock there too which I won't touch with a 10 foot barge pole.
So where's sci-fi going? Well, today a lot of good science fiction can be found in "fanfic"; stuff based on commercial shows and movies. Of course, a lot of that is terrible as well, but there is the occasional diamond in the rough. The only thing I don't like about this is the fact that it speaks of a severe lack of imagination; using characters and ideas stolen from others.
Myself, I write my own sci-fi for myself and my closest friends. Someday I might release some of it. For now, I'm quite content to have my own science fiction stories played out on my internal Omnimax with better-than-THX sound whenever I close my eyes.
Then you, my friend are part of the problem with license fees. Quite simply, you're benefitting from the money gathered through license fees (paid to the BBC), but not paying in. You're the reason that socialism has such a hard time; because human beings feel that they are owed something by everyone else. An extremely selfish viewpoint.
I lived in England up until 1995 when I moved to the US. In the time I lived there I happily paid my license fee because I felt that the quality of the television was definitely worth it. I actually miss it. The quality of US TV is horrible in comparison to most of what I got used to with the BBC.
For quality shows like Doctor Who, I personally feel that the BBC would be well placed to start charging an "Internet License Fee", where people pay an annual fee that's around the same amount as the UK license fee, but then have access to high quality official downloads of BBC shows. I know I for one would happily pay to subsidise Dr. Who. I've seen the new series, and I like what I see.
Did you actually watch Minority Report? A lot of people made snide comments about product-placement being a big deal, but personally I saw it as an extremely likely scenarios as to where we are going. Ads everywhere, targeted by our own technology... hell even animated cereal boxes! It's coming, and we'd be fools to think otherwise.
If you start looking at the "product placement" in MR in these terms, it's amazing how much better a movie it seems.
Blackberry, at least from the Enterprise perspective has a number of advantages that Magneto is going to have to copy or it's not going to work. I work for a large enterprise company so I know whereof I speak here.
Firstly there's the fact that Blackberry is a push technology. Current PocketPC variants have been pull variety email clients. The only exception to this has been the SMS messaging in Smartphone. I hope this will change to allow push messaging for email as well or else this will all be for nowt.
Secondly, the kill command. One of the best features from an administrative perspective in the Enterprise is the ability to remotely kill a device. For the uninitiated, if a RIM device is stolen, then in order to protect potentially sensitive Corporate data, the administrator can send a Kill command to the device which will basicallly wipe it clean. If this feature doesn't exist in the next version of Exchange / Magneto Integration then the Enterprise will ignore it. I know my company will... and since we're one of the largest Enterprises in the world...
I just hope Microsoft realizes that it's going to take more than a flashy interface and a few "gee whiz" features to make it in the Corporate world. Although we have Microsoft software all over the place, we're not dogmatic about it.
I bought a Motorola MPx220 back when they were hot-stuff. I wasn't disappointed. While there were some early teething troubles, after talking to contacts at Microsoft I began to trust them that the problems weren't with the OS but rather failures of Motorola's integrations team who apparently tried to integrate the SP2003 OS onto the hardware in a void without Microsoft's assistance. Although the last update to the MPx220 fixed a lot of the remaining bugs, many still remained.
As of now unfortunately the MPx220 has been pulled. Partly this is due to manufacturing problems (a fall out with the engineering company), but rumors abound that the MPx220 hardware is being stockpiled for modification into the MPx230 later this year (same phone with some hardware differences and Magneto).
To be honest, I really actually like my 220. There are no bugs with it I can't work around, and the much-touted volume problems I found to be an ergonomic rather than technical problem (it's the way you naturally hold the phone to your ear). I actually ended up working around that problem with a Bluetooth headset.
Anyway, to sum up I agree that Microsoft sometimes gets it right. PocketPC/ Smartphone/ Windows Mobile is a really neat and slim OS that works on some great devices. I still use my old Ipaq 3845 (mostly for reading my eBook collection on), but that has been mostly relegated to secondary duty by my MPx220. I have high hopes for Magneto... what I've seen so far looks good.
Though a warning; those expecting huge eye-candy improvements over Mobile 2003 are going to be disappointed... visually it differs little from what I already have on my phone... it's the technical improvements that I like.
That depends on your device. Some of them have an upgrade path (those that use flash for storing the OS have a possibility), some don't.
Basically it will come down to; how well does the manufacturer of your device support your device? You can't take a standard Magneto download and install it on any device, it needs to be customized for your hardware. Since these are closed hardware platforms it falls to the manufacturer to do it unless you feel like doing some serious reverse engineering.
At the moment, the only phones that are almost certainly going to get a version of Magneto are the Motorola MPx200 and MPx220, mostly because these two phones have been used internally at Microsoft as test-mule hardware. Don't ask me how I know this.
(The previous was fact, the rest is conjecture) Motorola is reportedly already planning to offer a new phone (the MPx230) which is the MPx220 with Magneto on it and a few new features (better antennae for Bluetooth for example). They're also planning to offer a soft and hard upgrade to Magneto for at least the MPx220. The soft upgrade will be low cost and will be literally a download/CD that you can install on your phone. The "hard" upgrade will be a trade-your-phone deal which will cost a little more but will allow you to get the advantage that the modified hardware platform provides.
YMMV... I have an MPx220 and actually like it a lot. I willl still upgrade though, Magneto seems to fix a lot of the problems I perceive with Smartphone 2003.
Actually, I loved Marvin's costume... though it did move a little strange on occasion. The gait was definitely very "Warwick Davis" (who was of course inside the costume), but sometimes it WAS a little distracting.
In answer to a couple of your points; they didn't completely forget about Zaphod's second head... Zaphod stated at the end of the movie that he had to "Go see Humma, I think he's got something of mine". It was tough to catch among the general melee at the end, but it was there.
As for Alan Rickman's voice, I thought it was ALMOST perfect. I think the timing of the TV version's was better so the jokes worked better... but really that kind of lugubrious timing just doesn't work on a big-screen. It would literally slow the pace of the entire movie in a way that would be hard to recover. I've already mentioned I think the pacing was turned up a little high, but there was a LOT of story to get through there.
Oh, and I loved the Humma Kavula section; the glasses freaked me out at first and caused a slight gasp from some of the audience:)
... and I was one of those who grew up with it, being British myself. I remember hearing the radio series with my dad when I was a nipper, watching the TV series with my dad when I was a little older (and allowed to stay up later ), then I read the books and loved every incarnation despite the fact that every incarnation threw the previous incarnation completely out of the window.
Yes, I know the books came before the TV series... just bear with my a bit here...
I went to see the movie last night with my lovely wife and sister-in-law... and I wholeheartedly disagree with the review. It wasn't just funny, there were moments that were laugh-out-loud funny for the whole audience (that doesn't happen much in my experience). The characterizations are brilliant, the humour while a little different from the previous incarnations is definitely true to what I think Douglas Adams would have wanted from the movie, and generally I just love the whole feel of the movie.
Is it perfect? No, not even close. I do have a few issues with it. Firstly, the Guide entries were abridged and some of the jokes fell a little flat due to lack of some key piece of information. Second, the sound mix especially in the "first act" (prior to the Heart of Gold appearing) is muddy and it's difficult to hear the actors lines. It could also be they were mumbling, but I noticed the sound mix later was much better. Third, they really did move the story along at a lightning pace for most of the movie... if you're not willing to sit still for the entire 2 hours and pay attention you ARE going to get lost.
The Vogons looked great, exactly the way I'd want to see them. Remember, they were created by DA as a direct slam against the officious British government and councils... and the fact that they bear more than a slight resemblance to officials of that government is brilliant. It just goes to show that CGI hasn't killed "hard" effects like puppetry no matter what George Lucas thinks; they still produce more believable and solid characters on-screen.
Now, if you're expecting a direct translation of the book, radio series or TV series to film then forget it, it won't happen. I posted a few weeks ago my opinions about this; it's impossible to do this and appeal to a wider audience. Remember also, the British originals are a somewhat niche product. However, if you want to go and see a good "jazz riff" on the first book (only) of HHGTTG then you might enjoy it.
Oh, and for those who keep wondering "Where is...?", well, if the movie does well we'll get sequels. Can you think of a better way to start off a second movie than with a variation on the "no-one should have come down from the trees" piece from the originals, with Stephen Fry setting the backdrop, talking about Earth and then mentioning that the Guide doesn't contain any of this information... cue a graphic from the Guide showing "Earth: Harmless", fade into the continuation of the story.
There's plenty more to go, and it's WIDE open for a sequel.
Oh, and the "love story" between Trillian and Arthur... OK so it's not cinematic beauty but at least it's light years ahead of the Anakin and Padme love story in Episode II!!!
My nickel... that's 2c adjust for inflation...... with gas prices the way they are at the moment I might need a dime for that...
If you want something well supported in mobile devices with loads of information on how to do stuff, use Linux or Symbian (though Symbian is really more of a phone OS... at least it's tuned for that role)
If you want Outlook connectivity that's second-to-none, use Windows Mobile. I have a Smartphone that I think is great for what it does.
If you want reliability and a rock-solid OS or are running older hardware, do some homework and pick a good RTOS.
If you want raw speed, try assembler.
In the embedded space, the specific requirements of your device should drive the operating system choice. Personal preferences should count for nothing. Even a "company standard" is not good reason in my opinion to use a particular embedded OS; different hardware and application requirements demand different functions that may or may not be supported.
I think choice of embedded OS is a lot easier than choice of Desktop OS these days.
I've been a fan of HHG since I was a kid! I listened to the radio series with my dad when I was just a very little nipper (grew up in Britain FYI), then enjoyed the TV series when I was a little older (when I could keep my eyes open as I was still quite young)... then read the books and loved them also.
I have to say that I disagree with you in one important respect; while the language of DA's books are the source of a lot of comedy, the problem with a movie version is that most of said comedy occurs BETWEEN the spoken lines. I'd say a good 80% of the comedy in the books is in the prose and narrative, not the dialogue. Remember that a movie is two things primarily; visual and dialogue. These two must be used to move forward a story, you really do lack the ability to include prose and narrative in a movie.
Now, I will be the first to admit that the radio and TV series found a unique way of dealing with the limitations of the visual medium, which was why DA created the "Guide" in the first place (and he says so in several interviews given before his unforunate demise). It was there to include as much narrative and prose as was possible without destroying the essential flow of the story.
Now, I also realize that the movie creators could have gone this same route and essentially created a big-screen rendition of the TV series. If you look at the flow of the TV series, the first book took up 4 of the 6 episodes, or two hours of screen time. Perfect? No. The TV series is viewed by many to be sub-par when compared to the other media (and I admit in many ways it is), and as such it is almost a requirement to completely reengineer the story for a big-screen venue.
We also fall into a little bit of a trap when moving to the new medium; the fact that we must adapt something like HHGTTG in order to more widely appeal to the target audience. Despite some people's hopes the movie is NOT targeted at Guide fans; it's targeted at a demographic. Specifically I'd say it's targeted at the demographic I fall into; mid twenties to mid thirties, employed, probably married, middle class suburbanite with moderate income for location. That's a BIG demographic and as such the movie has been changed from the source material to better appeal to a larger target. Targeting the movie only at Guide fans would be financial suicide. How much of the US population has original Guide fans in it? I'm a fan of the Guide, and at my workplace I know of two other people who even know what it is!
If you're a rabid fan of the Guide, don't see the movie. I personally will with my wife sometime within a week or so of opening day. I'll watch it and I'll just enjoy it for its entertainment value as an independent entertainment, not as a half-assed translation of a "treasured memory" as the reviewer seems to have done.
Myself I have a Gerber Multitool that I like a LOT. I use it when I'm out camping, out 4-wheeling with my buddies (you'd be surprised how often stuff falls off when you've just driven through a creek and leapt the poor bugger 3 feet in the air when you didn't realize how steep the side of the creek was!) and when flying. Yes, I said when flying.
At least once my Gerber has been of great value in-flight when I realized that a screw holding the seat rail in place was loose enough that I was concerned about the rail breaking. Whip out the Gerber and tighten it down (while maintaining straight-and-level of course)... problem solved and reported as a squawk to the FBO when I returned. For anyone who's NOT been in a Cessna, this can be DANGEROUS... a guy was recently killed when his seat released and slid back causing him to lose control of the plane on final. Ick!
Although the line is fuzzy between mobile phones and PDA's, there IS a line... and it's proving a difficult one to cross.
As it stands today, I think a PDA could be considered even to be a PDA-form-factor device with phone capabilities (some of the latest IPAQ's and the (I think) 63xx series). I suspect these also count into the numbers.
A smartphone is NOT a PDA, at least not in my opinion. Sure, it does a lot of PDA-like things but at the end of the day the data entry is marred by a simplified keyboard. I have an MPX220 and while I consider it very PDA like, doing most of what I need to do with a PDA I find it lacking in other areas.
Now, manufacturers are STILL trying to cross that line (Motorola MPX, anyone?) but I think it's proving more difficult than they think, mostly because I think people still want to focus on one device or the other... a phone that does PDA like things or a PDA that can also be a phone.
PDA's are primarily used by executives... technical executives specifically. While they often have enough wherewithall to operate a handheld device properly, they often don't understand the concept that in order to have a copy of your Outlook calendar in your hand, you don't necessarily need a handheld version of Outlook.
I've gone around this issue a few times with executives who believe that the "best compatibility" with their precious Outlook is to be found in PocketPC and its ilk rather than competing OS's. Hell, I even had this discussion this morning with a friend of mine over the previously mentioned S101 phone; and he's a technical guy at the same level as me!
Of course, I'm a pot calling the kettle black here because I have a PocketPC device (Ipaq) and now a Smartphone... so I can sync with Outlook.:)
You know, I think this is probably one of the more insightful comments I've seen on this thread, but I have to comment nonetheless.
I agree that UI complexity is often a Microsoft sore point, but having recently bought myself a Microsoft Smartphone (Motorola MPx220) I have to say that this OS is definitely a significant step toward a simple but flexible UI.
While it's not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, it's VERY simple to use if you're using it as a phone... which let's face it is what most people with a Smartphone are really going to be using it for. I had zero adjustment time in going from an archaic Samsung N400 to this MPx220, and that has to say something either about the simplicity of SP or my intelligence. Much as I like to believe the latter, I think the former is more likely:)
My point is that Microsoft has actually started to put some thought into their UI's, how they work and even if they're necessary. If you keep up with news coming out of Redmond then you'll know that there are running projects at MS that will give you an operating system without IE. That's the first step... and I happen to know that people are there actively working on OS's that have a Windows core but have an optional UI. This will provide more competition for Linux in the embedded space.
Now, I do have to say that the Smartphone devices can also be as complex as you want to make them. I've only started scratching the surface of this device regarding its functionality, but so far I can say that though GENERALLY it is very easy to use, there are some complex parts to the UI... some of it I consider needless but generally I think it's a well though out OS.
I think we'll see more Smartphones... they're a bit of a novelty right now, but I am already starting to see how this thing might still replace my aging PDA, especially as it provides the same functionality and flexibility for a ridiculously low price (when bought with a contract).
Ever used SYSPREP? I image servers all the time... we run HP lines that extend back to circa 1999 in production, and with my single image I can put Windows 2000 and Windows 2003 on a server in 45 minutes including all of the custom and corporate-mandated applications we have to put on our servers.
Yes, the image needs to be periodically updated with drivers... but so does a Linux image. For example, the new DL380 G4's recently required some relatively major changes due to different chipset, array controller AND NIC hardware that didn't work with previous drivers... but a Linux kernel would need these same changes due to architecture differences.
I'm a neutral party BTW... I run Linux on my ML370 G1 at home and it hums along lovely (and doesn't crash near as often as my soon-to-be-retired Windows 2000 based file server that sits on top of it)... I just do Windows for a living and it irks me when people make inaccurate statements trying to shoehorn Linux into being "better". It's just a different method of approaching the same problem, not a quantum leap!
I'm afraid your logic is ALSO flawed. If you can put OpenOffice on a Linux box, then the fair comparison is to put OpenOffice on Windows as well, therefore negating the advantage of the $379 per machine savings you cite.
Also, if you're concerned enough about ongoing costs to use old PII workstations across the board, then you should also take into account the electricity these machines burn when compared to a modern PC with better power saving. Granted, P4 workstations are going to burn more electricity, but where I work I think the average workstation is a PIII 1-1.4Ghz machine... relatively low power consumption. Then there's the heat the machines output which must be combated with air conditioning. OK... so you save a little money on the heating bill...:-)
For a corporation, it also comes down to SUPPORT. Your solution is a one-person vendor solution and therefore would be unacceptable to any corporation with any significant size. Where I work we buy Dell workstations because if they break the company can turn to Dell and ask them WTF. We buy HP servers because we happen to think they're the best, and we can turn to HP and ask WTF. We also have UNIX systems which are IBM running AIX... because we can turn to IBM and ask WTF.
Linux has made some inroads... we have VMware ESX servers in our R&D and prodution environments, mostly used in our "production dev" environment... but workstations? Unlikely:
I did run a project about a year ago where I installed Linux on my laptop to show that we could get all of our work done on a Linux machine without worrying about Windows licenses. I did... I was at least AS efficient as I was before (as were others working on it), but in the end it came down to the ability to turn to Microsoft and ask WTF. Until we can meet or exceed this requirement in the open source community, Microsoft will remain on the desktops.
I applaud this guys review... it's part 1. I'll wait and see where he's going with this, but I do suspect Linux is going to do OK in this comparison...
I mean, last I checked the process of reverse-engineering closed systems was illegal, therefore creating an emulator of a video game system is by definition illegal. I mean, I understand the article (which is focused on the games rather than the consoles themselves), but isn't it also illegal to have created the emulator in the first place?
The only exception to this would be in a situation where the rights holder to the hardware/firmware releases said specifications and code into the public domain... to the best of my knowledge there aren't any console manufacturers that have done that. And no "abandonware" doesn't count since technically the rights of the originator still apply even if the originator does not still exist as a formal entity (for example Commodore; the rights to the C64 hardware and firmware still exist but reside in the hands of others).
I didn't think this wasn't already common knowledge.
Oh god, another great waste of my time...
on
Darwinia Demo Released
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
OK... there's not a lot of detail out there about this game... this was the first I'd ever heard about it... so let me fill everyone in;
Imagine a cross between Populous and Black & White (not so hard... they're related by parentage anyway) set in the world of Tron... that about sums it up.
OK... so after reading the story I grabbed the demo and played it for a few minutes. I admit it... I'd still be playing it if it weren't for my lovely wife making me tea. Bloody hell, I think I'm going to have to buy this one now I've played GTA to death
Seriously, it's a matter of taste though. It's not for everyone... but if you appreciate retro styling, nicely integrated sound and graphics in your games... and at least potentially addictive gameplay then you'll like it. If you're into FPS shooters or MMORPG's then this ain't for you... this is an old-fashioned "god game" using more recent advances in hardware to make the game I think we all THOUGHT we were playing when we played populous many many moons ago.
My only question is; when are HP going to build an Ipaq that has a screen that's as good in sunlight as the 38xx/39xx series????
I use my 3845 still to this day both as a PDA and as an aviation GPS (running Navzilla) so a good sunlight readable display is paramount to me. I tried some of the more recent HP Ipaqs (like about 6 months ago), and despite being a lot faster even on the GPS stuff I found the screens to be SEVERELY lacking, especially in a cockpit. This was in a Cessna... I dread to think how washed out the screen would be in a bubble-canopy type aircraft!
And so it goes for boutique television...
on
Inside TechTV/G4
·
· Score: 1
I hate to say this, but the writing for TechTV was on the wall already. Sure, it had a viewership that was larger than G4's... and G4 wanted to combine that viewership with their own in the hope that it would become a profitable channel. Like it or not, TechTV was only barely profitable for most of its run, and at the time it was running people like us... that technical people... did nothing but complain about the shows.
Get real people, this is the way these things go. Television tries to be many things to many people, and boutique channels like TechTV are almost doomed to failure from the outset because of people like us. Look back on message boards that still exist... look at Usenet... very little constructive criticism of TechTV's format and shows and a lot of bitching. Not very helpful.
At the end of the days, this also destroyed the Discovery Wings channel; it tried to bring in the general aviation crowd who did little but complain about the format and shows. As a result in about a week it'll become the Discovery Military channel, eschewing GA programming because they just can't make their own market happy.
Boutique channels are by their nature of limited audience... this makes them hard to market to advertisers and therefore reduces their possibility of profitability. If they're too narrow in focus they WILL fail. TechTV was almost the right balance, but like it or not the majority of "computer users" these days are gamers. These people form a much larger market and therefore a better potential target for advertisers. G4 may have completely screwed up the balance by focusing on games too much though.
G4's biggest problem is simply that they don't understand their market. They should be balancing the games with more technical stuff... drawing both audiences in... but at the end of the day they won't. It's a horribly mismanaged channel and I for one haven't actually watched in months.
I hope G4 dies actually... and Discovery channel picks up The Screen Savers and reinstates Leo and Patrick... now THAT I would take the time to watch. While it was not always the most high-brow television it was always at least intelligent enough for my tastes, "dumbed down" enough for non technical people to grasp... and had a good on-screen crew that had real chemistry.
There may not realistically be room on TV for a completely technical channel... it was a brave move to try but it ultimately seems doomed to failure. Now, technical shows like TSS on Discovery or Science... that makes more sense since they already HAVE the right mix of programming, though sometimes a little light on technical details. This would be a perfect advertising target.
Oh, and the biggest problem with game-TV? The fun of games is PLAYING them... not watching somebody else play. Reviews? Cheat Codes? I'd say the majority of gamers today have broadband... all this information is online and easy to find.
Slashdot Mirror
Then of course, there's the "half-yoke" used in the http://www.cirrusdesign.com/ Cirrus Design SR series of aircraft. Looks for all the world like a joystick, but flies like a one-handled yoke. Unusual, but since you usually fly a two-handled yoke one-handed anyway it's easily adapted to.
For those who aren't pilots, normal procedure is to have one hand on the yoke and the other operating all the other controls (radios, fuel, throttle etc.).
I just thought to myself "Yay, Microsoft"
I need to go lie down... I think I'm sickening for something...
I'm British. There, got that out of the way. I'm a British citizen still working and living in the USA after 10 years, so my viewpoint on the British workforce is probably a little different than the linked reporter.
:)
There's a pervasive attitude in British industry that the work is just a job until something better comes along. I think it really is a deep-seated feeling that the British Empire is smaller than it used to be, but its citizens should be above tedious menial labor. Now, this attitude isn't as pervasive now as it probably was in the past, but it's there and it's addictive. I know, I felt exactly that way when I lived and worked in London.
Now, I'm not saying the report is invalid but I do feel like other posters that the report is too focused on IT. If you did the same survey with accountants you'd probably find very similar numbers.
I'm also not saying that this is unique to Britain. I'd say the figures would be very similar in the USA if not more so. One need only look at the humor of a culture to get a good idea of how it views work. OK, so the British have The Office... but the USA has probably longer history of work-related comedy than the British do: Dilbert, Office Space, you name it.
I'd say from my non-scientific and unstudied viewpoint here working for an American company with American colleagues that generally people are somewhat disenchanted with their jobs, but generally seem to be relatively happy with their lot. Remembering my colleagues in Britain, it seemed they were never happy. This was not limited to IT either; it was true of everyone.
Ironically, I'd also say that the British people I still work with today within this American company tend to be more focused on their work... but maybe that's just because of the type of people I deal with.
Draw your own conclusions from my ramblings
During my long years I've been both a software engineer and a systems engineer (and a brief stint as a manager that we just won't talk about, mmmmkay?)
Anyway, the choice basically comes down to what you prefer. Both are heavily analytical but software engineering is probably a little less "dynamic" (not in the good sense) than systems. The reason is that systems primarily deals with hardware and operating systems; stuff that changes often. You get behind and it's tough to catch up. It's not often that you get a new language to work with as a software eng, but sometimes concepts change.
I personally have gravitated recently toward being a systems engineer (R&D) because I actually get a kick out of the dynamic nature of systems at the moment. However, stability isn't really there; there's plenty of people younger than I who are quite willing and able to do some of the same stuff I do... but often I bring a level of experience to the table that they can't beat. On the other hand, software engineers are easier to outsource / offshore!
Do whatever you think you will enjoy. Myself I find that systems engineering can be tedious; I've just spent an entire day at work troubleshooting problems with Lights Out cards on HP Blades (turned out to be another engineer had cocked up the IP subnets on 2/3 of them!), and so to be honest I feel like I've come full circle and accomplished next to nothing today. I must admit I had fewer days like this in Software because at the end of the day no matter what I had usually made strides in the code I was working with.
I guess this might help; if you enjoy massive bugfixing sessions in your current software engineering job, then you might be a good match for systems engineering. If you prefer the creative element to software engineering then systems is probably not for you.
Hope this helps!
Sci-Fi channel hasn't been "the one to watch" for probably at least the last 5 years, maybe more. I remember about 9 or 10 years ago they actually produced some oddball but sometimes good quality shows and movies. One I particularly remember was Mr. Stitch (hey, CleverNickName!) which I found a little off-beat but actually really enjoyed. I actually had it on video until I finally got rid of my VCR.
Anyway, there have been a few bright spots during the intervening years (Farscape and Battlestar Galactica spring to mind), but note that neither of these was actually a product of Sci-Fi. Both of these were products of other networks and companies that just happened to be partially funded/bought with Sci-Fi dollars.
Now, the problem has become even more obvious in the last two years; Sci-Fi has become the "crap horror channel" rather than anything resembling science fiction (good or bad). Their Saturday lineup these days seems to consist of indentical monster movies with different casts. I have literally flipped over to Sci-Fi while watching something else (during commercial breaks) and found myself unable to discern one movie from another. This doesn't speak well of their quality.
As far as TV Sci-Fi is going, we're returning to the early 90's: Basically we have one or two actually good SF shows on TV which aren't really SF; recently BSG has become the big name, but it's a drama with a sci-fi setting, not true sci-fi... in the early 90's I could've probably named Star Trek TNG as the name back then. I digress. The only source of good Sci-Fi today is in books... and have you actually been to the sci-fi section at Barnes and Noble lately? There's an awful lot of schlock there too which I won't touch with a 10 foot barge pole.
So where's sci-fi going? Well, today a lot of good science fiction can be found in "fanfic"; stuff based on commercial shows and movies. Of course, a lot of that is terrible as well, but there is the occasional diamond in the rough. The only thing I don't like about this is the fact that it speaks of a severe lack of imagination; using characters and ideas stolen from others.
Myself, I write my own sci-fi for myself and my closest friends. Someday I might release some of it. For now, I'm quite content to have my own science fiction stories played out on my internal Omnimax with better-than-THX sound whenever I close my eyes.
'nuff said.
Then you, my friend are part of the problem with license fees. Quite simply, you're benefitting from the money gathered through license fees (paid to the BBC), but not paying in. You're the reason that socialism has such a hard time; because human beings feel that they are owed something by everyone else. An extremely selfish viewpoint.
I lived in England up until 1995 when I moved to the US. In the time I lived there I happily paid my license fee because I felt that the quality of the television was definitely worth it. I actually miss it. The quality of US TV is horrible in comparison to most of what I got used to with the BBC.
For quality shows like Doctor Who, I personally feel that the BBC would be well placed to start charging an "Internet License Fee", where people pay an annual fee that's around the same amount as the UK license fee, but then have access to high quality official downloads of BBC shows. I know I for one would happily pay to subsidise Dr. Who. I've seen the new series, and I like what I see.
Did you actually watch Minority Report? A lot of people made snide comments about product-placement being a big deal, but personally I saw it as an extremely likely scenarios as to where we are going. Ads everywhere, targeted by our own technology... hell even animated cereal boxes! It's coming, and we'd be fools to think otherwise.
If you start looking at the "product placement" in MR in these terms, it's amazing how much better a movie it seems.
Uhm, maybe 1984?
Perhaps some quotation marks in the original quote would clarify things;
The launch of the Macintosh was accompanied by the "1984" advertisement, based on the novel of the same name.
Blackberry, at least from the Enterprise perspective has a number of advantages that Magneto is going to have to copy or it's not going to work. I work for a large enterprise company so I know whereof I speak here.
Firstly there's the fact that Blackberry is a push technology. Current PocketPC variants have been pull variety email clients. The only exception to this has been the SMS messaging in Smartphone. I hope this will change to allow push messaging for email as well or else this will all be for nowt.
Secondly, the kill command. One of the best features from an administrative perspective in the Enterprise is the ability to remotely kill a device. For the uninitiated, if a RIM device is stolen, then in order to protect potentially sensitive Corporate data, the administrator can send a Kill command to the device which will basicallly wipe it clean. If this feature doesn't exist in the next version of Exchange / Magneto Integration then the Enterprise will ignore it. I know my company will... and since we're one of the largest Enterprises in the world...
I just hope Microsoft realizes that it's going to take more than a flashy interface and a few "gee whiz" features to make it in the Corporate world. Although we have Microsoft software all over the place, we're not dogmatic about it.
Can I just back you up here?
I bought a Motorola MPx220 back when they were hot-stuff. I wasn't disappointed. While there were some early teething troubles, after talking to contacts at Microsoft I began to trust them that the problems weren't with the OS but rather failures of Motorola's integrations team who apparently tried to integrate the SP2003 OS onto the hardware in a void without Microsoft's assistance. Although the last update to the MPx220 fixed a lot of the remaining bugs, many still remained.
As of now unfortunately the MPx220 has been pulled. Partly this is due to manufacturing problems (a fall out with the engineering company), but rumors abound that the MPx220 hardware is being stockpiled for modification into the MPx230 later this year (same phone with some hardware differences and Magneto).
To be honest, I really actually like my 220. There are no bugs with it I can't work around, and the much-touted volume problems I found to be an ergonomic rather than technical problem (it's the way you naturally hold the phone to your ear). I actually ended up working around that problem with a Bluetooth headset.
Anyway, to sum up I agree that Microsoft sometimes gets it right. PocketPC/ Smartphone/ Windows Mobile is a really neat and slim OS that works on some great devices. I still use my old Ipaq 3845 (mostly for reading my eBook collection on), but that has been mostly relegated to secondary duty by my MPx220. I have high hopes for Magneto... what I've seen so far looks good.
Though a warning; those expecting huge eye-candy improvements over Mobile 2003 are going to be disappointed... visually it differs little from what I already have on my phone... it's the technical improvements that I like.
That depends on your device. Some of them have an upgrade path (those that use flash for storing the OS have a possibility), some don't.
.
Basically it will come down to; how well does the manufacturer of your device support your device? You can't take a standard Magneto download and install it on any device, it needs to be customized for your hardware. Since these are closed hardware platforms it falls to the manufacturer to do it unless you feel like doing some serious reverse engineering.
At the moment, the only phones that are almost certainly going to get a version of Magneto are the Motorola MPx200 and MPx220, mostly because these two phones have been used internally at Microsoft as test-mule hardware. Don't ask me how I know this
(The previous was fact, the rest is conjecture) Motorola is reportedly already planning to offer a new phone (the MPx230) which is the MPx220 with Magneto on it and a few new features (better antennae for Bluetooth for example). They're also planning to offer a soft and hard upgrade to Magneto for at least the MPx220. The soft upgrade will be low cost and will be literally a download/CD that you can install on your phone. The "hard" upgrade will be a trade-your-phone deal which will cost a little more but will allow you to get the advantage that the modified hardware platform provides.
YMMV... I have an MPx220 and actually like it a lot. I willl still upgrade though, Magneto seems to fix a lot of the problems I perceive with Smartphone 2003.
Actually, I loved Marvin's costume... though it did move a little strange on occasion. The gait was definitely very "Warwick Davis" (who was of course inside the costume), but sometimes it WAS a little distracting.
:)
In answer to a couple of your points; they didn't completely forget about Zaphod's second head... Zaphod stated at the end of the movie that he had to "Go see Humma, I think he's got something of mine". It was tough to catch among the general melee at the end, but it was there.
As for Alan Rickman's voice, I thought it was ALMOST perfect. I think the timing of the TV version's was better so the jokes worked better... but really that kind of lugubrious timing just doesn't work on a big-screen. It would literally slow the pace of the entire movie in a way that would be hard to recover. I've already mentioned I think the pacing was turned up a little high, but there was a LOT of story to get through there.
Oh, and I loved the Humma Kavula section; the glasses freaked me out at first and caused a slight gasp from some of the audience
... and I was one of those who grew up with it, being British myself. I remember hearing the radio series with my dad when I was a nipper, watching the TV series with my dad when I was a little older (and allowed to stay up later ), then I read the books and loved every incarnation despite the fact that every incarnation threw the previous incarnation completely out of the window.
... with gas prices the way they are at the moment I might need a dime for that...
Yes, I know the books came before the TV series... just bear with my a bit here...
I went to see the movie last night with my lovely wife and sister-in-law... and I wholeheartedly disagree with the review. It wasn't just funny, there were moments that were laugh-out-loud funny for the whole audience (that doesn't happen much in my experience). The characterizations are brilliant, the humour while a little different from the previous incarnations is definitely true to what I think Douglas Adams would have wanted from the movie, and generally I just love the whole feel of the movie.
Is it perfect? No, not even close. I do have a few issues with it. Firstly, the Guide entries were abridged and some of the jokes fell a little flat due to lack of some key piece of information. Second, the sound mix especially in the "first act" (prior to the Heart of Gold appearing) is muddy and it's difficult to hear the actors lines. It could also be they were mumbling, but I noticed the sound mix later was much better. Third, they really did move the story along at a lightning pace for most of the movie... if you're not willing to sit still for the entire 2 hours and pay attention you ARE going to get lost.
The Vogons looked great, exactly the way I'd want to see them. Remember, they were created by DA as a direct slam against the officious British government and councils... and the fact that they bear more than a slight resemblance to officials of that government is brilliant. It just goes to show that CGI hasn't killed "hard" effects like puppetry no matter what George Lucas thinks; they still produce more believable and solid characters on-screen.
Now, if you're expecting a direct translation of the book, radio series or TV series to film then forget it, it won't happen. I posted a few weeks ago my opinions about this; it's impossible to do this and appeal to a wider audience. Remember also, the British originals are a somewhat niche product. However, if you want to go and see a good "jazz riff" on the first book (only) of HHGTTG then you might enjoy it.
Oh, and for those who keep wondering "Where is...?", well, if the movie does well we'll get sequels. Can you think of a better way to start off a second movie than with a variation on the "no-one should have come down from the trees" piece from the originals, with Stephen Fry setting the backdrop, talking about Earth and then mentioning that the Guide doesn't contain any of this information... cue a graphic from the Guide showing "Earth: Harmless", fade into the continuation of the story.
There's plenty more to go, and it's WIDE open for a sequel.
Oh, and the "love story" between Trillian and Arthur... OK so it's not cinematic beauty but at least it's light years ahead of the Anakin and Padme love story in Episode II!!!
My nickel... that's 2c adjust for inflation...
Opinions count for nothing.
If you want something well supported in mobile devices with loads of information on how to do stuff, use Linux or Symbian (though Symbian is really more of a phone OS... at least it's tuned for that role)
If you want Outlook connectivity that's second-to-none, use Windows Mobile. I have a Smartphone that I think is great for what it does.
If you want reliability and a rock-solid OS or are running older hardware, do some homework and pick a good RTOS.
If you want raw speed, try assembler.
In the embedded space, the specific requirements of your device should drive the operating system choice. Personal preferences should count for nothing. Even a "company standard" is not good reason in my opinion to use a particular embedded OS; different hardware and application requirements demand different functions that may or may not be supported.
I think choice of embedded OS is a lot easier than choice of Desktop OS these days.
I've been a fan of HHG since I was a kid! I listened to the radio series with my dad when I was just a very little nipper (grew up in Britain FYI), then enjoyed the TV series when I was a little older (when I could keep my eyes open as I was still quite young)... then read the books and loved them also.
I have to say that I disagree with you in one important respect; while the language of DA's books are the source of a lot of comedy, the problem with a movie version is that most of said comedy occurs BETWEEN the spoken lines. I'd say a good 80% of the comedy in the books is in the prose and narrative, not the dialogue. Remember that a movie is two things primarily; visual and dialogue. These two must be used to move forward a story, you really do lack the ability to include prose and narrative in a movie.
Now, I will be the first to admit that the radio and TV series found a unique way of dealing with the limitations of the visual medium, which was why DA created the "Guide" in the first place (and he says so in several interviews given before his unforunate demise). It was there to include as much narrative and prose as was possible without destroying the essential flow of the story.
Now, I also realize that the movie creators could have gone this same route and essentially created a big-screen rendition of the TV series. If you look at the flow of the TV series, the first book took up 4 of the 6 episodes, or two hours of screen time. Perfect? No. The TV series is viewed by many to be sub-par when compared to the other media (and I admit in many ways it is), and as such it is almost a requirement to completely reengineer the story for a big-screen venue.
We also fall into a little bit of a trap when moving to the new medium; the fact that we must adapt something like HHGTTG in order to more widely appeal to the target audience. Despite some people's hopes the movie is NOT targeted at Guide fans; it's targeted at a demographic. Specifically I'd say it's targeted at the demographic I fall into; mid twenties to mid thirties, employed, probably married, middle class suburbanite with moderate income for location. That's a BIG demographic and as such the movie has been changed from the source material to better appeal to a larger target. Targeting the movie only at Guide fans would be financial suicide. How much of the US population has original Guide fans in it? I'm a fan of the Guide, and at my workplace I know of two other people who even know what it is!
If you're a rabid fan of the Guide, don't see the movie. I personally will with my wife sometime within a week or so of opening day. I'll watch it and I'll just enjoy it for its entertainment value as an independent entertainment, not as a half-assed translation of a "treasured memory" as the reviewer seems to have done.
Spoken like someone who's never been camping.
Myself I have a Gerber Multitool that I like a LOT. I use it when I'm out camping, out 4-wheeling with my buddies (you'd be surprised how often stuff falls off when you've just driven through a creek and leapt the poor bugger 3 feet in the air when you didn't realize how steep the side of the creek was!) and when flying. Yes, I said when flying.
At least once my Gerber has been of great value in-flight when I realized that a screw holding the seat rail in place was loose enough that I was concerned about the rail breaking. Whip out the Gerber and tighten it down (while maintaining straight-and-level of course)... problem solved and reported as a squawk to the FBO when I returned. For anyone who's NOT been in a Cessna, this can be DANGEROUS... a guy was recently killed when his seat released and slid back causing him to lose control of the plane on final. Ick!
Although the line is fuzzy between mobile phones and PDA's, there IS a line... and it's proving a difficult one to cross.
As it stands today, I think a PDA could be considered even to be a PDA-form-factor device with phone capabilities (some of the latest IPAQ's and the (I think) 63xx series). I suspect these also count into the numbers.
A smartphone is NOT a PDA, at least not in my opinion. Sure, it does a lot of PDA-like things but at the end of the day the data entry is marred by a simplified keyboard. I have an MPX220 and while I consider it very PDA like, doing most of what I need to do with a PDA I find it lacking in other areas.
Now, manufacturers are STILL trying to cross that line (Motorola MPX, anyone?) but I think it's proving more difficult than they think, mostly because I think people still want to focus on one device or the other... a phone that does PDA like things or a PDA that can also be a phone.
PDA's are primarily used by executives... technical executives specifically. While they often have enough wherewithall to operate a handheld device properly, they often don't understand the concept that in order to have a copy of your Outlook calendar in your hand, you don't necessarily need a handheld version of Outlook.
:)
I've gone around this issue a few times with executives who believe that the "best compatibility" with their precious Outlook is to be found in PocketPC and its ilk rather than competing OS's. Hell, I even had this discussion this morning with a friend of mine over the previously mentioned S101 phone; and he's a technical guy at the same level as me!
Of course, I'm a pot calling the kettle black here because I have a PocketPC device (Ipaq) and now a Smartphone... so I can sync with Outlook.
You know, I think this is probably one of the more insightful comments I've seen on this thread, but I have to comment nonetheless.
:)
I agree that UI complexity is often a Microsoft sore point, but having recently bought myself a Microsoft Smartphone (Motorola MPx220) I have to say that this OS is definitely a significant step toward a simple but flexible UI.
While it's not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, it's VERY simple to use if you're using it as a phone... which let's face it is what most people with a Smartphone are really going to be using it for. I had zero adjustment time in going from an archaic Samsung N400 to this MPx220, and that has to say something either about the simplicity of SP or my intelligence. Much as I like to believe the latter, I think the former is more likely
My point is that Microsoft has actually started to put some thought into their UI's, how they work and even if they're necessary. If you keep up with news coming out of Redmond then you'll know that there are running projects at MS that will give you an operating system without IE. That's the first step... and I happen to know that people are there actively working on OS's that have a Windows core but have an optional UI. This will provide more competition for Linux in the embedded space.
Now, I do have to say that the Smartphone devices can also be as complex as you want to make them. I've only started scratching the surface of this device regarding its functionality, but so far I can say that though GENERALLY it is very easy to use, there are some complex parts to the UI... some of it I consider needless but generally I think it's a well though out OS.
I think we'll see more Smartphones... they're a bit of a novelty right now, but I am already starting to see how this thing might still replace my aging PDA, especially as it provides the same functionality and flexibility for a ridiculously low price (when bought with a contract).
Ever used SYSPREP? I image servers all the time... we run HP lines that extend back to circa 1999 in production, and with my single image I can put Windows 2000 and Windows 2003 on a server in 45 minutes including all of the custom and corporate-mandated applications we have to put on our servers.
Yes, the image needs to be periodically updated with drivers... but so does a Linux image. For example, the new DL380 G4's recently required some relatively major changes due to different chipset, array controller AND NIC hardware that didn't work with previous drivers... but a Linux kernel would need these same changes due to architecture differences.
I'm a neutral party BTW... I run Linux on my ML370 G1 at home and it hums along lovely (and doesn't crash near as often as my soon-to-be-retired Windows 2000 based file server that sits on top of it)... I just do Windows for a living and it irks me when people make inaccurate statements trying to shoehorn Linux into being "better". It's just a different method of approaching the same problem, not a quantum leap!
I'm afraid your logic is ALSO flawed. If you can put OpenOffice on a Linux box, then the fair comparison is to put OpenOffice on Windows as well, therefore negating the advantage of the $379 per machine savings you cite.
:-)
Also, if you're concerned enough about ongoing costs to use old PII workstations across the board, then you should also take into account the electricity these machines burn when compared to a modern PC with better power saving. Granted, P4 workstations are going to burn more electricity, but where I work I think the average workstation is a PIII 1-1.4Ghz machine... relatively low power consumption. Then there's the heat the machines output which must be combated with air conditioning. OK... so you save a little money on the heating bill...
For a corporation, it also comes down to SUPPORT. Your solution is a one-person vendor solution and therefore would be unacceptable to any corporation with any significant size. Where I work we buy Dell workstations because if they break the company can turn to Dell and ask them WTF. We buy HP servers because we happen to think they're the best, and we can turn to HP and ask WTF. We also have UNIX systems which are IBM running AIX... because we can turn to IBM and ask WTF.
Linux has made some inroads... we have VMware ESX servers in our R&D and prodution environments, mostly used in our "production dev" environment... but workstations? Unlikely:
I did run a project about a year ago where I installed Linux on my laptop to show that we could get all of our work done on a Linux machine without worrying about Windows licenses. I did... I was at least AS efficient as I was before (as were others working on it), but in the end it came down to the ability to turn to Microsoft and ask WTF. Until we can meet or exceed this requirement in the open source community, Microsoft will remain on the desktops.
I applaud this guys review... it's part 1. I'll wait and see where he's going with this, but I do suspect Linux is going to do OK in this comparison...
I mean, last I checked the process of reverse-engineering closed systems was illegal, therefore creating an emulator of a video game system is by definition illegal. I mean, I understand the article (which is focused on the games rather than the consoles themselves), but isn't it also illegal to have created the emulator in the first place?
The only exception to this would be in a situation where the rights holder to the hardware/firmware releases said specifications and code into the public domain... to the best of my knowledge there aren't any console manufacturers that have done that. And no "abandonware" doesn't count since technically the rights of the originator still apply even if the originator does not still exist as a formal entity (for example Commodore; the rights to the C64 hardware and firmware still exist but reside in the hands of others).
I didn't think this wasn't already common knowledge.
OK... there's not a lot of detail out there about this game... this was the first I'd ever heard about it... so let me fill everyone in;
Imagine a cross between Populous and Black & White (not so hard... they're related by parentage anyway) set in the world of Tron... that about sums it up.
OK... so after reading the story I grabbed the demo and played it for a few minutes. I admit it... I'd still be playing it if it weren't for my lovely wife making me tea. Bloody hell, I think I'm going to have to buy this one now I've played GTA to death
Seriously, it's a matter of taste though. It's not for everyone... but if you appreciate retro styling, nicely integrated sound and graphics in your games... and at least potentially addictive gameplay then you'll like it. If you're into FPS shooters or MMORPG's then this ain't for you... this is an old-fashioned "god game" using more recent advances in hardware to make the game I think we all THOUGHT we were playing when we played populous many many moons ago.
Hope this helps!
My only question is; when are HP going to build an Ipaq that has a screen that's as good in sunlight as the 38xx/39xx series????
I use my 3845 still to this day both as a PDA and as an aviation GPS (running Navzilla) so a good sunlight readable display is paramount to me. I tried some of the more recent HP Ipaqs (like about 6 months ago), and despite being a lot faster even on the GPS stuff I found the screens to be SEVERELY lacking, especially in a cockpit. This was in a Cessna... I dread to think how washed out the screen would be in a bubble-canopy type aircraft!
I hate to say this, but the writing for TechTV was on the wall already. Sure, it had a viewership that was larger than G4's... and G4 wanted to combine that viewership with their own in the hope that it would become a profitable channel. Like it or not, TechTV was only barely profitable for most of its run, and at the time it was running people like us... that technical people... did nothing but complain about the shows.
Get real people, this is the way these things go. Television tries to be many things to many people, and boutique channels like TechTV are almost doomed to failure from the outset because of people like us. Look back on message boards that still exist... look at Usenet... very little constructive criticism of TechTV's format and shows and a lot of bitching. Not very helpful.
At the end of the days, this also destroyed the Discovery Wings channel; it tried to bring in the general aviation crowd who did little but complain about the format and shows. As a result in about a week it'll become the Discovery Military channel, eschewing GA programming because they just can't make their own market happy.
Boutique channels are by their nature of limited audience... this makes them hard to market to advertisers and therefore reduces their possibility of profitability. If they're too narrow in focus they WILL fail. TechTV was almost the right balance, but like it or not the majority of "computer users" these days are gamers. These people form a much larger market and therefore a better potential target for advertisers. G4 may have completely screwed up the balance by focusing on games too much though.
G4's biggest problem is simply that they don't understand their market. They should be balancing the games with more technical stuff... drawing both audiences in... but at the end of the day they won't. It's a horribly mismanaged channel and I for one haven't actually watched in months.
I hope G4 dies actually... and Discovery channel picks up The Screen Savers and reinstates Leo and Patrick... now THAT I would take the time to watch. While it was not always the most high-brow television it was always at least intelligent enough for my tastes, "dumbed down" enough for non technical people to grasp... and had a good on-screen crew that had real chemistry.
There may not realistically be room on TV for a completely technical channel... it was a brave move to try but it ultimately seems doomed to failure. Now, technical shows like TSS on Discovery or Science... that makes more sense since they already HAVE the right mix of programming, though sometimes a little light on technical details. This would be a perfect advertising target.
Oh, and the biggest problem with game-TV? The fun of games is PLAYING them... not watching somebody else play. Reviews? Cheat Codes? I'd say the majority of gamers today have broadband... all this information is online and easy to find.