"no an entry level Digital camera is $300-$400USD. the crap you are talking about is toys you give to little children."
This Logitech is firmly in the camp of those "toy-children" cameras then. Whatever you call them, the Logitech should be compared to these $50 cameras instead of the entry level group you refer to.
I've never seen this tiny camera before; looks nice. There are many examples of this. Tiny cheap digital cameras cameras have been around for over a year now. They are "not as thin" as the Logitech, but are real close.
Something else needs to be taken into account with these cameras: if you carry them naked in your pocket, they will break. I carry my Aiptek in a rigid glasses case. I imagine that this Logitech might do well with a metal cigarette case.
Actually, I have seen protest leaders interviewed on either CNN or Fox, I forget which: examples included actual protesters out on the ground in Seattle.
Actually, I was referring to how these boundaries do not exist on the Internet/Web.
I don't mind since I support the 1st Amendment rights of people to read what they want. Getting upset like this is like getting upset that too many people read Playboy of the Enquirer: it is their choice, and I respect it, even if I do not like to read it.
Likewise if you don't mind that one way or another those sources are biased by politics or economics or just plain ignorance then fine - it's all good
Yes it is all good. After all. a huge percentage of the little sites are biased by politics or economics... no more and no less than the big sites.
If you don't mind that there is little distinction between those 4 sources and sitting calmly in front of the TV then fine
There is a difference, actually. I guess they are all the same because you do not like them? Sitting in front of the TV is no different from reading books or magazines in its defensibility; I respect the right of anyone to do so.
If you don't mind that the economic forces usually work to marginalize that which does not agree with it then, fine
In the Web, such marginalization does not work. I can get to the same obscure political alternative sites I have been using for years; in fact, there are more of them now, easier to find than ever.
If you don't care if there is any difference between editorial agenda and actual news
I don't care since there is not any such difference: anything and everything represents bias.
But when most outlets are owned by the same few people then all they have to do is put up only what they approve of.
Agreed. But this is not the case on the Web, where these 4 outlets represent a negligable percentage of the sites out there. Take your argument to the TV dial, where arguments against concentration and limited views work!
It's like those stupid polls on ABC News like "Do you think McV should be fried or pulled apart by horses?" Or "Do you thing women who have abortions should be jailed or stoned to death?" It's that kind of censorship.
You didn't name any censorship. Instead, you presented points of view that you found ludicrous. Someone saying something you do not like has nothing to do with "censorship". I might think those questions are stupid as well, but I would not do anything about it. That would be censorship!
What Solomon describes is a result of democratization of the internet: the people have a choice, and they happen to "vote" for these 4 big popular sites. It is not a failure of anything that the people prefer these sites to, lets say, another set of sites.
You can't say democracy fails just because people "vote" for something you do not like.
There is no worrisome concentration of power in the Web when it comes to sites. In television, the big 4 "popular sites" represent a high percentage of the total channels on (depending on your service, it can be as low as 10% or as high as 30%). On the Web, there are millions of "channels", and these 4 sites represent far less than 1% of the total sites out there.
Since Solomon complains about it, what solution would he like? Any change involves the big hand of censorship. The current situation is a result of popular choice: do we mandate that these Big 4 web sites can only take 30,000 hits per day? Do we force browsers to go to the sites that Solomon likes and give warnings if the users try to go to sites that Solomon does not like?
Basically, the situation Solomon complains about is not a problem, and any solution to it would be a very big problem.
I know I'd really rather had banner ads and NO interruptions when it comes to certain events (sports, parades, etc) where you always miss something when they "cut to commercial break".
I've wondered why they don't letterbox shows and put banner advertising in the bottom black area of the screen.
I wonder if this might be an improvement for both sides: the viewer doesn't get the interruptions to skip over, and the advertiser has ads that are harder to get rid of.
There are problems of course. If you are a viewer who does not like advertising at all in any form, it is harder to get rid of.
AOL also owns Superman, what is left of Atari, Babylon 5, Larry King Live (or Condit King Live as it is right now). They even have Batman, Kryptonite, and Lex Luthor.
Probably, at this date, at any given time, 4% of AOL media traffic is devoted to Gary Condit news.
The experimental tokamaks that exist around the world, such as the Joint European Torus (JET) reactor at Culham near Oxford, have to date not progressed far beyond the break-even point."
Remember the villain in "Batman 2"? He was proposing a power plant that drained power from Gotham City. It looks like the technology is catching up with Batman at last. What next, utility belts?
I'm rather sure that Piff Diddy or whatever he is got full permission from the creators for his version of Kashmir. If his version is good enough for Jimmy Page, it is certainly good enough for me!
There is no forseeable end to hacking. Disposable, short-term-use, closed systems will not change anything.... from the CueCat to garage door remotes to cell phones, these types of devices ARE hacked!
Seeing an old Next Generation rerun recently reminded me of a big problem with the last two Star Trek series: lighting. DS9 and Voyager were dark and murky, a little too orange, and unpleasant to look at in comparison to ST:TNG. (DS9 had some excuse, with the nature of the station). There's no reason they can't have good lighting on the new show: hope they do it!
Yes! A company with the cost efficiency of the Pentagon, the leading edge technology of the Rural Electrification Administration, the speed of the United States Postal Service, the customer service of HEW, and the openness of the CIA. Yes, government ownership of private companies sure would improve things!
Slashdot Mirror
"no an entry level Digital camera is $300-$400USD. the crap you are talking about is toys you give to little children."
This Logitech is firmly in the camp of those "toy-children" cameras then. Whatever you call them, the Logitech should be compared to these $50 cameras instead of the entry level group you refer to.
I've never seen this tiny camera before; looks nice. There are many examples of this. Tiny cheap digital cameras cameras have been around for over a year now. They are "not as thin" as the Logitech, but are real close.
Something else needs to be taken into account with these cameras: if you carry them naked in your pocket, they will break. I carry my Aiptek in a rigid glasses case. I imagine that this Logitech might do well with a metal cigarette case.
From the review: "And while most entry-level consumer cameras cost $300 to $400, the Logitech is almost an impulse buy at $130."
Huh? Entry-level consumer cameras, such as the Aiptek models and similar "Clever Cams" start at $50... that is 1/6 as much as the $300 in the minimum.
Check out this little Aiptek:
http://www.aiptek.com/products/digital/mini.htm
(The Mini)
It isn't much bigger than a credit card, and it to takes much higher-res pictures. It only costs about $80 as well.
Ephpod....Sounds like a brother or cousin of Zaphod Beeblebrox (maybe the guy who is the black sheep of the family because he has only one head).
To see how Martian soil works as a mousepad.
Read Heinlein. Those Martian flat-cats are getting very hungry!
I'm mad as all get-out since I found out that mice had chewed up the box of Commodore Ahoy! magazines I had not looked at for 16 years.
After we send a spaceship "manned by mice", we can send one "moused by men".
It would be a practical use for that miniature Russian space shuttle someone was selling on eBay.
They can set up Velveeta factories in preparation for human missions.
Why not? After films like "Red Planet" and "Mission to Mars", the place can't get any more cheesy.
Because Mars blocks my view of Jupiter
Actually, I was referring to how these boundaries do not exist on the Internet/Web.
....is a good example of what you are claiming.
Likewise if you don't mind that one way or another those sources are biased by politics or economics or just plain ignorance then fine - it's all good
Yes it is all good. After all. a huge percentage of the little sites are biased by politics or economics... no more and no less than the big sites.
If you don't mind that there is little distinction between those 4 sources and sitting calmly in front of the TV then fine
There is a difference, actually. I guess they are all the same because you do not like them? Sitting in front of the TV is no different from reading books or magazines in its defensibility; I respect the right of anyone to do so.
If you don't mind that the economic forces usually work to marginalize that which does not agree with it then, fine
In the Web, such marginalization does not work. I can get to the same obscure political alternative sites I have been using for years; in fact, there are more of them now, easier to find than ever.
If you don't care if there is any difference between editorial agenda and actual news
I don't care since there is not any such difference: anything and everything represents bias.
But when most outlets are owned by the same few people then all they have to do is put up only what they approve of.
Agreed. But this is not the case on the Web, where these 4 outlets represent a negligable percentage of the sites out there. Take your argument to the TV dial, where arguments against concentration and limited views work!
It's like those stupid polls on ABC News like "Do you think McV should be fried or pulled apart by horses?" Or "Do you thing women who have abortions should be jailed or stoned to death?" It's that kind of censorship.
You didn't name any censorship. Instead, you presented points of view that you found ludicrous. Someone saying something you do not like has nothing to do with "censorship". I might think those questions are stupid as well, but I would not do anything about it. That would be censorship!
Without commercialization, we might not have MP3, but we would instead have open-source alternatives that do not have the Thomson threat that MP3 has.
You can't say democracy fails just because people "vote" for something you do not like.
There is no worrisome concentration of power in the Web when it comes to sites. In television, the big 4 "popular sites" represent a high percentage of the total channels on (depending on your service, it can be as low as 10% or as high as 30%). On the Web, there are millions of "channels", and these 4 sites represent far less than 1% of the total sites out there.
Since Solomon complains about it, what solution would he like? Any change involves the big hand of censorship. The current situation is a result of popular choice: do we mandate that these Big 4 web sites can only take 30,000 hits per day? Do we force browsers to go to the sites that Solomon likes and give warnings if the users try to go to sites that Solomon does not like?
Basically, the situation Solomon complains about is not a problem, and any solution to it would be a very big problem.
Anyone know of a company producing an 8-track player that will fit in a 5.25" drive bay?
The DMCA has made us a Pirate Nation.
And they will only get better, tnanks to Moore's Law or whatever is replacing it: the capacity will grow along with the speed.
I know I'd really rather had banner ads and NO interruptions when it comes to certain events (sports, parades, etc) where you always miss something when they "cut to commercial break".
I wonder if this might be an improvement for both sides: the viewer doesn't get the interruptions to skip over, and the advertiser has ads that are harder to get rid of.
There are problems of course. If you are a viewer who does not like advertising at all in any form, it is harder to get rid of.
What am I missing? Why isn't this done?
Just don't turn your TV to National Geographic Explorer. A lethal combination with AOL-TW-Firestone.
Probably, at this date, at any given time, 4% of AOL media traffic is devoted to Gary Condit news.
Remember the villain in "Batman 2"? He was proposing a power plant that drained power from Gotham City. It looks like the technology is catching up with Batman at last. What next, utility belts?
I'm rather sure that Piff Diddy or whatever he is got full permission from the creators for his version of Kashmir. If his version is good enough for Jimmy Page, it is certainly good enough for me!
If this film is any reflection of reality, automobiles are as "hackable" now as they have ever been.
Hmmmm... with a focus on edible computers, the utility of the tangerine iMac gets a whole new dimension!
There is no forseeable end to hacking. Disposable, short-term-use, closed systems will not change anything.... from the CueCat to garage door remotes to cell phones, these types of devices ARE hacked!
Seeing an old Next Generation rerun recently reminded me of a big problem with the last two Star Trek series: lighting. DS9 and Voyager were dark and murky, a little too orange, and unpleasant to look at in comparison to ST:TNG. (DS9 had some excuse, with the nature of the station). There's no reason they can't have good lighting on the new show: hope they do it!
Yes! A company with the cost efficiency of the Pentagon, the leading edge technology of the Rural Electrification Administration, the speed of the United States Postal Service, the customer service of HEW, and the openness of the CIA. Yes, government ownership of private companies sure would improve things!