$30 for a gigabyte of replicated tier I storage with backup is still high.
It all depends on what those guys in IT are doing... If you add in the cost of videos, and look at the drive space taken after ripping, it works out about right.
That's not saying that folks in the present day couldn't learn a thing or two from the story of the titanic
Do people really know the whole story? Some may fix history with a few revisions.
Long after the sinking took place, an insightful official (you can guess who) declared war on terrorism. Those terrorist icebergs will be exterminated through a strategy of global warming.
Foil generally reflects microwave signals instead of absorbing them. In an oven if the energy absorbing material (food) is excessively shielded by foil higher R.F. voltages can build up possibly causing arcing and/or damaging the magnetron (signal source). Some ovens have a "stirrer" which is basically a slowly spinning aluminum fan blade. Like foil, it reflects the microwave energy. Having the energy hit the food from varying directions makes cooking more even. If you heat a big frozen burrito and find it coming out with the ends overcooked before the middle is heated enough, you can stop part-way and cover the ends with foil and continue. Nothing terrible will happen. So foil in a microwave can be good or bad. A chicken pot pie in an aluminum tin probably won't cook well being only exposed at the top.
But yes, you can bounce the microwaves outdoors. In the case of the weapon, a suitable reflector can bounce the signal elsewhere.
They didn't say what the damage was in that.1% of cases where the studies showed harm. I'd guess something nasty like eye damage can occur. Not a good way to become popular with the locals...
If the aliens are spying on you through the walls and roof of your house using microwave reflections to "see", perhaps you'll be happier with the entire surface of your room covered in foil (metal screen on windows should work).
A tin-foil hat is nothing new, so do something more. Let's see ya cook with it!
Now make it so that performing this act does not void your warranty as well and I would be a happy camper.
I think the most reasonable handling here would be to limit the warranty coverage to areas of the phone not altered by the user. If you tried to run your car on paint, the manufacturer shouldn't be on the hook for cleaning the injectors, but they should still cover the transmission.
I'm not aware of the full scope of what replacement firmware can alter in the various phones out there. If any F.C.C. certification related parameters can be altered, a phone probably shouldn't be allowed on the network. Aside from interference issues, there's also the matter of the security and stability of the phone network. People shouldn't be able to fraudulently use the account of another. These are serious issues and I'm sure the manufacturer has to provide some level of protection against such things.
Ideally those things which can reasonably be changed would not be in the same firmware as those that cannot. But is that how phones are in reality? Although it could prove costly to a vendor with a bug, I think it would be best if products shipped with critical code portions in non-flashable (or only write once) memory. Then a chip would have to be chance to patch the code. Although some might still attempt that, vendors could also use custom chips.
The concerns here parallel the situation with exploits that alter BIOS/EFI on motherboards and firmware in other critical hardware except the scope of problems may go well beyond the owner of the hardware.
Some would argue in favor of restricting an infected computers internet access. Is it so different to limit the functionality of a compromised phone? Perhaps any needed block should be at the service provider, not in the phone itself? They'd get support calls though...
I favor openness but am trying to see what valid obstacles may be there.
More storage would be great, but if the drives/media are a "world of hurt" with DRM/licensing, will the technology be all that useful?
It's hard to ever trust Sony again after the music CD rootkit fiasco. DRM on audio CDs pales in comparison to Blu-ray, but there's still much more to it than many realize.
You hold it the right way. Hold it the wrong way, and you will see the problem.
Not always!!!... far from it actually. If the signal starts at/near the minimum level needed to display 5 bars you'll see the drop. But in many locations signals are far far stronger than that. With a sufficiently strong signal the hand-related drop in signal on all phones, iPhone included, won't have any affect the display or performance.
Most here don't understand when engineers talk about relative signal levels like -50db, -110db etc. Those aren't linear units like a percentage. Depending on where you go in a day, it's easy to encounter 60 db of variation. To increase the level by 60 db using a power increase at the cell site, the power would have to be a million times more! It's like a magnitude 7 versus a magnitude 1 earthquake. (except the deci in decibel multiplies the base 10 log of the ratio to a reference level by 10)
Comparisons of phones based on display output are of limited usefulness too since they're almost certainly set up differently. If user demand and marketing push for behavior with 5 bars, every vendor can set the firmware to show that almost all of the time. That won't improve coverage at all, it'll just make the displays less useful for spotting a signal with little margin for fading and less useful to find a warmer spot in a patchy area.
We then went into a room that contained fake heads
Fake heads? You insensitive clod! Please try to avoid being judgmental or making assumptions. Haven't you seen Futurama? They may simply not want to talk to you.
It's likely to expect heads to roll after such things as Microsoft killing the Kin phone. Having phone experience, some of those rolled heads may have found a home at Apple.
Not content to put the radio portion of a phone into a Bennie cap, Apple is likely to use more elegant solutions. Nanobots from the iPhone can transform your hand to give you internal parasitic antenna elements that adjust on the fly, providing antenna gain by focusing signal in the appropriate instantaneous direction. Other nanobots implement energy conversion from biofuel. You heard it here first. Apple will be the first to solve the problems of limited battery life and of obese users that otherwise don't look as good as their phones. As the one company that can be trusted to fully integrate and optimize the TOTAL experience, Apple will modify the user to complete the equation. You will be fashionably absorbed, and love it!
The 3.6.2 beta has worked fine for me, but those uncomfortable with that and not willing to wait can avoid the bug by using a 3.5x version. The vulnerability is only in 3.6 series releases.
It sounds like the summary here is overstating the efficiency a bit. The numbers are for the absorption efficiency, not the overall conversion efficiency.
'The light-trapping limit of a material refers to how much sunlight it is able to absorb. The silicon-wire arrays absorb up to 96 percent of incident sunlight at a single wavelength and 85 percent of total collectible sunlight. "We've surpassed previous optical microstructures developed to trap light," . . The silicon wire arrays created by Atwater and his colleagues are able to convert between 90 and 100 percent of the photons they absorb into electrons--in technical terms, the wires have a near-perfect internal quantum efficiency. "High absorption plus good conversion makes for a high-quality solar cell," says Atwater. "It's an important advance."'
It looks like the overall efficiency is still very very high while using minimal resources. This is exactly the kind of innovation the U.S. needs for carbon-friendly jobs.
if by "tastier" you mean "higher fat content", then sure.
It isn't that simple. Thickening an outer layer of fat would mostly lead to more waste. Fat is best in moderate amounts marbled within the meat. That kind of distribution is something that the Japanese have worked at over time through selective breeding.
The industry doesn't seem to want students (their future workers/managers) taught about changing to more carbon-friendly and food-safe practices. Through the influence of funding, they've altered what is being taught.
The list itself is pretty stupid - listing PowerPC as one of the entries.
It seems like the author can pick a subject to get page hits, but has very experience with what he's writing about.
The iPod Hi-Fi was actually a very good product, it was just expensive. Part of the problem was that many of the things that were advanced about it were not known or understood by many consumers. It was able to provide very high output at low distortion. They went to great lengths to dampen out vibrations/undesired-resonances in the package. The amplifier was an extremely efficient switching design, giving the unit good life and high output when running on it's internal rechargeable batteries. It also had an optical digital input compatible with the Airport Express, making it very well suited for listening to audio streamed wirelessly from iTunes in a desktop or laptop Mac or PC.
The Mac portable was called a portable and not a laptop. It was heavy compared to a laptop and not yet a product for backpacks and bicycles, but it wasn't yet priced for those consumers either. Using it for for it was plenty easy to throw it it the car and go wherever. It's amazing how well it functioned with System 6 and a few hand-picked pieces of software on 2 meg or even 1 meg of RAM. Using the Truetype system extension it had excellent output dialing into the office fax to print at 200 dpi when a Laserwriter wasn't handy. A popular beta version of MultiFinder floating around could be swapped-in to get the ability to hide background applications in a way that wasn't otherwise seen until System 7. With Word, Filemaker Pro, MacDraft, FaxSTF and a few other packages is sure did more than the office PCs in places I went. It didn't have the form factor of what came later, but it sure was a blessing to have the functionality. Although using CMOS static-ram was no-doubt very expensive, it also meant that memory didn't need clocking ("refresh") to hold contents, so it could go into sleep for extended periods without running down the battery. And the article is totally wrong about the power supply being "in series". It was a normal enough power brick that output D.C. with a two-conductor plug just like nearly anything else...
OS 9 didn't deserve to be on the list either. Considering the resources of the machines of the era, it was a good workhorse and pretty fast. Multitasking didn't require reboots, but conflicts between 3rd party extensions could. Well-picked extensions were often very useful though. It multitasked well enough to listen to music, surf, and download while burning a CD, which was enough to get by on. It's just that it was vulnerable to an unfriendly program hogging too much of the CPU.
The article left off the G4 Cube, which was a good workhorse but sold poorly because it was priced for the wrong audience.
I guess my memory was a bit fuzzy after 25 years or so. The product I was thinking of, Sound Guard Record Preservative, leaves a dry coating of less than three millionths of an inch. But it is a lubricant, not a hard shell.
The product was announced in Billboard magazine March 27th 1982 on page 86.
I'm still drawing a blank on the name of the product and haven't had any luck with a search. It'll hit me in the middle of the night... It was a product over 20, possibly over 30 years ago. Besides cost, the main drawback I recall was that it could trap dust on a record, making any noise from that permanent. It was best used on new records for that reason.
I never bought any or used it on records. I had far too many and tiny bottle was quite expensive. A friend once used some to repair a hard drive with a "stiction" problem. It was already discontinued then, and that was the era of the Mac SE and Quantum 40 MEG or so hard drives, but my friend still had a bottle. (the surface of the platters in the area where the heads parked was worn and had lost it's lubricating properties; heads could get stuck preventing drives from spinning up). It was not a spray, but was applied by wiping. Optical grade wipes were needed to avoid lint. I believe the product predated motor oil that formed a hard layer on metal.
I'm sure that audio magazines of the era covered it. But what little pre-web material is online to search is pretty hard to find through all of the noise of newer commercial products. If there's a searchable archive of Stereo Review or other old audio magazines of that era, it should show up. It only got attention for a year or two. It might be worth checking to see if there was a related paper in the journals of the A.E.S. (Audio Engineering Society).
This product reminds of the one years ago that could provide a thin but very hard layer for vinyl records thus preventing wear (and the noise/distortion that goes with it).
If this material doesn't come off or splinter, maybe it would be good for protecting glasses with plastic lenses?
The whole site and paper looks like an attempt at marketing Xing.
It's a clever trick to profile the Slashdot crowd, known for penguin worship, frequently known to follow radical publications (Periodic Table, Bill of Rights, Wikipedia...), secretly behind tech controversies (Do triodes or tetrodes sound better??)...
I find it somewhat ironic that iPhone's competitor can run Apple's OS and iPhone/iPad most probably will never be able to run Mac OS.
Perhaps someone (maybe Apple?) can provide a Remote Desktop Client app for the iPad. Besides being a roundabout way to get a "Finder" to browse the shareable iPad directories, one remotely access things on the desktop back home that would be most in need of more cheap bandwidth or CPU power. Administering a bittorrent client, doing some scheduling and video edit/export in Eye-TV, and setting up Handbrake for custom conversions to h.264 come to mind. Your desktop would help to provide some of the content for use on the iPad, and perhaps allow use of some other apps too.
I'm not sure if iPad apps can be written to be hardware aware like on Mac OS (example: adapting to whatever screen area is provided instead of being hard-coded).
I can't remember the name of the Mac OS 9 (or earlier??) 3rd party extension that allowed making a virtual screen at some size much bigger than the actual display, with the display being a portal that could be slid around simply by pushing the cursor against any edge. Of course pinch-zoom would be there too, for moving in and out and around on that remote desktop.
Looking like you're running desktop OS X on that iPad might sometimes be more practical than actually doing it.
Ok, so Android is pretty resource saving. It is pretty impressive that it can display 720p videos.
It doesn't actually display at 720P but it can read from some 720P video files. There is no external display support, the built-in is 800x480. The mfg. website lists avi, Xvid, Divx, MPEG-4,and RMVB support.
Flash imbedded youtube video wasn't working in the installed version of Android. It wasn't clear if the browser would play h.264 videos from youtube, but the spec page shows Flash support. On sites such as several running the review of this laptop, the imbedded youtube videos only offer the Flash (.flv). But going to youtube to see it there are two versions in h.264 as well. (That's as seen by the DownloadHelper plugin in Firefox)
I can see using a small screen if one really wants a device this small, but I question cutting corners so far when it comes to RAM (only 128 MB), or not bothering to include a screen with touch support when the OS is made for it. It's really not Google's fault the UI seems so half-baked on this netbook. It's just plain silly to have an on-screen keyboard popping up when you can't use it. A well done interface could do quite a bit to make life with a small screen more tolerable. Given the spec page showing functionality that the demo didn't, maybe it'll be improved some before shipping. It's cute and apparently cheap, but I think using it would be torture.
I hope the 1.5 hours listed for the battery is the charging time, not the run time.
Not that spec sheets reveal much about joy of use, but specs are published here:
Slashdot Mirror
Wouldn't it be trivial for a developer to add the code to an app store offering that seems to have some legitimate need for any permissions requested?
Perhaps there are other factors that account for the differences?
How much do Verizon users tether?
$30 for a gigabyte of replicated tier I storage with backup is still high.
It all depends on what those guys in IT are doing...
If you add in the cost of videos, and look at the drive space taken after ripping, it works out about right.
Will my $600 gold-plated monster superconductor cable support the new standards?
It's funny to see the article showing Belkin products that seem to be marked wrong.
If the packaging seems suspect, maybe we should see some reviews?
We can trust those, right?
http://thedailybackground.com/2009/01/16/exclusive-belkins-development-rep-is-hiring-people-to-write-fake-positive-amazon-reviews/
http://www.thedailybackground.com/2009/01/21/flash-second-high-level-belkin-employee-implicated-in-wide-ranging-review-fraud/
http://i.gizmodo.com/5134652/belkin-employee-sheds-light-on-belkins-supposedly-dirty-practices
That's not saying that folks in the present day couldn't learn a thing or two from the story of the titanic
Do people really know the whole story? Some may fix history with a few revisions.
Long after the sinking took place, an insightful official (you can guess who) declared war on terrorism. Those terrorist icebergs will be exterminated through a strategy of global warming.
That's something of an urban legend.
Foil generally reflects microwave signals instead of absorbing them. In an oven if the energy absorbing material (food) is excessively shielded by foil higher R.F. voltages can build up possibly causing arcing and/or damaging the magnetron (signal source). Some ovens have a "stirrer" which is basically a slowly spinning aluminum fan blade. Like foil, it reflects the microwave energy. Having the energy hit the food from varying directions makes cooking more even. If you heat a big frozen burrito and find it coming out with the ends overcooked before the middle is heated enough, you can stop part-way and cover the ends with foil and continue. Nothing terrible will happen. So foil in a microwave can be good or bad. A chicken pot pie in an aluminum tin probably won't cook well being only exposed at the top.
But yes, you can bounce the microwaves outdoors. In the case of the weapon, a suitable reflector can bounce the signal elsewhere.
They didn't say what the damage was in that .1% of cases where the studies showed harm. I'd guess something nasty like eye damage can occur. Not a good way to become popular with the locals...
If the aliens are spying on you through the walls and roof of your house using microwave reflections to "see", perhaps you'll be happier with the entire surface of your room covered in foil (metal screen on windows should work).
A tin-foil hat is nothing new, so do something more. Let's see ya cook with it!
Perhaps they realized the enemy would come out wearing tin foil hats, and bounce signal back at them with pizza pans?
Now make it so that performing this act does not void your warranty as well and I would be a happy camper.
I think the most reasonable handling here would be to limit the warranty coverage to areas of the phone not altered by the user. If you tried to run your car on paint, the manufacturer shouldn't be on the hook for cleaning the injectors, but they should still cover the transmission.
I'm not aware of the full scope of what replacement firmware can alter in the various phones out there. If any F.C.C. certification related parameters can be altered, a phone probably shouldn't be allowed on the network. Aside from interference issues, there's also the matter of the security and stability of the phone network. People shouldn't be able to fraudulently use the account of another. These are serious issues and I'm sure the manufacturer has to provide some level of protection against such things.
Ideally those things which can reasonably be changed would not be in the same firmware as those that cannot. But is that how phones are in reality? Although it could prove costly to a vendor with a bug, I think it would be best if products shipped with critical code portions in non-flashable (or only write once) memory. Then a chip would have to be chance to patch the code. Although some might still attempt that, vendors could also use custom chips.
The concerns here parallel the situation with exploits that alter BIOS/EFI on motherboards and firmware in other critical hardware except the scope of problems may go well beyond the owner of the hardware.
Some would argue in favor of restricting an infected computers internet access. Is it so different to limit the functionality of a compromised phone? Perhaps any needed block should be at the service provider, not in the phone itself? They'd get support calls though...
I favor openness but am trying to see what valid obstacles may be there.
More storage would be great, but if the drives/media are a "world of hurt" with DRM/licensing, will the technology be all that useful?
It's hard to ever trust Sony again after the music CD rootkit fiasco. DRM on audio CDs pales in comparison to Blu-ray, but there's still much more to it than many realize.
Here's a paper (160K PDF) with some excellent background on it:
http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2006/hearings/sonydrm-ext.pdf
Cow Clicker? The concept seems familiar.
Could this be a derivative work of MacPlaymate?
Perhaps someone here is an expert with Look and Feel?
You hold it the right way. Hold it the wrong way, and you will see the problem.
Not always!!! ... far from it actually.
If the signal starts at/near the minimum level needed to display 5 bars you'll see the drop. But in many locations signals are far far stronger than that. With a sufficiently strong signal the hand-related drop in signal on all phones, iPhone included, won't have any affect the display or performance.
Most here don't understand when engineers talk about relative signal levels like -50db, -110db etc. Those aren't linear units like a percentage. Depending on where you go in a day, it's easy to encounter 60 db of variation. To increase the level by 60 db using a power increase at the cell site, the power would have to be a million times more!
It's like a magnitude 7 versus a magnitude 1 earthquake. (except the deci in decibel multiplies the base 10 log of the ratio to a reference level by 10)
Comparisons of phones based on display output are of limited usefulness too since they're almost certainly set up differently. If user demand and marketing push for behavior with 5 bars, every vendor can set the firmware to show that almost all of the time. That won't improve coverage at all, it'll just make the displays less useful for spotting a signal with little margin for fading and less useful to find a warmer spot in a patchy area.
We then went into a room that contained fake heads
Fake heads? You insensitive clod! Please try to avoid being judgmental or making assumptions.
Haven't you seen Futurama? They may simply not want to talk to you.
It's likely to expect heads to roll after such things as Microsoft killing the Kin phone.
Having phone experience, some of those rolled heads may have found a home at Apple.
Not content to put the radio portion of a phone into a Bennie cap, Apple is likely to use more elegant solutions. Nanobots from the iPhone can transform your hand to give you internal parasitic antenna elements that adjust on the fly, providing antenna gain by focusing signal in the appropriate instantaneous direction. Other nanobots implement energy conversion from biofuel. You heard it here first. Apple will be the first to solve the problems of limited battery life and of obese users that otherwise don't look as good as their phones. As the one company that can be trusted to fully integrate and optimize the TOTAL experience, Apple will modify the user to complete the equation. You will be fashionably absorbed, and love it!
Think of the lawsuits
Today we'll have two creative exercises, spend 10 minutes on each and note findings
1) Think of as many uses as you can for (live) lawyers
2) Think of as many uses as you can for lawyers bodies or parts of them.
Bonus: Contrast #1 and #2 and discuss which of the two sets of possible uses is most beneficial to our ecosystem and future
The 3.6.2 beta has worked fine for me, but those uncomfortable with that and not willing to wait can avoid the bug by using a 3.5x version. The vulnerability is only in 3.6 series releases.
It sounds like the summary here is overstating the efficiency a bit. The numbers are for the absorption efficiency, not the overall conversion efficiency.
'The light-trapping limit of a material refers to how much sunlight it is able to absorb. The silicon-wire arrays absorb up to 96 percent of incident sunlight at a single wavelength and 85 percent of total collectible sunlight. "We've surpassed previous optical microstructures developed to trap light,"
.
.
The silicon wire arrays created by Atwater and his colleagues are able to convert between 90 and 100 percent of the photons they absorb into electrons--in technical terms, the wires have a near-perfect internal quantum efficiency. "High absorption plus good conversion makes for a high-quality solar cell," says Atwater. "It's an important advance."'
It looks like the overall efficiency is still very very high while using minimal resources. This is exactly the kind of innovation the U.S. needs for carbon-friendly jobs.
if by "tastier" you mean "higher fat content", then sure.
It isn't that simple. Thickening an outer layer of fat would mostly lead to more waste.
Fat is best in moderate amounts marbled within the meat. That kind of distribution is something that the Japanese have worked at over time through selective breeding.
http://baygourmet.tripod.com/wagyu.html
If the beef industry wasn't using corn as a shortcut to fatten the cattle, there wouldn't be as much need for giving them antibiotics.
http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/98/9.17.98/cattle_feeding.html
The industry doesn't seem to want students (their future workers/managers) taught about changing to more carbon-friendly and food-safe practices. Through the influence of funding, they've altered what is being taught.
http://www.sanluisobispo.com/2010/01/09/983620/meat-firms-multiple-beefs-with.html
The list itself is pretty stupid - listing PowerPC as one of the entries.
It seems like the author can pick a subject to get page hits, but has very experience with what he's writing about.
The iPod Hi-Fi was actually a very good product, it was just expensive.
Part of the problem was that many of the things that were advanced about it were not known or understood by many consumers. It was able to provide very high output at low distortion. They went to great lengths to dampen out vibrations/undesired-resonances in the package. The amplifier was an extremely efficient switching design, giving the unit good life and high output when running on it's internal rechargeable batteries. It also had an optical digital input compatible with the Airport Express, making it very well suited for listening to audio streamed wirelessly from iTunes in a desktop or laptop Mac or PC.
The Mac portable was called a portable and not a laptop. It was heavy compared to a laptop and not yet a product for backpacks and bicycles, but it wasn't yet priced for those consumers either. Using it for for it was plenty easy to throw it it the car and go wherever. It's amazing how well it functioned with System 6 and a few hand-picked pieces of software on 2 meg or even 1 meg of RAM. Using the Truetype system extension it had excellent output dialing into the office fax to print at 200 dpi when a Laserwriter wasn't handy. A popular beta version of MultiFinder floating around could be swapped-in to get the ability to hide background applications in a way that wasn't otherwise seen until System 7. With Word, Filemaker Pro, MacDraft, FaxSTF and a few other packages is sure did more than the office PCs in places I went.
It didn't have the form factor of what came later, but it sure was a blessing to have the functionality. Although using CMOS static-ram was no-doubt very expensive, it also meant that memory didn't need clocking ("refresh") to hold contents, so it could go into sleep for extended periods without running down the battery. And the article is totally wrong about the power supply being "in series". It was a normal enough power brick that output D.C. with a two-conductor plug just like nearly anything else...
OS 9 didn't deserve to be on the list either. Considering the resources of the machines of the era, it was a good workhorse and pretty fast. Multitasking didn't require reboots, but conflicts between 3rd party extensions could. Well-picked extensions were often very useful though. It multitasked well enough to listen to music, surf, and download while burning a CD, which was enough to get by on. It's just that it was vulnerable to an unfriendly program hogging too much of the CPU.
The article left off the G4 Cube, which was a good workhorse but sold poorly because it was priced for the wrong audience.
I guess my memory was a bit fuzzy after 25 years or so. The product I was thinking of, Sound Guard Record Preservative, leaves a dry coating of less than three millionths of an inch. But it is a lubricant, not a hard shell.
The product was announced in Billboard magazine March 27th 1982 on page 86.
http://books.google.com/books?id=wyQEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PT95&lpg=PT95
I found a distributor listing products from the company, but the record preservative is shown as unavailable
http://www.adelcom.net/SoundGuardRecordCare.htm
It would be interesting to see how well the liquid glass performs in the same application.
I'm still drawing a blank on the name of the product and haven't had any luck with a search. It'll hit me in the middle of the night... It was a product over 20, possibly over 30 years ago. Besides cost, the main drawback I recall was that it could trap dust on a record, making any noise from that permanent. It was best used on new records for that reason.
I never bought any or used it on records. I had far too many and tiny bottle was quite expensive. A friend once used some to repair a hard drive with a "stiction" problem. It was already discontinued then, and that was the era of the Mac SE and Quantum 40 MEG or so hard drives, but my friend still had a bottle. (the surface of the platters in the area where the heads parked was worn and had lost it's lubricating properties; heads could get stuck preventing drives from spinning up). It was not a spray, but was applied by wiping. Optical grade wipes were needed to avoid lint. I believe the product predated motor oil that formed a hard layer on metal.
I'm sure that audio magazines of the era covered it. But what little pre-web material is online to search is pretty hard to find through all of the noise of newer commercial products.
If there's a searchable archive of Stereo Review or other old audio magazines of that era, it should show up. It only got attention for a year or two. It might be worth checking to see if there was a related paper in the journals of the A.E.S. (Audio Engineering Society).
This product reminds of the one years ago that could provide a thin but very hard layer for vinyl records thus preventing wear (and the noise/distortion that goes with it).
If this material doesn't come off or splinter, maybe it would be good for protecting glasses with plastic lenses?
The whole site and paper looks like an attempt at marketing Xing.
It's a clever trick to profile the Slashdot crowd, known for penguin worship, frequently known to follow radical publications (Periodic Table, Bill of Rights, Wikipedia...), secretly behind tech controversies (Do triodes or tetrodes sound better??)...
I find it somewhat ironic that iPhone's competitor can run Apple's OS and iPhone/iPad most probably will never be able to run Mac OS.
Perhaps someone (maybe Apple?) can provide a Remote Desktop Client app for the iPad. Besides being a roundabout way to get a "Finder" to browse the shareable iPad directories, one remotely access things on the desktop back home that would be most in need of more cheap bandwidth or CPU power. Administering a bittorrent client, doing some scheduling and video edit/export in Eye-TV, and setting up Handbrake for custom conversions to h.264 come to mind. Your desktop would help to provide some of the content for use on the iPad, and perhaps allow use of some other apps too.
I'm not sure if iPad apps can be written to be hardware aware like on Mac OS (example: adapting to whatever screen area is provided instead of being hard-coded).
I can't remember the name of the Mac OS 9 (or earlier??) 3rd party extension that allowed making a virtual screen at some size much bigger than the actual display, with the display being a portal that could be slid around simply by pushing the cursor against any edge. Of course pinch-zoom would be there too, for moving in and out and around on that remote desktop.
Looking like you're running desktop OS X on that iPad might sometimes be more practical than actually doing it.
What about conveying other sensations?
Either NBC has been working hard at smell, or I have a failing selenium rectifier...
Ok, so Android is pretty resource saving. It is pretty impressive that it can display 720p videos.
It doesn't actually display at 720P but it can read from some 720P video files. There is no external display support, the built-in is 800x480. The mfg. website lists avi, Xvid, Divx, MPEG-4,and RMVB support.
Flash imbedded youtube video wasn't working in the installed version of Android.
It wasn't clear if the browser would play h.264 videos from youtube, but the spec page shows Flash support. On sites such as several running the review of this laptop, the imbedded youtube videos only offer the Flash (.flv). But going to youtube to see it there are two versions in h.264 as well.
(That's as seen by the DownloadHelper plugin in Firefox)
I can see using a small screen if one really wants a device this small, but I question cutting corners so far when it comes to RAM (only 128 MB), or not bothering to include a screen with touch support when the OS is made for it. It's really not Google's fault the UI seems so half-baked on this netbook. It's just plain silly to have an on-screen keyboard popping up when you can't use it. A well done interface could do quite a bit to make life with a small screen more tolerable. Given the spec page showing functionality that the demo didn't, maybe it'll be improved some before shipping. It's cute and apparently cheap, but I think using it would be torture.
I hope the 1.5 hours listed for the battery is the charging time, not the run time.
Not that spec sheets reveal much about joy of use, but specs are published here:
http://hvsco.com/ProductsView.asp?articleid=789