Not to mention that a tighter integration of your phone and TV would allow you to potentially interact with your friends regarding live TV shows you are all watching.
I think Facebook did something like this with the inauguration.
The problem with remotes is that they don't give the user any context. A smartphone as a remote could solve this very nicely.
Imagine an app that could let you view stills/descriptions/scheduling of all shows on right now on your iPhone. You could scroll through them. Maybe read reviews of them on your phone. Interact with it like you'd interact with any other app. When you are ready, you just press a button and your cable box tunes to it.
Imagine DVDs that could display meta information about what you were watching on your phone while you were watching it. (If that interested you).
Imagine if your TV/movie paused automatically when you got a phone call
One person could watch a show, while the other person see's what else is on without interrupting the display.
What functions do remotes provide anyway? It's pretty much selecting channels, managing volume, selecting devices, managing the DVR and turning it on and off.
As for the lack of physical buttons on touchscreens - the iPhone already has a volume button. Who's to say that it can't someday control the volume of an entertainment system it is synced to. Or have it's power button affect the tv instead of the phone. (Give you two options of things to turn off).
Everything else you do with a TV, a touchscreen would be MUCH better suited for.
I was at an Apple store looking to buy Logic Express 8 (which I love), and was talking to an employee about the stuff I would be missing by not having Logic Studio 8.
It was a $300 difference and I only really wanted 10% of the added stuff that Studio had, so I said "Hey, is there a way to just get that one plug-in pack?"
The response? "No... you could always just go find a torrent with it and download that"
yeah, but engineers can take one or two liberal arts classes just to bump up their GPA.
The real problem is that some teachers (very few today) follow the "the average grade is a C, and everything else gets adjusted to fit a curve nicely". Those teachers throw EVERYTHING off.
Of course it'd hurt battery a little bit, but if done right, I don't think it would be too bad
I don't know how often a data connection is initiated during "stand by" mode on an iPhone, but you could piggy back onto that. Or - again I'm speculating here - I'm guessing theres probably some unused bandwidth while you are talking that it could piggy back onto. So you'd get a boost from anyone already using their cell.
Plus, in the true bittorrent sense, if you share your bandwidth, other people get their stuff faster, and if they follow the same rules, you'll get your stuff faster (and with less battery usage). So you'd REALLY only take a hit if you never used your iPhone to surf the web, but shared your connection with others.
Most of the time a mobile phone is sitting there, it isn't using it's antenna. What if something like the iPhone set up bandwidth sharing, so if there were a number of idle iPhones near you, and you were accessing a webpage, some traffic would get funneled through them and sent over wifi to you, making the whole experience MUCH faster.
It would obviously only be over short bursts, and I'm not sure everyone would go for it, but it'd probably boost web browsing performance a lot.
Almost like a torrent web browser... (I think thats why I thought of this right now)
Yeah but digital is digital... Monster also sells HDMI cables for insane prices ($100 for 6 feet). Correct me if I'm wrong, but if a digital cable is working at all, you're going to get the perfect signal from it. Basically, if the cheap $12 internet HDMI cable works at all, you aren't going to get a crisper image going to a fancier Monster cable. Any signal loss from the cheap cable would likely be pretty drastic and noticeable, given that the data is transferred in binary.
Then perhaps you could have used an example that SHOULD be more efficient on today's computers.
Simply put, Word has never required the full power of a PC (once multi-threading came into play anyway). So who cares if Vista isn't doing anything to help? Or if it is eating more resources? If Word is all you are using, then you shouldn't really notice a difference.
However, if you used a different example - like graphic design, development, 3d modeling, etc., we are doing things today that would have been impossible 10 years ago. True, the OS is taking up a bigger chunk of the pie, but the pie has grown enough that it doesn't REALLY bother me.
This is even more true with more and more multi-core processors coming out. If I have 2 cores at my disposal, I'm going to be even more inclined to let the OS do some extra stuff on one of them.
It seems like they are bringing to the public light again. Most people I know have forgotten about this debacle (or never knew about it to begin with). If I was Sony, I'd try to bury the rootkit fiasco as much as possible, not have a large public lawsuit.
Seems like really bar PR. But then again, it IS Sony.
Their main laptop, spec'd out to what a macbook has, costs is $1300, $200 more than a macbook. If you want Ubuntu that bad, buy a macbook (probably a better laptop), and throw ubuntu on there.
Seriously, Lennon's solo stuff was mostly awful. He had a couple of great songs, but only a handful. Plus he died in 1980, so we don't have John's album that he released when he was 65 to compare it to. Paul's first album after the Beatles broke up ("McCartney") was REALLY good. He also had a bunch of good songs when he was in wings (get the best of album).
By 1980 I'd say that Paul was beating John as far as song quality. Since then of course his quality of songs has dropped dramatically. He just writes albums and releases them, very very quickly. This is his TWENTY SIXTH album.
I always imagine him picking up a guitar, playing 8 random chords in a row and saying "I am PAUL MCCARTNEY!!" I can do no harm! I am a genius, hence these 8 chords are genius!" Then he follows it up with the same technique for lyrics. They all sound like the first draft of a song.
Mildly offtopic, but this is the first mention of the number of video tapes I could find.
24 hours and 26 video tapes implies that each tape contained slightly less than one hour of video. That doesn't make any sense at all - even on the highest recording VHS level, you still get 2 hours or so on each one.
They measure objects that are two distances from the camera. (The garage, and the windows on the house which are a few feet forward). Since they are closer, they would appear to the camera as slightly larger, making the software inaccurate. So, either the software doesn't work, or it does do some trickery.
"Anyone with a good television set can see that most DVD videos show compression artifacting during certain types of scenes, while analog (VHS) recordings do not."
Slashdot Mirror
Not to mention that a tighter integration of your phone and TV would allow you to potentially interact with your friends regarding live TV shows you are all watching.
I think Facebook did something like this with the inauguration.
The problem with remotes is that they don't give the user any context. A smartphone as a remote could solve this very nicely.
Imagine an app that could let you view stills/descriptions/scheduling of all shows on right now on your iPhone. You could scroll through them. Maybe read reviews of them on your phone. Interact with it like you'd interact with any other app. When you are ready, you just press a button and your cable box tunes to it.
Imagine DVDs that could display meta information about what you were watching on your phone while you were watching it. (If that interested you).
Imagine if your TV/movie paused automatically when you got a phone call
One person could watch a show, while the other person see's what else is on without interrupting the display.
What functions do remotes provide anyway? It's pretty much selecting channels, managing volume, selecting devices, managing the DVR and turning it on and off.
As for the lack of physical buttons on touchscreens - the iPhone already has a volume button. Who's to say that it can't someday control the volume of an entertainment system it is synced to. Or have it's power button affect the tv instead of the phone. (Give you two options of things to turn off).
Everything else you do with a TV, a touchscreen would be MUCH better suited for.
I was at an Apple store looking to buy Logic Express 8 (which I love), and was talking to an employee about the stuff I would be missing by not having Logic Studio 8.
It was a $300 difference and I only really wanted 10% of the added stuff that Studio had, so I said "Hey, is there a way to just get that one plug-in pack?"
The response? "No... you could always just go find a torrent with it and download that"
I was very impressed :)
http://my.opera.com/desktopteam/blog/2008/03/26/opera-and-the-acid3-test opera wins
yeah, but engineers can take one or two liberal arts classes just to bump up their GPA.
The real problem is that some teachers (very few today) follow the "the average grade is a C, and everything else gets adjusted to fit a curve nicely". Those teachers throw EVERYTHING off.
In other news, DeeQ's house is probably on fire, with him in it.
Of course it'd hurt battery a little bit, but if done right, I don't think it would be too bad
I don't know how often a data connection is initiated during "stand by" mode on an iPhone, but you could piggy back onto that. Or - again I'm speculating here - I'm guessing theres probably some unused bandwidth while you are talking that it could piggy back onto. So you'd get a boost from anyone already using their cell.
Plus, in the true bittorrent sense, if you share your bandwidth, other people get their stuff faster, and if they follow the same rules, you'll get your stuff faster (and with less battery usage). So you'd REALLY only take a hit if you never used your iPhone to surf the web, but shared your connection with others.
Most of the time a mobile phone is sitting there, it isn't using it's antenna. What if something like the iPhone set up bandwidth sharing, so if there were a number of idle iPhones near you, and you were accessing a webpage, some traffic would get funneled through them and sent over wifi to you, making the whole experience MUCH faster. It would obviously only be over short bursts, and I'm not sure everyone would go for it, but it'd probably boost web browsing performance a lot. Almost like a torrent web browser... (I think thats why I thought of this right now)
you know... star wars isn't real...
Yeah but digital is digital... Monster also sells HDMI cables for insane prices ($100 for 6 feet). Correct me if I'm wrong, but if a digital cable is working at all, you're going to get the perfect signal from it. Basically, if the cheap $12 internet HDMI cable works at all, you aren't going to get a crisper image going to a fancier Monster cable. Any signal loss from the cheap cable would likely be pretty drastic and noticeable, given that the data is transferred in binary.
I was under the impression that SAT scores were normalized, so the distribution was the same between years. Am I wrong? Anyone have any sources?
Then perhaps you could have used an example that SHOULD be more efficient on today's computers.
Simply put, Word has never required the full power of a PC (once multi-threading came into play anyway). So who cares if Vista isn't doing anything to help? Or if it is eating more resources? If Word is all you are using, then you shouldn't really notice a difference.
However, if you used a different example - like graphic design, development, 3d modeling, etc., we are doing things today that would have been impossible 10 years ago. True, the OS is taking up a bigger chunk of the pie, but the pie has grown enough that it doesn't REALLY bother me.
This is even more true with more and more multi-core processors coming out. If I have 2 cores at my disposal, I'm going to be even more inclined to let the OS do some extra stuff on one of them.
I read it as "Some group of MIT Engineers are the world's first schizophrenic mice"
The actual article is interesting, but not NEARLY as interesting as it could have been.
(it is early still)
I think when Freddie had AIDS, and knew he was going to die, he started throwing CRAZY parties....
Like... the kind of parties where midgets walk around with trays strapped to their heads, which have lines of cocaine on them...
It seems like they are bringing to the public light again. Most people I know have forgotten about this debacle (or never knew about it to begin with). If I was Sony, I'd try to bury the rootkit fiasco as much as possible, not have a large public lawsuit.
Seems like really bar PR. But then again, it IS Sony.
Their main laptop, spec'd out to what a macbook has, costs is $1300, $200 more than a macbook. If you want Ubuntu that bad, buy a macbook (probably a better laptop), and throw ubuntu on there.
It passes the acid2 test.
"memory almost full" is an anagram for "for my soulmate LLM"... kind of clever I think.
So they all sucked?
Seriously, Lennon's solo stuff was mostly awful. He had a couple of great songs, but only a handful. Plus he died in 1980, so we don't have John's album that he released when he was 65 to compare it to. Paul's first album after the Beatles broke up ("McCartney") was REALLY good. He also had a bunch of good songs when he was in wings (get the best of album).
By 1980 I'd say that Paul was beating John as far as song quality. Since then of course his quality of songs has dropped dramatically. He just writes albums and releases them, very very quickly. This is his TWENTY SIXTH album.
I always imagine him picking up a guitar, playing 8 random chords in a row and saying "I am PAUL MCCARTNEY!!" I can do no harm! I am a genius, hence these 8 chords are genius!" Then he follows it up with the same technique for lyrics. They all sound like the first draft of a song.
We use it for version control and sharing of powerpoint/audio files. It keeps things considerably saner than a shared drive.
And yes, for a 250mb audio file, it is VERY slow.
Mildly offtopic, but this is the first mention of the number of video tapes I could find.
24 hours and 26 video tapes implies that each tape contained slightly less than one hour of video. That doesn't make any sense at all - even on the highest recording VHS level, you still get 2 hours or so on each one.
Anyone have any idea?
It might have to do something trickier. If you look at their example:
http://jkontherun.blogs.com/.shared/image.html?/ photos/uncategorized/iphotomeasure.jpg
They measure objects that are two distances from the camera. (The garage, and the windows on the house which are a few feet forward). Since they are closer, they would appear to the camera as slightly larger, making the software inaccurate. So, either the software doesn't work, or it does do some trickery.
"Anyone with a good television set can see that most DVD videos show compression artifacting during certain types of scenes, while analog (VHS) recordings do not."
I stopped reading when he claimed VHS looked better than DVD.
I don't know what that means.
Two people making a game in 36 hours wouldn't be news. Eight sets of two people making games in 36 hours becomes news?