Even *with* a gyro and accelerometers, it isn't wildly good. I have the TomTom 920T, their top model from only a few years ago. One of the selling points was that it could track your movements even when the satellite signal was lost, such as when in a tunnel. In the real world, the performance was terrible-- if I maintained the same speed, it could roughly guess where I was so long as I didn't make any radical course changes, but if I sped up or slowed down, it would usually be significantly out of sync with reality after just 15-20 seconds. It really didn't manage a whole lot better than if it was simply interpolating based on my last known speed and direction. I doubt that current versions will manage any better.
Apart from the fact that very often, it doesn't. (I still have a TomTom 920T, although it seldom gets used these days; it was their top model a few years ago though.) My maps were until recently regularly updated, mapshare updates were applied before every trip, but for a significant proportion of the speed limits around town it was off by a margin of as much as 20 miles per hour, and that's in the few places where it even pretended to know the limits. In most areas, it hadn't a clue and no limit was suggested. It was pretty-much only interstates and maybe the dozen most major roads in town where it even attempted to suggest the limit. And that's talking about one of the 75 biggest metropolitan statistical areas in the United States. If you're in Podunk, good luck. TomTom's map quality is fairly good. Their point of interest quality is mediocre, and their quality for things like speed limits and the like is abominable, in the USA at least. I understand that in Europe they're a lot better.
Exactly. If I can't sell my used game to somebody else when I'm done with it, I suddenly perceive vastly less value in the product. A game I'd previously have paid $60 for, I'd now consider to be worth maybe $10.
Thing is, I seldom sold my used games. I did it occasionally, but not often. Hence I'm the customer they want to keep -- I pay full price, and I don't participate in the used market. By taking my options away, though, I'm the customer they're going to lose. I already know they're not going to cut their price to my perceived value, so I'll just stop buying altogether...
Yup, I'd point towards both App Inventor and Simple (http://code.google.com/p/simple/) as answers to the submitter's request, at least for Android users.
Note: I have no connection to the author, and haven't yet needed to try the paid version myself, so I refer to the (extremely restricted) free version.
...an inelegant solution to a problem that doesn't exist. I can already type very fast on my on-screen keyboard without the need for silly tactile gadgets, and haptic feedback exists for the folks who aren't able to do so.
I just don't see the need for a device that covers half the screen, making it hard to see or read what's beneath; I might as well leave the on-screen keyboard up all the time and lose half of my screen real-estate. Also I don't care what the article says, I do not believe that swipe entry will be as usable through this layer. Nor will it work if I rotate my screen.
Flash blocking is built into the browser, and NoScript equivalents are available.
I agree with grandparent, though. The TFA is wrong; Chrome didn't overtake due to version numbering -- Chrome's own numbering is no less nonsensical. It overtook because it is a better browser. I am a power user who spends most of his day working through the browser, and who builds and configures his own machines. I was a Firefox user until Chrome came along, but I left the first chance I got because Firefox's developers refused to listen to its userbase.
Over and over, we were told that Firefox's poor memory usage wasn't a bug, it was a feature. The fact that if I opened a few browser windows and tabs, visited a few sites in each and ramped up memory usage in the process, then closed all but one single tab/window and memory usage barely reduced at all was what pushed me away from Firefox. I can't be spending all day long closing my browser every few hours because it's grown to consume multiple gigabytes of memory. Chrome is an absolute lightweight by comparison.
Note: I have no idea if Firefox ever got around to admitting and fixing this bug. That's the problem with ignoring your userbase. They tend not to come back.
I believe few do nowadays, but that's too little, too late. The music industry pushed me away, and I will come back on my terms -- which is when I believe the price reflects the actual value of the product. It's not true to say there haven't been any reports of widespread DRM on CDs, though. Look into, among others:
* Macrovision Cactus Data Shield 100, 200, and 300
* Macrovision SAFEAUDIO
* Macrovision TotalPlay
* SONY Key2Audio
* SunnComm MediaCloQ
* Sunncomm MediaMax CD3
* TTR MusicGuard
Likewise, you're not alone. Other than one Formula One race weekend every couple of weeks for half the year, I no longer watch TV at all, and I stay on promotional rates for the lowest tier that will give me the Speed channel to watch F1. If a la carte existed, I'd probably choose a couple of dozen channels I cared about, but I'm not going to buy all the junk I don't want in a bunch of different tiers to get them. If the cable industry wasn't so greedy, they'd get more of my money than they do now.
I don't own a smartphone, because I refuse to be ripped off on the insane data rates charged in this country, nor do I have a contract because I am disgusted by the fact I'm forced to buy from a list of phones selected by (and with the software feature set crippled by) the provider, rather than choosing my own at retail or from the manufacturer. Instead I stick with a pay-as-you-go dumbphone. If the telecoms industry wasn't so greedy, they'd get more of my money than they do now.
I likewise have stopped consuming music altogether, with the exception of advertiser-supported, free radio and advertiser-supported, free Spotify. I don't torrent music, but I also no longer buy it either on CD or as downloads, because I object to the removal of my fair-use rights, and the unnecessary DRM schemes on both CDs and downloadable music that put artificial limitations on what devices I can use them with. It's been a decade or more since I last paid a cent to anybody other than private artists selling their own music. If the music industry wasn't so greedy, they'd get more of my money than they do now.
...and most recently, I'm dialing back my movie consumption, due to the huge rate hikes the movie industry has forced on Netflix. My Netflix bill is the lowest it's been in years, because I dropped Watch Instantly altogether once I was forced to pay essentially double my bill just a year earlier. Yet another industry is starting to get so greedy that it actually ends up losing money from me.
But I digress. My point is, you're not alone, and some consumers do respond by spending less when big business gets greedy. The question is, will that ever be a significant-enough section of the populace to cause a rethink.
"The agreement, which calls for Microsoft to receive payments of an undisclosed amount, is an implicit acknowledgment of Microsoft's longstanding claims that Linux violates its patents, an assertion that members of the open-source community have long disputed."
That is, I will grant you, possible. However, it's equally possible that Casio's signing is nothing of the kind, and rather is an acknowledgement that Microsoft's lawyers would be willing to drag a case out for long enough that it's simply cheaper to sign on the dotted line, and have the class bully go pick on somebody else.
Exactly, the Asus already does all this, and likely just as well as the Cisco tablet will but at half the cost.
Nothing to see here folks, just your daily dose of Slashvertising.
How arrogant is it of a species secure in their subsistance to say "No, we could stop playing God with genetics and artificially engineering superspecies that wipe out their competitors, if we simply solved our starvation problems with sensible population control and by sharing the wealth with those less priveliged, but we'd rather greedily hoard and screw like bunnies while claiming that a mythical sky daddy doesn't want us to use birth control, so fuck any species that's not directly useful to our own."
Seen it? No, but I've read a bunch of reviews, and I've bought one sight unseen! Well, truth be told, I've accidentally bought three, just trying to get my grubby mitts on a single one with all the backorder issues. All three are scheduled to arrive on Monday, and I've already got something like six different people queuing up to buy the extras. (Fear not, I'm selling them at cost -- people who try to profit off product shortages are assholes and should be shot.)
Ebay is a totally different beast. There's nothing to stop people signing up for multiple social networking sites, and jumping ship when one of the alternate sites suddenly reaches critical mass and becomes "the next big thing".
Auction sites don't work that way. If you list your item on an unpopular site and it gets a bid, you're obligated to sell it for that bid -- even though it might've received a low value because the unpopular site didn't have enough of a userbase for multiple people to find and want to bid on the auction. Hence, most sellers won't list their items at anything less than a profit-making price on an unpopular site, to prevent themselves selling at a loss. On Ebay, they'll often list the item at a lower price to reduce the listing cost, because they know that the huge userbase will make it unlikely that they'll have to sell at a loss.
From the user's point, Ebay hence appears to be a more attractive option, because most users pay attention to the current bid price, not the final prices that similar items have historically sold for. Compare the current bid price on Ebay and it'll always look like it offers better value than an unpopular site, even if realistically the final bids are indistinguishable on both sites.
Ebay are unlike almost any other type of website, in that now they're at the top, they're almost impossible to topple. The only way to do so would be for Ebay themselves to make a major misstep that angered a large portion of their userbase, and spend far too long dithering before they responded to their users' demands, or for a major company with deep pockets to finance a competitor and literally pour money on making it a more attractive option for both buyers and sellers for a lengthy period (much like Microsoft unsuccessfully attempted to do with Bing in the search space) -- and even then it would be hard to get a foothold.
Facebook, by contrast, are only king until the next big thing rolls along, and they fail to respond quickly enough...
It's pretty disappointing to see a supposedly geek-friendly site get a story this badly wrong. Everybody crowing about Myspace losing 10%+ of their userbase in one month is completely missing the point. Of course, other sites that got to the story first have made the exact same mistake, but they don't have the focus on tech that this site supposedly does.
Myspace didn't lose 10 million users in a month. What we're talking about isn't people canceling accounts, what we're talking about is a reduction in the number of unique IP addresses recorded in Myspace's logs for the month. Uniques are not the same thing as users -- as any self-respecting geek should know, many of those IP addresses will be single users getting dynamic IP addresses or using multiple locations (home, work, etc.) to access their account. At the same time, many other users will be behind proxy servers, or connecting from shared (public, work, etc.) locations that make multiple users all appear to be from the same IP.
Which is all to say that this number is relatively meaningless, without detailed knowledge of the other numbers that would be reported along with it.
And it's not to say Myspace aren't dead. They've been essentially dead for several years now, to be quite honest.
If it's a stereo to 5.1 upmix, you don't. You pay 16x.
Unfair, I hear you say? But no! You've got your left channel, your right channel, your center (using data from left and right channels), your left surround (using data from left and right channels), and your right surround (using data from left and right channels).
Clearly that's eight separate audio channels in simultaneous use, requiring eight times the licensing fees. And you do have two ears, right? So you're listening to each of those eight channels twice over...
Now, pay up, serf!
Much appreciated. I missed the reference to PET in the article, and the other comments were submitted within seconds of mine, but I did see them after posting. Sounds like it's likely a marketing and/or financial decision, with little if any benefit for the environment, although I missed some other points myself. Namely, compared to petroleum-derived PET, how much more or less energy does this plant-derived PET take to make, how much more or less byproducts does it result in, and how useful or bad are those byproducts...
Certainly, there's a huge amount we need to know to determine whether this move by Pepsi is good, bad, or indifferent -- probably far more than the average consumer would even understand. This puff piece from the NZ Herald tells us nothing, except that they'll run pretty much anything a marketing droid offers them a good spin on.
The source of the original material is just one part of the equation. Just as important to anybody who cares about the environment is how efficiently the product can be recycled, and whether or not it biodegrades at a reasonable rate. The article mentions neither, and so I'll ask here. Is Pepsi's new bottle as good or better than existing plastics in this area, or are we improving in one area for either marketing and financial reasons, at the detriment of others that are equally important?
...which is exactly why the FAA need to step in, in the interests of safety, and require that the fasten seatbelts signs be switched off except during ascent, descent, and periods where the flight crew have a good faith reason to believe turbulence is likely.
I'm a very law-abiding passenger, and will do my utmost to remain seated, but even I will reach a point where obeying the rules becomes secondary to not rupturing my bladder. Fact is, if the seatbelt sign is left illuminated for non-safety reasons (keeping you in your seats for meal service, to get you to buy duty free, and on down the slippery slope), passengers start to ignore the sign *all* the time -- and they don't actually know when it's safe to make that decision.
If I'm ever on one of these flights where the light is left on for the entire flight (as has happened to me several times in the past few years on flights with not the slightest sign of turbulence), and it results in somebody who was out of their seat landing on top of me and injuring me, you can be damned sure I won't only be suing them (assuming we both survived, anyway). I'll be suing the airline and the FAA for creating the dangerous situation in the first place, by allowing that a tool which is supposed to exist solely to communicate safety be used for other reasons, thus dangerously weakening its intended purpose as a safety mechanism.
Yes, you're right, I do feel rather strongly about this.
...that nobody's holding a gun to your head and forcing you to use "this outdated concept", right? Your lack of desire to use a product doesn't mean it has to disappear from the market -- and I think you'll find that most pros -- who rely solely on SLRs of various flavors for their incomes -- would probably disagree with you on this desire.
Slashdot Mirror
Nobody with a smartphone is using it from the distance you'd view a 9.7-inch tablet.
Even *with* a gyro and accelerometers, it isn't wildly good. I have the TomTom 920T, their top model from only a few years ago. One of the selling points was that it could track your movements even when the satellite signal was lost, such as when in a tunnel. In the real world, the performance was terrible-- if I maintained the same speed, it could roughly guess where I was so long as I didn't make any radical course changes, but if I sped up or slowed down, it would usually be significantly out of sync with reality after just 15-20 seconds. It really didn't manage a whole lot better than if it was simply interpolating based on my last known speed and direction. I doubt that current versions will manage any better.
Apart from the fact that very often, it doesn't. (I still have a TomTom 920T, although it seldom gets used these days; it was their top model a few years ago though.) My maps were until recently regularly updated, mapshare updates were applied before every trip, but for a significant proportion of the speed limits around town it was off by a margin of as much as 20 miles per hour, and that's in the few places where it even pretended to know the limits. In most areas, it hadn't a clue and no limit was suggested. It was pretty-much only interstates and maybe the dozen most major roads in town where it even attempted to suggest the limit. And that's talking about one of the 75 biggest metropolitan statistical areas in the United States. If you're in Podunk, good luck. TomTom's map quality is fairly good. Their point of interest quality is mediocre, and their quality for things like speed limits and the like is abominable, in the USA at least. I understand that in Europe they're a lot better.
Exactly. If I can't sell my used game to somebody else when I'm done with it, I suddenly perceive vastly less value in the product. A game I'd previously have paid $60 for, I'd now consider to be worth maybe $10.
Thing is, I seldom sold my used games. I did it occasionally, but not often. Hence I'm the customer they want to keep -- I pay full price, and I don't participate in the used market. By taking my options away, though, I'm the customer they're going to lose. I already know they're not going to cut their price to my perceived value, so I'll just stop buying altogether...
Yup, I'd point towards both App Inventor and Simple (http://code.google.com/p/simple/) as answers to the submitter's request, at least for Android users.
The Parrot AR.Drone:
http://www.toysrus.com/product/index.jsp?productId=11787331
However, calling these things spy cams is sensationalizing and fearmongering. This is a non-story.
I don't print a *lot* from my Android tablet, but I do occasionally. I've found PrintBot to work nicely:
https://market.android.com/details?id=net.jsecurity.printbot&hl=en
Note: I have no connection to the author, and haven't yet needed to try the paid version myself, so I refer to the (extremely restricted) free version.
...an inelegant solution to a problem that doesn't exist. I can already type very fast on my on-screen keyboard without the need for silly tactile gadgets, and haptic feedback exists for the folks who aren't able to do so.
I just don't see the need for a device that covers half the screen, making it hard to see or read what's beneath; I might as well leave the on-screen keyboard up all the time and lose half of my screen real-estate. Also I don't care what the article says, I do not believe that swipe entry will be as usable through this layer. Nor will it work if I rotate my screen.
Flash blocking is built into the browser, and NoScript equivalents are available.
I agree with grandparent, though. The TFA is wrong; Chrome didn't overtake due to version numbering -- Chrome's own numbering is no less nonsensical. It overtook because it is a better browser. I am a power user who spends most of his day working through the browser, and who builds and configures his own machines. I was a Firefox user until Chrome came along, but I left the first chance I got because Firefox's developers refused to listen to its userbase.
Over and over, we were told that Firefox's poor memory usage wasn't a bug, it was a feature. The fact that if I opened a few browser windows and tabs, visited a few sites in each and ramped up memory usage in the process, then closed all but one single tab/window and memory usage barely reduced at all was what pushed me away from Firefox. I can't be spending all day long closing my browser every few hours because it's grown to consume multiple gigabytes of memory. Chrome is an absolute lightweight by comparison.
Note: I have no idea if Firefox ever got around to admitting and fixing this bug. That's the problem with ignoring your userbase. They tend not to come back.
I believe few do nowadays, but that's too little, too late. The music industry pushed me away, and I will come back on my terms -- which is when I believe the price reflects the actual value of the product. It's not true to say there haven't been any reports of widespread DRM on CDs, though. Look into, among others:
* Macrovision Cactus Data Shield 100, 200, and 300
* Macrovision SAFEAUDIO
* Macrovision TotalPlay
* SONY Key2Audio
* SunnComm MediaCloQ
* Sunncomm MediaMax CD3
* TTR MusicGuard
Likewise, you're not alone. Other than one Formula One race weekend every couple of weeks for half the year, I no longer watch TV at all, and I stay on promotional rates for the lowest tier that will give me the Speed channel to watch F1. If a la carte existed, I'd probably choose a couple of dozen channels I cared about, but I'm not going to buy all the junk I don't want in a bunch of different tiers to get them. If the cable industry wasn't so greedy, they'd get more of my money than they do now.
...and most recently, I'm dialing back my movie consumption, due to the huge rate hikes the movie industry has forced on Netflix. My Netflix bill is the lowest it's been in years, because I dropped Watch Instantly altogether once I was forced to pay essentially double my bill just a year earlier. Yet another industry is starting to get so greedy that it actually ends up losing money from me.
I don't own a smartphone, because I refuse to be ripped off on the insane data rates charged in this country, nor do I have a contract because I am disgusted by the fact I'm forced to buy from a list of phones selected by (and with the software feature set crippled by) the provider, rather than choosing my own at retail or from the manufacturer. Instead I stick with a pay-as-you-go dumbphone. If the telecoms industry wasn't so greedy, they'd get more of my money than they do now.
I likewise have stopped consuming music altogether, with the exception of advertiser-supported, free radio and advertiser-supported, free Spotify. I don't torrent music, but I also no longer buy it either on CD or as downloads, because I object to the removal of my fair-use rights, and the unnecessary DRM schemes on both CDs and downloadable music that put artificial limitations on what devices I can use them with. It's been a decade or more since I last paid a cent to anybody other than private artists selling their own music. If the music industry wasn't so greedy, they'd get more of my money than they do now.
But I digress. My point is, you're not alone, and some consumers do respond by spending less when big business gets greedy. The question is, will that ever be a significant-enough section of the populace to cause a rethink.
...would be to turn around and walk back out of the mall in question, then go shop somewhere else that better respects your privacy rights.
Call me paranoid, but I have this sneaking suspicion that this might have something to do with AT&T trying to buy T-Mobile."
Indeed. If they'd already successfully bought T-Mobile, the cap wouldn't be anywhere near so "generous".
"The agreement, which calls for Microsoft to receive payments of an undisclosed amount, is an implicit acknowledgment of Microsoft's longstanding claims that Linux violates its patents, an assertion that members of the open-source community have long disputed."
That is, I will grant you, possible. However, it's equally possible that Casio's signing is nothing of the kind, and rather is an acknowledgement that Microsoft's lawyers would be willing to drag a case out for long enough that it's simply cheaper to sign on the dotted line, and have the class bully go pick on somebody else.
Exactly, the Asus already does all this, and likely just as well as the Cisco tablet will but at half the cost. Nothing to see here folks, just your daily dose of Slashvertising.
How arrogant is it of a species secure in their subsistance to say "No, we could stop playing God with genetics and artificially engineering superspecies that wipe out their competitors, if we simply solved our starvation problems with sensible population control and by sharing the wealth with those less priveliged, but we'd rather greedily hoard and screw like bunnies while claiming that a mythical sky daddy doesn't want us to use birth control, so fuck any species that's not directly useful to our own."
Seen it? No, but I've read a bunch of reviews, and I've bought one sight unseen! Well, truth be told, I've accidentally bought three, just trying to get my grubby mitts on a single one with all the backorder issues. All three are scheduled to arrive on Monday, and I've already got something like six different people queuing up to buy the extras. (Fear not, I'm selling them at cost -- people who try to profit off product shortages are assholes and should be shot.)
"Has anyone else noticed that they are all actually the same industry. The cheap and easy transference of data..."
You've made an ever so slight typo. I think you were trying to say "expensive and intentionally obfuscated".
Ebay is a totally different beast. There's nothing to stop people signing up for multiple social networking sites, and jumping ship when one of the alternate sites suddenly reaches critical mass and becomes "the next big thing".
Auction sites don't work that way. If you list your item on an unpopular site and it gets a bid, you're obligated to sell it for that bid -- even though it might've received a low value because the unpopular site didn't have enough of a userbase for multiple people to find and want to bid on the auction. Hence, most sellers won't list their items at anything less than a profit-making price on an unpopular site, to prevent themselves selling at a loss. On Ebay, they'll often list the item at a lower price to reduce the listing cost, because they know that the huge userbase will make it unlikely that they'll have to sell at a loss.
From the user's point, Ebay hence appears to be a more attractive option, because most users pay attention to the current bid price, not the final prices that similar items have historically sold for. Compare the current bid price on Ebay and it'll always look like it offers better value than an unpopular site, even if realistically the final bids are indistinguishable on both sites.
Ebay are unlike almost any other type of website, in that now they're at the top, they're almost impossible to topple. The only way to do so would be for Ebay themselves to make a major misstep that angered a large portion of their userbase, and spend far too long dithering before they responded to their users' demands, or for a major company with deep pockets to finance a competitor and literally pour money on making it a more attractive option for both buyers and sellers for a lengthy period (much like Microsoft unsuccessfully attempted to do with Bing in the search space) -- and even then it would be hard to get a foothold.
Facebook, by contrast, are only king until the next big thing rolls along, and they fail to respond quickly enough...
It's pretty disappointing to see a supposedly geek-friendly site get a story this badly wrong. Everybody crowing about Myspace losing 10%+ of their userbase in one month is completely missing the point. Of course, other sites that got to the story first have made the exact same mistake, but they don't have the focus on tech that this site supposedly does.
Myspace didn't lose 10 million users in a month. What we're talking about isn't people canceling accounts, what we're talking about is a reduction in the number of unique IP addresses recorded in Myspace's logs for the month. Uniques are not the same thing as users -- as any self-respecting geek should know, many of those IP addresses will be single users getting dynamic IP addresses or using multiple locations (home, work, etc.) to access their account. At the same time, many other users will be behind proxy servers, or connecting from shared (public, work, etc.) locations that make multiple users all appear to be from the same IP.
Which is all to say that this number is relatively meaningless, without detailed knowledge of the other numbers that would be reported along with it.
And it's not to say Myspace aren't dead. They've been essentially dead for several years now, to be quite honest.
If it's a stereo to 5.1 upmix, you don't. You pay 16x.
Unfair, I hear you say? But no! You've got your left channel, your right channel, your center (using data from left and right channels), your left surround (using data from left and right channels), and your right surround (using data from left and right channels).
Clearly that's eight separate audio channels in simultaneous use, requiring eight times the licensing fees. And you do have two ears, right? So you're listening to each of those eight channels twice over...
Now, pay up, serf!
Much appreciated. I missed the reference to PET in the article, and the other comments were submitted within seconds of mine, but I did see them after posting. Sounds like it's likely a marketing and/or financial decision, with little if any benefit for the environment, although I missed some other points myself. Namely, compared to petroleum-derived PET, how much more or less energy does this plant-derived PET take to make, how much more or less byproducts does it result in, and how useful or bad are those byproducts... Certainly, there's a huge amount we need to know to determine whether this move by Pepsi is good, bad, or indifferent -- probably far more than the average consumer would even understand. This puff piece from the NZ Herald tells us nothing, except that they'll run pretty much anything a marketing droid offers them a good spin on.
The source of the original material is just one part of the equation. Just as important to anybody who cares about the environment is how efficiently the product can be recycled, and whether or not it biodegrades at a reasonable rate. The article mentions neither, and so I'll ask here. Is Pepsi's new bottle as good or better than existing plastics in this area, or are we improving in one area for either marketing and financial reasons, at the detriment of others that are equally important?
...which is exactly why the FAA need to step in, in the interests of safety, and require that the fasten seatbelts signs be switched off except during ascent, descent, and periods where the flight crew have a good faith reason to believe turbulence is likely.
I'm a very law-abiding passenger, and will do my utmost to remain seated, but even I will reach a point where obeying the rules becomes secondary to not rupturing my bladder. Fact is, if the seatbelt sign is left illuminated for non-safety reasons (keeping you in your seats for meal service, to get you to buy duty free, and on down the slippery slope), passengers start to ignore the sign *all* the time -- and they don't actually know when it's safe to make that decision.
If I'm ever on one of these flights where the light is left on for the entire flight (as has happened to me several times in the past few years on flights with not the slightest sign of turbulence), and it results in somebody who was out of their seat landing on top of me and injuring me, you can be damned sure I won't only be suing them (assuming we both survived, anyway). I'll be suing the airline and the FAA for creating the dangerous situation in the first place, by allowing that a tool which is supposed to exist solely to communicate safety be used for other reasons, thus dangerously weakening its intended purpose as a safety mechanism.
Yes, you're right, I do feel rather strongly about this.
...that nobody's holding a gun to your head and forcing you to use "this outdated concept", right? Your lack of desire to use a product doesn't mean it has to disappear from the market -- and I think you'll find that most pros -- who rely solely on SLRs of various flavors for their incomes -- would probably disagree with you on this desire.