Remember when you heard about the iPad? Then do you remember when HP announced its tablet PC, tentatively named the Slate?
One of those products hit the market, and the other is not going to.
On the day of Apple's release of the 3G iPad model, the rumors are circling the internet that HP won't be releasing its competing tablet PC. I'm going to repeat what has been said, because I think it's true: they couldn't do it right.
HP could probably release the Windows 7 driven Slate this year, but my guess is that they would have had to make cuts to its supposed tech specs in order to do so. A month ago, when Apple released the iPad, a graphic started going around the internet comparing HP's slate to the Apple version. Turns out they apparently couldn't really deliver all that.
So what will HP be doing now?
With the company's recent acquisition of the Palm brand, they got the rights to WebOS, a phone-based operating system that may be HP's new target for their slate. What does this mean for HP? They will get the increased battery life and simple interface that WebOS offers, but because of the current state of WebOS, will have very few tablet-useful apps ready for deployment any time soon. If HP does release their tablet with WebOS, they will subsequently need to spend months or years catching up to Apple's comprehensive line of apps, and who is to say they will even be able to? By the time HP enters the market with a product comparable to the iPad, Apple will be getting ready for the next gen of tablet PC's.
I really had some faith in HP when I heard about their tablet. I almost decided to wait on it rather than jump on the iPad, but now it looks like I made the right choice. I see this thing playing out in a similar way to the iPod or iPhone: Apple releases a good product, competitors say, "we can make this better, we're just a couple months behind!", meanwhile Apple is developing the next gen of its first product, and releases a much better version of its original device just after some competitors show up, leaving everyone else saying, "whoah, how did they do that?"
It's sad to me that Microsoft is not even trying to compete with Apple directly any more. Since Apple won the battle of the MP3 players and Smart Phones, Microsoft has been sitting back saying, "we'll just stick to our guns and stop trying to really innovate." Personally, I love Windows 7, and think it was the best OS that Microsoft has released in a decade, but it was not designed for super-portable devices like tablets, and its touch-screen capabilities are still not up to par with Apple's iPhone OS.
April 30, 2010
April 26, 2010
Is There Life on Mars?
Okay, it's highly unlikely that there is much if any life on Mars, and if it is, it's probably not "intelligent" life, but a lot of renowned physicists believe that the numbers point towards life on other planets.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-20003358-71.html?tag=rtcol;pop
Well, I think it's an interesting proposition, but as Dr. Hawking points out, it's unlikely that they are going to interact with us in a peaceful manner. This idea makes me think back on countless sic-fi movies where the aliens have destroyed their home planet and now have to suck our brains out to fill their need for living flesh, so its not exactly a revolutionary concept...except that Stephen Hawking said it.
Anyway, since it's highly unlikely that we'll find this extraterrestrial life in my life-time, I'm going to go ahead and disagree. I think that if this highly advanced species finds us first, they are likely a curious race. They will probably know from experience that their finding of a new species likely signals that species' decline (as we have done with other groups of humans and animals), and I'd like to think they will try to combat our destruction. They could know of our existence already, and be watching us from afar so as to not interfere with our ecosystem. I think it's flawed to assume that life more advanced than our own would keep making the same mistakes as we do in our tiny sphere of existence.
On the other hand, if we make contact with them, I think it's a crapshoot. They could be nice, but if they are lesser-evolved creatures than we are, they could be more like dinosaurs or gorillas than humans in their behavior. What will this mean for them? Who knows. Maybe by the time we meet them, we will realize that objective study is impossible with interaction, and we will just monitor them from afar, but if this meeting takes place in near-human future, we may just destroy them and harvest their planet for resources.
So, I see both points of this argument. I guess we'll just have to wait it out, but I'd like to think that peaceful coexistence is possible. The more we know about life on this planet, the more we know about the potential for life elsewhere. Who's to say that extraterrestrials will "see" as we do using light. Their sensory organs could be tuned to different things: smell, touch, hearing, radio-frequencies, radiation, or some undetectable source. It's a pretty cool thought because we can only observe the progression of life on this planet. Who knows what tiny changes in geography or external interaction could have shaped life differently?
I like to think that some of the most dominating and successful species on earth are insects. They may be small relative to people, but they are generally capable of reproducing at an alarming rate, and more importantly, they have no sense of individualism. This "hive" mindset allows them to work exclusively for the good of the colony or tribe, making them extremely efficient workers. The one thing that makes us superior is our need to invent. Is it possible that there could be a species of inventive "insect-minded" creatures out there, trying to take over the galaxy?
Maybe, but I'm just ranting and speculating, so I'll digress. Feel free to give me your thoughts on extraterrestrial life, and when we'll make contact.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-20003358-71.html?tag=rtcol;pop
Well, I think it's an interesting proposition, but as Dr. Hawking points out, it's unlikely that they are going to interact with us in a peaceful manner. This idea makes me think back on countless sic-fi movies where the aliens have destroyed their home planet and now have to suck our brains out to fill their need for living flesh, so its not exactly a revolutionary concept...except that Stephen Hawking said it.
Anyway, since it's highly unlikely that we'll find this extraterrestrial life in my life-time, I'm going to go ahead and disagree. I think that if this highly advanced species finds us first, they are likely a curious race. They will probably know from experience that their finding of a new species likely signals that species' decline (as we have done with other groups of humans and animals), and I'd like to think they will try to combat our destruction. They could know of our existence already, and be watching us from afar so as to not interfere with our ecosystem. I think it's flawed to assume that life more advanced than our own would keep making the same mistakes as we do in our tiny sphere of existence.
On the other hand, if we make contact with them, I think it's a crapshoot. They could be nice, but if they are lesser-evolved creatures than we are, they could be more like dinosaurs or gorillas than humans in their behavior. What will this mean for them? Who knows. Maybe by the time we meet them, we will realize that objective study is impossible with interaction, and we will just monitor them from afar, but if this meeting takes place in near-human future, we may just destroy them and harvest their planet for resources.
So, I see both points of this argument. I guess we'll just have to wait it out, but I'd like to think that peaceful coexistence is possible. The more we know about life on this planet, the more we know about the potential for life elsewhere. Who's to say that extraterrestrials will "see" as we do using light. Their sensory organs could be tuned to different things: smell, touch, hearing, radio-frequencies, radiation, or some undetectable source. It's a pretty cool thought because we can only observe the progression of life on this planet. Who knows what tiny changes in geography or external interaction could have shaped life differently?
I like to think that some of the most dominating and successful species on earth are insects. They may be small relative to people, but they are generally capable of reproducing at an alarming rate, and more importantly, they have no sense of individualism. This "hive" mindset allows them to work exclusively for the good of the colony or tribe, making them extremely efficient workers. The one thing that makes us superior is our need to invent. Is it possible that there could be a species of inventive "insect-minded" creatures out there, trying to take over the galaxy?
Maybe, but I'm just ranting and speculating, so I'll digress. Feel free to give me your thoughts on extraterrestrial life, and when we'll make contact.
April 20, 2010
Food for Thought
I found an article weighing the KFC "Double Down" (a "sandwich" with two chicken breasts instead of bread) against some other popular fast-food items. This post doesn't really pertain to technology, but nutrition is a science, plus I found it interesting. This thing apparently costs around $5.50, and has about 540 calories. Compare that to McDonald's Premium Crispy Chicken Ranch BLT sandwich, which has around 580 calories. To put 500 calories into perspective, think about it in terms of the suggested (2000 calories per day) diet. One of these sandwiches should count for 1/4th of your intake for the day. Honestly, that doesn't seem that bad (assuming you don't tack on fries and a large coke for a meal), but the killer here is the sodium.
Both the KFC Double Down and the McDonald's Crispy Chicken BLT have around 1400 mg of sodium. The National Academy of Science recommends 1500 mg of sodium per day, and NO MORE than 2300 mg per day. Now, I know a lot has been said about the obesity epidemic and heart disease in America, and the perpetuation of its growth by the fast food industry, but this ties directly in with new legislation regarding health care reform.
I found it interesting, when looking over parts of the bill, that fast food chains and vending machines will now be REQUIRED to post nutritional information directly on their menus, and as someone who watches what he eats, I am pretty happy about this. Maybe this will get more Americans thinking before ordering the 1260 calorie "Big Cheese" baked potato at Pimento's Cafe and Market. I also think that this will motivate restaurants to make calorie cuts to their high-numbered items, which is a good step to make, but should more be done? Does a government who wants to make health care universal not also have a duty to ensure its citizens' health through preventative measures, like restrictions on food items? Should fast-food chains be allowed to sell items containing 93% of your daily sodium intake?
Both the KFC Double Down and the McDonald's Crispy Chicken BLT have around 1400 mg of sodium. The National Academy of Science recommends 1500 mg of sodium per day, and NO MORE than 2300 mg per day. Now, I know a lot has been said about the obesity epidemic and heart disease in America, and the perpetuation of its growth by the fast food industry, but this ties directly in with new legislation regarding health care reform.
I found it interesting, when looking over parts of the bill, that fast food chains and vending machines will now be REQUIRED to post nutritional information directly on their menus, and as someone who watches what he eats, I am pretty happy about this. Maybe this will get more Americans thinking before ordering the 1260 calorie "Big Cheese" baked potato at Pimento's Cafe and Market. I also think that this will motivate restaurants to make calorie cuts to their high-numbered items, which is a good step to make, but should more be done? Does a government who wants to make health care universal not also have a duty to ensure its citizens' health through preventative measures, like restrictions on food items? Should fast-food chains be allowed to sell items containing 93% of your daily sodium intake?
April 17, 2010
Someday we won't need windows
I always like seeing the potential of new technology. I think this could be great for living in an apartment or house that doesn't offer many good views. The one problem is the stupid-looking necklace you have to wear with it, but maybe someday that can be eliminated.
http://www.popsci.com/diy/article/2010-04/winscape-makes-world-outside-your-window-whatever-you-want-it-be
http://www.popsci.com/diy/article/2010-04/winscape-makes-world-outside-your-window-whatever-you-want-it-be
April 16, 2010
International Ethics
"We know of no case where a nation developed a modem manufacturing sector without first going through a 'sweatshop' phase. How long ago was it that children could be found working in the textile factories of Lowell, Massachusetts; or Manchester, England; or of Osaka, Japan?"
David Lindauer
This is a quote included in the engineering ethics online textbook at UT as justification for the use of sweatshops, child labor, and other sub-standard working conditions abroad. From my experiences with other Religious Studies, Sociology, and Philosophy courses, I imagine that this acceptance of 'the way things are' would be hotly contested by those with a more liberal mindset, but the initial statement is sadly true.
The real question here is the implication that the way societies have evolved in the past is okay, and should necessarily be carried on into the future. Personally, I don't think it's ethically 'right' for international corporations to take advantage of more vulnerable workers in other countries, but what does 'taking advantage' of these people mean?
For example, say there is a group of people living in a developing country where the wealth distribution is very uneven. That is, a very small percentage of the population holds a disproportionally large percentage of the wealth. Is it wrong for American companies to move in and give factory jobs to many of that country's unemployed, who would otherwise starve, be forced into slave labor, or join militant or renegade groups (think drug trafficking in Mexico or rebels in Sudan)? Surely American companies will give the people better conditions than the alternatives, even if these conditions are not up to par with those in America.
On the flip side, I see the argument against this. There are certain standards set for workers in our country. These standards are presumably based on the idea that workers, no matter their location, have certain human rights. It is fast becoming a human right in this country to be given health-care (like it or not), and other restrictions like the number of hours worked in a day, or the minimum age of workers, or OSHA-regulated working conditions have all become expected norms in America - even enforceable by law. Why should companies treat workers differently in other countries? Aren't Mexicans, Thai, Chinese, and Sudanese all people as well? Did we do something special to be given more human rights than they have?
Regardless of your stance on the issue, as the world becomes more homogeneous, and regulations become increasingly international, it is likely that this problem will get better to some extent, but it could take decades. Capitalist business practices have great advantages - they lead to tough competition, which makes for greater efficiency, they breed innovation, and they allow anyone to (theoretically) work their way up from despondency - but we cannot continue a system that does not recognize basic human rights. Business must tread a fine line between maximizing profit, and treating people for what they are - people.
David Lindauer
This is a quote included in the engineering ethics online textbook at UT as justification for the use of sweatshops, child labor, and other sub-standard working conditions abroad. From my experiences with other Religious Studies, Sociology, and Philosophy courses, I imagine that this acceptance of 'the way things are' would be hotly contested by those with a more liberal mindset, but the initial statement is sadly true.
The real question here is the implication that the way societies have evolved in the past is okay, and should necessarily be carried on into the future. Personally, I don't think it's ethically 'right' for international corporations to take advantage of more vulnerable workers in other countries, but what does 'taking advantage' of these people mean?
For example, say there is a group of people living in a developing country where the wealth distribution is very uneven. That is, a very small percentage of the population holds a disproportionally large percentage of the wealth. Is it wrong for American companies to move in and give factory jobs to many of that country's unemployed, who would otherwise starve, be forced into slave labor, or join militant or renegade groups (think drug trafficking in Mexico or rebels in Sudan)? Surely American companies will give the people better conditions than the alternatives, even if these conditions are not up to par with those in America.
On the flip side, I see the argument against this. There are certain standards set for workers in our country. These standards are presumably based on the idea that workers, no matter their location, have certain human rights. It is fast becoming a human right in this country to be given health-care (like it or not), and other restrictions like the number of hours worked in a day, or the minimum age of workers, or OSHA-regulated working conditions have all become expected norms in America - even enforceable by law. Why should companies treat workers differently in other countries? Aren't Mexicans, Thai, Chinese, and Sudanese all people as well? Did we do something special to be given more human rights than they have?
Regardless of your stance on the issue, as the world becomes more homogeneous, and regulations become increasingly international, it is likely that this problem will get better to some extent, but it could take decades. Capitalist business practices have great advantages - they lead to tough competition, which makes for greater efficiency, they breed innovation, and they allow anyone to (theoretically) work their way up from despondency - but we cannot continue a system that does not recognize basic human rights. Business must tread a fine line between maximizing profit, and treating people for what they are - people.
April 14, 2010
iPad Review
So, I've had the iPad for just about two weeks now, and have gotten a lot of questions as to my thoughts on the product so far. For anyone interested in knowing my humble opinion on the new device, here goes:
As a college student, I envisioned using the iPad as a highly portable tool to take to class every day and utilize. My primary uses for the device so far:
Now, I know everyone will have different uses in mind, so let me reiterate that the iPad will NOT replace your primary computer. It's not made to do that, and with its app-based OS, probably will not do that anytime soon. It's not the most convenient system to type on, although there is a dock/keyboard out there that would probably make it comparable to typing on a laptop. The iPad will let you play iTunes music or podcasts in the background while you use it for other things, but until OS4 is released in the Fall, it will not really multitask. I haven't found this to be an issue at all though. When you click the home button to close an app, you can quickly move to another, and then close it and move back to the first one without waiting for it to completely reload. This process doesn't take significantly longer than minimizing a window on your PC to select another one, so it's nothing more than a minor inconvenience that I can't listen to Pandora while browsing the web.
As far as cost goes, it starts at $499 - basically the price of a netbook - and goes up to $829 (64gb 3G model). The 3G model has yet to be released, but I decided it wasn't something I would need anyway. I knew my primary places of use would be home and school - where wireless internet is standard - and paying another $40 per month was too much to justify at this point. I sprung for the 32gb model which has a $599 base price tag, so after a case, stylus (a must for drawing/writing apps), and tax, it ran right at $700. One of my biggest gripes with Apple in general is that nothing comes free when you buy the iPad. Most apps are cheap ($3-$10), and many are free, but when you buy 5 or 6 at a few bucks a piece, it really starts to add up. I've spent around $40 on apps, some of which turned out to be a waste, and some that were really useful and productive. All-in-all, plan on spending at least $100 plus the base price to really get the most use out of your iPad.
Early adoption is not a route that I take for many products, but it was time to replace my aging laptop and iPod, so I did. So far, I am very satisfied with the iPad. I have a feeling these may replace MacBooks for most students in the next couple years because of the amazing portability and convenience. It may not be the BEST for any one use, but its GOOD for many different uses.
Ups:
Portability, battery life, display size, speed, note-taking
Downs:
Price, no exporting to Excel, no Flash supported
My most used Apps (not included on the iPad):
As a college student, I envisioned using the iPad as a highly portable tool to take to class every day and utilize. My primary uses for the device so far:
- Taking notes in class
- Sending and receiving emails away from home
- Keeping important documents on my person to have at meetings
- Having my Google calendar accessible at all times - even when offline
- Keeping track of my expenses
- Reading books/textbooks
- Listing and reminding me about due dates for homework and projects
- Listening to music/podcasts
- Surfing the internet
Now, I know everyone will have different uses in mind, so let me reiterate that the iPad will NOT replace your primary computer. It's not made to do that, and with its app-based OS, probably will not do that anytime soon. It's not the most convenient system to type on, although there is a dock/keyboard out there that would probably make it comparable to typing on a laptop. The iPad will let you play iTunes music or podcasts in the background while you use it for other things, but until OS4 is released in the Fall, it will not really multitask. I haven't found this to be an issue at all though. When you click the home button to close an app, you can quickly move to another, and then close it and move back to the first one without waiting for it to completely reload. This process doesn't take significantly longer than minimizing a window on your PC to select another one, so it's nothing more than a minor inconvenience that I can't listen to Pandora while browsing the web.
As far as cost goes, it starts at $499 - basically the price of a netbook - and goes up to $829 (64gb 3G model). The 3G model has yet to be released, but I decided it wasn't something I would need anyway. I knew my primary places of use would be home and school - where wireless internet is standard - and paying another $40 per month was too much to justify at this point. I sprung for the 32gb model which has a $599 base price tag, so after a case, stylus (a must for drawing/writing apps), and tax, it ran right at $700. One of my biggest gripes with Apple in general is that nothing comes free when you buy the iPad. Most apps are cheap ($3-$10), and many are free, but when you buy 5 or 6 at a few bucks a piece, it really starts to add up. I've spent around $40 on apps, some of which turned out to be a waste, and some that were really useful and productive. All-in-all, plan on spending at least $100 plus the base price to really get the most use out of your iPad.
Early adoption is not a route that I take for many products, but it was time to replace my aging laptop and iPod, so I did. So far, I am very satisfied with the iPad. I have a feeling these may replace MacBooks for most students in the next couple years because of the amazing portability and convenience. It may not be the BEST for any one use, but its GOOD for many different uses.
Ups:
Portability, battery life, display size, speed, note-taking
Downs:
Price, no exporting to Excel, no Flash supported
My most used Apps (not included on the iPad):
- iBooks - Has a great selection of free books (mostly classics) to try out
- HW Mail
- iAnnotate PDF
- Pages
- Taska
- Expenses
- Duo Browser
- Netflix
- RealRacingHD
- Downloader
April 8, 2010
All hail mighty coal
Is it just me, or does the coal mining industry seem to be stuck in the 1950's? I understand that the nature of digging a massive mine into rock and pulling out tons of coal is dangerous by its very nature, but while manufacturing in the US has become a very safe and highly automated process, coal mining has not come up to par with the safety standards held in other industries.
The recent mine explosion in West Virginia has reminded me of this fact again. In 2006 the federal government passed new regulations on mining safety in the US, but last year, only 1 in 10 mines across the country had made the upgrades to conform to these standards. I'm not a huge fan of coal as a power source to begin with. It's environmentally one of the more destructive forms of energy production, and the working conditions for miners and coal power plant workers are far less than ideal in most of the country, but I am a realist. I understand that our infrastructure is based on coal in much of the country, but companies need to be held accountable for the safety of their workers. Many times a violation of federal safety standards that leads to an accident will cost the company some fines, but the fines are often less financially detrimental to the company than upgrading the mine's safety.
It is likely that we will be moving away from coal within my lifetime as supplies diminish and nuclear energy becomes more prevalent, but respect for human life is a huge issue here. Federal regulators and companies themselves should not turn their back on this accident.
The recent mine explosion in West Virginia has reminded me of this fact again. In 2006 the federal government passed new regulations on mining safety in the US, but last year, only 1 in 10 mines across the country had made the upgrades to conform to these standards. I'm not a huge fan of coal as a power source to begin with. It's environmentally one of the more destructive forms of energy production, and the working conditions for miners and coal power plant workers are far less than ideal in most of the country, but I am a realist. I understand that our infrastructure is based on coal in much of the country, but companies need to be held accountable for the safety of their workers. Many times a violation of federal safety standards that leads to an accident will cost the company some fines, but the fines are often less financially detrimental to the company than upgrading the mine's safety.
It is likely that we will be moving away from coal within my lifetime as supplies diminish and nuclear energy becomes more prevalent, but respect for human life is a huge issue here. Federal regulators and companies themselves should not turn their back on this accident.
April 7, 2010
Day 1 - The iPad
I have always been somewhat of a tech junkie. I remember saving up my money for months to buy my first PDA when I was in Jr. High. What I was going to do with a PDA in Jr. High is a mystery to me now, but I've always liked being an early adopter. Maybe it fills some need for me psychologically or maybe I just have a fascination with new technology. Either way, When I first read about Apple's newest portable computing device, the iPad, I was highly intrigued. I have never been a huge Mac fan. I love iPods, but I've never felt the need to pony up the big bucks for one of their PCs. That being said, the more I work with the iPad the more of an Apple fan I have become.
In the interest of time, I'll keep my first post brief. I've got a test in about an hour so I won't be posting my full review yet, but I'd like to say a couple things about my new device. First, it can not take the place of your primary computer. Just not possible yet. The OS is far too limited, but it is an excellent companion to your desktop or larger notebook computer. File transfers are quick and easy, and the ipad's pop-up keyboard is surprisingly easy to use for typing notes. Second, it is surprisingly fast. Third, it is NOT just a bigger iPhone or iPod touch. Yes, it runs off basically the same app-based OS, but it's comparatively massive screen and significantly faster processor put it in a whole new class of emerging devices.
As a final note, I'd like to say that I am sold on tablets as the future of portable computing. Whether Apple's iPad or another soon-to-be-released Windows based tablet, this is where portability will truly meet functionality. It would surprise me if college students and businessmen didn't replace their clunky laptops with tablets within the next 5-10 years. The size and ability to hand-write information onto the screen itself make this class of devices much more akin to an actual paper notebook than a laptop, and once some of the early competitors start appearing in the marketplace, these devices will improve quickly and drastically.
In the interest of time, I'll keep my first post brief. I've got a test in about an hour so I won't be posting my full review yet, but I'd like to say a couple things about my new device. First, it can not take the place of your primary computer. Just not possible yet. The OS is far too limited, but it is an excellent companion to your desktop or larger notebook computer. File transfers are quick and easy, and the ipad's pop-up keyboard is surprisingly easy to use for typing notes. Second, it is surprisingly fast. Third, it is NOT just a bigger iPhone or iPod touch. Yes, it runs off basically the same app-based OS, but it's comparatively massive screen and significantly faster processor put it in a whole new class of emerging devices.
As a final note, I'd like to say that I am sold on tablets as the future of portable computing. Whether Apple's iPad or another soon-to-be-released Windows based tablet, this is where portability will truly meet functionality. It would surprise me if college students and businessmen didn't replace their clunky laptops with tablets within the next 5-10 years. The size and ability to hand-write information onto the screen itself make this class of devices much more akin to an actual paper notebook than a laptop, and once some of the early competitors start appearing in the marketplace, these devices will improve quickly and drastically.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
