10 Technologies MIA 698
Fantasy Football writes "CNet lists ten technologies they miss, which includes Napster, the originial Palm Pilot, good keyboards, and more. From the article: 'Technology evolves. Good technologies and products usually survive; poor ones usually go extinct. But not all of the technologies and tech products that have swirled down the drain of the tech gene pool deserved their fate. Here are some big, and some small, ideas that we thought we'd have with us forever, but that unfortunately have gone the way of the dodo.'"
now before anyone gets started (Score:5, Insightful)
there buisness model was fatally flawed, they didnt make any proffit because they basically sold everything at what it cost them, and didnt charge shipping.
Re:now before anyone gets started (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:now before anyone gets started (Score:2)
So? (Score:3, Interesting)
That is was a bas business idea doesn't make it any less cool to the consumer. I wish they had found a way to make it work because I tell ya, I could go for a new DVD right now, but
Re:So? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:So? (Score:4, Insightful)
With obesity problems nowadays, this might not be such a bad idea.
Re:now before anyone gets started (Score:4, Funny)
Max
Re:now before anyone gets started (Score:3, Interesting)
Dude, they're called concierges.
Re:now before anyone gets started (Score:3, Insightful)
As far as I know, no arcologies have been built. About the closest thing I can think of is some larger "assisted living" homes for seniors, which have their own church, convience store,
Not really correct (Score:4, Informative)
Further, they were turning a profit in both Boston and New York -- both very dense cities where deliveries were easily made via bicycle. Not so in some of their later expansions (Dallas comes to mind).
Re:now before anyone gets started (Score:5, Funny)
When the company collapsed, she despaired of ever finding a job as good as that one, and decided to go to grad school - also in whatever major she had in undergrad (and couldn't find a job with).
Never in my life have I so wished to have the power to disobey the laws of physics, just in order to be able to reach through the radio and slap that stupid bitch silly. She should have been doing backflips, rejoicing that the whole scheme lasted so long, instead of moaning about how unfair life was.
(Didnt' help that I was stuck in Beltway traffic in summer with no A/C when listening.)
Re:now before anyone gets started (Score:5, Insightful)
So, it's irrational to love something if that something can't make any money? If Kosmo was profitable, then it would be OK to love it, but since it was not, loving it would be "irrational"? Is our liking or disliking some company somehow tied to that company's profit-margin?
If someone started giving away free cars to everyone, would you NOT love it? I mean, the person giving those cars away wouldn't be making any profit from it.
Re:now before anyone gets started (Score:3, Insightful)
It is easier for me to "love" consuming something that a faceless corporation wishes to dispense below cost, but if a human delivery guy is bringing something to my door, I
Re:now before anyone gets started (Score:3, Informative)
Keyboard (Score:3, Informative)
I like the feel of an old Antec clicky keyboard better, but the layout on the Unicomp is better.
Get a PS2USB adaptor and it even works great on a Mac.
Re:Keyboard (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Keyboard (Score:5, Funny)
Sorry, I'm new here. Are we supposed to read it?
Re:Keyboard (Score:3, Interesting)
Those MS keyboards are sooo stupid. They decided to group the F-keys in groups of 3 rather than 4, the delete key is twice as big as it should be and i HATE it when I go to press insert and I click Print Screen instead...GRRR
Ahh, that's my rant for today
Re:Keyboard (Score:3, Interesting)
Of the various other keys it has in a different place is the bac
Re:Keyboard (Score:3, Interesting)
I like the regular PC keyboard layout, with one exception: the Caps Lock key. I ALWAYS turn it into a third Ctrl, and don't bother switching my left Ctrl to Caps Lock. I never use Caps Lock anyway, and this way, if someone else uses my computer, they won't be confused.
Re:Keyboard (Score:4, Funny)
I'm gonna have to get a Harley, some leather duds, and a tough pair of shades and blow up the pckeyboard.com offices. I HATE THOSE KEYBOARDS! THEY MUST BE STOPPED! The IBM M-series keyboard can't be reasoned with. It can't be bartered with. And it won't stop until my eardrums are dead. TA-TING!
A couple years working in a university computer lab surrounded by those things almost broke my will to live, but there was a co-worker who taught me how to survive it.
His name was Conner. John Conner.
Re:Keyboard (Score:2)
Nice troll, but those keyboards are available with and without the windows key.
And the old Model M's are nice, but why get a decade old one, when for a reasonable price you can get a brand new one?
Re:Keyboard (Score:4, Insightful)
Because the decade old one is as good as new and costs only 2 or 3 dollars?
RIP (Score:5, Funny)
*Sniff*
Re:RIP (Score:2, Informative)
It did basically the same thing for windows 3.1(1). That was the main I hated to do a factory restore on that computer. You had to manually remove the damned program after you were done.
Re:RIP (Score:4, Interesting)
Try Microsoft Bob. Or did you mean your Battery Operated Boyfriend?
I have yet to figure out why the technical field overuses 's for pluralization, 's for pronoun possession, and the mystery acronyms (see: scud - not SCUD - missles during the Gulf War) - just because a word is unfamiliar to you doesn't mean it's an acronym.
As more and more people are learning this tidbit of information, making it less & less arcane Microsoft trivia, the product manager for Microsoft Bob was Melinda French. You know her now as... Mrs. William Henry Gates III.
Again? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Again? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Again? (Score:3, Informative)
Space travel - no kidding (Score:5, Insightful)
Practical is good and all, but if we wait until we solve all our problems here on Earth first we'll be stuck on this dirtball until the sun hits Red Giant phase. Human nature being what it is.
I say Let's Get Out There! Now! It pushes limits, it's positive, and it pushes technology. Sounds good to me! May China can provoke another space race - I sure hope so. One-upmanship seems to be the only real way to get any serious funding
Re:Space travel - no kidding (Score:5, Interesting)
You are either for the expansion of growth of the human population off the earth and into space or you are for mass murder and restricted personal liberty to control population growth here on earth.
Personally I don't think there's a choice. We must expand into space. Of course, there's also the third option. The so called what, me worry? approach. Which is to just pop your hands over your ears and sing "lalalalalala" and hope the whole issue will go away. Thing is, we can afford to do this, but chances are that the next generation won't.
Re:Space travel - no kidding (Score:5, Insightful)
There are many more choices than that, simply do to the fact you've made them ridiculously simplistic. Here's another huge broad choice: it's not my choice to make! If people want to move off the planet, more power to them! This isn't a "what, me worry" answer, it's an answer that says I'm not going to be a tyrant and impose my opinions upon others. Personally I am against the government space monopoly, but that doesn't mean I am against space exploration. Quite the opposite.
In addition, your alternative to expansion is incomplete as well. It assumes only tyranny or anarchy can control populations. But there's an alternative even you touch upon: if rich people breed less than poor people, let's get rid of poverty.
Re:Space travel - no kidding (Score:3, Interesting)
There is a choice all the way up until we hit a certain equilibrium point, the choices made then will determine if we go into one of those two directions, and the grandparent is right, eventually it has to be growth into space or tight tight population controls. There
Re:Space travel - no kidding (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Space travel - no kidding (Score:5, Interesting)
While the Earth still has a positive growth rate, that rate has been in decline ever since a certain piece of trash called "The Population Bomb" hit the shelves. If the decline continues we'll hit an equilibrium population of around eight billion when all is said and done. Note that according to the doomsayers who first started whining about population we were supposed to have in excess of eight billion people by the year 2000; it never happened because they didn't bothered to check their facts, which even then indicated that the rate was in decline.
I find it rather interesting that people who still complain about Earth being "overpopulated" fail to mention the declining growth rate, nor the fact that every single prediction they made from the '60's right up to the present has been dead wrong.
As far as the resource argument goes, this only applies if you assume that technological advancement freezes at its current level and never, ever progresses again. Quite clearly that isn't going to happen.
So if you consider the earth as a closed system you have to either raise the standard of living around the world to a level where population growth ceases "naturally" or you have to commit the resources of the rich into forcing the poor not to breed.
The first may eventually happen through technological advancement; the second never will unless you manage to enslave the Earth to a dictatorial one-world government. And so long as folks like me are around, anyone who tries to enforce breeding limits on their fellow citizens will find themselves the subject of a post-natal abortion right quick.
Right, so if we're willing to agree that considering the earth as a closed system leads to the logical conclusion that the world population growth must be controlled by force
We aren't willing to agree. You'll never get a majority of Americans - or anything other than a tiny, tiny minority, I suspect - to agree with your assessment.
We must expand into space.
Settling space is a non-viable population control method. It may be useful for increasing the resource wealth of the Earth itself (your first option - make everyone rich) but no significant portion of the population will ever move off-world. In fact, it'd be a complete waste of resources to even try.
Max
Re:Space travel - no kidding (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmm, I guess people read it and realized they'd better stop having so many kids? ;^)
I find it rather interesting that people who still complain about Earth being "overpopulated" fail to mention the declining growth rate.
That's a bit of a non-sequiter, isn't it? If the Earth is overpopulated, even a zero growth rate wouldn't change that fact. You'd
Re:Space travel - no kidding (Score:4, Insightful)
What the alarmists fail to acknowledge is that they don't get to decide at what point the Earth is "overpopulated". I don't think the Earth is overpopulated at the moment, nor will it be if we reach eight billion. My opinion is just as valid (or invalid) as any alarmist figure.
You'd need a negative growth rate in order to shrink the population back to less than the maximum sustainable size.
Every single analysis of 'sustainability' by the folks preaching doom and gloom over the Earth's carrying capacity assumes that *technology will never advance beyond what we have now*. It's not only stupid to think such a thing, it's deliberately deceptive. Not that this is a new development among the population control advocates - they've been doing the exact same thing since the beginning of the 20th century! And they've been absolutely, one-hundred percent, dead wrong.
Based on their complete and utter failure to accurate predict anything when it comes to population and resource development, much less technological innovation, I see no reason to heed the alarmists now any more than I should if the year were 1900.
Max
Re:Space travel - no kidding (Score:3, Interesting)
If by "valid" you mean "I can make whatever mouth noises I want", then you're right. However, if by "valid" you mean "accurately reflects reality", then no, your opinion isn't necessarily as valid... its validity will depend on its
Re:Space travel - no kidding (Score:3, Insightful)
Because there are no other habitable worlds in the Solar System. It will always be incredibly expensive to house and sustain human life off-planet compared to housing and sustaining human life on Earth. It makes no economic sense whatsoever to make an investment of this nature; the only people you'll ever want to move off-planet are the absolute minimum required to exploit the resources in specific places (e.g., the as
Re:limit or be limited (Score:4, Insightful)
Other alternaltives (Score:3, Insightful)
There are other alternatives. You can also be:
Re:Space travel - no kidding (Score:5, Informative)
We must reduce population growth, and the best way to do that is to grant more political power to women, especially in developing countries (where in many cases, they are considered chattel). There's a good article on Wikipedia discussing the theory of demographic transition [wikipedia.org] and how it affects population, and how giving women more economic and political control naturally reduces the birth rate. Of course access to contraception and (gasp!) abortion is important as well.
I agree that the "what, me worry?" approach will not help, and unfortunately that is the one adopted by most of our political leaders. No one wants to tell people to stop having kids. In a few countries with declining populations citizens are actually encouraged to accelerate the birth rate!
Re:Bullshit all the way (Score:4, Interesting)
Reality check (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok, I'll bite. _Which_ resources doesn't it have enough to sustain an 8 billion population? Because it produces currently a surplus of food, has enough uranium for centuries, has iron under almost literally every hill or mountain, and it can synthetize fuel and plastics from any other source of energy (e.g., nuclear.) So _what_ materials do you absolutely need to bring from the moon?
"For $20 billion the US could build a sustainable manned moon colony which could send down unthinkably large amounts of resources."
"Unthinkably large" sounds cool, but:
A) Exactly how much _is_ "unthinkably large"? More than the exact same money (including, salaries, supplies, shipping, etc) would get you from a mine on Earth? Enough to not be lost in the decimals, compared to what millions of people already extract on Earth?
B) What's the price per ton to transport it, and to transport supplies back? There's a good reason why you get raw materials or oil imported by train or ship, not by airplane: cost per ton transported.
"Of course, next you're gunna claim there are no resources on the moon and that the only way forward is to huddle in the dark as we use up all the resources on earth."
Actually, next I'm gonna claim you need to read a book on economics. Might be a fascinating read.
The question isn't just whether there are resources on the Moon worth getting, but whether it's cheaper to get them from there. That's how the economy still works here on Earth, I'm affraid.
There's a lot of "plan B"s out there, that are perfectly feasible, but aren't done because "plan A" is still cheaper. E.g., why the USA prefers to import oil than to extract its own. Or for that matter than to synthesize it from coal, or to switch to hydrogen cars and nuclear power to produce the hydrogen, or whatever.
If 20 billion USD was all it takes to bring a lot of cheap resources from the moon, that is, cheaper than you can get them on Earth, some corporation would already do that.
But maybe we'll do something else first. Yours is not the only solution, but just one possible "plan B" in a list of _thousands_. Humanity has a _lot_ of already existing options before huddling in the dark or mass-murder, and more are already being researched. (Of course, it makes a better doomsday whine if you ignore them.)
Which of them will be used next and when, will have to do with economics, not with what looks way cool to SF fanboys. _Maybe_ some day bringing iron ore from the moon will be cheaper than digging it from under a mountain on Earth. But maybe we'll just use plastics and composite materials produced with fusion power instead. Or maybe something else.
When one such "plan B" becomes cheaper, or the current "plan A" becomes too expensive, we will know it, and do it then. That's how the economy works.
Re:Space travel - no kidding (Score:3, Insightful)
The only external one, perhaps. The truly greatest frontier still wide open is the human mind. Going to Mars is a parlor trick compared to trying to figure out the intricacies of the brain. And there are more human benefits to it as well. Exploration of outer spaces is probably just a way to avoid exploration of the truly terrifying inner spaces. But that's human nature I guess. The answer is always "out there" somewhere.
Re:Space travel - no kidding (Score:3, Insightful)
You took the words right out of my mouth. It isn't just the brain -- it's the brain's emergent properties, and the emergent properties of gathering so many brains together that are poorly understood.
A lot depends, I guess, on what you insist should be taken as given. To some people questions like, "How did the planets form?" and "How did life arise?", and "is there other intelligent life out there?" are not only uninteresting, but are positiviely
Re:Space travel - no kidding (Score:5, Insightful)
You must be kidding! There is a vast expanse that has only been touch upon, only a bit more than space itself. Undersea oceans and ocean floors. These vast, and relativily unexplored plains offer mountains and valleys that you only ever see on other planets.
The technology to truely explore them is perhaps even more difficult that space, and its in our own backyard.
Re:Space travel - no kidding (Score:3, Funny)
Where I come from, we keep our oceans alongside our seas. None of this fancy layers of ocean and sea stacked up like a pile of pancakes. That's just ostentatious, that is.
Re:Space travel - no kidding (Score:3, Insightful)
How about the deep sea? We haven't explored most of it... and it's practically in our backyard. Where are our Abyss-like underwater research labs, underwater homes [sub-find.com], etc.? How many species of ocean life are we totally unaware of?
Re:Space travel - no kidding (Score:3, Funny)
It's all about the batteries (Score:3, Interesting)
Gotta love the bit about recalling and destroying the cars due to liability concerns. Thank you US legal system. We really ought to outlaw innovation, exploration, and all that stuff - it's too dangerous. Can let people run risks - heaven forbid.
Re:It's all about the batteries (Score:3, Informative)
battery expense ammortized over 5 years (expected lifespan) yeilded a cost only slightly higher than gas prices of the time (by a few hundred dollars). With fuel costs expected to rise (which they have) the crossover point for the battery pack is 2.5-3 years.
-nB
Re:It's all about the batteries (Score:3, Interesting)
Back in the 70's GM made several hundred cars with a turbine engine. they were quiet, powerful and worked like a dream to the few that were allowed to drive them through an extended test run. they recalled all of them and had them all destroyed. due to the "bullshit" reasons as quoted about the EV1. The truth is that the car maker did not want any of them getting in the hands of competition that had competent management that could make the product w
My take on these 10 (Score:2, Interesting)
I am of the opinion that sending humans into space is the most effective use of our "space dollars". It is fine to send up robots to collect data samples, but we also need to know the safest and cheapest way to package up live astronauts, drive them around the solar system, and bring them home safely. With the current shuttle tech, we are looking at neither the safest, nor the cheapest way of sending up live astronauts and bringing them home extra crispy. There are a lot of barrie
Re:My take on these 10 (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, they provide better quality playback for the human-audible range, because they have much lower noise.
While it's true that CDs cut off sharply above 20 kHz and thus can't produce ultrasonics at all, it's a misconception that LPs don't also have hig
Re:My take on these 10 (Score:4, Informative)
There are plenty of good keyboards, Microsoft even makes some good ones. What they are asking for are those loud IBM keyboards that feel like the clumsy typewriters they were adapted from.
Microsoft makes some good ones? I've oned one MS natural and one MS natural elite, but both died due to the contacts wearing out.
While the IBM clicky keyboard (can't remember the model number off hand) might not be your bag IIRC they used metal on metal contacts basicly looking like tweesers inside the key hole.. where the pressing down action caused the contacts to meet and behold a key press is registered. Dec keyboards I believe are made in much the same way though i'd have to check mine... but you phone up support if you dumped coffee in your keyboard and they tell you to put it in a bucket full of soap and water and let dry, and most of the time the problem was resolved.
The current keyboard trend is circuit traces on one membrain, a seperator, and a membrain with a solid contact spot. They are cheap, easy to mass produce, and rub away after a couple of years. I mean it "nice" not having to spend $50 to $100 on a keyboard, but those who spent $50 to $100 on a keyboard likely have something that can still be used today.
There was a time when the keyboards were made by using a large PC board with basic contacts, with a flexable bubble material on top with a little metal contact. While these will eventually wear away, they don't do so nearly as quickly as plastic membrains.
Keyboards.. (Score:2)
I miss slim keyboards. (Score:2)
Does anyone know of any slim, wireless keyboards?
Common Sense... (Score:2)
Manned Space Flight (Score:2)
Space Cadet Keyboard! (Score:2)
I lucked into an old IBM keyboard, and it will undoubtedly outlive the rest of my computer. Why the heck is there no market for durable goods any more? Or rather, why won't anyone MAKE durable goods? Has pride in workmanship given over entirely to ne
durable goods (Score:3, Insightful)
Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Not to be a curmudgeon, but there is a Space Shuttle in orbit as I type this text. I'm pretty sure its occupants know "what it's like to be in space".
OTOH, I think manned space travel is going to remain an expensive novelty until we can massively improve our dollars-per-kilogram-to-orbit. And that will require either some revolutionary breakthrough in rocket science (doubtful), or a space elevator or some other alternative means of getting mass to orbit. Until one of those things happens, unmanned probes and more basic research on the "get mass out of Earth's gravity well" problem are the smart way to go.
Palm Pilot? (Score:2)
Okay, this is just me, but I really didn't find a use for PDAs until they started coming with wifi built in and support for ginormous memory cards. Heck, I played with a Palm the other
Ctrl in its correct place. (Score:3, Interesting)
How often does Caps Lock get used relative to Ctrl? Why was it moved? Even in Windows, copy, cut and paste use Ctrl.
http://store.yahoo.com/pfuca-store/haphackeylit1.
These keyboard look ok, but they don't sell a split egronomic version.
I can map my keyboard, with xmodmap on linux, but it is hard to do that on a per user basis on a windows box, and I definitly can't do that on the windows boxes at school.
My take on the list (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, I agree that reestablishing travel to the moon and beyond is important, the International Space Station is an important stepping stone that deserves focus. The reason I think so is that I truly believe it's going to take a multinational effort to get to Mars and back.
2. Kozmo.com
Make up your mind, CNET, technology you miss, or giant flop [cnet.com]. I suppose it could be both, but even if Kozmo had stayed in business, it could never compete with my neighborhood grocery store.
3. Napster
Any opinion I might express about this would likely start a flame war, so I'll leave this one alone.
4. Concorde
You can't really miss what even yourselves admit was out of reach to almost everyone. I don't seem to miss it at all. How do you miss something you never really had?
5. GM's EV1
Zero Emission Vehicle. ROFLMAO. Zero-emission as long as you don't count the power plant that burned (coal|oil|gas|atomic nuclei) and polluted somone else's back yard. Sure, I suppose the power could have been photoelectric or wind produced, but if you believe no harm to the earth was done in the process of manufacturing those systems, you're clueless. (Hint: Strip mining for metals, processing ore, smelting, doping chemicals for solar, etc). Not that I have a problem with any of the above, but let's be realistic here. There's no such thing as a "Zero Emission Vehicle".
6. The Original Palm Pilot
I don't know. My Zire 31 does everything the original did, plus color and MP3s. I've been eying the Tungsten E2 as an upgrade. Only third party apps have ever crashed it, and that's only twice after over a year of use. The Palm-supplied apps have been rock solid. A lot like the original Palm Pilot.
7. Good Keyboards
Agreed.
8. Wires
You miss wires? Uh, you made the choice to go wireless. If you truly miss wires, just switch back, right? It's not like your old phone company disappeared, and you can't buy ethernet cables. Oh wait... the convenience outweighs the disadvantages of wireless you point to. I guess you don't really miss wires after all.
9. LPs
My wife is an archaeologist. She's told me about digging these up.
10. The Newton
The Newton was good for a laugh, but it was also a good lesson for future manufacturers of PDAs. Without Apple's failure, would we really have seen Palm's success?
Re:My take on the list (Score:5, Informative)
From what I've read the zero emissions policy was at first a reaction to unbelievable amounts of pollution from automobiles in L.A. - any other slant that was put on it after that was people playing politics and the nuclear lobby trying to get green credibility (and possibly succeeding).
Re:My take on the list (Score:3, Funny)
Wrong [vikingship.org].
Re:My take on the list (Score:4, Insightful)
You can't really miss what even yourselves admit was out of reach to almost everyone. I don't seem to miss it at all. How do you miss something you never really had?
I agree with their attitude in the article - this was something to aspire to. It was very expensive, but not so expensive that it was unimaginable as a once-in-a-lifetime possibility.
I miss it for exactly that reason. Plus I used to work at Heathrow and have nostalgic memories of everyone checking their watches as the 11am BA001 flight roared past the window.
Internet... (Score:5, Insightful)
* Spamless Internet
* Virusless Internet
* Popupless Internet
* Bannerless Internet
* etcless Internet
Of course that the net has evolved, and a lot, but sometimes one miss those old days when your mail were mail, when browsing pages retrieved almost only the content you wanted, and even the pages were really static, without things popping up, moving, blinking or weighting far more than the useful content of what you really want to read.
top 10 /. top 10 posts! (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.cnet.com/4520-11136_1-6250162-1.html?t
I miss this one soooo badly..... (Score:3, Funny)
Manned space exploration loss, or is it a gain? (Score:3, Interesting)
Sending humans that weren't designed for, or evolved to, going into outer space is inefficient and costly when compared to specific tools that humans have created and are continuing to improve upon.
Let's compare what we could lose against what we could gain. Gone will be photo opportunities, of one man in a space suit, planting a flag on another planet, as seen in the article. Gained will be 'spin-offs', from research and developement efforts, that will come from advancements in robotics and artificial intelligence systems, because remote control over such great (time) distances is simply not feasable.
I don't know about you, but I'd rather be a unsung computer science nerd, than a glorified trained monkey in space.
Do not think that I'm belittling the efforts of those that made significant contributions to our space programs in the past. But, as we gain the capability to explore safer, better, and cheaper, then we also have the responsibility to set aside our old pride (photo of man next to flag) for new pride (photo of man next to robot).
Decent Keyboards (Score:3, Interesting)
Hmm, i now start to see why they changed them...
LP's ??? You must be kidding.. (Score:4, Insightful)
They are primitive sound technology. They are expensive, fragile, and don't sound good. You can always tell an MP3 file of an old 60's pop song made from an LP as opposed to one ripped from a CD. The fidelity is just not there.
An LP held 45 minutes of music for most of its life and about 60 minutes at its most advanced. It cost about $20 (in today's US dollars). Now a blank DVD ROM holds about 4000 minutes in high-quality MP3 or OGG files and sells for $0.39 (in today's US dollars). An exact copy of this set of 4500 minutes can be made on another 39 cent blank disk in about 15 minutes. And you can control which selections will be copied and the order.
To get ultra high fidelity audio from LPs requires thousands of dollars of precision equipment, very fragile and sensitive to the local room conditions. To get the same fidelity from high quality 320kbps MP3 and OGG files takes a $59 player. And it even puts out this high fidelity sound when you are running with it.
And some silly people want to go back to LP?
Re:LP's ??? You must be kidding.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Then try listening to a 10 year old mildly scratched CD.
The first will be tolerable, the second will drive you to murder.
Re:LP's ??? You must be kidding.. (Score:3, Informative)
Then try listening to a 10 year old mildly scratched CD."
That's funny, because a mildly scratched CD plays fine. CDs have error correction that is quite strong, so minor scratches aren't an issue.
Now, you can't take a knife to a CD and expect it to play properly. But you can't do that to an LP either.
You can drill holes in CDs, though, and they still play. Mostly.
Re:LP's ??? You must be kidding.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Teh
Re:LP's ??? You must be kidding.. (Score:3, Insightful)
The first will be tolerable, the second will drive you to murder.
It will drive you to mu-mu-mu-mu-mu-mu-mu *click* r-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de....
:-)
Seriously, though, the big thing that CD's did is equalize the market.
A cheap CD player will do almost as good of a job at playing a CD as an expensive one will do. The incentive for going to a $1000 CD player versus a $30 CD player is a very small gain in sound quality. CD players also, essentially, require no maintenance, whereas you need to periodi
Re:LP's ??? You must be kidding.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:LP's ??? You must be kidding.. (Score:3, Insightful)
And yet, none of the reduction in the price of production of a record shows up i
You're forgetting about the WARMTH!!!!!!! (Score:5, Funny)
But, anyway, back to my point. For things to sound good, you need an LP, some really thick cables, a gold plated power supply, some of those special bricks which go on top of cables, and a whole bunch of tetrodes & pentodes. Also, once, I saw the beatles in concert, they sucked - they were nothing like they are on an LP - I mean, between the lot of them they couldn't make a single crackle or pop, and they didn't skip once!!!! Where's the warmth?!?!?! Remember, it's w000oo000OOO000oooo))oo which is great not 101010101010101010111 all those ones sound terrible.
Re:LP's ??? You must be kidding.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Absolute codswallop, "thousands of dollars of precision equipment".
For 200 quid (GBP) you can buy a decent turntable and probably a good stylus as well.
Adjust your stylus and keep your records clean (the first should be easy for the average geek, the second might be slightly harder) and fidelity is superior to anything digital (and that includes the new high-end digital formats like DVD-audio according to tests in Hi-Fi Choice).
There are things on "Dark Side of the Moon" LP (analog recording!) which I cannot even hear on my CD copy ... The only thing CDs do better is reproducing silence (a bunch of zeros is not that hard to do), but when it comes to producing sound analog is still the best. Don't mistake abscence of crackles for great sound ...
I am sick of people who listen to their music through computer speakers and tinny MP3 players having opinions about analog.
If you think spending 40 quid on a good soundcard and another 40 quid for some "good speakers for my PC" is what fidelity is about then you need to have your hearing checked out.
"Fidelity" is overrated (Score:5, Insightful)
And if you think "fidelity" is what music appreciation is about then you need to have your brain checked.
Play me a good song, and I won't care whether it's a 96kbps MP3 stream or pristine vinyl on a $2000 turntable -- I'm going to enjoy it. Likewise, play me a bad song and I'm NOT going to enjoy it, irregardless of "fidelity".
Re:LP's ??? You must be kidding.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Some people should definately invest in digital filters, one for the sound distortion, the other to add the appropriate amount of snap, crackle and hiss. It's all about good memories, either dreaming back to when you were young or just dreaming that you've gone back in time to when the LPs were hot. Digital perfection is simply counterproductive to the immersion. It's not about perfect reproduction, but consistent reproduction with the past.
That is why there is no
When computers were different (Score:3, Interesting)
It was fun though...
Some technologies I miss (Score:4, Interesting)
2) Games written in Basic. Oh for the glory days when any schoolkid could write from scratch something that his mates would be interested in playing.
3) The 12" single. For the sleeves - CD singles are great, but I really miss getting a square foot of artwork thrown in for free.
4) Booting from ROM. The Amiga started the rot, back in the old days you could turn a PC on and start to use it in seconds. Hard OSes were practically immune to piracy, and the 'it has to be right, we can't patch it' OS coding ethos has a lot going for it too!
5) Trackballs. The mouse you don't need a pad for, perfect for laptops too, but we ended up smearing our fingers over horrible 'trackpads' instead - how did that happen?
6) Analogue TV. Still hobbling on but it's days are numbered. My 30 years of compression-artefact-free viewing are already over.
Re:Some technologies I miss (Score:3, Insightful)
The list 10 years from now (Score:5, Interesting)
HP calculators (Score:4, Interesting)
HP calculators are (used to be) fine pieces of engineering. A few months ago I needed to calculate something and since there really isn't anything that compares to the HP RPL calculator interface I digged out my HP48 from a deskdrawer. I turned it on. The batteries had not drained! It must have been roughly ten years since I used it last. There was stuff lying around on the stack since I last used it.
Somebody's getting old (Score:3, Interesting)
* It doesn't need a backup battery.
* Unlike cheap clock radios without backup if the power goes out for a minute, it takes about 5 seconds to adjust the minute hand.
* Ditto, if the power goes out. you aren't going to wake up for work two hours late unless the power is off for two hours.
* If you want to get up later one day, you don't have to cycle 23 hours that evening to get the alarm back to the earlier time.
* I just think analog is cool. It's a one-glance pictoral instead of digital information.
* And the clock motors were 60-cycle syncro and perfectly accurate for all practical purposes.
But, aside from the expense of being made of metal (back then), I imagine assembling a clock motor was labor intensive, right?
I'm currently using a circa '68 Zenith that somebody gave me around '98 because the AF power transistor had thermal runaway. An easy diagnosis and an equally easy fix with a circuit board of discrete components. A little light grease on the clock gears every few years and it's good to go.
All ten on one page! (Score:4, Interesting)
Good keyboards? I find bang for the buck for key boards has come a *long* way. I buy $7.95 Cicero keyboards at Future Shop (argh), which have an incredibly good feel to them. They way my kids (okay, okay, and I), go through keyboards, I'm glad I have have "disposable" keyboards with a great feel. Other than that, thought it was a cool article.
Keyboards (Score:3, Insightful)
At work I have another AT style keyboard gotten from a garage sale for 2 bucks. It has 12 extra programable function keys, a build in calculator and of course the full click and larger enter key.
A trip to my local Compusa shows me about 12 different keyboards and all of them suck with one exception. The exception is a keyboard with removed sidebar number pad in a metalic base (heavy, nice) and it is basically a notebook keyboard. Flat keys with a short throw click..it sells for $250 !!! One day it will be mine.
Good Wired Keyboards (Score:3, Interesting)
Where can I find a good, wired, ergonomically shaped keyboard?
Re:For those who don't want to RTFA, the top 10: (Score:3, Interesting)
Just goes to show that cheap & mass produced do not mean quality.
Re:For those who don't want to RTFA, the top 10: (Score:3, Funny)
Got the old-fashioned actual real bell on it, too, none of these namby-pamby tweedle-eedle-
Re:For those who don't want to RTFA, the top 10: (Score:3, Interesting)
Magnetic speakers are cheap and mass-produced as well, but they are also heavy, and can't be easily placed next to other circuitry without problems.
Re:dell quietkey (Score:2)
They had a built-in 2-port USB hub and the extra Back/Forward/Home, etc keys (useful for custom key mappings) but _didn't_ have the fucked-up reorganisation of the Home/End/Insert/Etc and arrow keys that plague today's models.
Re:I miss word processors... (Score:3, Funny)
You mean no-one has explained the 3 shells to you?
Re:I miss word processors... (Score:3, Funny)
I also don't understand why you have to have three shells open for such a simple task.
(note to moderators: yes, I did get the Demolition Man reference!)