Screw Google and there Back Sliding Statements.

Looks like Google pussy is starting to hurt. And though I am glad they are making a facebook alternative, and I will use it. I hate facebook more than google, but going back on such big statements is pussified and wrong.

Screw Google. They are completely pussing out and backing down on there word.

“Tonight, David Drummond, Google’s top legal executive, has written a post outlining Google’s “new approach” to China. Basically, they’re ending the redirect from google.cn to google.com.hk — and restarting the Chinese Google page. But instead of being the full (and fully censored) site that it once was, Google is making it into a completely degraded search engine”

“While they’re still refusing to censor (which Chinese law requires), they are willing to stop the redirect which China finds “unacceptable.” Why? Because if they don’t, China won’t renew the Internet Content Provider license — google.cn will cease to be.”

“Google clearly knew the risks it was taking with their actions — they did them anyway. That’s what made the move seem so ballsy and brilliant. But, of course, that was before the first real punch was thrown. Now that it has been, and they’re flinching — no matter how slightly — the actions seem less ballsy, less brilliant.”

“Would it be wise for Google to simply let google.cn be shut down? Or for them to fully pull out of China? Of course not. But this wasn’t supposed to be about what’s “wise.” This was supposed to be about what’s “right.”

“The power was all in the redirect. It was a big “fuck you” to China. They were saying: “You know everyone that goes to our Chinese site expecting censored results? Well, now we’re going to send them to an uncensored site. Do something about it.” Well, China did. And now Google’s reaction is to change that “fuck you” into a more docile “we don’t like you very much” with that link to google.com.hk from google.cn.”

“The link is weak. It’s moving responsibility for uncensored searches away from Google and putting it into the laps of Chinese users”

“he power of Google’s initial message was anchored by the fact that they said they were ready to leave China and shut down google.cn if it came to that. Now that it has come to that, and it’s clear they’re not going to do that”

so i guess they was blowing out there ass when they threatened to leave?

They said they would shut doen google offices if they had to, lol. Bunch of f**king ass talking bulls**tters.

quotes via http://www.techcrunch.com

Posted in Technology | Leave a comment

Satan, Jesus and Computers (joke)

Jesus and Satan were having an ongoing argument about who managed to get the most out of his computer. This had been going on for days and God, was tired of hearing all of the bickering.

God said, “Cool it. I am going to set up a test that will run two hours and I will judge who does the better job.”

So down they sat at the keyboards and typed away. They moused away. They did spreadsheets, they wrote reports, they sent faxes, they sent out e-mail, they sent out e-mail with attachments, they downloaded, they did some genealogy reports, they made cards, they did every known job. But just a few minutes before the two hours were up, a lightening flashed across the sky. The thunder rolled and the rains came down hard. And of course the electricity went off.

Satan was upset. He fumed and fussed and he ranted and raved, all to no avail. The electricity stayed off. But after a bit, the rains stopped and the electricity came back on. Satan screamed, “I lost it all when the power went off. What am I going to do? What happened to Jesus’ work?”

Jesus just sat and smiled.

Again Satan asked about the work that Jesus had done. As Jesus turned his computer back on the screen glowed and when he pushed “print it”, it was all there. “How did he do it.” Satan asked? God smiled and said, “Jesus Saves.”

Posted in Comedy | Leave a comment

Standards?

“Why do you think the road to an industry standard web has been slow ? could it be because content providers and publishers fall back on the old stuff to deliver ? imagine if the original iMac came with parallel/printer/ADB ports in addition to USB, would peripheral makers have moved as quickly as they did to make USB devices ? Apple’s abandoning flash, and pushing an industry standard web is the primary reason why content providers are migrating away from flash. No one else dared to take the risk to do so, to make the web industry standard. The iPad, which is capable of rendering industry standard webpages amazingly has been on the market for about a month, and the web has already begun transforming. If it’s not fast enough for you, i encourage you to persuade the sites you frequent to adopt the industry standards for publishing to the web. Apple has born the brunt of the risk in moving this industry forward in this regard, and the rest is up to the publishers. I can guarantee you that had Apple allowed flash on the platform, no publisher would have bothered with industry standards. And users would have been stuck with a insecure hog of a platform, and Apple would have been at the mercy of Adobe to deliver a compelling user experience to it’s customers. For customers, companies, publishers, content providers, and the industry as a whole to move forward…. Flash (in it’s current plug-in/runtime form) has to die.” -Anonymous

Posted in Technology | 1 Comment

Apple iPhone 4 Antennas…

Spencer Webb AntennaSys, Inc. Antenna design, integration and consulting.

http://www.antennasys.com/antennasys-blog/2010/6/24/apple-iphone-4-antennas.html

I received a phone call today from PC Magazine.  They were running a story on the new Apple iPhone 4, specifically the reports (PC MagGizmodoEngadget) that people are experiencing decreased reception on their cell phone when they hold the phone by the metal frame.  That frame has been touted by Apple, in the keynote address by Jobs, as being part of the antenna system.  Here is a brief summary of what I told the reporter who called me, and a little extra. (I will update this with his name when he emails me.)

I saw the photo of the frame of the iPhone in the slideshow at the end of Steve Job’s keynote address at the Developer’s Conference.  There are three gaps in the stainless steel band which are allegedly part of the antenna system.  I have not had alot of time to analyze their structure, nor do I have one in my hands yet.  So, either it is public relations hokum, or those slots are really part of the antenna structure.  They do appear to be active, based on observations.

In the first generation iPhone (which I am currently using), the antennas were on the back of the phone, near the bottom.  There was a piece of plastic on the bottom covering the antennas, so you knew where they were.  I developed a way to hold the phone which avoided covering this area with my hand, similar to the Gizmodo article linked above.  It is worth stepping back a moment and asking the question, “Why are the antennas placed where my hand is MOST likely to cover it?”  It’s a fair question.

The FCC puts strict limits on the amount of energy from a handheld device that may be absorbed by the body.  We call this Specific Absorbtion Rate, or SAR.  In the olden days, when I walked ten miles to school in three feet of snow, uphill in both directions, cell phones had pull-up antennas.  This allowed the designer to use a half-wave antenna variant, and put the point of maximum radiation somewhat away from the users cranium.  Of course, most people did not think it was necessary and kept the antenna stowed.  Motorola’s flip phone acutally had a second helical antenna that was switched into place when this was the case.  But, more importantly, SAR rules were not yet in effect.

Flip phones became yesterday’s style, and phones were becoming more monolithic.  Some phones, like the early Treo, kept the antenna in the traditional location at the top of the phone, near one edge, but reduced it to a short stub.  Whips became stubs, stubs became bumps, and finally antennas were embedded into the rectangular volume of the phone.  The trouble was SAR; if you left the antenna at the top, the user was now pressing it into their head, insuring lots of tissue heating.  Enter the bottom-located cellphone antenna.

Just about every cell phone in current production has the antenna located at the bottom.  This insures that the radiating portion of the antenna is furthest from the head.  Apple was not the first to locate the antenna on the bottom, and certainly won’t be the last.  The problem is that humans have their hands below their ears, so the most natural position for the hand is covering the antenna.  This can’t be a good design decision, can it?  How can we be stuck with this conundrum?  It’s the FCC’s fault.

You see, when the FCC tests are run, the head is required to be in the vicinity of the phone.  But, the hand is not!!  And the FCC’s tests are not the only tests that must be passed by a candidate product.  AT&T has their own requirements for devices put on their network, and antenna efficiency is one of them.  I know because I have designed quad-band GSM antennas for the AT&T network.  The AT&T test similarly does not require the hand to be on the phone.

So, naturally, the design evolved to meet requirements – and efficient transmission and reception while being held by a human hand are simply not design requirements!

OK, back to the iPhone 4.  The antenna structure for the cell phone is still down at the bottom (I won’t address the WiFi nor GPS antennas in this blog entry).  The iPhone 4 has two symmetrical slots in the stainless frame.  If you short these slots, or cover them with your hand, the antenna performance will suffer.

There is no way around this, it’s a design compromise that is forced by the requirements of the FCC, AT&T, Apple’s marketing department and Apple’s industrial designers, to name a few.

One of the questions the intrepid reporter from PC Magazine asked me was, “Will putting the phone in a pocket and using a Bluetooth device help?”  Good question.  The answer is yes, to a point.  The first generation iPhone clearly had a conductive surface below the antenna (I hesitate to call it a ground plane, because it it too small).  So, putting it in your pocket with the screen toward your body and the antennas facing out while using your Bluetooth earpiece will work better than holding the phone with your hand.  In fact, in my car my iPhone sits forward on the dashboard, under the winshield, screen down while I use my Jawbone.  Works great.  (However, if you put your iPhone in your left back pocket, and your earpiece in your right ear, you may have issues.  This is a failing of the Bluetooth system in dealing with severe body losses at 2.4GHz, not the cellphone’s problem.)

The iPhone 4, however, moved the antenna action from the back of the phone to the sides.  This probably improves the isotropy of the radiation pattern, but only when the phone is suspended magically in air.  Not too helpful.  Putting this iPhone 4 in your pocket will likely couple more energy into your body (you bag of salt water, you) than did the first generation model.  Yep, I predict it will be worse.

So, what’s an iPhone lover to do?  Well, I voted with my dollars.  I ordered my iPhone 4 to replace my Original.  I already know how to do the Vulcan Antenna Grip on the iPhone, and I am wearing out my current model.

And sometimes an antenna that’s not great, but good enough, is good enough.

Copyright © 2000-2010, Antennasys, Inc. All rights reserved. The word “ANTENNASYS” (USPTO Reg. 2,698,930 & 3,784,289) and the “A”+antenna symbol (USPTO Reg. 2,666,206) are registered trademarks of Antennasys, Inc. “Antennas Designed for the Tactical Edge” is a trademark of Antennasys, Inc.

Posted in Technology | Leave a comment

Why Onlive May Be AWESOME

I think for the serious gamer (someone who plays a lot of games), this obviously would not be an option.

Let’s say for a minute that this service works as advertised (can deliver decent game play experience to a low/medium end PC or TV without any noticeable lag) – IF they can deliver that, then the rest falls on price (both the cost of purchasing or renting the game, and the monthly cost for the service.

If there was NO monthly subscription cost, and somehow they take in their share of the revenue by taking a percentage of game sales or rental revenues (like a retailer or distributor does), then I think this could be a console killer technology/service.

However, as you say, if they charge a subscription fee, and that fee is higher than it would cost (amortized over 5 years) for you to purchase a high end PC or Console/High Def TV plus games, then it will not win out.

Let’s assume that they will have to charge a fee to subsidize their server and bandwidth costs. What would break even be for them?

$7/month for the service – just to break even to cover costs assuming the following….

Let’s say they have a server with 4 GPU cards in it, capable of hosting 8-16 people at a time playing a high-end game simultaneously at 720p. Let’s say that the server is $3k, the 4 GPUs cost $1800 and their custom hardware card $300, ram $800 – total server cost would be around $6,000 per server. Best case scenario, they can host 16 players at a time, and let’s say that the average player plays for 2 hours a day. That means that 96 people can utilize that server in a day, and if they use it every day to play games, then the server generates 96 times the subscription fee in revenue per month. If that subscription fee is $10/month, then it is generating $960 a month in revenues. If you took that $6,000 server and amortized it over 3 years (the useful life of the server) it gives you $166/month in fixed cost. So if that server can generate $960/month in revenue, that it is making $794/month gross. Bandwidth cost for that server would probably be around $500/month (guesstimate) so that would bring the gross down to $294. So that means that for break even the subscription cost would have to be $7/month per subscriber.

That is the cost side.

Now lets look at the consumer side.

If they charge you $8/month in subscription fees (making $1/month profit) and they charge you $20 to buy a game or $4 to rent a game….

Let’s say an average gamer would buy 6 game titles a year (again not a serious gamer but an average gamer).

Under their service it would cost you $120 to purchase those games through the service, and $96 for the yearly subscription fee – total cost $216/year to play those 6 games. That is considerably cheaper than buying a console and 6 games to play for the year.

So I guess it really depends on what they charge you for the subscription fee (to keep accessing your purchased games). Also their policy on when you stop paying your monthly fee for a month and then want to get back your account with games in it at a later date – or whether you have to buy your games all over again…. there will be technicalities like that which will make the difference.

Posted in Technology | Leave a comment

Some Reason’s Onlive Sucks

I just don’t get OnLive. It makes no sense to me whatsoever from a consumer standpoint.

First of all, let’s cut through some of the marketing hype.

Although they could compress a frame of video in 1ms, that doesn’t mean they can deliver it from the server back to the player’s screen in that time. It just means on their server they are compressing the rendered frame coming off the GPU in 1ms – which isn’t all that crazy if you’re using custom DSP chips. The time it takes to send your input (ie. game control) to their data center, process that input in the game engine on their server, output the result to a compressed video/audio stream, and return that video to the player is a different matter altogether.

But I really don’t get why consumers would want this anyway. You’re getting inevitably degraded video/audio quality (it must be so to compress it to the degree required). You can call something 720p due to the resolution – but it can still be chunky, blurry, washed out crap. Resolution is not the sole arbiter of image quality. Audio can likewise be severely degraded by aggressive compression. I think this is why OnLive keeps talking about “perceptual” science that goes into their service – in other words, how badly can they degrade the video, audio, and feedback experience before users balk. As someone who appreciates graphics and audio, I know I’m not going to have much threshold for tolerance in this regard.

Next, if you’ve got any lag issues you can’t play your games (even single player games). Want to play games at the house, or elsewhere where there is no decent broadband? You’re out of luck.

Further, although you’ve “bought” the games you must continue to pay for the service (plus potentially more for enhanced broadband to get your “high def” video) to access them. Right now, if I give my child a couple games for Christmas she can play them all year without any further costs – no ongoing subscription fee or more costly internet connection required. Also, she can resell the game (or trade it in) and get value back. She can loan it to a friend. Multiple members of the family can play it with their own save games (which is unclear how OnLive will handle this aspect).

If the OnLive service goes out of business, or decides to stop offering a game (due to a publisher pulling it) you lose the ability to play the games you “own”. Heck, I can still pull out the old SNES, N64, or other console and play those old classics. My first published retail game came out in 1997, and I can still pop the CD into my PC and play it with my daughter today. Will this future be lost with something like OnLive? Will the art form of games (to which some of us contribute) become completely transient – like smoke in the wind? Here today, gone (completely) tomorrow?

They keep comparing OnLive to somebody having to spend $3k on a top of the line gaming rig. But this is a complete farce. If you did buy a rig that expensive, you’d at least be enjoying full image and sound quality and good control feedback. But the truth is that people can buy a PS3 or Xbox 360 and get excellent quality graphics and sound for around $300. Even if you want to toss in a monitor (if you don’t have a TV), you are still sub $500 with everything. If you amortize this expense over the lifetime of your console (let’s say, 5 years) you’ve got a hardware expense of $100 per year. So if OnLive’s service costs you more than $8.33 a month you’re on the losing end of that equation – AND you’re not getting nearly the same quality of experience.

Let’s face it, more and more major titles are being released cross platform. So having a “unified” platform isn’t a big deal. Those titles that are exclusive to a console maker (like Mario for Nintendo, or Halo for MS) are NOT going to be releasing to OnLive. So that is going to leave OnLive with properties that are going to be dominantly cross platform anyway. And for those who think OnLive will “unify” the gaming market, do you honestly believe that they would exist for long without competition? And once competition enters, we get the whole exclusivity battles starting all over.

OnLive has to have data centers near to their customers (in order to make lag acceptable). They say 1,000 miles is the maximum (and I’m guessing a very poor experience at that distance). So they can’t really gain economies of scale in use. Consider that the majority of players in a given region are going to want to play at roughly the same time (the evening), and when new releases come out there will be a rush online. Given that a piece of hardware in the data center must be used to support each player, there will be a finite amount of resources. Will users of OnLive find themselves waiting in a queue, or unable to access their games, because all of OnLive’s servers in their regional data center are tied up?

Posted in Technology | Leave a comment

Google will be the next Microsoft

By Brian Wilson via Inquirer

Opinion Don’t be evil? It’s too late

GOOGLE’S FAMOUS MANTRA of ‘Don’t be evil’ is becoming increasingly examined, with good reason.

Not content with handling around 90 per cent of UK search requests and about 70 per cent in the US, Google also dominates online advertising with a massive 75-80 per cent market share.

Considering its market share in search and advertising, how and why Google is able to avoid more severe antitrust scrutiny, considering IBM’s and Microsoft‘s run-ins with anti-monopoly commissions around the world, is unknown.

However, despite these all-conquering statistics, Google is now rushing into the mobile advertising arena, having recently purchasing Admob for $750 million and aiming for dominance in yet another market.

Analysts and forward-thinking companies like Google all see mobile devices as the clients of the future, and Google wants to ensure that it’s at the forefront of providing services, and it doesn’t see this happening by just providing the advertising.

Google has seen Apple’s vice-like grip on the smartphone market and is now ploughing forward with Android. Google has obviously not been satisfied with its partners efforts with the first generation of Andriod-based phones, having released its own phone in the guise of the Nexus One.

This comes shortly after Google’s attempts to break into the browser market with Chrome, now advertised on the usually naked Google home page, and into the operating system space via the Linux based Chrome OS. By owning the software client, Google can ensure its products are running highly optimised on Google supplied software, and can ensure full compatibility with the underlying web browser.

Similarly to Microsoft, Google has begun extending its reach into development languages, tools and environments. The Google Web Toolkit (GWT) is now an established web development framework, using JavaScript and Java. GO was recently launched and is an open-source C/Python hybrid that Google hopes combines performance with speed of development. Even SQL has been replaced – ‘GQL’ is used for its own brand of database, which is a non-relational DB under the App Engine hood.

By delivering open source languages and software, Google is seen to embrace the movement to openness and shared development – the antithesis of Microsoft’s closed-source ideology – making it appear more attractive and more open, subsequently attracting developers and development for its key technology stack. However, though it’s seen as less evil, it’s inherently self-serving.

The search and advertising behemoth is also not satisfied with producing and owning some of the web’s best applications, including Google Apps, Google Mail, Google Analytics and Google Maps – it also wants to host everyone else’s.

Google wants to be at the forefront of Cloud computing and is pioneering its own efforts in the shape of the Google App Engine – Google’s application development and hosting platform synonymous with all things Cloud based.

By owning the framework in which future applications are delivered, Google can ultimately ensure its languages, APIs, and services are utilised by the development community, further tying the network to Google’s array of products.

As you can see, Google wants to own everything in the chain. It wants to own and produce the client, in the shape of a Google engineered mobile device with Android or a netbook using the Chrome web browser and the Chrome OS. It wants to own the programs you use with the range of Google applications. It wants to own the infrastructure for any other applications you use or intend to create via the Google App Engine cloud. It wants to control how you search for your data, and index the plethora of Internet based data in the ether with the Google search engine. It wants to simultaneously handle all the advertising infrastructure, and receive the subsequent commissions.

By controlling the complete user experience, development community, and underlying architecture, Google will also control a vast catalogue of personal data on your interests, search history and Internet presence – not to mention your underlying documents, images and other information in its data centres. The amount of personal user and usage information it is and will be able to store will be mind-numbing, and this alone has produced many discussions.

If Google is able to gain a foothold with the same level of market share it enjoys in its primary areas of search and advertising, in every market it’s currently targeting, the company’s virtual and real-world presence will be staggering – far in advance of what Microsoft had its heyday or what IBM had in its wonder years.

Google wants to own everything, and it’s on track to doing just that. How that will square with its own corporate mantra is anyone’s guess.

Posted in Technology | 2 Comments