Tragedy to triumph

This story is pretty amazing. To say all of this just happened by pure chance is choosing to ignore the elephant in the room. Better have some tissue on hand, you just might need it:

http://www.annarbor.com/sports/um-football/from-never-to-walking-brock-mealer-will-lead-michigan-football-team-onto-field-saturday/

We don't have cable/satellite anymore, so I'm not sure if any network picked this up. It would be a shame if they didn't. Stuff like this should dominate the headlines, not all of the other crap that is usually reported on.

Chrome to Phone

This is really cool.

3D Technology

I don't get it. I just don't see what the hype is with 3D? I've seen a couple of movies, and the 3D effects distracted me from the movie. Not to mention the glasses were very annoying, and strained my eyes after about an hour.

Here's the thing though, I love new tech. I think it's great. If you read this blog you know I write about it frequently. If I was a bajillionaire, I would probably buy every new tech that came to market on day one. I realize I'm just one person with my own needs and wants, but I feel like 3D technology would/should be targeted towards people that share my sentiment. Besides my above mentioned dissatisfactions, to go all out 3D would require you not only to buy a new TV (starting around $1,500), but also a 3D capable Blu-ray DVD player (about $200 bucks), and the content to watch. That's a lot of money. Considering for only about $700 you can get a very nice 1080p HD TV, spending an additional $1,000 for 3D is a tough pill to swallow. And remember, these are the minimums you'll have to spend.

Also, there has been talk of content; sports, TV shows, video games, etc. But so far, there is very little offered. I mean, it's still not a common standard to broadcast everything in 1080p HD, let alone 3D. Then on top of all of this, you have the potential major problem of not having enough glasses for your friends. If you don't wear the glasses, you can't see 3D. Brand-name glasses run about $150 bucks. Each. Oh, did I mention your glasses might not work with your friends 3D TV of a different brand? Yikes. And now, all the major players are trying to release 3D cameras, video cameras, and gaming systems! Give me a break.

3D could be great. But it's just not there yet. As a tech fan, it seems like a big gimmick at this point. Maybe in five or ten years it will be common place, just like ten years ago not many people were toting smartphones; now everyone seems to have one. We're actually considering a new TV purchase in the next six to 12 months, and 3D isn't even on our radar. It wouldn't surprise me at all if this push for 3D everything turns out to be a giant flop. The technology just isn't polished enough, in my opinion. As soon as you can watch it without glasses, there's a legitimate stream of content, and the price comes down; I'll reconsider. Until then, I'm not buying.

Sources: Best Buy, Wikipedia

Seattle, Portland, and rain*

I've got some news for you. The notion that Seattle and Portland get a lot of rain is pretty much entirely false. Both cities receive about 37 inches** of precipitation per year. In comparison, New York City receives almost 50 inches. That's right. New York City receives almost 13 inches more of precipitation per year than Seattle and Portland. You don't see many people complaining about NYC's rain, do you? (Well, at least I don't.) More examples:

Houston - 54
Chicago - 38
Atlanta - 50
Cleveland - 39
St. Louis - 39
Miami - 56

I think you get the point. Where the NW complainers do have a point, is with the frequency of the precipitation, and not the amount. Seattle and Portland average about 30 days more per year with days that have precipitation. (Precipitation is greater than or equal to 0.01 in.) Also, both cities are on the high side when it comes to cloudy days per year.

So, if I hear you complain about having "so much rain" in Seattle/Portland, don't be offended if I laugh. It's simply not true. If you complain about having another day of rain or clouds, I will try and feel your pain. But let's be real, if you are complaining that it's raining "again", and it only rains 0.01 in, you probably shouldn't be living in the NW!

*Please note: I'm using "rain" and "precipitation" interchangeably. I know, technically they are different. All rain is precipitation, but not all precipitation is rain.
**Also note: All figures are based on yearly averages.


Sources: Wikipedia, NOAA

Apple giving free cases to iPhone 4 buyers, refunds

Considering Apple's lack of response, or just downright asinine comments about the iPhone 4's antennae issue since its release 22 days ago, I gotta hand it to them. To borrow from Dumb & Dumber, they've totally redeemed themselves! Ok, not totally, but mostly. Anyone who has purchased an iPhone 4 can now get a free case courtesy of Apple. This offer is good until September 30th. Also, anyone who has already purchased a case can get a full refund. And as always, to state the obvious, you can still return your iPhone 4 for a full refund within 30 days of your purchase, if you are unhappy with it.

So what now? Well, for one, they didn't actually fix the problem. If you want to use your new iPhone 4 sans case, you still run the risk of having reception issues. What about after September 30th? Well, in Apple's defense, they said they would reevaluate when the time comes. Also, during the press conference Apple compared other smartphones claiming nearly all phones experience a drop in signal if held a certain way. That may be true, problem is, they left out the minor issue that the iPhone 4 experiences such a large drop in signal that it actually drops the call or loses connection to the data network. But you know, that's a minor issue. (Sarcasm.) Moreover, the phones they compared nearly have to be completely enclosed by your hand(s) before they experience problems, where as the iPhone 4 just needs one of your fingers. It's nice that they are giving out free cases, for sure, but until they address a hardware fix, the issue still exists.

Oh yeah, and remember that software update they said they were working on that would fix the problem? Turns out that was a lie. Big surprise there, huh?

Anyways, at least they finally fessed up to the problem (kind of). They had a Q & A afterwards that featured the usual beat-around-the-bush-non-answer to many questions. If you want to see more click on the source link below and check out the whole thing.

Source: http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/16/live-from-apples-iphone-4-press-conference/

Android 2.2 (Froyo) vs. iOS 4: browser showdown

The fellows over at Engadget have just done a browser speed test between Apple's new iOS 4 and Android 2.2 (codename "Froyo") using an iPhone 4 and a Nexus One, respectively.

They tested speed on five different sites: BBC News, gdgt, The Onion, New York Times, and Engadget's own site. The two phones tied on three sites, and each loaded one site faster than the other. So that's a tie, right? Wrong. Android 2.2 has the ability to load Flash content, where iOS 4 does not. That alone gives the edge to Froyo in my opinion.

For a more definitive answer, they disabled flash in Android 2.2 and ran the tests again. The second time around gave Android the edge (albeit, usually slight) in four out of the five sites. The one site that Android didn't win was a tie.

Hit up the source link and watch their videos to decide for yourself.

Source: Android 2.2 (Froyo) versus iOS 4: the browser showdown (video) -- Engadget, Picture: Mashable.com

Still having iPhone 4 reception issues?

Introducing the iHand

Photoshopping at it's finest!

Source: Geeky Gadgets