I'm surprised that this hasn't been addressed by the academic communities. Someone with a degree in English or linguistics or something like that should have though of this decades ago.
This word (actually more than one word) has various spellings, and I've probably used all of them at one time or another. The word is email, or eMail, or e-mail, or some other variation. They're all wrong.
Yes, if I were in college I'd certainly only lug one book around -- my notebook computer. I'd keep all the schoolbooks on the computer.
As to elderly eyesight, when I was a kid, all the geezers wore glasses, but few young people. Now all the youngsters have glasses and few geezers do. Why? The young are ruining their eyesight with computers, tablets, and phones much like I ruined mine with books.
But when I was a kid, cataract surgery was still rare. The patent on the CrystaLens should expire around 2023, so most oldsters won't need any glasses, since it not only cures cataracts but nearsightedness, farsightedness, and astigmatism. It won't be long before I have to get the other eye done.
We now have a "right to work" billionaire as governor of Illinois. He's calling for "right to work" zones, fortunately the legislature isn't going to let him.
If I weren't retired and lived in a "right to work" state, I would demand that the state's government supply me with employment. After all, if it's my RIGHT to work...
"Right to work" is a flat out bald faced lie, and any working person who supports it is a moron.
The difference is that a middle class or poor person who votes Republican is voting against their own interests.
People value a stable government. They won't stop paying taxes until they fear their government more than the anarchy that would replace it. They don't fear this enough.
In his 1951 short story The Fun They Had, Isaac Asimov has a boy who finds something really weird in the attic -- a printed book. In this future, all reading was done on screens.
Actually, TV would use far less power than YouTube. With streaming, you're transmitting as well as receiving, and transmitting is what eats your battery (besides the screen, which each would use equally). It takes very little power to receive, a lot to transmit.
I doubt anyone would buy one just to watch TV, it would just make the tablet more useful.
Programming that would be very simple. Your link shows they've already done it. Guess I'll be buying a tablet and their expensive software.
The only difference between a smartphone and a tablet is phones can connect to cell carriers. If it will work on your Android tablet it should work on your Android phone, as long as the carrier doesn't block it. And they surely wouldn't, because if you're watching TV on it you're not streaming NetFlix on it.
I just checked wikipedia, it did have a cartridge that would play TV. And effort? The hardware is all there -- TV is digital now. A good programmer or perhaps engineer could do it in a few hours. I see no reason why nobody's done it; maybe it was the Sega flop.
My experience is similar. I have appreciated how easy it is to work with. I point one domain at my home server, a sub-domain of that at Google AppEngine and my other domain at Google Sites.
Your needs will determine who the best host is for you. Here's what works for me:
I'd like to know why in the hell nobody is selling a tablet, or maybe an app for existing tablets, that will let me watch over the air TV on it?
All the necessary hardware is there. Wi-fi and bluetooth are radios. Some cell pones can pick up FM music stations, and have been able to do so and have done so for years.
The FM radio band sits between channels six and seven on the VHF television channels. If it can hear radio, it can see TV.
Thanks, you may be right, but I was certainly wrong, I was actually thinking of the Netflix vs Verizon issue:
Verizon has confirmed that everything between that router in their network and their subscribers is uncongested – in fact has plenty of capacity sitting there waiting to be used. Above, I confirmed exactly the same thing for the Level 3 network. So in fact, we could fix this congestion in about five minutes simply by connecting up more 10Gbps ports on those routers. Simple. Something we’ve been asking Verizon to do for many, many months, and something other providers regularly do in similar circumstances. But Verizon has refused. So Verizon, not Level 3 or Netflix, causes the congestion. Why is that? Maybe they can’t afford a new port card because they’ve run out – even though these cards are very cheap, just a few thousand dollars for each 10 Gbps card which could support 5,000 streams or more. If that’s the case, we’ll buy one for them. Maybe they can’t afford the small piece of cable between our two ports. If that’s the case, we’ll provide it. Heck, we’ll even install it.
Emphasis mine.
The Comcast deal may be entirely different, I have little doubt the technical aspects were at least partially different, but I suspect the motivations were the same.
See, that's what they *did* and that's what pushed this change. Netflix didn't want to pay to put rack space in because it costs more, that raises their prices and their customers don't care about latency at all. A half second is huge in internet response times but customers couldn't care less if it their movie took an extra half second to start. Rather than give Netflix the bigger connection it needed to make it's customers happy, even when Netflix offered to pay for it, Comcast refused. That way they could force Netflix to pay Comcast extra money in order for Comcast customers to get decent Netflix service.
Your average consumer believes that the bandwidth they pay for each month reflects how fast their ISP will carry traffic to them. Comcast realized that they could sell that idea to the consumer and then not provide it and the average consumer wouldn't know or blame them. Then they could demand money from content providers.
We do want CDNs, but we want them provided because they improve service that people care about, not because ISPs refuse to give their customers sufficient access to content providers in order to make more money.
The courts have recently been unkind to software patents. Google has lots of money for lawyers and they could spend less on lawyers than they're paying Microsoft if some (any?) of the patents were to be invalidated. Google has agreements with MS that may hinge partially on not going to court with them. However, a win for Kyocera could save them mucho dinero.
Google may be able to support Kyocera without breaking their agreements and it could be a big win for them without jeopardizing anything except money. They have money to spare.
Not so much "demand" as "cite."
Doubt isn't the opposite of faith; it is an element of faith. - Paul Tillich, German theologian and historian
