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.
Reality is a bitch huh, we don't allow the average moron in Australia to have guns either, thank goodness. Americans really are stupid when it comes to guns.
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.
I'm still using 8 year old Dell Latitudes, (we have 20 of them at my school) No failiures at all more expensive initially but very well made. Buy cheap, get crap.
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.
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.
Ah, good old Mike, ignoring reality to push another moronic line.
The world certainly is infested, with uncaring assholes. Why not the rest of the world a favour and kill yourself, you would help make it a better more civilised place.
Another revenge and violence crazed American, yawn. Uncivilised assholes.
Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (5) All right, who's the wiseguy who stuck this trigraph stuff in here?
