You are deluded. Have you seriously looked at the app selection on the iPhone? Sure there are some fine apps, but there are TONS of absolute crap apps. The idea that Jobs is somehow taking this position in order to preserve the integrity and quality of the platform is laughable. Allowing Adobe's software to be a development platform will do nothing to sway the average quality of an iPhone app.
This is EXACTLY right. It has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the apps or battery life. Those are red herrings. What Apple really wants is exclusivity and a high bar for entry. It creates the illusion that their product is somehow unique on it's own merits. They create the illusion that apps developed for it are subjected to rigorous testing for quality before release. The idea of a unified development platform that can port any app across devices scares the shit out of them. Then their phone just looks expensive. They want apps that aren't on other platforms, and Adobe is trying to kill that.
Seems more like this to me: http://www.delgo.com/
I use the following tools to stay synced in various ways: Plaxo offers a fairly good Outlook sync utility for free which keeps my Address Book, Calendar and Tasks synced on my work and home desktop computers. Dropbox offers 2-3 GB of free storage that automatically syncs to any computer logged into that account. I keep all sorts of stuff in there. Photoshop prefs and tools, automation scripts, encrypted password database, etc. I set up a cheap home server with FTP. It goes to sleep if unused and I can wake it up with a Magic Packet remotely before doing file transfers. For large libraries of software, music, etc. I have a portable hard drive that I sync on either end using Directory Toolkit about every week or two depending. And Foxmarks for Firefox.
I'll second this. I like my Dropbox. I referred enough people to get up to 3GB free, and that is surprisingly useful. I fantasize about my entire desktop running from my Dropbox but I can't afford that level of service.
I was just about to make this point. Cars *still* makes tons of money on merchandising. WAAAY more than Ratatouille or even Incredibles.
This was modded funny, but for popular data, this is essentially what I would recommend. Why spend a fortune on big hard drives, enclosures, power supplies and all that for stuff that can be tracked down and downloaded easily? Sure, storage is cheap, but you're still talking a few hundred here. Personally, I have a decent sized drive that I store stuff until I watch it, then I just delete it. I never back the thing up and consider it's contents completely disposable. If I really want to have a permanent copy of a movie I just buy the damn thing. I do keep a mirror or two of my music collection though. But at less than 200GB it's a little easier to maintain.
A person who understands what they are doing can get great pictures from $300 glass. Not pro quality, but damn good. The problem is people who invest in this setup and assume it will solve all of their problems automatically.
Actually, I think most people these days are only interested in posting to Facebook or Flickr. Flickr give an option to show original sized images for subscribers, but for everyone else all these megapixels are a waste.
No, Mark Twain invented LOL Cats.
You make a grand assumption that most people have some creative contribution to add to this world. Sorry, but most don't. Creative types have a hard time believing this could be true, but it is. Many people have functional contributions that cannot be subsidized by the whims of the internet's paying customers. In fact, it is the case for the vast majority of people. I wish it weren't true, but *that* is the reality of the world, not the one you describe for your talented girlfriend. I wish her well but your scenario doesn't work for the general population.
I have had a generally positive experience with Netflix, but they have already had more than enough time to address this issue. Actually I am surprised it has taken so long to appear on Slashdot. This has been going on since, like, last October at least.
alphadogg writes "Barack Obama's election to US president has already brought a string of firsts, and on Wednesday there came another. The official presidential portrait was shot on a digital camera for the first time. The picture was taken by the White House's new official photographer, Pete Souza, and issued by The Office of the President Elect through its Web site. It was taken on Tuesday evening at 5:38 p.m. using a Canon EOS 5D Mark II, according to the metadata embedded in the image file."
TheSync writes "The Division of Labour blog spotlights a report written 100 years ago by a commission appointed by the Postmaster General, that came to the conclusion: 'That it is not feasible and desirable at the present time for the Government to purchase, to install, or to operate pneumatic tubes.' Here is a scan of the original NYTimes article. If only we had gotten the free government Intertubes in 1908!"