I like Netflix, but I find their streaming quality to be quite poor, despite having a fast network connection. Have tried on multiple computers through the web browser, as well as on an LG blu-ray player with Netflix support, and have also tried at a friend's house on her computer via FIOS. Quality varies, but at best (which is rare) it's ok; it's never what I consider great, and many times it's horrible, pretty much unwatchable in my opinion. (Specifically, quite noticeable blocking in large areas of similar colors, and that's even when the picture is reasonably good.) In addition, it's not uncommon for Netflix to pause to lower (or raise) the quality level, which is hugely frustrating (unless it's finally stepping up from a really low quality).

By contrast, I often rent movies on my Apple TV, it generally takes about 20-30 seconds before it's buffered enough to let me start watching, it _never_ pauses during playback, and the quality is quite good in my opinion; certainly worlds better than Netflix. (Disclaimer: I almost always rent standard-def, because usually I'm quite happy with the quality of Apple's standard def (42" TV) and the "high" def from Apple isn't enough better as to be worth the extra buck per rental.) I don't know _why_ Netflix's streaming quality is so much worse, but it sure is.

Well sure, the average true geek would realize that the appeal of the iPad is primarily... the appeal of the iPad. I happen to find the iPad hugely functional and am glad I rarely need carry around a laptop anymore, but of course I'm no true geek.

Meant to moderate the parent up and accidentally moderated it down. Sorry. Can't find a way to correct my moderation, so posting in the same thread in order to blow away my moderation.

The problem I had with the Lynch movie was simply that it was too compressed and you got jerked from event to event, sweeping past so much of the story. The actual look and feel I really enjoyed. (At the time - I haven't seen it recently, so maybe I would feel differently now.) The mini-series had so much more time to tell the story, so I was hoping for better.

But a huge problem with the miniseries was the size: the portrayals were so small. Dune the book was big, the deserts were vast, the halls were immense. In the miniseries even in the desert there was no sense of scale - the frame was always filled with the characters. There is a banquet scene set in a big hall, but we're treated to a tight shot with a few characters that looks like it could have been filmed on a soundstage the size of a nice office.

> The public is a very easily bored creature, just look what happened after Apollo 11.
> "Well, we made it to the moon! Wait, why are we going back? we DID that already."
[...]
> A trip to the moon would get interest going, get money flowing so they can DO the important stuff.

This seems contradictory. If we went to the moon and then quickly lost interest (and financing) before, why wouldn't the same happen again?

>Deep space voyages, while important, won't inspire anyone. Landing on the Moon or Mars? That will.

Not that I proclaim to know what would truly be best either scientifically or in terms of inspiring humankind, but to ME regular progress seems far more useful scientifically AND far more inspiring than big steps separated by many decades. High up on my personal "inspiration" meter would be an increasing collection of permanent space stations (some small, some larger) that humans visit regularly, spreading through the galaxy, some in open space, some near other planets/moons, providing support for widening scientific exploration and evidence of regular accomplishment.

With respect to digital sensors, at least:

1. Better low-light / high-ISO performance.
2. Better dynamic range.

#1 is getting pretty good with the mid-range and better SLRs; to the point where I think dynamic range is a very close second at this point, although I don't think the general public currently has an appreciation for its utility. There is enough visibility of HDR photography that I'm hopeful it will get more attention.

Plenty of room for improvement in many areas, of course (better location management, lower weight, better battery life, faster performance, quieter shutters, better video, better white balance, etc. - and I'd _love_ to see biometric sensor on the shutter button such that the camera could mark a photo as taken by me vs taken by a friend or a family member on my camera), but in terms of really enabling photography, I think those two are easily the biggest wins (and many of the other things have little to do with actual image capture).

-andrew