Comments on: Open Thread for January 29, 2010

By: Gab

Gab — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 06:33:12 +0000

What Echo/Caroline needs is an amp that goes to eleven.

By: Trina

Trina — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 01:20:53 +0000

Got linked up on this through the Dollhouse article but I guess I’m just going to spoliertag it in case anyone isn’t caught up.

POTENTIAL SPOILERS AHEAD

Anyway this is @Jon Eric
“if all they needed was her spinal fluid, why did they let her be an active for like three years?”

I believe in The Hollow Men Boyd makes reference that they needed her spinal fluid but she needed time to develop or mature. I guess in order to make the cure/vaccine they needed to let it sit like a fine wine.
The plot holes are many and unfortunately Boyd’s reveal was a last minute decision because I believe in an interview with Tim Minear they said that they didn’t even decide to make him the bad guy until season two. I’m guessing the pending cancellation had a lot to do with it.

It’s really a bummer as the last few episodes really did start to get quite good. But then there’s so much missing from Getting Closer, The Hollow Men, and even Epitaph Two.
Unfortunately they really constricted themselves by putting together Epitaph One and while it’s a surprisingly good episode many people missed out.

I just want to know what the heck happened to Dominic, Ivy, and Whiskey. I mean there are plot holes galore at this point and the original five year plan will likely never see the light of day which is really a shame. The show had a lot of potential and the messages were there.

Everyone gets down on Joss but I can’t help but feel bad for the guy. Angel gets canceled and can’t finish its run, Firefly doesn’t even make it past season one, and then Dollhouse barely scrapes by for a second season and it seems like everything with that is a mess. It’s gotta be disheartening.

By: Trevor

Trevor — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 00:17:14 +0000

My big question about the iPad: Will it be compatible with my Zune?

By: Jon Eric

Jon Eric — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 15:45:43 +0000

Wrather, I read that StevenF article you posted. Took a little while to digest, probably for reasons related to the bitter aftertaste it left in my mouth, but I’ve come to something resembling a conclusion about his proposed paradigm shift in computing.

He posits that this New World of computing technology will inevitably overtake the Old World, and this will be officially a fait accompli when they perfect these three things:
1.) “A managed way of putting processes in the background.” In other words, multitasking.
2.) “A way of sharing data with other devices.” In other words, the ability to save and manipulate files.
3.) “A way of sharing data between applications.” In other words, the use of files that are not completely proprietary to the app that generated them.

I wonder if it occurred to him that the development of these three things would make these new app-based systems indistinguishable from our beloved Old World OSes, and would likely make them susceptible to the same limitations that Apple was expressly trying to avoid when making the iPad?

Anyways,

My whole take on the iPad is, if I’m going to pay that much for a device that’s that big, it’s going to be a real computer that can do things like listen to music and surf the web at the same time, and install whatever program I want (not just the ones vetted by Apple).

By: Matthew Wrather

Matthew Wrather — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 16:45:17 +0000

Except that–and this is a crucial difference–nobody owns HTML5. It’s not a pogram that you have to buy (and it’s controlle by a standards body, not any single for-profit company). Everyone is free to create or implement their own software that implements the standard.

And with that, I think I’ve crossed the line to being one of *those* people, having annoying pedantic conversations about Apple and free software. LINUX RULEZ.

Shudder. Mea culpa. That’s my last tech post on a pop culture site.

So. How about those Grammys?

By: RiderIon

RiderIon — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 11:52:24 +0000

@Wrather After using Wikipedia to inform myself about HTML5 (of which there was little information), I find it makes a ton of sense for Apple to not support flash. Ian Hickson of Google and David Hyatt of Apple are two major editors for HTML5. Why would you support your competitor’s software language when you’re trying to make your own language the standard?

By: Matthew Wrather

Matthew Wrather — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 08:23:50 +0000

As if on queue, I find this on the NY times site:

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/31/why-the-ipad-web-demo-was-full-of-holes/

By: Matthew Wrather

Matthew Wrather — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 08:20:05 +0000

Like I said, only time will tell. If we were betting money, though, I wouldn’t forget that Apple has a pretty good track record of picking the right spot on the ease of use vs. flexibility continuum for a mass audience.

(But…side note… don’t defend Flash. It’s awful, buggy, computer-crashing junk — terrible to author and terrible to use. As soon as we have something better — like for instance when HTML5 is ironed out — everyone important will jump ship without a backward glance.)

By: mlawski

mlawski — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 02:04:35 +0000

I didn’t know anything about this iPad thingy until I just read all of these articles you folks linked to, and, let me say, on the whole, I’m not terribly impressed. The argument that the iPad is going to revolutionize computing while simultaneously leaving out the ability to multitask — one of the most important capabilities of an actual 21st century computer — is ridiculous on its face. I don’t have statistics on this, obviously, but I would bet that most “normal” (i.e., non-techie) computer users multitask while they’re using computing devices. When I’m talking to friends on skype, I want to be able to surf the Internet and maybe even send them a streaming video (that uses Flash *gasp*). For my work, I need to have a word processing program and a web browser with several tabs open at the same time. It would be a major, major pain in the ass to have to keep opening and closing these programs. And let’s not talk about when I’m using more advanced programs like the Adobe creative suite…

The argument that my desire to not fundamentally alter the way I — and, I believe, most people — use a computer means that I am scared of change and succumbing to “future shock” seems disingenuous to me. Ease of use is important, but not to the detriment of capability. To hijack the “manual vs. automatic car” metaphor everyone seems to be using, it’s like saying, here’s a car that’s super-easy to use: it only has two buttons: on and off! Yep, there are no gears: no pesky “neutral,” no “reverse”! No radio to distract you! You can buy “headlights” or “windshield wiper” apps — but you can only use then when you aren’t driving. Ease of use! It’s so easy, even your grandma can use it! And to any of you people who complain, well, you’re just an obsessive car geek who can’t understand that driving forward blindly in hurricane conditions is the Wave of the Future!

Not that the iPad won’t be a step in the right direction, of course. But until we have a tablet that can do most (if not all) of what a computer can do, then I personally am not going to buy one.

By: Matthew Wrather

Matthew Wrather — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 22:49:58 +0000

Oh, and for the repeat: We’re obviously not a technology site, but I thought these articles about the iPad were illuminating. You don’t have to like it (my first computer was an 8088 and I tinkered with it so much I didn’t even bother putting the cover on after a while), but you DO have to recognize that we’re in the midst of a huge shift in how we use computers:

http://stevenf.tumblr.com/post/359224392/i-need-to-talk-to-you-about-computers-ive-been

(Also, http://daringfireball.net has been pretty perceptive about the new paradigm.)