Archive for the ‘technology’ Category
The Apple iPad
First off, let’s clear the air. The name “iPad” is terrible. Really, really bad. I’m looking at you, Steve, and I’m disappointed.
That said, the iPad is a pretty neat device. It didn’t fulfill the pie-in-the-sky fantasies of the Mac fanboys (but nothing ever does) but I think it’s more useful than we realize. It may take a year to fully hit its stride (as did the iPhone) but it definitely represents a step in the evolution of computing devices.
The real value of the iPad rests on the application developers. It’s a beautiful platform to start with–large, sharp display, multi touch interface, 10 hrs battery life–but we don’t yet know where it leads. The few teaser applications they showed us were just that. Software always lags behind hardware as computers evolve, so we don’t yet know what the iPad will become.
Here’s a few of my ideas:
- Doctors & Nurses – This seems like the perfect computer to view and manage electronic medical records. I would be shocked if we don’t see some aggressive iPad development from EMR software vendors.
- Warehouse Managers – With the infinitely configurable interface (via custom application development) each company can give their warehouse managers the ideal device to carry. Throw in a RFID/Barcode reader and you’ve got it made.
- Performers – I could imagine some very cool applications to mix and control an audio/visual show using the touch interface. For $1000 you could lay down two of the 10″ screens, network them via bluetooth, and go nuts.
- Military – I’m sure they would require some extra beefy cases, but I could see this as an ideal information tablet for soldiers in the field. Pilots could strap one to their leg and have dynamic maps and status feed. Drones could send a video feed back to ground units. With the accelerometers, you could even fly the drone remotely.
The key point here is that the iPad is still a blank slate. As application developers start to dream and experiment, we’re going to see some really neat apps coming our way.
Probably.
Filed under technology : Comments (1) : Jan 28th, 2010
Mac Hack Attack
I have a 24″ iMac for home and a 13″ MacBook Pro for work. I love the small form-factor of the MacBook, but the limitations on screen real estate is sometimes a drag. The iMac has a gorgeous screen, but no video input to let me hook up my MacBook. What to do?
Mac Hack Attack!
The Mac platform supports a feature called Target Disk Mode. If you reboot a Mac while holding the T key, you can access the hard drive over Firewire from another computer. So for my setup, I boot my MacBook in Target Disk Mode, then plug it into my iMac using FW800. I then restart the iMac and tell it to boot from the MacBook’s hard drive.
End result: 24″ of screen real estate with no cross-contamination between the two systems. Reason No. 5967810 why I love the Mac platform. It just works.
Filed under hack, technology : Comments (3) : Jan 12th, 2010
Zipcar : initial thoughts
I’ve relocated to Washington D.C. which means I can take advantage of a really nice mass transit system and sell my car. The Metro can get me most places I need to go within Washington and the first-ring suburbs. For those trips when I do need a car, I joined the Zipcar car-share service.
I tried a similar car-share program when I lived in Madison, WI but found that it couldn’t meet my needs. There were too few cars spaced too far apart to be convenient.
The Zipcar scene in Washington is much, much better. With hundreds of cars to choose from, many in close proximity to a Metro station, getting to and from a car is a breeze. Reservations have been plentiful as well, with multiple cars available at any given time when I want one.
The Zipcar process is pretty slick: you pay a one-time fee to join the service (for me, $25) then rent cars by the hour. The price depends on the model you want (they have everything from a Smart Car or Prius to pickup trucks and BMWs) in the range of $6.50 – $13. The casual Zipcar user also pays an annual fee (currently $50) that is waived for more frequent users who commit to a minimum monthly spend. I know I will be using Zipcar for work travel at least a few times a month so I signed up for the $75/month plan.
Reservations are done online or using a very slick iPhone app when you’re on the go. Once you arrive at the car during your reservation time, your Zipcar card unlocks the vehicle and away you go. I’ve rented a car for three trips so far and each time it’s worked perfectly.
Most of us aren’t used to paying for a car by the hour so that fee may seem high. When you factor in all that you’re getting, however, it starts to look like a real bargain. There’s the obvious stuff like the capital cost of the car itself and all maintenance/repairs. You’re covered for insurance (with a $500 deductible if you’re at fault) and the cost of parking the Zipcar. Add in the fuel costs (each car comes with a fuel card if you need to refill) and it starts too look like a real bargain.
The secret behind Zipcar is raising the capital utilization rate for their fleet of cars. Most car owners use their car for maybe 10% of the day, while it sits idle for the other 90%. The typical car ownership costs in the U.S. are $400-600 per month. You’d have to use that car for 12 hours a day to come close to the hourly rate Zipcar charges.
Of course, the Zipcar scheme won’t work for every city or every driver. It relies on a critical mass of users and is buoyed by an available mass transit system. But for urban dwellers with infrequent car needs, it can’t be beat. I’m thrilled to be giving up car ownership and relying on the Metro, Zipcar, and my feet for my transportation needs.
And finally, the sales pitch : if you are interested in trying Zipcar, use the link below. You’ll get $25 in free driving credits and I’ll get $25 for the referral.
Join Zipcar and get $25 in free driving!
Filed under Washington DC, economics, frugal, technology : Comments (0) : Jan 3rd, 2010
Compact Camera Roundup
Special guest post by Mr. Dan Larson
My pocket camera just died. After setting my budget at $250 and doing much research, here’s a list of cameras that made my short list.
Top Pick: Fujifilm Finepix F100fd
This thing is a technical marvel at an outstanding price. I know it isn’t a Canon or a Nikon, but I don’t care. The specs are awesome (5fps continuous mode, high dynamic range, etc…) and the form is good. This seems to be the professional photographer’s choice for pocket cameras and it scores very highly in dpreview.com’s tests. The only drawback I can see is that it doesn’t do HD video.
Runner Up: Sony Cyber-shot DSC-W290
I’ve always been impressed with Sony’s ability to produce nice looking images right out-of-the-box. If you don’t mind their stupid memory sticks and a few other drawbacks (like lots of artifacting in low light), then this is a great every-day use camera. I would have recommended the Sony W300, but it is getting harder and harder to find. That pocket camera had full manual control and would have been a dream, but the 290 is a suitable replacement (especially if you want 720p video).
The Best Of The Rest:
Canon PowerShot SD880IS
Filed under technology : Comments (0) : Jun 15th, 2009
How long will it last?
Most of us know that natural resources are finite. Due to those pesky laws of physics, there’s only so much stuff on this little planet of ours. New Scientist poses (and then answers) an interesting question: How much do we have left? And how long will it take to deplete these resources at present rates?
Not surprisingly, we don’t have a lot of years left with many of our favorite natural resources given current consumption rates. The chart presents both the rate of consumption for the U.S. (we’re #1! in a bad way) and for the world, based on an assumption that global consumption goes up to half that of the U.S. (with developing nations striving to match our standard of living, it’s not a bad assumption).
The takeaway here is not that we’re going to all of a sudden run out of Indium and stop making LCD monitors. Instead, this should remind us all that we need to drastically change the way we interact with natural resources over the next century if we want to maintain anything close to our current standard of living.
At the risk of politicizing an otherwise apolitical post, I’ll also add this: When you hear politicians tell you that we can’t do anything to change the way we produce energy or to increase the efficiency of everyday processes because it costs too much, ask yourself this: what’s the cost of doing nothing?
Filed under energy, environment, technology : Comments (0) : Apr 24th, 2009
