Recently in Unsorted Geekery Category

So!  According to the latest semi-reliable leaks out of Cupertino, Apple's latest worst-kept secret, the iTablet iSlab Touch iTouchtabowabo Apple Tablet (name pending), is due for a major announcement by the end of the month.

As a new owner of an iPod Touch whose ownership thereof can be described less as "proud" and more as "that sound is inevitability, Mr. Anderson"*, I feel safe in saying that I understand the allure if I don't necessarily leap headlong into it**.  They're pretty, they're (legally, if not technically) proprietary, they're expensive.  I get it.

But a tablet?  While every other Apple product falls into a category that I can at least appreciate on the conceptual level, a tablet is something that I don't even care for in theory.  Everything that a tablet can be made to do can either be done smaller (on an iPhone/iTouch-level platform, with portability, convenience, and convergence thrown in as  bonuses) or larger (on a Macbook-level platform, with more power and versatility than a tablet could utilize without some sort of Miracle Drive add-on). 

This is not an opinion which I hold exclusively in regard to Apple products.  Tablets to me are a technology with one foot out the gate and the other in the grave. 

To be a viable product, a tablet must be big enough to handle manual read/write operations on a full-size touchscreen yet small enough to be "ultraportable" yet sturdy enough not to break in a steady wind yet light enough not to give the user arm cramps during use, while at the same time being cheap enough to mass-produce yet advanced enough to handle heavy multitasking over long periods in the field yet simple enough for the layman in that same field to use (and troubleshoot) yet complex enough to be able to handle a potentially mind-numbing assortment of load-outs...okay, I'm getting a headache. 

Get the picture?  Unlike other fields in which Apple products have flourished, tablet computing has not yet even begun to be sorted out.  A proper tablet is a logistical nightmare.  Apple's penchant for gift-wrapping a formula made of elements which already exist may or may not work too well here.

Unless they're just going to straight-up Kindle it, which is unlikely given the rumored $1000 price tag.

----
* Which isn't to say that I don't like it, in case its purchaser is reading this.

** The fact that I recognized Apple's stylistic contributions back when the rest of you fairweather end-users wouldn't have gone near one of their products notwithstanding.

SPOTTED: rumors that Sony's On High people are planning a "premium" content model for the PS3's online service.

PSN vs. Xbox Live has always been an "apples with a monthly fee if you want apples worth eating vs. free apples in more expensive trees" comparison.  In an uncharacteristic fit of wisdom, Sony has to date seen fit to provide all its online content free of charge. 

Presumably, all current and currently announced PSN features will remain free, but as those features are the backbone of the average console gamer's interest, it begs the question: what exactly does Sony plan on charging for?

(via Engadget, via in turn Gamespot, via presumably the rest of the internet)

According to Broadcasting and Cable, the bigwigs at News Corp. are talking about taking online TV and movie streaming clearinghouse Hulu to a pay model by 2010, which barring a massive shift in Hulu's model will have the net effect of A) pushing viewers back to TV, B) bumping DVD sales to consumers savvy enough to recognize that owning content forever is better than paying a subscription fee for content which is only available for a month or two, C) pushing viewers to other sources for streaming content, all of which will result in D) Hulu losing users, possibly to the point of its eventual dissolution.

Not to oversimplify the complex underlying economic factors here, but here's hoping that Hulu wraps its head around the whole "cost of providing content must be less than or equal to the revenue generated by the ads which run concurrent to that content" thing before then.

YMMV on whether it's worth the cash, but at least it doesn't suck.  So at least you don't have to fear it.

Go here for details.

Hat Tip: memes

Here's a quick analysis of the Gmail meltdown of 9/01/09 detailing which aspects of the infrastructure were affected, why certain parts of the application functioned without interruption, and why such an event both is and is not a big deal.

Think of it as that power outage that hit the Eastern seaboard a few years back, but for the internet.  A few routers get overworked and shut down, which places a heavier workload on the remaining routers, a few of which reach that same overworked status and shut down, which places even more stress on the remaining routers, and so on. 

To the users in the trenches it was a nightmare (with the exception of those forward-thinking users who, say, forward their mission-critical gmail accounts elsewhere just in case - good for you!), but from an engineering standpoint it could have been much worse. 

Yesterday's failure was due to a system-wide request router crash.  As such, Google's webmonkeys have a single weak link on which to concentrate (I hesitate to say that the solution will be as simple as "figure out increased workload totals, add additional request routers to compensate," but it's not going to be much more complex than that). 

Had more than one element been a factor in the outage (God help us if any critical storage systems ever get hit), Google's engineers would be looking at an exponentially more complex problem.

CNN reports that the "newer, leaner, meaner, more 21st century whatever" GM is looking into joining such business luminaries as username LADIESMAN217 on eBay, once a former bleeding edge of internet commerce until your parents started selling their worthless crap on it*.

Once upon a time, Microsoft had a modicum of taste when it came to choosing promotional music for new software releases.

Well, not anymore (NSFPeople With Taste)!

A free Nickelback download?  I didn't really need another reason to hit up a better browser, but thanks to Microsoft all the same for further cementing an already ironclad decision.

From the 2009 Radio and TV Correspondents' Dinner:

Just a quick note - facebook usernames (facebook.com/yourstupidinternetnamehere) went live Saturday.  If you haven't already, set yours early.  If you don't, chances are that you'll be stuck with either A) some abomination with 32 numbers after the name you wanted, thus missing the point of a succinct address to which you can point people, or B) a random phrase which doesn't really describe you and will inevitably embarrass you when someone asks for it.

Mine's just freakin' dandy, but the page itself is anemic.  To this day I have yet to get the hang of the whole self-advertisement thing.