Recent Comments:
Probe finds one-third of people shot by Tasers need medical attention {Engadget}
Jun 19th 2008 3:46PM This is an excellent point. Not only is that one fourth riddled with people who did not have any material need to go to a doctor, but Engadget's campaign against this device lies about the actual numbers in their headline, knowing thousands of people will only read the headline and move on.
A correction is mandatory.
This campaign is silly. But Engadget can feel like a long commercial sometimes, so what's the loss? If they don't want to be fair, they are going to lose some credibility.
Kaleidescape's overpriced upscaling DVD players get reviewed {Engadget}
Jun 19th 2008 2:11AM In spite of your nearly unreadable slew of words that you refuse to make into paragraphs, you make a great point and I feel I understand the system a lot more.
The commenter below also points out that this price is only due to the insane licensing needed to sell a product that rips DVDs, and so I guess Kaleidescape is not gouging idiots so much as offering a stupid solution to people who are willing to pay lots of money to not have to learn how to use a Media PC. For a set of people, that's a wise investment, as even ten hours of a billionaire's time is worth lots more than this product costs.
But for me, a major part of the joy in movies is setting up that Media PC, getting the videos organized as I like them, etc etc. I have had a problem or two along the way, but it's been easy enough. And for the average Joe, you can't get much easier than Windows Media Player and an XBOX 360, so all you then need is a DVD ripper. I think it's a lot of fun to do it this way, but if I were a billionaire, I would gladly pay someone to set up a media PC for me instead of the absolutely insane price this stuff costs. But that's not the real world, and I realize that with kids and dumb spouses, etc, the interface will have to be bulletproof (and unchangeable). To me, this is a huge minus... I want to be able to get things the way I like 'em, which changes over time. But it has its advantage.
As long as we realize that this is just a huge payoff to the MPAA, and a lazyness tax for people who are willing to pay to not use a superior and cheaper, but technical solution, then I'm cool with that.
Except that the point of this article wasn't the media server, no matter what is in the picture. The point is that this product produces obsolete movie quality that is not in the same level of quality at all to a blu-ray player..
You know what else rich folks have? Really nice speakers and amps. They need blu-ray players to produce the only lossless sound quality that is easily available in thousands of movies.
so, the media server quotient aside, this thing fails at the objective of competing with blu-rays. Sure, it's probably a little better than my PS3 at showing all those old DVDs that haven't been converted yet, but it's still an inferior product if I have the money to buy a library of blu-rays.
Kaleidescape's overpriced upscaling DVD players get reviewed {Engadget}
Jun 19th 2008 1:59AM 'overpriced' is an opinion. I hold the opinion that this is overpriced. But shorthand, I just say "It's overpriced". Maybe that will clear things up a bit.
Kaleidoscape will not make the $20,000,000,000 or so that market analysts predict (obviously this is extremely speculative) Sony will make from Blu-ray. The market is speaking today and every day about whether this is a product worth buying. This product, in a set costing $40,000, is inferior in nearly every respect to the setup I described above: a decent computer and a few devices that can handle streams and blu-rays (PS3s probably).
This device claims to have only one advantage: that it's fake 1080p beats the PS3's fake 1080p, and equal to the PS3's real 1080p blurays. I don't get to see a comparison because Kaleidescape is lying about that.
Blu-ray is picking up steam faster than VHS or DVD did. It's the new standard, and it'll be a long long time before internet video competes with it at all, and likely it will never replace hard storage mediums entirely. You clearly have a huge problem with blu-ray (which is insane... kinda like hating tires or floppy discs or wheat). I assure you, you can find a better technology that this ridiculous upscaler/server to prove that Blu-ray is dead. DVDs and normal DVD players or good upscalers such as you find in HD-DVD players make a compelling value argument.
Kaleidescape's overpriced upscaling DVD players get reviewed {Engadget}
Jun 18th 2008 6:42PM You don't understand. The capabilities of this product are apparently that it lets you watch movies all over your house. This is not an impressive or novel capability. The price makes no sense.
The company can't put up its screenshots next to blu-ray screens or they lie would be proven. They admit that they are working on a blu-ray player, so obviously that's an enhancement over the current gen of products they have, and anyone buying this is a total sucker.
How does this beat a normal media PC that streams content all over your house? The upscaler? I haven't seen any evidence that it's much better than a PS3's upscaler or one from any of the elite Blu-ray players. And of course, a PC can upscale damn nicely. Those Toshiba laptops have extremely advanced upscalers (similar chip to what's in this system). Why not get that and 8 PS3s? It would actually cost less, and damn that would be a lot more fun and impressive and so much more effective.
A ferrari that handled worse than a Camaro would indeed be overpriced, pal.
Kaleidescape's overpriced upscaling DVD players get reviewed {Engadget}
Jun 18th 2008 6:37PM Every blu-ray player I'm aware of is able to play those DVDs.
Not to mention, even the PS3 has an excellent DVD upscaler. The Kaleidescape people claim their stuff is only for those who really know their stuff, but it's apparent it's only for those who know nothing at all about this stuff. I can put all my DVDs on a computer, and stream that content to every room in my house, without any need for this expensive product. The resolution can be very, very good, and for a fraction of the cost, I can use 5 PS3s or similar products that play blu-rays and handle the streams. All you need to know is how to stream media and save DVDs to a hard drive. It's not complicated stuff. You pay less for a much better solution. Hell, you even get to watch all your movies from anywhere in the world.
I'm noticing that these guys and their handpicked (lackey) reviewers refuse to put up a screenshot of this product's upscaled image next to a screenshot of a blu-ray movie. The reason is obvious.
Sony Ericsson births HBH-PV715, 720 and 740 Bluetooth headsets {Engadget}
Jun 17th 2008 10:08AM We need to stop laughing at bluetooth headset wearers. Yes, they look douchey and fit that BMW stereotype. But long term cell phone use probably leads to cancer, regardless of what cell phone makers tell us. Their studies never go past 5 years. I've been using a cellphone for ten.
Very few neurosurgeons hold a cell phone up to their head. We should all either use speakerphone, wired headsets, or bluetooth headsets. We're going to have a lot of brain cancer (the kind Ted Kennedy has) if we don't change our habits.
Sony's Wiimote competitor to come as break-apart DualShock 3? {Engadget}
Jun 14th 2008 3:15AM phour, that Immersion lawsuit was seriously bunk. It was filed in the notirously corrupt Eastern District of Texas, where the patent judge's son makes millions because if you hire him as a lawyer, his dad will have a conflict of interest and your company can't get screwed by the insane procedures in that court. If you don't pay his son exorbant sums of protection money, then you're screwed.
Sony knew they were fighting a losing battle, but also knew if they bend over to every patent troll, being such a leader in invention of technology, they'd lose theirr business. So they fought.
It's worth noting that at the time of the Sony lawsuit, a major investor in Immersion was Microsoft. And Microsoft got a lot of the money Sony had to pay. But Microsoft had said in court many times that Immersion's lawsuit was bullshit (which it was). It's insane to say that a force feedback patent (which is different from rumble) that came out later than rumble, covers rumble.
The writer here clearly did not give the issue a fair discussion. I don't know why he decides to state his conclusions in such an egregiously dishonest manner.
I don't like that I'd have to buy another controller for the PS3, for sure. I know the Eye isn't well supported even though so much potential exists, and the Sixaxis function, though a pretty damn good tech, gets terrible support sometimes. Of course, it's probably even worse on the wii. But this story is typical anti-Sony FUD. Peripherals on the PS3 are pretty damn cheap in many areas, and online support is also cheap. Sony's not ripping gamers off when compared to Nintendo and MS.
I seriously think that if Sony came out with wii-sports tomorrow, and Nintendo hadn't, this editor would pan it as terrible, and a flock of sheep would agree.
Jury finds Taser accountable for man's death, awards $6m settlement to family {Engadget}
Jun 11th 2008 6:01AM when I say,:" A man runs at a cop, and he only has a pistol," by 'he,' I mean the cop has a pistol and the man is unarmed.
Jury finds Taser accountable for man's death, awards $6m settlement to family {Engadget}
Jun 11th 2008 5:59AM That's quite a non sequiter you're pulling.
Of course tasers mean fewer shootings, because not all shootings strictly involve criminals with guns.
A man runs at a cop, and he only has a pistol, and the man is probably going to get shot. If the cop has a taser, there's a strong chance the man will just be tasered. Similarly, batons involve enormous risk to the cop that tasers don't. Mace involves harm to the cop that the taser doesn't. Physically using your hands to restrain a crazy methhead involves risk of injury.
The Taser is not marketed as though it's as safe as an ipod, merely because they offer a Taser holster that plays MP3s or comes in pretty colors. The point of those steps is to obscure and conceal your weapon to make others comfortable or less likely to disarm you. It is a pretty safe item. You claim there are so many tragic cases... where are they? This is the first decision I've heard of, and it places the Taser at 15% responsible. That's not exactly a huge number of cases. Really, it's not even one case where a taser caused a death.
The real problem with tasers seems to be that people fear the police will use force (the taser) when they shouldn't have let the situation escalate at all. They are lazy and rely on it instead of being more patient. This is obviously a legit criticism, but it has far more to do with training and police reform than it has to do with an extremely well made way for a person (almost always a woman or elderly) to protect themselves in one of those gun control cities that is extremely dangerous to live in.
Tasers are really quite safe. Consider how many taser shocks have been administers with how many people have died as a result. And be honest and consider all the millions, yes, millions of people who were disarmed and disabled without being shot or clubbed or swarmed with brute force. It takes a lot less force to turn off your motor skills electrically than it takes to convince your enraged brain that your muscles can no longer withstand all the kicking and broken bones. The Taser has, without any doubt at all, saved many lives, saved many more injuries, etc.
What you really should be asking for is a new form of scrutiny and education for police in how to keep situations from escalating to the 'use force' stage. While Tasers are easy and safe enough that the now increased level of force usage has minimal costs, it's still very important to fix this problem that ultimately is the fault of the police culture, not a weapon (and indeed this problem started with mace, not Tasers).
Don't think I'm some shill for Taser: they are a stupid thing to purchase if you can get a firearm such as a shotgun or a pistol (pistols if you are willing to train... something you can't really do with a taser). You can get a great shotgun for less than a third the price, and it has great deterrence effect, lower liability since you will kill instead of cause suffering in, and it's much easier to use if you have basic understanding. Plus it's cooler.
Jury finds Taser accountable for man's death, awards $6m settlement to family {Engadget}
Jun 11th 2008 4:43AM Well, to be fair, this is bad for the NRA. Because fewer Tasers means more shootings. More shootings is generally bad for gun rights advocates.
I'm not exactly glad that a methhead is dead, though if he sold the stuff he deserved it. This should have been ruled a suicide, since it's clear his enlarged heart was the real problem that got him killed, and he did that with his drugs.
But we don't have an eggshell skull defense, so Taser gets the blame.
Think about it: this is the first time a Taser has conclusively killed someone (though I'm sure it's not the actual first time). That's out of hundreds of thousands of uses, and the dead guy was a drug addict who had ruined his heart! The Taser seems like it's safer than a Tomato.
