Source: http://www.engadget.com/2011/08/04/hackers-break-into-subaru-outback-via-text-message/
Hackers break into Subaru Outback via text message originally appeared on Engadget on Thu, 04 Aug 2011 17:17:00 EDT. Please see our terms for use of feeds.
Permalink |
Source: http://gizmodo.com/5827515/projector-lenses-the-size-of-pencil-lead-are-big-news-for-smartphones
The FLGS3 Series, from the Alps company, are asymmetrical glass lenses that measure a minuscule 1mm x 1mm x .8mm apiece—roughly the size of two clicks worth of pencil lead—and are low-loss, meaning they transmit 73% of the light beamed in. Being low-loss, they require less light input, which leads to reduced power consumption. And being so small means that they generate less heat.
Beyond their traditional uses in optical communications and submarine cables, you might soon find them incorporated into projectors even smaller than today's Picos or even embedded directly into smartphones. So, rather than having your cubicle buddies huddle around your miserable 3" screen, you'll be able to proudly show off your kids on the office wall.
Source: http://gizmodo.com/5827429/the-problem-with-google%252B-is-that-its-work-facebook
The best evidence that social media isn't really about personal connection? Marketers love it. It seems like every business from taco trucks to GE is hoping to use social media to put a personal face on its brand.
Sure, Twitter, Facebook, and Tumblr are marketing havens now. But none of them started off that way. There was, in fact, real skepticism as to what a brand would do on Twitter for its first few years.
Those services took off precisely as places where interactions were personal, and it was only later, after enough people congregated there and began having conversations and interactions, that brands jumped in. It's the same story of blogging, and the Web itself.
It wasn't until late 2008 that brands were really began to get on board on Twitter, after it had been around for more than two years. Likewise, Facebook ignored and shunned brands in its early years. First, there were conversations, which caused brands to begin listening.
By contrast, Google+ has been a brand magnet from the beginning, which makes me deeply skeptical of it.
The social media services that work best—Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, Foursquare— are often non-obvious to marketers (be they corporate or personal brand builders) when they launch. Anything that's really game-changing (see also: blogs) is typically so unfamiliar that it's met with corporate and media skepticism if not derision. But in today's more social-media savvy environment, brands hit the ground running on Google Plus. (Especially the media.) They jumped ahead of the conversation.
Despite Google's prohibitions, brand after brand has been creating Google+ profiles—often only to see Google pull them. And with Google being slow to allow corporate accounts, brands have sought other ways to fill the vid. This has led to some hilarious results, like poor Michael Dell wasting his time in a Google+ Hangout, trying to connect with customers.
My boss, Joe Brown, calls Google+ "Work Facebook." (Nevermind that LinkedIn is also Work Facebook.) Google+ feels like work, because everyone is trying so damn hard to work it. It is a deep, dark hole of self-promotion. And that makes it boring.
Successful social media is social. First and foremost. The modern landscape may be littered with marketers, but you can't ignore how we got here.
Social media must first play host to meaningful conversations if it is to be successful. It must be a forum where friendships can be created, strengthened and preserved. I'd argue that the most successful people and brands using social media are precisely the ones who are the most real, and the most deeply personal. Reveal something about yourself, even if it's that you are an idiot, and people will follow. For a social network to work, it has to be fascinating and fun.
In short, before you can make it work, you have to make it play. But when brands and self-promotors lead the way, there's nothing interesting to see.
And for Google+, that's still the problem.
Source: http://gizmodo.com/5827682/this-is-the-greatest-most-useful-maps-invention-in-a-very-long-time
Mapnificient is the best idea I've seen in a very long time. It allows you to pick your location, set an amount of time and then find exactly where can you go using public transportation in that time. Absolute genius.
I can see myself using Mapnificient on a daily basis, limiting my searches for bars, cafés and restaurants by time rather than space. And I can see myself using this for the next time I have to rent an apartment, to see exactly what areas are within 30 minutes of the Gawker's office, which is my maximum time when it comes to travel in NYC using the subway or the bus.
It is so damn useful that it makes me wonder why Google or Bing Maps hasn't implemented this yet. I hope Stefan Wehrmeyer makes an app for all iOS, Windows Phone 7 and Android as soon as possible. [Mapnificient—Thanks Jordi!]
Source: http://gizmodo.com/5827697/the-pioneer-elite-tv-is-back/gallery/
The new active 3D 1080p Elite sets—available at 70 inches for $8500 or 60 for a modest $6000, are heralded by the two companies as literally the best-looking LCD TVs ever created. But it's an odd setup. In truth, they're really Sharp TVs—not Pioneer displays. The guts are out of Sharp's factories, and even pack the same Quattron image as other sets (though they've given it a new, more expensive-sounding name). You'll also find full array LED backlighting, local dimming, a claimed 720 (!) Hz refresh, and the standard suite of wireless-enabled apps (Netflix, YouTube, et al.). So what's Pioneer lending? They say the new Elites are a collaborative effort, with Pioneer adding their video processing experience to essentially help Sharp make a TV considered worthy of the Elite tag. It's sorta marketing BS! But the TVs also look fantastic.
The old Pioneer Elites were renowned for their super duper deep blacks and great contrast, and the new Elites—despite being made by another company—are equally impressive. While I'm not sure the image annihilates competition (Samsung's high end offerings are still god damn incredible looking), there's no doubt the tag-teamed Elites look great too. Do they look $8500 great? Probably not. That's an astounding amount to spend on a panel, and the gains over sets priced thousands are probably not worth it. But they're there. This is the new money is no object TV. Both the 60-inch and its giant brother will be out this month.
Posts
