Rocking Pod : Thanks Jobs.

Finally, A must eat Apple!!

Was always wondering, that these guys ( Apples’ ) are so smart , then what they are waiting for to deliver my kind of device.
I must thank Apple to deliver a device which I was looking for a year or so.
I was strongly against carrying two palm devices, one for music ( iPod ) and other for communication ( cell phone ).
Always thinking why not someone is just adding more stuff to this “Pod” to make it fill, so that one can carry a single Pod which provides everything, or close to everything.

And I guess Jobs read my mind and FINALLY……………..

Apple on Tuesday introduced iPhone, a new cellphone version of its iPod portable music player that its iconoclastic CEO Steve Jobs called among the company's most important products ever.

Thanks Jobs.

"Apple is clearly redefining the phone," Jobs said in an interview after unveiling the iPhone at the sprawling Macworld conference here. "People will not look at smart phones the same way again."

The handheld device, priced at $499 and $599, packs the features of an iPod, cellphone and Internet service onto a 3.5-inch screen. New technology, called Multi-Touch, lets consumers use their fingers to make calls, play content and troll the Web. The iPhone won't be available until June.

This is a revolutionary product that has the chance to really impact people's lives.Comparing the iPhone to the original Macintosh and iPod. This is the ultimate digital device I must say.
iPhone users will be able to make calls while viewing content on the Web and exchanging e-mail — at the same time.

Apple expects the all-in-one device — which houses Apple's OS X operating system and Google Maps, among several features — to make an immediate impact in the burgeoning market for cellphones worldwide.

Jobs predicted Apple will sell about 10 million iPhones, or about 1% of the worldwide market, by 2008. Oh…that is damn good.The iPhone could get more people to buy iPods , isn’t it ??? Buy an iPhone which has iPod inside.

The iPhone is certainly a looker: super thin, touch-screen, closer in appearance to a Nano than a Treo and combines a mobile phone, widescreen iPod and Internet capabilities.

Some features:

• As an iPod. Using your finger, you can navigate the device's 3.5-inch display. You can watch podcasts, TV shows, movies — and, of course, listen to music and audiobooks. You can also rapidly scroll through album covers using the clever Cover Flow feature on iTunes. But you cannot wirelessly download music purchased off iTunes. Instead, you connect or dock the device as with any iPod.


• As a phone. Touch a name or number in your address book to dial the phone. Or you can use a virtual onscreen keypad. You can synchronize contacts from a PC or Mac and create a favorites list of the folks you frequently call. A nifty visual voice-mail feature lets you jump to the messages you most care about and ignore others. And you can send short text messages using a virtual touch-screen "qwerty" keyboard.
  The phone works exclusively over Cingular's so-called GSM and Edge wireless networks — speedy but not the fastest of the emerging third-generation, or 3G, networks. It has built-in Wi-Fi and Bluetooth wireless capabilities.
  Battery life could be a concern. Apple claims up to five hours of talk time, including watching video or browsing the Web. Apple says you'll get up to 16 hours if you use it just for audio.


• Connectivity. Included is a full-blown version of Apple's Safari Web browser. You can sync bookmarks from your computer. E-mail can be automatically delivered, or "pushed," for free to you through Yahoo Mail; iPhone also works with Microsoft Exchange as well as other industry standard e-mail services. You can download e-mails in the background while surfing the Web.
  The iPhone also includes an icon for Google Maps, plus the light applications (found on a Mac) known as Widgets, for checking stock prices, the weather and other data you want at a glance in real time.


• Other goodies. The phone includes sensors that detect when you rotate it from portrait to landscape mode; the onscreen controls are oriented accordingly. Lift the phone to your ear, and the sensor turns off the display to save power and prevent you from accidentally hitting the wrong controls when on a call. Also on board is a 2-megapixel still digital camera.
  

Courtesy : apple

Google was miskeyed ? Is it ?

Hey Guys…..it was miskeyed “G o o g o l” as “G o o g l e”.

Gosh , can you believe this !!
This is not a gossip , but it is really embarrassing…..huh !

Friends , currently I am reading a book “The Google Story”.

Just go and grab your copy and start reading in your leisure.
I bet you will like it….
It is goddamn exciting , the google story.
I will not tell you the whole story b’coz it is better to read your own.

But just let me brief the name story of GOOGLE.

A googol is 10 to the 100th power (which is 1 followed by 100 zeros). A googol is larger than the number of elementary particles in the universe, which amount to only 10 to the 80th power.
The term was invented by Milton Sirotta, the 9-year nephew of mathematician Edward Kasner, who had asked his nephew what he thought such a large number should be called. Such a number, Milton apparently replied after a short thought, could only be called something as silly as a "googol."

Later, another mathematician devised the term googolplex for 10 to the power of googol - that is, 1 followed by 10 to the power of 100 zeros. Frank Pilhofer has determined that, given Moore's Law (which is that computer processor power doubles about every 1 to 2 years), it would make no sense to try to print out a googolplex for another 524 years - since all earlier attempts to print a googolplex out would be overtaken by the faster processor.

And here comes the laughter.....

Larry Page and Sergey Brin, the founders of Google, named their search engine after the term googol. In 1997, Larry was brainstorming names with other Stanford graduate students, including Sean Anderson, and looking at available domain names. Anderson miskeyed googol as "google" and found it available. Larry liked it and the name "Google" stuck. Google's corporate headquarters is called the GooglePlex, an affectionately tongue-in-cheek reference to the origins of the company name.

Gosh !!!

Think before you Link -- Crap rules

Here's a lump of coal for the entire Internet industry:

A Texas judge has ruled that linking to a Web page violates copyright. Declan McCullagh News.com reports that SFX Motor Sports has won a case against Robert Davis, a man who operates Supercrosslive.com, a website which linked directly to audio files of motorcycle races on SFX's website.
Here's a question for the Honorable Sam Lindsay, the North Texas U.S. District judge who decided the case:

Can you have a copyright violation if there's no copying involved?

Websites regularly link to other websites. No permission is needed, and no laws are broken. A 2000 case established the legality of "deep linking" into any page of a website. Take away the ability to link and you take away the basic glue that makes the Web work. You'd have no Yahoo (YHOO), no Google (GOOG), no blogs.

I am still linking ( catch me :-)

Any Web user could figure out the location of the files, and if SFX wanted to prevent people from going directly to the audio files, a trivially simple change in its Web server configuration could have stopped them from doing so.

How does prohibiting deep linking (last major precedent was the Scottish "Online newspaper" case) harm Google or Yahoo? It is easy not to have your site indexed past the front page, and SFX would love as much traffic as possible to its front page.

Well,
there is a difference to linking to a page, versus pulling specific content on that page to an unrelated website.
For example, what if I could link to your blog which when the link on my website was clicked on it would open a frame on my website that just showed the title and body of your article, and lets say I was able to market my website better, and surrounding your framed in article was advertising I was getting paid for.

I don't think you would be too excited about that happening.....we typically think of links as something being clicked on and taking us to a destination, not brining that destination to the current site, that is where the theft or infringement is occuring...and hence why the court ruled as it did. A mere reference to a website via a link to that website is not what the court is looking to ban, it is the theft or infringment of significant content that is in affect taken from another website.

Have you not tried yahoo or google's Image and Video search feature? It does basically the same thing, provide direct links to materials from a site. This ruling is totally ridiculous, and Mr. Davis is acting like a moron for trying to go against well trained "sharks". If this isn't overturned anytime soon, its going to have dire repercussions for the net.

Really, if a website wishes people to not be able to link their audio or video files, then configure it to where this can't happen. This is as simple as this!!

Think before you Link........cut cut cut!!! Think before you go to court.