Apparently, there is a big issue with typing on a regular keyboard. People can’t find the right keys because it’s QWERTY instead of ABC. That is down-right idiotic. It’s almost a waste to mention it here, but since I recently posted about a neat keyboard based on Scrabble, I need to post what is considered a dumb “innovation” for the keyboard. This particular keyboard lets a person type in two ways: the normal QWERTY way, but at the flip of a switch (or a button, whatever), it becomes a ABC keyboard.

And I have to agree with the DVICE poster, this is dumb for the fact that not everyone needs this keyboard, so if they go to, say, a library they’ll be screwed.

But the absolute main reason it’s dumb: ergonomics. It’s a great big word that basically means something is designed to fit for the job. In this case, the placement of the letters on a QWERTY keyboard are the way they are based on letters typed most. RST are common consonants, and are placed where the index, middle fingers have easy access to them, as well as the popular vowel ‘E’. Like when typing ‘ARE’, I can do that with one had, because they are all on one side. Also notice how unpopular letter such as the ‘q’ and ‘z’ are in corners, because they are less used. Therefore, an ABC keyboard would be completely unnecessary.

Source: DVICE

Scrabble Keyboard, via Datamancer

The game, Scrabble, is a good game to test a persons ability to spell words, and ewarding them more points for longer or just coming up with words with ‘Q’s and ‘X’s. And yes, it involves little wooden tiles of the whole alphabet, more of some (such as ‘E’) and fewer of others (like the ‘Q’ mentioned earlier).

The keyboard’s main role is to supply a graphical button a person can type to send an electronic signal (of 1s and 0s) to represent a letter.

So why not put them together? Well a guy named Richard Nagy did.  It’s a fully functional keyboard, Mac-compatible, and even has tiles cut on the Caps/Num Lock keys so the light shines through.  How cool is that?  Let’s hope Scrabble allows that name to be used so more could be made, otherwise, just look at the image on the right.

Datamancer

I’m just bored and love this show, and in light of why all the once highly rated shows (such as Heroes) have taken a plunge in ratings, well, at least this show is up (probably b/c old people watch CBS and old people tend to be scared of new technologies, such as the TiVO, but anyway), Enjoy…

Oh, and have I mentioned my hate of the outdated Nielsen system, others feel the same way, read article from the SCI-FI WIRE

Just checking the DVICE blog by SCI-FI.COM like I go everyday (or at least every other day), and one little device caught my attention: The Netgear Digital Entertainer. It’s something like AppleTV or similar to having a Media Center, except, it’s totally not. With AppleTV, you’d be VERY limited to only Mac format files (such as .MOV or .MP4). Media Centers require, well, Windows, so, not very friendly for Mac or Linux OS. Well, that’s about to change.

This little puppy is set to be introduced next January to the CES (a consumer electronics event, basically). And as long as it’s reasonable in price, and hopefully, all the little info on it is true, I am looking forward to it, especially if it will be capable of streaming DRM files, such as TV SHOWS and Movies I legally own through iTunes, yet am subjected to viewing on me tiny little laptop screen (well, I have S-Video out, but it’ll be nicer to have something that can output HD instead).

Read All About it from DVICE.COM

[DVICE.com]

Why buy books when you can use Kindle.  I don’t have one of these yet, but I plan to (when I get the $300 some odd dollars).  Paper books are, after all a waste.  A person generally buys a book, reads it once, and never touches it again (I for one neer feel like reading the same book again).  And what becomes of these books?  Well, there’s Used Books stores, that’s a good option.  Donation to libraries, sure.  But, there are people who just throw them out.  Trees got cut down to become nothing more than waste.  Also, the large amount of space needed to shelve books, just to collect dust.  Well no more.  Amazon released a little gem a while back, and with many positive reviews of it, I eventually thought of getting one myself.  Afterall, buying books in digital Kindle versions is also cheaper, and since there’s no delivering, no waiting.

Now, there’s gonna be an update.  Side buttons are gonna be smaller to minimize accidental page turning.  New navigation through a joystick rather than a scroll wheel.

Source: DVICE.Com

Used to, there would be shows that had 20-some odd million viewers. They still exist, but there are so few. Why? Increase in DVR and online usage. Many networks, such as NBC, offer full episodes online to stream, for free. Then, there’s DVRs. Advertisers aren’t gonna pay-up for DVR viewings, because people can fast-forward their ads, which would defeat the purpose of them paying for ad-spots to be seen during the airing of a show. If people are skipping them, they are not viewing them, and if they are not viewing them, they aren’t gonna know of the product, and would be least likely to buy. If no one buys the product, the company can’t make any money, therefore, can’t afford to buy those ad-spots, which would keep a show from airing. Without sufficient funds, a network can’t buy episodes of the show to even air (dramas average 2 million an episode, this would include salaries for cast and crew, plus music used).

Yet, despite knowing this, instead of finding new ways to advertise (product-placement could work), they continue to rely on this info, canceling shows based on what I call flawed data. People could get pissed off with this next suggestion, but with digital technologies, there has to be some way to disallow fast-forwarding of certain (say the top advertisers, just to keep it from being too annoying). That more likely wouldn’t work, ’cause people would see it defeat the purpose of having a DVR (though not entirely, ’cause the point of a DVR is to record a show when you’re at work or had to run some errands, so you never miss a show.) I still feel there has to be a way to include counts with DVR usage, as well as online viewings, and one that shouldn’t be difficult, purchases from iTunes and Amazon unBox, as they are bought, there’s no reason they shouldn’t be counted, even if not high of a number.

Another way this data is flawed, is that Nielson Media Research may have a good formula, but I find that you can’t generalize a population, saying that because of the 5,000 or so Nielson boxes out there, that 20% (1,000) are white male in ages 18-49, so that of a majority of those, maybe 25% of that 20% (250), are watching say CSI Thursday nights, that doesn’t necessarily mean that 5% of the population are white male 18-49 (which I’m sure it is much higher than that, but this is an example) that watch CSI. If there is 130 million people watching TV, according to this, 6.5 million male adults 18-49 watched CSI. But what if, the people with the boxes, aren’t very constant with how they view TV, and if they switched out people every so often (which I think I read they did), and the next 5,000 people, what if it was 4% that did, bringing the number down. I can’t really put it into words well, but what I’m basically trying to say, you can’t say that a majority of women in this group watch Desperate Housewives, ’cause, guess what, I’m a female between 18-49, and I don’t watch Desperate Housewives, or Grey’s Anatomy, or Private Practice. No, I watch CSI, and Chuck, and Smallville, Supernatural, those targeted towards men. I don’t fit into any of the generalizations, and there are others that don’t either.

This is why I think, with new technologies out there, there’s no reason that these can’t be more accurate numbers. I am tired of good shows getting canceled based on flawed numbers, aren’t you?