I just saw a tweet from someone I'm following saying that some employers are using TwitterGrader as part of an employee evaluation process. I went over there to check it out, and frankly I'm disturbed that anyone would use this kind of thing for such an important decision as to whether to hire a candidate. For reference, my grade is 82 out of 100. I think this would give me around a B or something like that, but what is this, really.
There are 6 criteria:
1 - Number of followers. Kind of meaningless, because on the one hand, I follow several public figures for various reasons. These kinds of people usually don't follow back. Other people, like me, just nearly always follow back. Totally arbitrary.
2 - Power of followers. Your score goes up if you have important people following you. It's a popularity contest, but really, because I happen to have a few famous people who followed me back, does that make me more employable? I don't think so.
3 - Updates. Really? I'm ADHD, and I use quite a few tricks to maintain focus. One of those is using twitter to direct a short distraction so that I can get back to the task at hand. I also use twitter to "yell at squirrels." Of course, I keep it more clean than my locked down Facebook account, but still, it amounts to little more than 140 character rants. Other times I tweet something that I see as worth while, but does this make me more employable? Personally, I think this makes me look more like a crazy person.
4 - Update recency. see #3.
5 - follower to followee ratio...Again, arbitrary. If I follow lots of public figures, my ratio will be quite low.
6 - Engagement - things like retweeting. Mostly retweets seem to be tweets that are particularly clever. I guess this might fall in to an employability category, because getting people to repeat what you just said could be seen as a leadership quality.
It's kind of a cool site. It lets you rank yourself against other twitter users, and see how good you are about being a citizen of the twitterverse, but to use this as a ranking for employability is absurd, closing in on offensive, and indicates an extremely shallow interviewer. I won't say I'd never work for someone who would do this, because you gotta work, but I think that anybody who would stoop to this level needs to seriously evaluate what they're doing. Employability should be about proven experience, what real people think about the candidate, and what a candidate can provide to the company.
Unless you're up for a job as a professional blogger or online public relations coordinator, a person's twitter persona is irrelevant.
Thursday, May 26, 2011
#GoogleMusicBeta instant mix vs. #AudioGalaxy Genie mode
More time to kill while waiting for some real work to do.
I made some premature complaints about the Instant Mix feature in Google Music Beta. Now that I've had a full 24 hours to upload tunes, I'm seeing that it does work better than what I saw with the first couple of experiments. With that said, however, I'm still not excited about this. It seems to be a rip off of Apple's Genius setting, and I don't care for that. What Instant Mix does is it takes a single seed song and creates a playlist of 25 tracks based on that one song. Kinda cool, but it's not that big of a deal. You can only build off of one song, and it's a finite playlist. When it's done you have to go do another one, and sure you can save it, but it's still a static playlist.
To address my complaints from yesterday, I do think the implementation of Instant Mix is wrong. If Google doesn't have enough data to build an instant playlist out of the available data, it should simply say so. Not fail over to unrelated crap.
The reason I'm not excited about this feature is that I've used AudioGalaxy's genie mode. It's similar in concept, in that you generate an automatic playlist. Where AudioGalaxy wins is in the implementation. Your seed data is up to the last 5 tracks played, so you've got a larger variety of data to build from. The playlist is dynamic, meaning that as you are playing your music, your options for the next upcoming tracks are constantly being updated. You have a list of the next 5 options, so you can modify them if you choose, but that's optional. You can let it run indefinitely, and you will have a constantly building music list based on what's already been played. This also causes the playlist to continually evolve. If you choose to save these tracks as a playlist, you certainly have that option.
I made some premature complaints about the Instant Mix feature in Google Music Beta. Now that I've had a full 24 hours to upload tunes, I'm seeing that it does work better than what I saw with the first couple of experiments. With that said, however, I'm still not excited about this. It seems to be a rip off of Apple's Genius setting, and I don't care for that. What Instant Mix does is it takes a single seed song and creates a playlist of 25 tracks based on that one song. Kinda cool, but it's not that big of a deal. You can only build off of one song, and it's a finite playlist. When it's done you have to go do another one, and sure you can save it, but it's still a static playlist.
To address my complaints from yesterday, I do think the implementation of Instant Mix is wrong. If Google doesn't have enough data to build an instant playlist out of the available data, it should simply say so. Not fail over to unrelated crap.
The reason I'm not excited about this feature is that I've used AudioGalaxy's genie mode. It's similar in concept, in that you generate an automatic playlist. Where AudioGalaxy wins is in the implementation. Your seed data is up to the last 5 tracks played, so you've got a larger variety of data to build from. The playlist is dynamic, meaning that as you are playing your music, your options for the next upcoming tracks are constantly being updated. You have a list of the next 5 options, so you can modify them if you choose, but that's optional. You can let it run indefinitely, and you will have a constantly building music list based on what's already been played. This also causes the playlist to continually evolve. If you choose to save these tracks as a playlist, you certainly have that option.
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Wins for Google Music Beta
There are two points where Google Music Beta is a winner right out of the gate that nobody fully offers. Based on the disclaimer that Music Beta is free for a limited time, I don't know if it's enough to keep me on board, but we'll see.
Wireless Syncing
The first point is the wireless syncing. I know, there are others that do it. MusicWithMe, Winamp, and DoubleTwist. For me, these are all fails, and here are my reasons. MusicWithMe requires a Facebook login. This wasn't quite a deal breaker for me ...close, but not quite..., but the unreliable and extremely slow sync pushed me over the edge. I uninstalled, and didn't look back.
Winamp also had several issues. Of course, most of my syncing will be over wifi, but winamp doesn't offer the option. Not only does it have to be over wifi, but last time I used it, I had to sync from a laptop what was on the same wifi network. If the computer was wired, it wouldn't work. The host had to be on wifi. Unacceptable. At the very least, because this setup required my laptop, on wifi, has to have a drive mapped over wifi to the source data, and then the wireless connection to my phone. On top of that, it was unreliable. When I'm copying over 100 files, I can't have the thing just stop, especially when ideal conditions still take overnight to copy those 100 files.
Doubletwist? Why the hell do people keep trying to charge me to access my own personal content and think it's gonna fly? nuff said.
So, here's Google Music Beta. All I have to do is check a box, and my music begins to download to my device. It's slower than I'd like, but it works over 3g if I want, it works over wifi, and because of that, it works anywhere I want it to. And, since it's a static setting in the app, Google knows I want this downloaded. Even if the app crashes or the network drops, the music is still selected to be stored locally. Plus, Google isn't charging me for this. It's part of the Google Music app.
Generally speaking, I don't need my music stored locally. I'm ok with streaming because it usually works so well, but there are times when I like content stored locally. Maybe I'm commuting in bad weather, or travelling in an area where I have no data access. Google lets me put stuff locally, and it also caches recently played songs. We'll see how it works in practice, but in theory, I should never have to worry about being without tunes.
Combines Local and Cloud Music
This is a feature I haven't seen anywhere yet. Feel free to tell me if I'm wrong, I'd love to know, but Google Music Beta is integrated with my native Google Music app, and it integrates my entire music collection in to one single place, and gives me one single interface in to all of it. There is a setting that allows me to see only local music, but by default, local, remote, it's all in the same bucket and theoretically is accessed as if it exists in the same bucket. Genius. I shouldn't know whether I'm listening to streaming music, or my own music. I don't want to know, I just want my music. Soon, I'll see how this actually works in practice, but in theory, this is a killer feature for me. I want to prepare for those times that I'm without a good data connection, but I don't want to maintain two separate collections. I want my music to just work. End of story.
Possible Failure Point
There is one major possible failure point, and that's the disclaimer that "Google Music Beta is free for a limited time" or however the statement is made. If we're looking at a situation where the current limit of 20,000 files remains free, I'm probably ok with that. It's taken me years, no, literally decades, to build my collection. I haven't ripped everything, and not everything in my collection I always want to have available, and I'm only half way to the 20,000 files. It will be a very long time till I get to that limit. If, on the other hand, Google does what everybody else does and drops the limit to around 5 gigs for free, I'm out. No questions asked. I'll drop the service in a heart beat.
There are other options that could save this, however. For one, Google could offer a service that seamlessly integrates the ability to stream from your personal hard drives. This is why I love AudioGalaxy. All they do is index my music. When I stream it, I'm streaming from my own computer. Really, I love that. I own my content, I own my storage space, I'm not paying a third party to serve me what I already own. If Google did that, I wouldn't care if they dropped their free limit to 1mb. I'd use the service.
If Google did what they were rumored to be doing, and simply index your collection and play what they have in their collection, and only charge you to store the tracks they don't have. I might be willing to do that as well.
Finally, if Google provided a service like Slacker Radio where you have an Internet radio, but add seamless integration with your own collection. That's a service I'd pay for.
In any case, back to the original point, Google really has made two major wins right out of the gate, and ate my iPod's lunch. I don't know if they've killed it yet, but we'll see.
Wireless Syncing
The first point is the wireless syncing. I know, there are others that do it. MusicWithMe, Winamp, and DoubleTwist. For me, these are all fails, and here are my reasons. MusicWithMe requires a Facebook login. This wasn't quite a deal breaker for me ...close, but not quite..., but the unreliable and extremely slow sync pushed me over the edge. I uninstalled, and didn't look back.
Winamp also had several issues. Of course, most of my syncing will be over wifi, but winamp doesn't offer the option. Not only does it have to be over wifi, but last time I used it, I had to sync from a laptop what was on the same wifi network. If the computer was wired, it wouldn't work. The host had to be on wifi. Unacceptable. At the very least, because this setup required my laptop, on wifi, has to have a drive mapped over wifi to the source data, and then the wireless connection to my phone. On top of that, it was unreliable. When I'm copying over 100 files, I can't have the thing just stop, especially when ideal conditions still take overnight to copy those 100 files.
Doubletwist? Why the hell do people keep trying to charge me to access my own personal content and think it's gonna fly? nuff said.
So, here's Google Music Beta. All I have to do is check a box, and my music begins to download to my device. It's slower than I'd like, but it works over 3g if I want, it works over wifi, and because of that, it works anywhere I want it to. And, since it's a static setting in the app, Google knows I want this downloaded. Even if the app crashes or the network drops, the music is still selected to be stored locally. Plus, Google isn't charging me for this. It's part of the Google Music app.
Generally speaking, I don't need my music stored locally. I'm ok with streaming because it usually works so well, but there are times when I like content stored locally. Maybe I'm commuting in bad weather, or travelling in an area where I have no data access. Google lets me put stuff locally, and it also caches recently played songs. We'll see how it works in practice, but in theory, I should never have to worry about being without tunes.
Combines Local and Cloud Music
This is a feature I haven't seen anywhere yet. Feel free to tell me if I'm wrong, I'd love to know, but Google Music Beta is integrated with my native Google Music app, and it integrates my entire music collection in to one single place, and gives me one single interface in to all of it. There is a setting that allows me to see only local music, but by default, local, remote, it's all in the same bucket and theoretically is accessed as if it exists in the same bucket. Genius. I shouldn't know whether I'm listening to streaming music, or my own music. I don't want to know, I just want my music. Soon, I'll see how this actually works in practice, but in theory, this is a killer feature for me. I want to prepare for those times that I'm without a good data connection, but I don't want to maintain two separate collections. I want my music to just work. End of story.
Possible Failure Point
There is one major possible failure point, and that's the disclaimer that "Google Music Beta is free for a limited time" or however the statement is made. If we're looking at a situation where the current limit of 20,000 files remains free, I'm probably ok with that. It's taken me years, no, literally decades, to build my collection. I haven't ripped everything, and not everything in my collection I always want to have available, and I'm only half way to the 20,000 files. It will be a very long time till I get to that limit. If, on the other hand, Google does what everybody else does and drops the limit to around 5 gigs for free, I'm out. No questions asked. I'll drop the service in a heart beat.
There are other options that could save this, however. For one, Google could offer a service that seamlessly integrates the ability to stream from your personal hard drives. This is why I love AudioGalaxy. All they do is index my music. When I stream it, I'm streaming from my own computer. Really, I love that. I own my content, I own my storage space, I'm not paying a third party to serve me what I already own. If Google did that, I wouldn't care if they dropped their free limit to 1mb. I'd use the service.
If Google did what they were rumored to be doing, and simply index your collection and play what they have in their collection, and only charge you to store the tracks they don't have. I might be willing to do that as well.
Finally, if Google provided a service like Slacker Radio where you have an Internet radio, but add seamless integration with your own collection. That's a service I'd pay for.
In any case, back to the original point, Google really has made two major wins right out of the gate, and ate my iPod's lunch. I don't know if they've killed it yet, but we'll see.
Google Music Beta
Ok, so I'm sure there will be little original here, but I got it, I have time to kill, I'll talk about it. Also, no screenshots. I don't feel like it. Plus, I'm setting up over a remote desktop session, and screenshots are way more trouble than they're worth.
As others have said, over and over again, the install was very straight forward. The only issue I ran in to was that during install I was not able to select other folder locations for music source. When I selected that radio button, there was no visible browse button. I had to choose my iTunes library, complete the install, and then go back and update my settings to search for a different source location.
When going back and changing my music source location, the initial update only located about 500 or so tracks out of over 11,000. Removing, and re-adding my folder locations seemed to fix this, and now google music appears to be aware of my entire library.
It looks like music is uploading at the rate of around 100 tracks per minute. This is gonna take a while.
One interesting item to note, although I haven't actually tried to listen to music, the google music site is not restricted by our very "selective" network rules. I've seen other google services get by network restrictions in the past, and it looks like this is yet another google service that works in spite of the efforts of the local network admin.
As I'm uploading, I'm noticing that I don't have any of my iTunes playlists. I am supposed to be able to sync those playlists, but it looks like that's only available if I choose to only sync my iTunes library. Google, talk to the guys at AudioGalaxy. They have a working solution for this.
My first pass at making an "Instant Mix" was really, really bad. Google, go over and talk to the guys at Audio Galaxy. They have an extremely good solution for this. I'll wait a couple of days for things to upload a little more and try it again. If it's still this bad, I'll be logging an issue report. It's that bad.
Overall, my first impression is that the Google Music Beta solution doesn't match my streaming player of choice, AudioGalaxy. Google beats AudioGalaxy in that Google will allow me to download my music to my phone. AudioGalaxy doesn't offer this. Don't know if it's on their road map, I hope it is.
Sure, Google gives me offline access to my music through the locker, but normally I simply don't care about this. I can easily stream from my own computers to my phone, and I like it that way. The one exception so far is that I'm relocating soon, and my servers will be offline for a few days. Beyond that, though, I have yet to find a reason to really want my music stored elsewhere other than for the sake of redundancy.
Google's locker is ok for now because it's big enough for me to double my music collection for free (for now, anyway), so I can look past the idea of storing my stuff on someone else's servers for now.
I'm sure I'll ramble on about more stuff, but that's it for now. I'm done killing time.
As others have said, over and over again, the install was very straight forward. The only issue I ran in to was that during install I was not able to select other folder locations for music source. When I selected that radio button, there was no visible browse button. I had to choose my iTunes library, complete the install, and then go back and update my settings to search for a different source location.
When going back and changing my music source location, the initial update only located about 500 or so tracks out of over 11,000. Removing, and re-adding my folder locations seemed to fix this, and now google music appears to be aware of my entire library.
It looks like music is uploading at the rate of around 100 tracks per minute. This is gonna take a while.
One interesting item to note, although I haven't actually tried to listen to music, the google music site is not restricted by our very "selective" network rules. I've seen other google services get by network restrictions in the past, and it looks like this is yet another google service that works in spite of the efforts of the local network admin.
As I'm uploading, I'm noticing that I don't have any of my iTunes playlists. I am supposed to be able to sync those playlists, but it looks like that's only available if I choose to only sync my iTunes library. Google, talk to the guys at AudioGalaxy. They have a working solution for this.
My first pass at making an "Instant Mix" was really, really bad. Google, go over and talk to the guys at Audio Galaxy. They have an extremely good solution for this. I'll wait a couple of days for things to upload a little more and try it again. If it's still this bad, I'll be logging an issue report. It's that bad.
Overall, my first impression is that the Google Music Beta solution doesn't match my streaming player of choice, AudioGalaxy. Google beats AudioGalaxy in that Google will allow me to download my music to my phone. AudioGalaxy doesn't offer this. Don't know if it's on their road map, I hope it is.
Sure, Google gives me offline access to my music through the locker, but normally I simply don't care about this. I can easily stream from my own computers to my phone, and I like it that way. The one exception so far is that I'm relocating soon, and my servers will be offline for a few days. Beyond that, though, I have yet to find a reason to really want my music stored elsewhere other than for the sake of redundancy.
Google's locker is ok for now because it's big enough for me to double my music collection for free (for now, anyway), so I can look past the idea of storing my stuff on someone else's servers for now.
I'm sure I'll ramble on about more stuff, but that's it for now. I'm done killing time.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
More playing with slacker radio
So, coming in on the end of the second day, and the shine has worn off a little bit. It's become increasingly repetitive in the songs and artists that are coming up. I'm tweaking some settings that will hopefully resolve the issue, but it's pretty annoying. Repeating artists, not so bad, I guess, but repeating songs multiple times in a listening session? Constantly playing only the hits is one of the major things that drove me away from radio in the first place. Give me variety. Give me some obscure shit, and sprinkle in a hit or two for good measure.
Slacker Radio
Slacker Radio is doing a promotion giving away a free 1 month subscription to their new premium service. How is this different from what they had before? I don't really know. For me streaming subscription services have been an interesting novelty, but they've offered nothing that interests me. I have a music collection that I've been building for over 25 years, I'm still building it, why would I want to pay someone to feed me crap that I may or may not want to hear? On the other hand, I like free stuff, so I signed up for the free month of premium service two days ago, and haven't stopped listening. I've temporarily put aside AudioGalaxy, possibly the best streaming service so far, for Slacker Radio, not so that I can burn up my free time, but because I've been blown away by what this new version has to offer. I started off by creating My metal station, which is seeded by artists from my teenage years. No big deal, cool tunes, and it generates new artist suggestions fairly well. Then it started to get better. No commercials. No commercials is good. I found that I could add a news feed in there, so now periodically I have a news update. Also cool. Next, I get a tune by a band that I like, but the tune doesn't belong in my custom station, and I started to realize how much better this rating system is than the complicated stuff I've built in to iTunes. I can simply ban a song from ever showing up in this station, but I haven't removed my ability to automatically add it to other stations. Same thing with artists. VanHalen showed up, banned em. I'm well on my way to building what would have been my perfect high school radio station.
I'm messing around with controls, clicked on an album cover, and what do I see? A track listing of the album to which the current song belongs, and better, a button that lets me play that album, start to finish. Holy shit. An online radio station just crossed the line in to the perfect total listening control that has kept me off of really getting in to online radio. I admit that I may be a dinosaur, but I come from the days of going to the record store, buying a cassette tape, and listening to an album start to finish, just as it was intended. For me, this is a killer feature. The issue is, like everything related to the music industry, licensing. It looks like the album playing (along with the ability to browse to specific tunes to play on demand) doesn't have the correct licenses, you can't play it when you want to.
Sound quality is killer as well. During my commute I've connected my Nexus S to my bluetooth hands free kit, and directed the output to my car stereo. Not a skip, and full rich sounds. Sure, it'd sound better if it were CDs, but still, very good solid sound. It's handled jumping between 3g and Edge without a skip, which has made this service much more enjoyable.
Aside from commuting, I've been working quite a bit from home, and it's been awesome cranking this through the amp attached to old school KLH speakers. I haven't tried it on my google tv yet, but I'm sure that will be quite nice as well. Really, this is just about the ability to listen to the service anywhere I have a computer, and with me, a professional geek, there is some form of computer just about anywhere I go.
Slacker has kindly created several stations for users to choose from, but frankly, I don't care. I may plug in to the news station and give it a run, but other than that, playlists and stations that I didn't create rarely match my tastes.
Slacker has given me the ability to create stations vs. playlists. What's the difference? I haven't got the slightest idea. I may take some time and mess around with the playlist functionality and see how that differs from stations. If it's cool, I'll talk about it.
There are several other features, things I'm sure are more popular, but they don't mean much to me. I can tweet things, more a novelty than anything else. I can send tracks to friends, I can share my station, but really, I enjoy my music because I enjoy it. Not because I can make it a social experience. There are links to buy things, but this is a little clunky. If I click "Buy" it looks up the track's album on Amazon. It works, but it's not cleanly integrated like everything else.
So, what are the downsides? So far, mostly just the price. I've got a hefty music collection of my own, which is available to me everywhere I can get slacker through the use of Audiogalaxy, and I can do it for free. Slacker premium, on the other hand, is gonna cost me $9.99 if I choose to go through with the subscription purchase. I have to admit, though, that I'm impressed enough that I'm actually considering it.
What is it missing? A couple of things. These are important to me, and may not reflect the desires of the general population.
I would like to have this integrate directly with my own collection where the songs will attempt to load equally from tracks I own along side of the catalog on Slacker's servers. I know for a fact that I own things they don't have access to, and I'd like to work that stuff in. Without that, I can't totally switch over.
I would like to have access to my own music through the use of a helper app that I run on my own computer. The reason for this is that I am not willing, under any circumstances, to pay for a music locker to hold my own tunes on someone else's server. If a service was willing to give me enough free space in a locker to hold my collection, that's a different story, but it's not likely to happen. Google Music Beta might do it, but we'll see how well that works once I finally get my invite to the service.
I want customizable caching. By this, I mean I want the ability to tell the custom station to continue to load the next tracks, but download those to my phone, allowing me to specify the amount of space to use. Cached tracks would also allow me the same ability to ban songs/artists, and report that data back to the servers when the servers are available. If Slacker allows this I haven't figured out how to use it.
Anyway, I guess I better get back to work. I'm just killing time here waiting for RIM's stupid licensing servers to become available so I can get to testing and debugging a new driver.
I'm messing around with controls, clicked on an album cover, and what do I see? A track listing of the album to which the current song belongs, and better, a button that lets me play that album, start to finish. Holy shit. An online radio station just crossed the line in to the perfect total listening control that has kept me off of really getting in to online radio. I admit that I may be a dinosaur, but I come from the days of going to the record store, buying a cassette tape, and listening to an album start to finish, just as it was intended. For me, this is a killer feature. The issue is, like everything related to the music industry, licensing. It looks like the album playing (along with the ability to browse to specific tunes to play on demand) doesn't have the correct licenses, you can't play it when you want to.
Sound quality is killer as well. During my commute I've connected my Nexus S to my bluetooth hands free kit, and directed the output to my car stereo. Not a skip, and full rich sounds. Sure, it'd sound better if it were CDs, but still, very good solid sound. It's handled jumping between 3g and Edge without a skip, which has made this service much more enjoyable.
Aside from commuting, I've been working quite a bit from home, and it's been awesome cranking this through the amp attached to old school KLH speakers. I haven't tried it on my google tv yet, but I'm sure that will be quite nice as well. Really, this is just about the ability to listen to the service anywhere I have a computer, and with me, a professional geek, there is some form of computer just about anywhere I go.
Slacker has kindly created several stations for users to choose from, but frankly, I don't care. I may plug in to the news station and give it a run, but other than that, playlists and stations that I didn't create rarely match my tastes.
Slacker has given me the ability to create stations vs. playlists. What's the difference? I haven't got the slightest idea. I may take some time and mess around with the playlist functionality and see how that differs from stations. If it's cool, I'll talk about it.
There are several other features, things I'm sure are more popular, but they don't mean much to me. I can tweet things, more a novelty than anything else. I can send tracks to friends, I can share my station, but really, I enjoy my music because I enjoy it. Not because I can make it a social experience. There are links to buy things, but this is a little clunky. If I click "Buy" it looks up the track's album on Amazon. It works, but it's not cleanly integrated like everything else.
So, what are the downsides? So far, mostly just the price. I've got a hefty music collection of my own, which is available to me everywhere I can get slacker through the use of Audiogalaxy, and I can do it for free. Slacker premium, on the other hand, is gonna cost me $9.99 if I choose to go through with the subscription purchase. I have to admit, though, that I'm impressed enough that I'm actually considering it.
What is it missing? A couple of things. These are important to me, and may not reflect the desires of the general population.
I would like to have this integrate directly with my own collection where the songs will attempt to load equally from tracks I own along side of the catalog on Slacker's servers. I know for a fact that I own things they don't have access to, and I'd like to work that stuff in. Without that, I can't totally switch over.
I would like to have access to my own music through the use of a helper app that I run on my own computer. The reason for this is that I am not willing, under any circumstances, to pay for a music locker to hold my own tunes on someone else's server. If a service was willing to give me enough free space in a locker to hold my collection, that's a different story, but it's not likely to happen. Google Music Beta might do it, but we'll see how well that works once I finally get my invite to the service.
I want customizable caching. By this, I mean I want the ability to tell the custom station to continue to load the next tracks, but download those to my phone, allowing me to specify the amount of space to use. Cached tracks would also allow me the same ability to ban songs/artists, and report that data back to the servers when the servers are available. If Slacker allows this I haven't figured out how to use it.
Anyway, I guess I better get back to work. I'm just killing time here waiting for RIM's stupid licensing servers to become available so I can get to testing and debugging a new driver.
Sunday, May 15, 2011
Motorola Droid 3 benchmarks appear, with OMAP 4 processor & Gingerbread – Android and Me
Motorola Droid 3 benchmarks appear, with OMAP 4 processor & Gingerbread – Android and Me
This post will serve two purposes. I'll start off with the primary purpose first. I'm trying out the "BlogThis!" Google Chrome plugin. Kind of a cool plugin that sits in your Chrome add in bar, with a little "B" button. When you click it, it opens a small window with a link to what you're currently viewing, and automatically gives a title to the post. It provides a drop down so that you can choose the specific blog, if you have multiple blogs, and it provides the essential editing tools. Neato. Maybe I'll make more use of this from my Cr-48.
Purpose #2, really, was the original Droid form factor this popular? Are we continuing to provide a slider keyboard because customers really prefer physical keyboard to soft keyboard? I know I don't, but then again, since getting my hands on a Nexus S, I've become a Samsung lover. Anyway, just the looks of this thing make me wonder if Motorola has even tried to come up with an evolved design of the Droid.
Really, though, point number 1, trying out the BlogThis! plug in. Cool.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)