jump to navigation

Everything I should have posted in March… March 30, 2009

Posted by John Taylor in PC Industry.
Tags: , , ,
add a comment

…but either didn’t write due to almost two weeks of vacation, or getting the AMD Unprocessed blog off the ground.

Well, I only posted once – in uninspired fashion about soccer – in all of March until now. And that one post was more a test as I used Microsoft Live Writer with my blog for the first time. So here’s the TV Guide capsule version of all the posts I intended to make in March but never got to.

  1. Live Writer Testing: I’ve had trouble working with images in WordPress for some reason, and I wanted to test Windows Live Writer. In WordPress, the text editor could become confused especially when I used the integrated photo cutline feature. Everything worked great with my free Windows Live Writer download, and with my test, except that once I posted the blog, Live Writer no longer could open it. Ironically, it could open all the blogs I’d authored in WordPress. Just not the one authored by the application itself. I’m using Live Writer for this post; so far so good. It just kicked ass on embedding the vimeo video below…in Live Writer. When I posted it to my blog, however, the embedded vimeo player is replaced with hyperlinks.
  2. I have a blog in my drafts entitled “The future of computing? Visual computing.” I’d planned a tour de force on what I believe is the inevitable future state of computing; a future state that dramatically transcends today’s debate construct of Mac vs. PC, Intel vs. AMD, HP vs. Dell. Then along came this video that people are for some reason relating to Second Life. In my book, it’s just a sentimental look at why the future of computing is visual computing…and we’ll need serious graphics compute power and UI innovation to get there. But we will.
  3. Next blog in my draft folder: the surreal experience of looking at old headlines touting high-risk, high-reward hedge funds. A friend of mine told me a couple weeks ago that as she was cleaning out old files of AMD business press clippings from circa 2005-2006, she saw lots of headlines pertaining to hedge funds and the amazing returns being achieved. You know, publications like Forbes. the same Forbes that several years ago ran a story with the headline: “Intel to AMD: Drop Dead” which has since been re-titled “Only the paranoid resurge.” Intel sounds like a fun place to work!
  4. And finally, an update on my Monsters vs. Aliens 3D post. The film came out to solid box office last weekend, but decidedly mixed reviews. Roger Ebert’s review brief:

"Monsters vs. Aliens" is possibly the most commercial title of the year. How can you resist such a premise, especially if it’s in 3-D animation? Very readily, in my case. I will say this first and get it out of the way: 3-D is a distraction and an annoyance. Younger moviegoers may think they like it because they’ve been told to, and picture quality is usually far from their minds. But for anyone who would just like to be left alone to see the darned thing, like me, it’s a constant nudge in the ribs saying never mind the story, just see how neat I look.

Now, if only it were always this easy to write a month’s worth of posts.


A viral, and solid, 3D commercial effort February 4, 2009

Posted by John Taylor in Uncategorized.
Tags: , , , , , , ,

I found this from a link back to my Fox News 3D post. But it’s viral-worthy.

Yeah, we still look THIS good in our 3D glasses 60 years later.

Yeah, we still look THIS good in our 3D glasses 60 years later.

For the handful of you with Intel 3D glasses, it’s a truly clever way another company would like you to use them. Better than Chuck, in my book.

Spoiler alert: it’s not just about kissing in 3D.

If only I worked for Fox News (and was assigned a 3D story) January 27, 2009

Posted by John Taylor in Uncategorized.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Jon Stewart has often mockingly celebrated the Fox News invention of making outrageous, charged statements in the form of leading questions. I don’t have to look back any further than President Obama’s inauguration, with Chris Wallace one hour later still asking “Is Obama even president?


In Fox News style, here are a few questions I’d ask the powers behind the push to bring “active” stereoscopic 3D to TV and movies:

  1. Apparently, during this year’s “Not Exactly Patriots vs. Giants” Super Bowl, we will be treated to a Sobe beverage commercial in 3D. It seems the awkwardly-shy-about-putting-its-logo-on-anything and painfully-self-conscious-about-not-overshadowing-its-customers Intel decided this is the right moment in history to print up 125 million paper stereoscopic 3D glasses (That is not at all wasteful. Suck on THAT Mother Earth!) with an Intel logo right between the eyes. And give them away free so we can watch a beverage commercial in 3D? Oh, and an episode of “Chuck” in 3D too? My Fox news question: Were Intel marketers inspired by the movie “Idiocracy” in convincing themselves that America wants to sit around looking at one another at Super Bowl parties with an Intel logo blazed between our eyes, watching ads?
  2. DreamWorks, you are going to considerable expense to make your future animated projects stereoscopic 3D. You in fact said this is why you selected Intel as your processor supplier (After all, Intel is famous infamous for its 3D and graphics capabilities). But with theater adoption of digital 3D not only off the pace but likely to even decelerate in 2009 due to economic considerations, is this the 80/20 rule in reverse? According to the Dallas Morning News: “Only about 1,300 of North America’s 40,000 or so movie screens support digital 3-D. (IMAX adds 250, which combined is still less than 1/20th). Overseas, where films now generate up to 70 percent of their theatrical revenue, only a few hundred theaters can support the technology.” So Fox News asks: We love your movies, DreamWorks, but do you think it is a good idea to exert 80% extra effort and expense even though much less than 20% of your audience can even experience it?
  3. I’ll just jump to the Fox News question here. Do any of us really want to have to look like these guys to watch something in 3D?

I rest my case for a passive (no 3D glasses) 3D viewing experience.