From Engadget comes news that the long-awaited (by me) updated UVerse iPhone app is now released, with the main new feature being streaming video from your DVR!
Except...not so much.
The UVerse DVR is just a networked computer, so there's no reason that captured content couldn't be streamed to remote clients, but for whatever reason (technical, security, rights restrictions), that's not what they have. Instead, there is a download-and-view capability, not streaming. And it isn't the shows on my DVR - rather, it's just a provided list of show episodes. And, it isn't for any customer, only for customers that have the U300-tier of service, not the U200 that I have.
So....this update really doesn't do anything for me that the previous one didn't.
Um, hooray?
Monday, August 9, 2010
It Isn't That Hard
I am in the process of trying to buy a new car. Being as I am a technical person, I am of course attempting to do so in the way that involves the least amount of human contact, especially when those humans are car salesmen. Most dealerships now list their cars on their web sites, and usually have handy "Click for Quote" buttons next to the pretty stock photos.
So I am somewhat amazed when not one but two different dealerships made the same kind of mistake in responding to the "Click for Quote" button. Here is one of the responses with dealership details redacted:
Exterior color / Interior color .
With automatic manual transmission and the following options/upgrades:
The MSRP on this car is $.
The wholesale invoice on this car is $.
My #DEALERSHIP NAME# discount Internet shopping price is $ + TT&L.
The "xxxxx" parts are the parts I redacted. The other places where information appears to be missing, like the prices and colors - those were left out in the original message.
Now, I'm pretty sure that electronic form letters are not exactly cutting-edge technology. Taking information from one place and sticking in another is pretty much all that computers really do. So for two different auto dealerships, with two different back-end systems, to make this same kind of silly mistake doesn't really inspire a lot of confidence in their ability to do other tasks, like say, help me maintain my car.
Of course, there is also the other dealership that didn't even bother to reply. I guess business is really good for them, they can afford to ignore a customer?
Just amazing. Glad my tax dollars aren't going to bail these guys out.
So I am somewhat amazed when not one but two different dealerships made the same kind of mistake in responding to the "Click for Quote" button. Here is one of the responses with dealership details redacted:
Hello Bill -
Welcome to xxxxxx, where car buying is fun! Get ready for a relaxed, informative and enjoyable online shopping experience.
Below please find my e-commerce price quote for your review:
2011 xxxxx xxxxx, U124906
Exterior color / Interior color .
With automatic manual transmission and the following options/upgrades:
The MSRP on this car is $.
The wholesale invoice on this car is $.
My #DEALERSHIP NAME# discount Internet shopping price is $ + TT&L.
The "xxxxx" parts are the parts I redacted. The other places where information appears to be missing, like the prices and colors - those were left out in the original message.
Now, I'm pretty sure that electronic form letters are not exactly cutting-edge technology. Taking information from one place and sticking in another is pretty much all that computers really do. So for two different auto dealerships, with two different back-end systems, to make this same kind of silly mistake doesn't really inspire a lot of confidence in their ability to do other tasks, like say, help me maintain my car.
Of course, there is also the other dealership that didn't even bother to reply. I guess business is really good for them, they can afford to ignore a customer?
Just amazing. Glad my tax dollars aren't going to bail these guys out.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
A Drop Into The Pacific
Bans on plastic shopping bags.
Bans on cokes in vending machines.
Bans on pets.
Bans on whole bagels.
On top of all of the ruinous taxation, endless streams of bums, and earthquakes.
So, tell me again...why on Earth would any sane individual choose to live in San Francisco?
Bans on cokes in vending machines.
Bans on pets.
Bans on whole bagels.
On top of all of the ruinous taxation, endless streams of bums, and earthquakes.
So, tell me again...why on Earth would any sane individual choose to live in San Francisco?
Friday, July 2, 2010
(Still) So Much For Hulu
I've had a few struggles in the past with trying to use my network-connected PS3 to view Hulu-hosted videos. When I first bought my PS3, I could use the built-in web browser to connect to Hulu and watch videos. But shortly thereafter, Hulu decided to explicitly block the PS3 as a web client.
Now they've announced Hulu Plus, which will (at some future point) bring the entire Hulu library (including more shows than are available in the standard Hulu) to non-PC devices, like the iPhone and the PS3.
This will only cost you....$10/month.
Oh, and on the PS3, you will apparently also need to subscribe to the Playstation Network Plus, which runs another $50/year. So, tack on about $175 a year or so.
Now...Terry White asks "Will you pay for content that once was free?"
For many tech-heads, that's the wrong question. The question is: "Will you pay for content that is still free, and at a higher-quality, and without advertisements?"
Because that's still the competition for me - these shows are in enough places on-line that this kind of deal just doesn't offer enough in convenience/quality/whatever to make it competitive. No Hulu plus for me.
Now they've announced Hulu Plus, which will (at some future point) bring the entire Hulu library (including more shows than are available in the standard Hulu) to non-PC devices, like the iPhone and the PS3.
This will only cost you....$10/month.
Oh, and on the PS3, you will apparently also need to subscribe to the Playstation Network Plus, which runs another $50/year. So, tack on about $175 a year or so.
Now...Terry White asks "Will you pay for content that once was free?"
For many tech-heads, that's the wrong question. The question is: "Will you pay for content that is still free, and at a higher-quality, and without advertisements?"
Because that's still the competition for me - these shows are in enough places on-line that this kind of deal just doesn't offer enough in convenience/quality/whatever to make it competitive. No Hulu plus for me.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
DVD Blu-Ray Spending Tab I
I haven't been buying (or watching) too many movies this year. In fact, this is probably the first purchase I've made this year. It's definitely the first Blu-Ray purchase I've made - a good way to kick off the new format, while keeping to my cheap ways :)
Where Eagles Dare / Kelly's Heroes (Blu-Ray) - $9.99 at Target
Yearly total: 2 movies, $4.99 / movie
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Movie Review: Mr. Nice Guy
The next Jackie Chan film in my on-going, never-ending film festival is similar in outline to some of his previous films, such as Thunderbolt and Rumble In The Bronx. That is, it's set in contemporary times and he isn't playing a cop or a spy, just an ordinary guy....who happens to be a martial arts expert. This time, he's a TV chef who gets caught up in helping a female reporter escape from two groups of mobsters whose drug deal she managed to videotape. Along for the ride are his newly-arrived fiance and his female producer, who prove to be much less annoying than the female threesome Jackie schleped around the desert with in Operation Condor.
If you liked his other movies of this period (such as the above mentioned movies and the preceding First Strike), you'll probably like this one. It's the same mix of a thin plot, destructive stunts, and some fascinating fight scenes set in locales with lots of stuff to throw around. A Jackie Chan fight scene set at a construction site is certain to be fun, and the one here is no exception (stunts set on an operating table saw are a highlight).
The painful humor level is toned down a bit - this one was apparently targeting a more Western audience, as it was filmed in Australia and features a mostly English-speaking cast. (The director, the great Sammo Hung, does give himself a pretty funny cameo appearance.) What isn't toned down, though, is the scenery-chewing by the bad guys. Half of them are another faux-eighties street gang similar to the one from Bronx, and the other half are led by a cigar-chomping Richard Norton - neither side seems particularly scary or at all realistic.
And sadly, it's another movie (like Thunderbolt and Bronx) where things don't end up with a Jackie Chan fight against "the big boss" - instead, it's a vehicular stunt sequence, with Jackie tearing down a mansion with what may be the largest construction truck seen on film. An impressive amount of damage, to be sure, but why can't we end with an impressive fight scene, like his early films?
So, all-in-all another solid three star effort for this one. As I said, Jackie was in a very consistent state during this part of his career, so if you liked any of these early 90's films, you should probably give the others a shot, too. Up next: Jackie forgets his name, but probably not his moves, in Who Am I.
If you liked his other movies of this period (such as the above mentioned movies and the preceding First Strike), you'll probably like this one. It's the same mix of a thin plot, destructive stunts, and some fascinating fight scenes set in locales with lots of stuff to throw around. A Jackie Chan fight scene set at a construction site is certain to be fun, and the one here is no exception (stunts set on an operating table saw are a highlight).
The painful humor level is toned down a bit - this one was apparently targeting a more Western audience, as it was filmed in Australia and features a mostly English-speaking cast. (The director, the great Sammo Hung, does give himself a pretty funny cameo appearance.) What isn't toned down, though, is the scenery-chewing by the bad guys. Half of them are another faux-eighties street gang similar to the one from Bronx, and the other half are led by a cigar-chomping Richard Norton - neither side seems particularly scary or at all realistic.
And sadly, it's another movie (like Thunderbolt and Bronx) where things don't end up with a Jackie Chan fight against "the big boss" - instead, it's a vehicular stunt sequence, with Jackie tearing down a mansion with what may be the largest construction truck seen on film. An impressive amount of damage, to be sure, but why can't we end with an impressive fight scene, like his early films?
So, all-in-all another solid three star effort for this one. As I said, Jackie was in a very consistent state during this part of his career, so if you liked any of these early 90's films, you should probably give the others a shot, too. Up next: Jackie forgets his name, but probably not his moves, in Who Am I.
Monday, May 17, 2010
How Not To Inspire Confidence
It's just a camera phone shot, so not very high-rez, but still...
This is a screenshot from Time Warner Cable's new DVR box, informing the customer that they aren't subscribed to a channel.
Or rather...that they "aren$t" subscribed.
I'm guessing the text message uses a "smart quote", but the font they used didn't have that character, or they used the wrong encoding, or something similarly dumb. So a garbage character appears on screen.
Come on, Time Warner Cable...believe me, I understand testing is hard, but how stupid do you have to be to not catch this during even the most basic functional test? Would this make you feel good about having Time Warner Cable handle your TV connection? Your internet connection? Your phone line?
This is a screenshot from Time Warner Cable's new DVR box, informing the customer that they aren't subscribed to a channel.
Or rather...that they "aren$t" subscribed.
I'm guessing the text message uses a "smart quote", but the font they used didn't have that character, or they used the wrong encoding, or something similarly dumb. So a garbage character appears on screen.
Come on, Time Warner Cable...believe me, I understand testing is hard, but how stupid do you have to be to not catch this during even the most basic functional test? Would this make you feel good about having Time Warner Cable handle your TV connection? Your internet connection? Your phone line?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)