GrandCentral was essentially a proxy phone number which people could call and which would ring all of your phones (land lines a bit before cell phones). Or depending on your settings for the caller, it could ring some subset of your phones, go straight to voice mail, or be blocked entirely (Sayonara, telemarketers!). Voice mail messages could be played from a web interface. Calls within the United States were free.
Google Voice adds automatic transcripts of voice mail, cheap international calls (since it works as VOIP) [apparently this is the only feature that costs money], conference calls, and the big one: It does what you would expect it to with SMS messages to your GrandCentral number: It forwards them to all your cell phones.
You can also send a Google Voice number an SMS by e-mail. The Google Voice address is [your 10-digit number]@txt.voice.google.com
Upgrading is apparently optional for existing GrandCentral users at this point. Those who choose to do so would be wise to export their GC contacts first, as they will have to be re-added under the new Google Contacts scheme. [I have accumulated 15 spammer numbers which I would not want to lose, and while it is possible do delist your GrandCentral number from telemarketers like any other number (via donotcall.gov), I'd wager that some of the spam calls I got would not be filtered out by this mechanism.]
For everyone else, there's the official Google Voice invitation request form. Or you can request an invitation via the Google Voice Twitter account.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
How to keep files synced between two computers
My old solution to syncing files was cvs.
My new solution is Dropbox. Dropbox integrates perfectly with the Finder on OS X, working through a folder (called "Dropbox"), the contents of which are automatically synced with a central server whenever there is a change in the file contents (whether on the local computer or a remote computer). File and folder icons are modified with a tiny symbol which indicates the synced/syncing status of the file.
The downside is that when one computer is offline and a file is changed on both computers, Dropbox handles the changes less well than cvs. (cvs merges the changes intelligently and flags in the file where user assistance is needed with the merging. Dropbox just saves the conflicting version to a separate file.) I did recently find that syncing had stopped, but upgrading to a newer version of the Dropbox application solved that problem.
Also, files are available through a web interface and old versions can be easily obtained. It works with all major operating systems. The first 2 gigabytes are free. It is elegant and makes my life easier. I give it high marks (to be updated once I figure out how many teabags are in my rating system).
Dropbox currently has a referral program where, if you register through this referral link, both you and I will get an extra 250 megabytes.
Bonus link: How to install a console version of Dropbox (no GUI!) on Linux (thanks to Jared of the Mostly CLI blog)
My new solution is Dropbox. Dropbox integrates perfectly with the Finder on OS X, working through a folder (called "Dropbox"), the contents of which are automatically synced with a central server whenever there is a change in the file contents (whether on the local computer or a remote computer). File and folder icons are modified with a tiny symbol which indicates the synced/syncing status of the file. The downside is that when one computer is offline and a file is changed on both computers, Dropbox handles the changes less well than cvs. (cvs merges the changes intelligently and flags in the file where user assistance is needed with the merging. Dropbox just saves the conflicting version to a separate file.) I did recently find that syncing had stopped, but upgrading to a newer version of the Dropbox application solved that problem.
Also, files are available through a web interface and old versions can be easily obtained. It works with all major operating systems. The first 2 gigabytes are free. It is elegant and makes my life easier. I give it high marks (to be updated once I figure out how many teabags are in my rating system).
Dropbox currently has a referral program where, if you register through this referral link, both you and I will get an extra 250 megabytes.
Bonus link: How to install a console version of Dropbox (no GUI!) on Linux (thanks to Jared of the Mostly CLI blog)
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Why e-books suck and an extended rant
It's the same reason that all media encumbered by "digital rights management" suck: One little perturbation to the system and you are locked out of what you spent your money on. I have bought several e-books for the Palm, chiefly from fictionwise.com. My new PDA stopped working. I switched back to my old PDA. Now it is impossible for me to read my old books. Some of them I never even finished in the first place. Unlike meatspace books, I can not lend them, sell them, or trade them. The money is gone.
Amazon's Kindle 2 is appealing to me, not because I need an e-Book reader (a PDA with an offline browser is usually quite sufficient). (The ability to convert PDFs into something the device can display seems quite useful though.) As pointed out by xkcd, it's because of its free cellular Internet connection via Sprint EVDO. Apparently, the Kindle's browser is primitive, like that of a smart phone. Therefore I would estimate the value of this service is in the neighborhood of $100 per year (based on equivalent costs for prepaid Internet access). More minuses: the interface is awkward and slow, and the Kindle itself is too big to fit in my pocket, so how often am I going to have it with me?
However, whenever I go on trips, I wish I had something smaller than my laptop that would still give me most of its functionality (web browsing, music playing, presentation editing, paper reading). The Kindle is not yet there, and neither is the iPhone. Maybe next year...
Amazon's Kindle 2 is appealing to me, not because I need an e-Book reader (a PDA with an offline browser is usually quite sufficient). (The ability to convert PDFs into something the device can display seems quite useful though.) As pointed out by xkcd, it's because of its free cellular Internet connection via Sprint EVDO. Apparently, the Kindle's browser is primitive, like that of a smart phone. Therefore I would estimate the value of this service is in the neighborhood of $100 per year (based on equivalent costs for prepaid Internet access). More minuses: the interface is awkward and slow, and the Kindle itself is too big to fit in my pocket, so how often am I going to have it with me?
However, whenever I go on trips, I wish I had something smaller than my laptop that would still give me most of its functionality (web browsing, music playing, presentation editing, paper reading). The Kindle is not yet there, and neither is the iPhone. Maybe next year...
Sunday, March 08, 2009
This American Life, Live!
Last year, This American Life held a live show in New Your City, to promote the second season of its television show, and then simulcast it to a bunch of movie theaters around the country. This year, they are doing it again, only this time, it will be one of their stage shows which will be eventually edited down into a radio show. It is going to be amazing! Ira Glass is one of the great entertainers of our time.
Here are some of the previous live TAL shows, which are among my very favorites:
- 2007: What I Learned From Television
- 2003: Lost in America
- 2000: Birthdays, Anniversaries and Milestones
- 1998: What You Lookin' At? (with music by They Might Be Giants)
The event page for this year's show is here.
Watchmen: the movie review
I saw the Watchmen movie last night. I think it only works as a film if you have read the graphic novel, as the movie feels like it is missing the layers of sophistication that allow one to get involved with the characters and ponder the questions that the comic book raises. My advice would be to read the graphic novel, and then wait for the special DVD release, which is supposed to have a lot more footage that makes it more faithful to the comic book (including the comic-book-within-a-comic-book pirate sequences, which emphasize the metaphor). (Although weirdly, it turns out that the extra footage has already been released on DVD. And apparently there's an animated version of the graphic novel called Watchmen: The Complete Motion Comic? Is this really necessary? If all the voices are done by one guy, what does this add to the Static Images Comic? Something tells me that somebody needs to read Scott McCloud's Understanding Comics.
Here is Alan Moore's blurb: "Understanding Comics is quite simply the best analysis of the medium that I have ever encountered. With this book Scott McCloud has taken breathtaking leaps towards establishing a critical language that the comic art form can work with and build upon in the future. Lucid and accessible, it is an astonishing feat of perception. Highly recommended."
Here is Alan Moore's blurb: "Understanding Comics is quite simply the best analysis of the medium that I have ever encountered. With this book Scott McCloud has taken breathtaking leaps towards establishing a critical language that the comic art form can work with and build upon in the future. Lucid and accessible, it is an astonishing feat of perception. Highly recommended."
Monday, July 21, 2008
The Dark Knight - a spoiler-ridden non-review analysis
I saw The Dark Knight on Saturday, but I am still thinking about it. That is the sign of a good film. The way the Joker would tell different people different stories of how he got his scars was interesting. Is he just a pathological liar? He was also very charming, tailoring his message to his audience, as when he convinced Harvey Dent to flip out. The other notable lie I recall is when he deliberately switched the addresses for Rachel and Dent when giving them to Batman. But what I wonder about him is whether he was telling the truth when he said things to suggest that he had no plan... that he was just "like a dog chasing cars" and wouldn't know what to do with one if he caught it. Look at the plan he developed to get caught and put in prison so he could break out the Chinese guy. Or the bank heist!
I think that, rather that being the embodiment of pure chaos, which is what he claims, he is actually very methodically saying and doing things that will create the most chaos.
Though the Joker was not the only one who was manipulating the truth... Harvey Dent claimed to be Batman. Gordon pretended to be dead. Alfred destroyed Rachel's letter to Bruce. And Batman took the blame for Dent's murders at the end. Deception seems to be a strong theme in Christopher Nolan's work.
I thought that, as a thriller, The Dark Knight had a good, complex story with lots of little bits, and good character development. And it looked good visually. Also, it was funny, like when the Joker said "Do I look like a guy with a plan?". Or when that other guy said: "So you think your client, one of the richest and most powerful men in the world, is secretly a vigilante, who goes around at night beating criminals to a pulp with his bare hands? And your plan is to blackmail this person? Good luck with that."
Things I didn't like: This film seemed a little too realistic, in the sense that including the scene in China seemed to anchor the film too much in the now and in the real world, whereas Batman Begins seemed a little more timeless, and Gotham City, a little more alternate-reality. Remember the monorail in Batman Begins? Nowhere to be found in The Dark Knight. But the killer was that I found the action scenes too much in the modern, trendy, up-close shots so that you can't really tell what's going on. While there were close, fast cuts in the previous film, I only had the impression of disorientation when the Scarecrow character gassed people. I guess that that filming style makes you feel more like you are in the fight, but it decreases my enjoyment.
The other problem was that, while the story was better in the sense that it was more complex, I preferred the story of Batman Begins, which was about Bruce Wayne struggling with a desire for revenge and becoming a vigilante. I found that, both in terms of the story and in terms of the action sequences, watching Batman Begins the first time charged me up and left me excited. (Though I watched Batman Begins a second time, and it loses a lot when you know what's going to happen. I suspect that The Dark Knight may hold up better under multiple viewings.) Where The Dark Knight worked was on a psychological and character development level (though being more about the Joker and Harvey Dent with some stuff about the Bruce Wayne - Rachel Dawes - Harvey Dent love triangle). Ultimately, the film is maybe the best crime thriller (or something... its genre is not so well-defined) that I've ever seen, but it was not the most awesome action film.
I think that, rather that being the embodiment of pure chaos, which is what he claims, he is actually very methodically saying and doing things that will create the most chaos.
Though the Joker was not the only one who was manipulating the truth... Harvey Dent claimed to be Batman. Gordon pretended to be dead. Alfred destroyed Rachel's letter to Bruce. And Batman took the blame for Dent's murders at the end. Deception seems to be a strong theme in Christopher Nolan's work.
I thought that, as a thriller, The Dark Knight had a good, complex story with lots of little bits, and good character development. And it looked good visually. Also, it was funny, like when the Joker said "Do I look like a guy with a plan?". Or when that other guy said: "So you think your client, one of the richest and most powerful men in the world, is secretly a vigilante, who goes around at night beating criminals to a pulp with his bare hands? And your plan is to blackmail this person? Good luck with that."
Things I didn't like: This film seemed a little too realistic, in the sense that including the scene in China seemed to anchor the film too much in the now and in the real world, whereas Batman Begins seemed a little more timeless, and Gotham City, a little more alternate-reality. Remember the monorail in Batman Begins? Nowhere to be found in The Dark Knight. But the killer was that I found the action scenes too much in the modern, trendy, up-close shots so that you can't really tell what's going on. While there were close, fast cuts in the previous film, I only had the impression of disorientation when the Scarecrow character gassed people. I guess that that filming style makes you feel more like you are in the fight, but it decreases my enjoyment.
The other problem was that, while the story was better in the sense that it was more complex, I preferred the story of Batman Begins, which was about Bruce Wayne struggling with a desire for revenge and becoming a vigilante. I found that, both in terms of the story and in terms of the action sequences, watching Batman Begins the first time charged me up and left me excited. (Though I watched Batman Begins a second time, and it loses a lot when you know what's going to happen. I suspect that The Dark Knight may hold up better under multiple viewings.) Where The Dark Knight worked was on a psychological and character development level (though being more about the Joker and Harvey Dent with some stuff about the Bruce Wayne - Rachel Dawes - Harvey Dent love triangle). Ultimately, the film is maybe the best crime thriller (or something... its genre is not so well-defined) that I've ever seen, but it was not the most awesome action film.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
