TV Is Dead; Long Live TV

My wife and I have lived without a television set for some years. Yet we watch quite a few television programs online. Within the last couple weeks, we've watched the latest episode of Dollhouse at Hulu (and the sixth episode is the best yet), the first two episodes of Castle (starring another of Joss Whedon's stars, Nathan Fillion, in a pretty good show from ABC), and the pilots of Buck Rogers, The Incredible Hulk, and Airwolf, all three childhood favorites.

After we ditched our TV we relied largely on Netflix to watch television shows that had come out on disk. Just tonight we watched a classic movie, Time After Time (in which H. G. Wells chases Jack the Ripper to 1979), online through Netflix, which also offers many television shows online.

The local television news stations offer much of their video online as well. And of course individuals and organizations can make available video for practically no marginal cost through YouTube.

The online viewing quality is sometimes superb though sometimes jumpy (especially through Netflix). I get the idea, then, that the main trouble is with the software rather than with the bandwidth. (A note to TV stations: people won't be as willing to watch your shows if you make us download a bunch of BS "protection" software that screws with our machines.)

We've watched television shows on iTunes, but at $1.99 a pop we'd usually prefer to "pay" for our viewing by watching cheesy ads.

I am just stunned by the rapid progress of online video. I still remember watching Tron at my first VHS party. It was a huge, rented machine that popped open from the top, daring us to insert the video tape. (Tron came out in 1982, about a decade before the World Wide Web took off.)

Given the advantages of being able to watch the show I want to watch when I want to watch it, I don't see how the online video industry will do anything other than explode in growth. I don't need cable, I don't need specialized recording machines. I just need my Mac and my Comcast internet connection. (Comcast also offers cable TV, which I'm rarely tempted to purchase.)

I hate TV, but I love (some) television. I wonder how long it will take for the total integration of media.

New New Mac

As I mentioned yesterday, my wife and I purchased a new iMac on Sunday. On Tuesday, Apple came out with a line of new iMacs consisting of better machines for less money. I appreciate the fact that there is a transition period between old and new product, but I felt slightly jilted that Apple neglected to tell me about the pending change, which obviously would have affected my purchase schedule.

But the Apple store was very good about exchanging the machine, though I did have to eat a ten percent "restocking" fee (even though they're not actually going to restock the computer). I had suggested that Apple simply incentivize me to keep the old machine, but that proposal was dismissed. However, now I'm glad that we actually did the upgrade; as good as Sunday's machine was, Tuesday's machine is a lot better. Now you can get a larger screen, bigger hard drive, and more and better RAM for less money. This again demonstrates the phenomenal success of the ongoing computer revolution.

The upshot for readers is that now is a great time to buy an iMac. These powerful, all-included machines start at $1200. That's less than what the Amiga sold for back in 1985 with its 256K of memory and floppy disk drive (never mind inflation). I did love my Amiga, but in retrospect is seems like a child's toy. Amazing.

Incidentally, last night we watched Joss Whedon's Dollhouse (Fox) online. The third episode, "Stage Fright," is especially well written and performed. If you haven't started watching the series, you're missing out. I remember the days when I strung a cable from the phone jack to my fancy new modem so I could chat with the locals. Now I'm watching "television" on my computer over a cable line. Again, amazing.

As easy as it is to get bummed out by the economic recession and the federal shenanigans, the advance of computers serves as a reminder of the magnificent productive force of the capitalist system, even one hampered by increasing political controls. We live in a glorious age. It makes you wonder what would be possible in a free, unfettered economy, doesn't it?

New Mac

Our G5 Mac lost its logic board over the weekend. Rather than pay to get it replaced, we decided to upgrade to stay current with the software. (As a graphic designer, my wife primarily uses Adobe products contained in that company's Creative Suite.)

Obviously it's no fun to go through a computer melt-down. I lost a couple days of time, then we had to buy a new machine. However, after the experience I'm a more loyal Mac user. The local Apple store diagnosed my machine at no cost, ruling out the hard drive and RAM as the problem. Then staff of the store answered extensive questions about the machines currently available, and we selected one that I think will fit our needs spectacularly. (We got an iMac, which is only slightly less beefy than our old machine at a considerably lower cost.) By the way, it's possible that a cause of the problem was dust in the machine that inhibited air flow. The old Motorola machines have a reputation for running hot -- which is primarily why Apple switched to Intel -- so if you have a Motorola tower I suggest you get it cleaned.

An Apple machine will cost you more than a comparable PC, but that's comparing apples to oranges (or lemons). With a Mac, you get a machine that works with fewer hassles, and you get real customer service.

I almost wish I'd saved all my old machines, just so we could show the next generation the rapid progress. My first computer was a Commodore 128, as in 128 kilobytes of RAM, double the memory of the popular 64. (The first Apple I used in school ran on a cassette tape drive.) The new machine has four gigabytes of RAM, or over 31,000 times the memory. It's such an obvious point that we rarely savor it: the computer revolution has improved our lives dramatically in countless ways. So, thanks, Steve and the gang.

Air-Powered Cars

As Americans see gas soar to the $4 per gallon range -- thanks to the environmentalist assault on energy production -- BBC News and Raw Story report that India's Tata Motors is gearing up to produce cars based on French technology of compressed air.

I have to admit this idea of running cars on compressed air had never occurred to me. You can pump air directly into the car or plug in the internal compressor. Tata is also working on a carbon-compression hybrid that BBC News reports can yield 120 miles per gallon. Clever.

Of course, as BBC also points out, the cars are light-weight and therefore, I suspect, quite a lot more dangerous than the cars to which Americans are accustomed. Still, they might be fine for slower-speed city driving. If they catch on a toll-road might even find it useful to create small-car lanes.

Obviously, compressing air is not free. It requires energy. I'm interested to learn how the Indians plan to compress the air. I'm also interested in what the energy loss is between the first power source and the power of the compressed air.

I wonder whether it might be possible to harness wind to compress air, rather than use wind turbines to generate electricity. (We may never know, because now all the subsidies are going to the turbines.)

A huge problem is that compressed air seems hard to transport. A nuclear generator could power the air compression, but unless we're talking about new, smaller nuclear plants it seems more effective to transport the electricity rather than the compressed air. That seems more promising for electric cars, if people can ever figure out how to produce better, cheaper batteries. I guess the question, then, is whether it's more effective to convert electricity to battery charges or to compressed air. And which system promises to provide the longest drives?

Even though the new technology runs into numerous immediate problems, it's interesting.

The best way to promote new technologies is to cut government spending and taxes, eliminate special-interest pandering, cut controls on production, and generally restore the government to protecting individual rights rather than mismanaging the economy.

How It's Made

Last time I had access to cable TV, I watched several episodes of the show "How It's Made." It's a spectacular show that reveals how various products are mass produced.

What has mass production done for us? In short, a lot fewer people can make a lot more life-advancing stuff. That allows more people to enjoy the products. Practically all of the clothes we wear, most of the food we eat, and just about every product in our homes was mass produced (or significantly assisted by mass production) using advanced technical processes.

Many of today's labor-intensive jobs are made possible by mass production, which frees up labor for other jobs. When the country first started, most people worked in agriculture. Now a tiny minority do. Today, businesses exist to wash your dog or provide it with therapy. "In 2003, more than 15 million people practiced Yoga, according to Yoga Journal magazine," writes one practitioner. Several massage clinics have recently opened up near my house, and chiropractors are everywhere. These are just a few examples.

Yet who pauses to recognize the profound improvements to their lives made possible by science, technology, and a market free enough to develop the wonders of mass production?