technology news:Iphone 3gs review

Three years after the first rumors of an Apple cell phone began to make the rounds, the iPhone continues to garner huge buzz, long lines, and a growing share of the cell phone market. And as we approach the second anniversary of the first model's frenzied launch day, Apple drops the newest model in our laps. The iPhone 3GS, which will hit stores June 19, promises faster processing and network speeds, extended battery life, more memory, and additional features. It's enough to get our attention, but not enough to get us completely excited.
In many ways, the iPhone 3GS delivers on its promises. The battery, which could sometimes deplete in less than a day on the iPhone 3G, lasted longer in our preliminary tests, and the phone's software ran noticeably faster. Yet, we still have some concerns. A faster AT&T 3G network isn't going to happen overnight, and some features, like tethering and multimedia messaging, aren't scheduled until later in summer 2009. We also struggled to see any change in call quality, which, as any iPhone owner can tell you, remains far from perfect.
So should you buy it? That will depend on how much you'll have to pay for the privilege. If you don't own an iPhone yet, and you've been waiting for the right model, now is the time to go for it. The same goes for iPhone Classic owners who never made the jump to the iPhone 3G. But, if you're a current iPhone 3G owner, the answer isn't so clear. If you're eligible to upgrade at the cheapest prices ($199 for the 16GB model and $299 for the 32GB model), we suggest doing so, as long as you don't mind the required two-year contract. If you own an iPhone 3G, but are not yet eligible for the upgrade, we recommend upgrading to the new iPhone OS 3.0 operating system, and then waiting. As much as the iPhone 3GS brings, it's not worth the extra $200 that the 16GB and 32GB models cost.
I own a iphone 3gs 32gb and here is my review for it.
Design and interface
The iPhone 3GS looks exactly like the previous model. It shares the shape and the same external controls, but the iPhone 3GS is unique in a handful of ways. You can get both memory sizes in white or black, and the iPhone 3GS display sports a fingerprint-resistant oleophobic coating that is supposed to attract fewer fingerprints and smudges. The new model shares the same dimensions as its predecessor, but it's slightly heavier (4.76 ounces versus 4.7 ounces), a virtually unnoticeable difference.
Camera
Until now, the iPhone's camera has been good, but far from great, with decent photo quality, but no editing features. Apple didn't include options such as white balance, a digital zoom, or a self-timer that come standard on many basic VGA camera phones. The minimalist shooter bothered us so much that we began to worry if Apple was leading a new trend of "dumbing down" cell phone cameras.
The iPhone 3GS puts some of those fears to rest. Apple boosted the camera's resolution to 3 megapixels and added a new "Tap to Focus" feature. As you point the lens toward your subject, a small box appears on the center of the display. Tapping that square focuses the camera automatically on that point and adjusts the white balance, color, contrast, and exposure accordingly. If you'd rather focus on the edge of your shot, just tap the display at your chosen point and the square moves with you. If you don't tap anywhere, the camera will focus the entire frame.
Tap to Focus performs well. For example, if we photographed a book cover sitting on a desk, we were able to get a clear reading on the book's title. If we shifted the focus away from the book, the title became somewhat blurry. Alternatively, if we focused on the brightest part of an image, the entire picture would appear brighter. But if we focused on the darkest part of any image, the photo would darken accordingly. The iPhone still doesn't come with a flash, though, so don't expect miracles.
On the other hand, the new automatic macro setting didn't appear to make much of a difference. Close-up shots looked slightly better on the iPhone 3GS than they did on the iPhone 3G, but we couldn't tell when the macro focus was working and when it wasn't. As with the autofocus feature, the macro setting is a welcome addition, but we'd prefer to have more control over it. In other words, the iPhone 3GS' camera is smarter than those on the earlier iPhones, but the camera, rather than the user, still runs the show.
On the whole, the iPhone 3GS' photo quality looks better than the 3G camera's quality, but it depends on the shot. Outdoor shots and photos taken in natural light looked less blurry in our tests, with brighter colors. Photos taken during cloudy days were less likely to be blown out, and photos in low-light conditions looked brighter and had less of an orange tint. Indoor shots without natural light showed little change, however. The iPhone's camera is not optimized for fluorescent light. For a full gallery of shots taken with the camera, see our iPhone 3GS camera slideshow.
The most fascinating feature of Iphone 3gs is it’s 3g speed. With a speed of 7.2 mbps it can open pages within a blink of eye(S stands for speed).So, I recommend for those who are open to high flow 3g service but at the same time think about the money flowing from your pocket.
I hope this review helped you a lot…I will be writing review on the most talked Nexus One on next article.
Posted By: Sujan Gurung
http://grgsujan.blogspot.com/

Important News of Information Technology

PhD student Fabian Hemmert recently presented a revolutionary way of designing phones and other small gadgets. His prototype offered shapeshifting, weightshifting, and "living" technologies that may change the way we interact with our phones in the future.

In his presentation at the TEDxBerlin Conference, Hemmert gives sample uses for each of his unique design ideas, such as a shapeshifting scheme that can make a phone more easily dockable as an alarm stand.

Another form showcases a weightshifting device that can change its center of gravity to follow your finger as you touch it. His most unique (and arguably zany!) implementation is known as a "living" device, where the object is able to simulate a heartbeat and a sense of being organic.

As Hemmert puts it, "What's behind that is a postulation namely that [it's] not humans [that] should get much more technical in the future; rather than that, technology [should become] a bit more human."

In this era of the Nexus One and the iPhone, it appears that manufacturers have arrived at a plateau regarding unique hardware interfaces; they're focusing on finessing the current status quo of accelorometers, capacitive touch screens, and speedy mobile processors.

But the well of ideas has far from run dry. Synaptics' Fuse phone, for example, promises a new hardware interface that involves gripping the phone at the sides. The Fuse samples one concept for expanding the number of ways you can interface with a gadget.

Hemmert's prototype is coming at a time when hardware makers need to be further pushed to incorporate new ideas. Hemmert's design concepts are not ready for prime time going by the video (i.e., chunky design, battery issues), but his thinking is definitely in the right direction. Where are you expecting your gadgets to go next? Here's betting on 3D autostereoscopic phones.

Content About the forex Market

The paper was started in 1996 to fill a gap in the market between broad-based international business papers such as the Financial Times and The Wall Street Journal and specialist trade publications such as IFR, Euroweek, Professional Pensions and Acquisitions Monthly. The latter are all vertical publications covering a single market.

The editorial content is driven by accuracy and integrity. Financial News has a large team of specialist financial reporters, who are experts in their field. Most are in London but we have correspondents in Paris, Frankfurt, Brussels, Milan and New York.

Financial News is the only publication that treats the European securities and investment banking industry as a single industry. Unlike many of its rivals who divide their coverage by industry sector(e.g. Telecoms, insurance). Financial News divides its coverage of the industry into these main sectors:

• Mergers & acquisitions
• Private equity
• Fund management
• Hedge funds
• Equity captial markets
• Debt capital markets
• Broking
• Custody & Derivatives
• Corporates
• Trading & Technology
• HR and head-hunters

Each week, the newspaper contains:

• Four pages of exclusive news and analysis
• Up to four pages of comment and analysis
• Up to two pages on each of the main sections, with a range of specialist news, analysis and profiles of leading firms and personalities, with additional coverage of specialists sector like custody and derivatives
• A weekly in-depth feature on specialist subjects ranging from European asset management to securitisation and the asset-based market. Once a quarter there is a review of the latest developments in ECM, DCM or M&A

Wasteful energy subsidies for major corporations and a select group of residential consumers

* funding of inappropriate policies of the International Monetary Fund (General Agreements to Borrow, IMF Enhanced Structural Adjustment Facility);
* costly, inefficient subsidies for road and highway construction (Timber Roads in the National Forest Program, Appalachian Regional Commission Roads Program, Highway Demonstration Projects);
* wasteful energy subsidies for major corporations and a select group of residential consumers (Pyroprocessing Program, Rural Utilities Service); and
* an expensive and potentially environmentally damaging public water works project in southwest Colorado (Animas La Plata).

In the Senate, John McCain and Edward M. Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) are reviving proposed legislation to create a nine-member Corporate Subsidy Reform Commission--modeled after the military base closure commission--that would target dubious programs and tax loopholes for reform or termination. Senator McCain cosponsored similar legislation (S.1376, the Corporate Subsidies Review, Reform, and Termination Act of 1995) with Senator Spence Abraham (R-Wisconsin) that lapsed in the 104th Congress. Under the McCain-Kennedy bill, Congress would have four months in which to approve, reject, or amend the commission's recommendations.
In March 1997, the Progressive Caucus, a group of 58 liberal congressional Democrats, announced its corporate welfare list of 15 examples of tax breaks and federal subsidies to be eliminated. Its proposal would save $56.9 billion the first year and $261.6 billion over the next five years. The list was endorsed by the Coalition on Human Needs, the National Education Association, the Center for Community Change, the Community Nutrition Institute, Common Cause, Tax Watch, and the Corporate Wealthfare Project, among others. Unlike the SCW proposal, which concentrates on spending programs only, the Progressive Caucus emphasizes tax deductions for corporations and wealthy individuals. Its tax proposals will not be seriously considered by the Republican-controlled Congress, but certain spending programs, such as OPIC, will receive stronger bipartisan support for elimination.
The McCain-Kennedy legislation is a one-time proposal for addressing corporate welfare. But what should Congress do when evaluating subsidies or tax and regulatory breaks for corporations on an ongoing basis? The libertarian Cato Institute position is straightforward: eliminate all forms of direct subsidy to corporations, save tax provisions applicable across the board to all businesses. But the Cato approach is a minority policy position. Other suggested corporate accountability proposals are applied to specific programs or expenditures and are categorized as follows:
Disclosure. The federal government would consolidate and regularly report information about corporate assistance programs, expenditures, and recipients, thereby allowing for precise summary statistics on the total number and costs of programs. This suggested approach contrasts with the present ambiguity involving which definition of "corporate welfare" is being used in a report, the consequent range of programs and expenditures identified, and irregular reporting by nongovernmental organizations. Public hearings would be held before new corporate assistance programs are introduced. Corporations would be required each year to report publicly the specific type of assistance rece

Public policy reform

The Department of Agriculture's Market Access Program (MAP) spent $85.5 million in FY96 advertising products of America's largest and most profitable companies overseas. In 1993, American taxpayers spent $6.6 million a year promoting Sunkist oranges; Ernest & Julio Gallo received $4.9 million to market its wines internationally; $1.5 million was spent pushing sales of mink coats; M&M Mars received $1 million to improve consumer recognition of its candy; and Campbell Soup received more than $500,000 to defray its advertising expenses. Although the 1996 appropriations bill targeted assistance for advertising promotions of small businesses, major companies still benefit from payments to industry associations and agricultural cooperatives.

Through Sematech, a consortium of major U.S. computer microchip producers, the Pentagon provides nearly $100 million a year of direct subsidy to the industry. However, of the more than 200 chip manufacturers in the United States, only the 14 largest, including Intel and National Semiconductor, receive support from Sematech. Originally designed to help U.S. firms compete against foreign competition, Sematech now subsidizes the largest producers to battle smaller domestic competitors. It also helped Digital Equipment Corporation, though Digital still shifted part of its work force and capital to Ireland and Singapore.
Not all the counterarguments against corporate welfare are representative of the various interest groups critical of the concept. But the Cato list of criticisms is quite exhaustive and especially convincing in the present era of deficit reduction and government downsizing.
Public Policy Reform

Because earlier efforts to rein in corporate welfare met with limited success, a new bipartisan effort has been announced for the 105th Congress. Buoyed by last year's success at blocking Congress's efforts to double the appropriation of OPIC and reauthorizing funding for only one year rather than the five years it had sought, Stop Corporate Welfare (SCW), an ad hoc coalition representing a range of taxpayer, consumer, free market, and environmental groups, decided to expand its array of targets. The SCW Coalition announced in late January 1997 a "hit list" of 12 corporate welfare programs for Congress to eliminate that would result in an estimated savings to taxpayers of $11.5 billion over five years. The coalition has strong House support from Budget Committee Chair John R. Kasich (R-Ohio), a longtime congressional foe of corporate welfare; Rep. Edward Royce (R-California); and Rep. Robert E. Andrews (D-New Jersey).
The SCW Coalition reviewed most federal spending programs (except entitlement programs) before reaching consensus on the following wide-ranging list of 12 initial targets:
* commercial research endeavors (Fossil Energy Research and Development Program, Clean Coal Technology Program);
* export advertising for food and wine companies (MAP);
* low-interest loans, loan guarantees, and political risk insurance for American corporations investing in developing countries (OPIC);

Vigorous defense of existing public policy

Other supporters of business-government partnerships argue that not only major corporations but also many small entrepreneurial firms rely on federal R&D grants for products that generate widespread public benefits that might otherwise go unfunded. Joel Johnson, vice president of the Aerospace Industries Association, a Washington-based trade group representing a profitable sector of the economy that receives billions of dollars in federal subsidies and tax breaks, defends the present government policies. "There are business and political leaders," says Johnson, "who recognize that the only way the government--whether it is the Defense Department or the Energy Department--can afford the new technology is if it works with business. But that is a partnership, not welfare" (Sennott 1996).

In response to this vigorous defense of existing public policy, the Cato Institute offers an extensive list of counterarguments to corporate welfare (albeit from a libertarian perspective, which asserts a government should do little more than provide police and military protection; other than that, it should not interfere--either for good or ill--in citizens' lives):
* The government has a disappointing record of picking industrial winners and losers.
* Corporate welfare is a huge drain on the federal treasury for very little economic benefit.
* It creates a tilted playing field among industries and firms.
* It fosters an incestuous relationship between business and government, most obviously through corporate campaign contributions.
* It raises costs to consumers.
* The most efficient way to promote business in America is to reduce the overall cost and regulatory burden of government.
* It is anticapitalist, creating the "statist businessman in America."
* It is unconstitutional, lying outside Congress's limited spending authority.

The Case For and Against Corporate Welfare

In November 1995, Senator John McCain (R-Arizona) and Senator Fred Thompson (R-Tennessee) cosponsored legislation to eliminate the "Dirty Dozen" list of corporate welfare programs. The McCain-Thompson proposal was defeated by a lopsided Senate vote of 75-24. But with such a broad ideological consensus allied against it, why does corporate welfare continue virtually unabated? It survives because of a conspiracy of parochial ("pork-barrel") politics, high-powered corporate and industry lobbying, and a campaign finance system that keeps these programs, regulations, and subsidies a constant on the Washington budget scene.
The Case For and Against Corporate Welfare

The proponents of business subsidies and exemptions--and they include members of both parties--offer a host of economic, social, and national security justifications for continued federal assistance to corporations. The Cato Institute has identified the following arguments in support of corporate welfare programs, regulatory protection, and direct subsidies:
* They protect industries from failure to preserve high-paying American jobs.
* Important research activities are subsidized that private industries could not finance themselves.
* They counteract the business subsidies of foreign governments to ensure a "level playing field" for domestic industries.
* They boost high-tech industries whose profitability is vital to American economic success in the twenty-first century.
* They maintain the viability of "strategic industries" that are essential to American national security.
* Ventures are financed that would otherwise be considered too risky for private capital markets.