Friday, 30 August 2013
ZyXEL unveils new range of 802.11ac Adapter Line for mobiles and laptops
XyXel has launched a new range of Dual Band 1200 Mbps and 600 Mbps Adapters for home and mobile users.
Oppo teases plug-in camera lenses with OIS and up to 15x zoom
Oppo is a relatively unknown name outside of China, even though the company did make some headway with the Oppo Find 5, and is hoping to continue to establish itself on the world stage with its upcoming Oppo N1. There’s very little we actually know about the device, except for the fact that is expected to feature a rear touch panel, and house a great camera.
If you felt like the 13MP N-Lens “owl” sensor camera isn’t enough, Oppo is there to help you out. Today, the company teased a series of plug-in camera lenses that can be switched out and attached to its smartphones. The initial batch of these plug-in camera lenses use a 16MP Sony CMOS sensor with OIS (optical image stabilization), with one type featuring 10x optical zoom, and another thicker version boasting 15x optical zoom, along with support for NFC, WiFi, and SD card storage.
While Sony is all set to change the smartphone camera game with the highly-anticipated Xperia Z1 and the availability of external attachable lenses for other smartphones, it’s great to see companies like Oppo looking to shake things up as well by giving consumers a choice.
There is still no information on when these plug-in camera lenses will be available, but can definitely expect to get a better look at them during the upcoming launch event for the Oppo N1.
Pressy brings a customizable hardware button to your Android handset
So you picked up that shiny, new Android handset and now you find yourself wishing there was an easier, button-based shortcut for getting to your favorite Android functions. Wait a minute… you actually want more buttons on your smartphone? It’s 2013 folks, and less is more (unless it comes to screen size)!
To be fair, sometimes extra physical keys can come in handy, such as a button that allows you to quickly load up your camera. Most of today’s devices are lacking such physical buttons, but that’s where the new Kickstarter project Pressy comes in.
Most Android users are looking to ditch extra buttons, so we have to wonder if there is really a demand for something like Pressy.
Pressy is a tiny button that plugs into your headphone jack, allowing you to easily launch apps and services with the click of a button.
The button works in conjunction with a special Pressy app, and can be customized to do just about anything from launching a camera, to voice recording, opening up settings, launching a specific app or even calling home – the choice is yours.
Pressy isn’t just for one special function either, as it can perform multiple different tasks depending on whether you single-click the button, long click it or even double click.
This sounds pretty cool, but who wants to sacrifice the headphone jack? The good news is that you don’t have to. When you want to plug in a headphone, take out Pressy and put it into an included holder that clips to a keychain. Next, plug in your headphones and the headphone button can fully function as the Pressy key without issue – easy as that.
But is there demand for such a thing?
Most Android users are looking to ditch extra buttons these days, so we have to wonder if there is really a demand for something like Pressy. The answer appears to be a resounding yes, at least judging by the fact that Pressy has already exceeded its $40k goal with 45 days left to go. At the time of this writing, $173,532 has been pledged towards the project.
If you too are interested in getting your hands on Pressy and its accompanying app, you can head over to their Kickstarter page where a minimum pledge of $17 will land you a basic Pressy.
A word of caution, the team behind Pressy is just getting things off the ground, and so they don’t expect to ship the little-button-that-could until March of next year. Still, good things come to those that (are willing to) wait.
HomeShop 18 revamps its website with a new look, advanced features
Shopping portal Homeshop18 has revamped its website in order to offer an improved and simplified shopping experience to customers. Launched in 2011, HomeShop18 today has over 600 brands across 13 different categories. With this new look, it has synchronised all of its three mediums – Web, TV and Mobile.
The new look HomeShop18 website that boasts of some new features has been designed on a responsive model and is compatible with desktop, tablets, and mobile phones. The website now offers users the option of live-streaming the HomeShop 18 TV channel via laptops, tablets and mobile phones.
The new look HomeShop18 website that boasts of some new features has been designed on a responsive model and is compatible with desktop, tablets, and mobile phones. The website now offers users the option of live-streaming the HomeShop 18 TV channel via laptops, tablets and mobile phones.
All new look
Users can also view demo videos of the product they are interested in purchasing. This feature has been added to the service after gauging consumer behaviour through primary and secondary research, and feedback. One research said Indian online shoppers feel the need to be able to touch and feel a product in order to consider buying it and viewing images simply doesn’t cut it.
HomeShop18 now also sports an all new voice-enabled search bar. Shoppers can now simply give voice commands on the home page search bar in order for the website to throw up results. Once the order is placed, users will now be able to track it better. Important details like update of the order, the date and time of when it was placed, when your order was shipped and when it will be delivered will be displayed.
On the home page, you will now be able to go through product recommendations by the website. These products will pop up based on your browsing history. When you go to a particular product’s page now, you will be able to see more interactive features like reviews and whether or not the review has been helpful.
This is not the first time HS18 has forayed into design innovation. Before the new website design, HomeShop18 launched an interesting mobile shopping model called Scan N Shop at Delhi Airport in January this year which was followed by mobile apps for Android and iPhone users.
Samsung Galaxy Note 3 'Lite' rumoured to come with cheaper LCD screen
There's less than a week left for the launch of the Samsung Galaxy Note 3, and yet another leak has now cropped up about the upcoming device. According to a Korean site ETNews, there will likely be two versions of the Galaxy Note 3, and one of them will feature a cheaper display. The “Lite” version of the device is also likely to feature a low-resolution 8 megapixel camera.
This isn’t the first time that news about Galaxy Note 3 variants has surfaced, with previous rumours also hinting at Samsung planning multiple varients of the Note 3. Keeping the latest leak in mind, there is not much else known apart from the trade-off on the camera and the display. The leak does bring one question to light, though. Will we see a cheaper Note 3 variant at the launch?
Just a few days back, there were reports suggesting the possibility of 4k video recordingsupport and improved audio playback for the Note 3. Another leak also gave us a glimpse at the device showing off a 5.7-inch front display panel with a highly-reduced bezel.
What will the camera on the Note 3 be like?
According to the previous leaks, it is believed that the Galaxy Note 3 will come with a slightly different design while the display will most likely be a full HD variety. It is likely to pack in a 13 megapixel camera with the new S Orb feature, but the OIS (Optical Image Stabilisation) function will be given a miss according to some rumours recently. The Note 3 is likely to be available in two versions – one with a Samsung Exynos 5 Octa processor and the other with Qualcomm Snapdragon 800 SoC. With the September 4 launch around the corner, fans who are eagerly awaiting it only have to wait a few days before seeing the final specs of the phone.
Why Western intervention in Syria will leave chaos
(CNN) -- Syria's civil war is not America's problem. Syria is surrounded
by Turkey, Israel, Egypt, Jordan, and other Arab nations with large standing
armies and advanced military equipment. Their cowardice in acting to stop a war
on their doorstep should give us pause for thought. Why will they not act, but
we must?
Why is American gullibility for war so strong that countries such
as Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Israel can dispense of their moral duties to the
American taxpayer?
Make no mistake about it: al Assad is a war criminal, having had
his own civilians and soldiers slaughtered in a war to keep his family in
power.
The sectarian, ethnic, and religious dimensions of the war have
kept the Obama administration (rightly in my view) away from direct military
involvement in the conflict.
But what has changed now? The use of chemical weapons to kill people jolts us into probable action,
but millions displaced, wounded and 100,000 dead did not. Why? Because the
banality of the policy shift rests on the assumptions that American cruise
missiles can prevent further use of chemical weapons, provide a face-saving
measure for President Barack Obama who can argue that he acted after his
"red line" had been crossed in Syria, and neuter critics of Obama's
Syria policy.
There is no absolute certainty as to whether al Assad used
chemical weapons, or rebel factions did. Al Assad has no credible motivation to
use these weapons at this stage, and in this phase of the conflict. He is not
losing.
If, as the Russians claim, it was al Qaeda-affiliated al-Nusrah
group or Free Syrian Army elements that used weapons to bait America into the
conflict, then U.S. firepower would be futile in establishing how a ragtag army
and terrorists obtained chemical weapons. No amount of surgical strikes on
government facilities will prevent non-state actors from further use of these
weapons.
But if we believe that al Assad used these weapons, and launch
punitive attacks on Syria, what exactly are we targeting? The secretive and
globally isolated nature of the Assad regime and therefore his chemical
stockpiles means that we do not know where these are located.
We intervened in Libya with greater confidence because Gadhafi's
chemical weapons were mostly eliminated by an international inspection
arrangement prior to the Arab uprisings. By bombing Syria now we increase the
risk of al Assad using chemical weapons on populations and cities that are not
under government control, or to quell new rebellions. Damaging his air force
and known military installation would force him to consider his more extreme
options for regime survival. Syria is now a fight to the death for both sides.
U.S.-led military strikes in Syria will not change the tide of the
war. That is not the mission, nor is it achievable by aerial blitzing. The
Syrian opposition is not a government in waiting. It is too fragmented
ideologically, overwrought by al Qaeda affiliates, deeply anti-American, and
dominated by suburban fighters with little control of major cities, mercenaries
who are not committed to peaceful coexistence with Syria's religious
Christians, nor its Jewish neighbor.s in on Syria
Syria after al Assad will be worse. A new civil war will break out
between opposition factions. By bombing Syria today, we bear the burden of the
instability we leave in our wake.
President Obama imprudently mentioned a "red line" in
Syria and is now hostage to fortune. The president has changed his policy
stance on using illegal wire taps, closing Guantanamo Bay, gay marriage, and
more.
The heat of the moment and push from the chattering classes to
"do something" without knowing what will consume Obama into another
Middle East war. He beat Hillary Clinton as an anti-Iraq war candidate.
By intervening, Syria may well prove to be Obama's war, bequeathed
to a new president in 2016. Civilian casualties are inevitable: The images on
our screens will not be Syrians using chemical weapons to kill each other, but
American bombs creating carnage and killings in yet another Muslim country.
Obama is mulling the least bad option
(CNN) -- Among the most enduring urban legends about high-level
policy-making in the U.S. government is the proverbial memo with three options:
1. do nothing; 2. do everything; 3. find a middle ground and muddle through.
And yet in truth, Barack Obama really does have only three options
in Syria. It appears that the president, rightly the avoider-in-chief when it
comes to Syria, has chosen option three, the least bad alternative. And here's
why.
Do nothing
This isn't really an
option. Forget the fact that the president a year ago drew his own red line
against Bashar al-Assad's use of chemical weapons. Disregard the reality that
this is reportedly the largest single deployment of chemical weapons since
Saddam Hussein used them against the Kurds in 1988; dismiss the fact that
100,000 Syrians have died in this civil conflict; and the president is accused
of fiddling, Nero-like, while Syria burns.
Just focus on the events of the past five days in Washington. What
has been emanating from administration officials both on and off the record is
the most well-advertised and telegraphed military action in the history of
modern warfare. Rarely do we get this kind of preview of the operation, its
size and character.
Combine that with the Secretary of State John Kerry's brief but
powerful statement of moral outrage the other day and the president's PBS
interview, and you get as authoritative a commitment to strike as is humanly
imaginable.
Indeed, forceful statements and actions of the past few days have
now constituted their own red line. And if the president doesn't enforce it, he
will be truly damaged goods when it comes to foreign policy for the remainder
of his term.
Neither his regional allies (Israel and the Saudis) nor his
adversaries (Iran, Hezbollah, Russia) will find him credible or believable. As
it is now, everyone says no to the U.S. without much cost or consequence.
Do everything
From the beginning, Sens. John McCain and Lindsay Graham and a
whole host of liberal interventionists and neoconservatives outside the
government have repeatedly called for a more robust policy on Syria, even
suggesting that the president, by not acting sooner, enabled all of this misery
to unfold. Syria, the president's critics maintain, is a major threat to U.S.
interests -- and to our allies in the region -- and only a takedown of the
al-Assad regime through supporting the opposition and direct application of
U.S. military power will begin to address the problem.
The argument has not called for boots on the ground but for
extensive use of no-fly zones, the use of U.S. air and missile power to degrade
the regime and military support for the opposition.
ma: SyrPresident Obama has wisely and willfully avoided this approach.
And he continues to avoid it now. The reason has to do with the general problem
of an open-ended military commitment and the lack of correlation between the
use of U.S. military power and its relation to the end state.
Syria is in the throes of a brutal civil war. The opposition is
composed of more than 1,000 disparate rebel groups, the most effective allied
with al Qaeda and other Sunni extremists. A victory of the latter would be a
blow to U.S. interests. Ousting al-Assad won't be cheap or easy. It took eight
months to get rid of Libya's Moammar Gadhafi, and he had no weapons of mass
destruction, no serious air defenses or military capacity and no credible
allies. And look at the end result: a post-Gadhafi environment in which there
are too many guns, grievances and regional rivalries and no credible central
authority.
And Libya pales in comparison with Syria's complexities. Devising
a serious military strategy to get rid of al-Assad -- serious weapons for the
rebels; no-fly or -drive zones; and sustained air/missile strikes against
Syrian military units, infrastructure and leadership targets -- also means U.S.
responsibility for what follows. Barack Obama has avoided this option because
he rightly doesn't want America getting stuck with the check for Syria.
Muddle through
The option the U.S. is likely to undertake -- focused more
narrowly on trying to deter the Syrians from using chemical weapons again and
degrading al-Assad's military capacity in the process -- is far from ideal.
Although I think the administration's military actions will be far more
devastating than the limited strikes being talked about, it is unlikely to
change the arc of the battlefield balance.
There are other downsides, too. Once the glass ceiling against the
use of force is broken, the expectations and pressures to use it again will
grow. There's always the danger too of a response by Hezbollah or Syria against
Israel, however unlikely. And sooner or later, al-Assad will commit some other
horror that will require another U.S. response. This kind of episodic
intervention without a real strategy can undermine American credibility, too.
To be sure, there are real risks in acting on option three, and
Obama most assuredly is a reluctant warrior. Indeed, in view of the
parliamentary opposition to British Prime Minister David Cameron's willingness
to join the U.S., he may be a lonely warrior, too. But he's going to war with
Syria nonetheless. Al-Assad's apparent use of chemical weapons, the president's
own words and those of others in his administration leave him no other choice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)