Fujitsu is one of the most experienced Tablet PC makers in the industry. And I don't just say that. They've been making Tablet PC's since the Windows 98 days. I believe that's even before Microsoft coined the Tablet PC moniker.

I don't know how they are nowadays, but back when I bought my Tablet PC from them nearly five years ago, they had been renowned for the value-added stuff they bundle with their tablets. For example, a stylus lanyard, micro-fiber cleaning cloth and two screen protectors.

Of course, I installed one of the screen protectors from day one of owning the machine. And it has served me very well. But over the many years of use, one of the corners of the screen protector was starting to peel off. This term, it was quite noticeable, so I decided that I should break out the second screen protector to replace the old one.

And I finally got around to doing that today. So after four and a half years of using the same screen protector, I peeled the old one off, and stuck on a new one.

And wow my screen is so clean and shiny now! Actually, I was also very pleased to see just how pristine the actual screen underneath the screen protector is. It looks like a brand-new laptop screen.

So here's to another four or five years worth of writing on this new screen protector. My old one has clear wear marks in the areas where I would typically take notes for class. A series of parallel scratched-up areas

But wow, if I could only replace the noisy fan in this machine now, it would be almost as if I just got it! So shiny

从前我很喜欢Sony Ericsson的手机因为我觉得SE的手机真好看。 可是用SE P990i之后，我对SE的看法改变了。 我发现SE的软体不太好（那是说他们的UIQ软体太buggy）。 但是我了解Nokia的customer commitment比Sony Ericsson好。 虽然我觉得Nokia的手机没有SE的style，Nokia的手机比较有用。

比如说Nokia的最新Ovi Maps。 这是Nokia的全球定位系统软体。 这个软体不要钱！ 那是说要是用全球定位系统用的话，什么都是免费！

我最近发现Ovi Maps有国语的声音。 开车的时候，真好玩听国语的声音告诉我该去哪里。

我的手机好聪明啊，能告诉我： “两公里请想右旋，然后你就到了达目的地。”

我在开玩笑，可是我还是觉得这个Ovi Maps很有用。 还有是免费的！ 别的全球定位系统很贵！ Garmin、TomTom、等等，都要200到300元！

It seems that Panasonic and Olympus have hit something big with Micro Four-Thirds, as more and more companies that have a stake in the consumer photography are rumored to be putting out mirrorless DSLR-sized sensor cameras with interchangeable lens mounts soon.

Samsung's NX series has been long awaited, and is rumored to be released by the end of this year.

Ricoh, a producer of some more niche market cameras is also rumored to be releasing a mirrorless design soon.

FujiFilm has also been rumored to be putting out a Micro Four-Thirds model sometime for next year's PMA.

There is also some light speculation that Sony might be readying something. Well it doesn't say "mirrorless" specifically, it's supposed to target the Panasonic GH1 directly.

There are some rumored hints that Nikon may be following suit, given some recent patent applications.

Myself being an early adopter of the Micro Four-Thirds system can only hope that the head start that Panasonic and Olympus have created for themselves by being the first-to-market by over a year will be enough to avoid them being sidelined by new proprietary offerings from other companies.

Nikon's offerings will likely be something to be reckoned with given their market recognition from their DSLR offerings.

If Canon jumps into the game, they will also of course, just like Nikon, have a large existing consumer base because of their heritage and brand name.

Competition is good for the consumer - only if the consumer picks the format that wins the standards battle.

Obviously lens selection is a huge factor in launching a new system. And this was one of the key criticisms against Micro Four-Thirds in its early days. Almost every review of the G1 praised it for its capabilities, but cautioned buyers about the limited lens selection. Over a year later, Micro Four-Thirds has already amassed itself a good handful of native lenses. Panasonic currently has six lenses available, while Olympus has two. And within the next year, both companies are expected to further increase their lens offerings (Olympus has at least two coming next year, and Panasonic probably similar). That will probably mean over 10 lenses in the Micro Four-Thirds system by the end of next year.

In addition, Panasonic currently has three Micro Four-Third bodies, Olympus has two, and FujiFilm is rumored to be putting out one next year. That will be at least six Micro Four-Third bodies by the end of next year.

The current closest known competitor is Samsung, with their NX body, which has usually been shown with two or three other lenses.

But will this head start be enough to keep Olympus and Panasonic afloat?

This mirrorless market has created a whole new consumer product segment. They don't appear to be trying to take on the DSLR market, but yet, they are far superior than any point and shoot camera, super zoom, or even "bridge" camera.

You know, in all my life, I've never owned an Apple product. I've never had an iPod, I've never had an Apple computer, etc.

My mom once had an Apple computer a long time ago from her office, and my sister owns a first generation iPod Nano.

And I still don't own any Apple goods. But for the first time ever, I've contributed to their revenue.

In looking for new music, I had started looking at what types of online music stores exist, and of course, Apple probably owns the largest market share of online music sales.

A lot of other online stores either provide less variety, lower bitrates, or still use DRM. At first I was under the impression that Apple still DRM'd the tracks you purchased from them, but as I found out, their AAC files are now completely DRM free in North America. Plus at 256 kbps, their AAC files are at higher bitrates than I would normally rip Audio CDs I've purchased physically.

Ideally, I would have liked it if Apple offered some kind of lossless format such as FLAC, as paying for something that's less than half the quality you'd get on CD seems a bit tough to do in some ways.

But humanly speaking, I suppose that AAC files at 256 kbps are "good enough" for listening too with my non-audiophile hardware (on-board sound chips in both my laptop and desktop, 2.0 speakers or Bluetooth A2DP headphones).

So over the weekend I loaded up iTunes on my computer to see exactly what all the fuss was about.

And low and behold a small portion of my hard-earned cash left my pocket and deposited itself into the ever growing fruit that is Apple.

As of today, I've spent a total of $4.56 CAD on a total of four songs: Evacuate the Dance Floor by Cascada, G-Get Up and Dance by Faber Drive, Down by Jay Sean and Live Your Life by T.I.

And I'm the verge of dropping another $9.99 on a Jason Mraz album...

It's just too easy. I load up iTunes, search for a song and click buy. And before you can say Microsoft Zune, my credit card has been hit and the song has been downloaded onto my hard disk. It's so easy that you almost don't think as much about buying the media as you maybe would when buying a CD. I don't have to walk to HMV and search through racks of CDs.

Oh no Apple, why are you starting to take all my money? And I've never even thought of buying an iPod. Yet somehow with your now DRM-free AACs that play without conversion on my mobile phone, you've suckered me in.

You know electronics are playing a bigger and bigger role in photography when manufacturers provide firmware upgrades for lenses.

Perhaps yet another strong sign of this is the fact that software correction is becoming more prevalent and debated about with respect to higher-end consumer cameras.

Some purists are quite peeved at the whole aspect of software-corrected images coming out of some of Panasonic's recent cameras such as the LX3, G1, GH1. (Perhaps other manufacturers too, but I haven't followed)

Having no history in photography but a background in engineering (well to be truthful, I'm still working on my degree), I find myself not terribly concerned.

Sure software correction of image issues may be a bit of a pain once it hits the consumer's end in The Gimp or Photoshop, but I would believe that it's not as big of a problem for the first-party engineers.

My reasoning being that the engineers who design the lens know about the optical characteristics of the lens to probably a decent extent mathematically (I would hope?). With accurate knowledge of the distortion that the lens is suffering from (as in mathematically, not just "oh there's a visible barrel distortion and some chromatic aberration"), the engineers are better equipped to solve for the inverse transformation of the distortion with that much more accuracy.

In a way, it's signal theory 101. After converting your system to the frequency domain, if you have your Y(s) = H(s)X(s), where Y is your output and X is your input with transfer function H, you can then recover your input by simply dividing Y(s) by your transfer function, H(s). Then just take the inverse Laplace transform to get you back to the time domain. As long as no signal aliasing has occurred, you should be back to your original input.

So over-simplifying the engineering design process, all you theoretically need to do is to determine the H(s) that is being applied due to the lens, and you can then apply an inverse transformation to the resultant output to recover your input.

Of course, the actual solutions for such a distortion correction problem may not be as straight-forward as I have described, but the idea behind it should be sound.

Having worked in a company whose bread-and-butter business is now digital image projection, I know that digital image correction is used in industry and produces very pleasing results.

The fact of the matter is that you can save a lot of engineering design effort by leveraging the computing power of today's software and hardware. (And in certain industries, even huge savings in manufacturing costs can be realized with the lightened accuracy and precision requirements).

So it's really not all bad, in my opinion. The key thing to note is that the algorithms to digitally correct for distortion is not done by a graphics artist sitting in front of Photoshop tweaking image settings until a favourable result is achieved, and then his work-flow automated into your digital camera body. Rather, the correction is most probably done by an engineer who knows to some extent the mathematical distortion that is occurring such that he or she can solve for the inverse system and apply that mathematically to the resultant image.

And mathematically, it doesn't take much effort or space to store transformation information. In simple cases, all you need is a matrix.

The encouraging thing about this is that math is usually not as subjective as a human being tweaking settings in Photoshop or Lightroom. For all practical engineering purposes, 1.0 + 1.0 always equals 2.0, sin(pi) always equals 0, and sqrt(-1) always equals j (hello, we're engineers, i is current).