triangledesbermudes.org

(Credit:
Erica Ogg/CNET)

Last week, the folks from Sling Media stopped by to give us a hands-on look at the SlingCatcher. Originally due in 2007, the long-delayed product looks to be finally ready to ship this fall. (The video below is Molly Wood’s preview of the SlingCatcher when it was reintroduced in January 2008.)

As the name suggests, the SlingCatcher is a hardware version of the SlingPlayer software that’s available for various devices. Connect the SlingCatcher to your bedroom TV, for instance, and you can access the live TV and recorded programs from your living room DVR (which, in turn, is connected to a Slingbox).

So, instead of being limited to the small-ish screens of a laptop (or even a mobile phone), you’re back to watching TV on…a TV.

The SlingCatcher can access any Slingbox that you’ve added to your Sling.com account, but the same caveats apply to it as with the software SlingPlayers. Most notably, only one client can access a given Slingbox at a time.

Bandwidth constraints apply (streaming within a home network generally looks great, but remote Slingbox resolution will be limited by upstream bandwidth at the source location). And the Slingbox monopolizes the AV source to which its connected (if you log in to your DVR and start playing Desperate Housewives while somebody’s in the living room watching football, they’ll suddenly see Eva Longoria instead of Eli Manning.

During Sling’s demo, we accessed both a SlingPlayer Pro-HD setup on our internal network, as well as a live satellite box feed from across the country. The HD source (a football game playing back on a TiVo HD) looked stunning, since it was able to use the full bandwidth of a wired network connection without traveling over the outside Internet. The remote feed, a daytime talk show, was traveling thousands of miles and compressed almost 10 times as much. As a result, it exhibited considerably more jaggies and looked like a YouTube video maximized to full screen–but it was certainly watchable. The included SlingCatcher remote was mapped to the source box, so we could change channels, access the DVR listing, play/pause and rewind–albeit all with a delay, as the signals were transmitted across the long distance.

The SlingCatcher’s ability to be a Sling viewer is certainly cool, but that’s a niche feature, to be sure. Thankfully, the box offers two other features: playback of all sorts of digital media (via the USB input) and the ability to mirror anything on a PC screen. On the media playback front, the box offers compatibility with a laundry list of non-DRM’d codecs and file formats–WMV, MPEG-2, MPEG-4, H.264, Xvid, MP2, MP3, WMA, AAC, AC3, avi, .vob, .ifo, .ps, .ts, .mpg, .wmv, .asf, .mov, .mp4,.m4v, .mp3, .wma, .mp4a, .m4a, and .wav. Drag and drop your files onto a USB storage device (hard drive, flash drive, what have you), plug it in to the Catcher, and you can use the remote to navigate to whatever file name you’d like and play it at the click of a button. (Files can also be automatically synced across the network to the attached storage device, using a method called SlingSync.)

What about those DRM files or Flash videos available on Web sites like Hulu, ABC.com, and YouTube? That’s where the SlingProjector software comes in. Run the SlingProjector software (currently Windows only), and your PC screen–or whatever portion of the screen you specify–is immediately mirrored on your TV through the SlingCatcher. On the surface, it’s a somewhat kludgy solution–you’ll pretty much need to keep a laptop on the coffee table for quick and easy access–but in practice, it worked surprisingly well.

We noted a lip-sync issue with a Hulu video, but this was, after all, a beta version of the software. On the bright side, it’s very straightforward: if you can see it on your screen, you can Sling it to your TV. That includes video from any source (including iTunes, Netflix, or anything else), photos, PowerPoint presentations–the works.

All in all, the SlingCatcher was looking smoother and more polished than the early build we’d seen at CES in January. The “compass” interface was gone, but the new menu system was straightforward and easy to navigate. It looks to be most useful for in-house access to other SlingPlayers, and as a makeshift universal media player. It may still be a bit too niche-y for mass market appeal, but–after spending less than an hour with it–we’d much rather be watching Hulu on a $300 SlingCatcher than, say, a $500 ZvBox.

We’ll have a full review (with additional photos and video) later this fall, once we get a production version of the SlingCatcher. In the meantime: do you have any interest in the SlingCatcher? If not, is there a missing “killer app” that you’d like to see added? Share your thoughts below.

Editors’ note: Sling Media and CBS (the parent company of CNET) are working together on Sling’s Clip-n-Sling project and CBS’ Interactive Audience Network.

Fear is a human emotion. It’s part of our survival mechanism–the adrenaline fight or flight response. In ancient times when a caveman felt fear, he ran and hid or readied himself for battle. Those who paid attention to their fear survived; those who didn’t, well, let’s just say their descendants probably aren’t around to read this.

Having courage does not mean ignoring fear. It means facing fear head-on and doing the right thing anyway. At least that’s my definition. If you fail to face fear and act appropriately you’re not necessarily a coward, but you’re not the best you can be either.

The most successful people on the planet are the ones who face the cold, hard truth of reality and act accordingly. They don’t surround themselves with “yes men” and they don’t view the world through rose-colored glasses.

They feel fear just like you and me. But they understand that it’s not the “be all” and “end all” of their existence. They understand that they need to face that fear and make hard decisions anyway. They’re brave.

When executives and directors act courageously, the results are evident. And when they don’t, the results are also evident.

In the Microsoft-Yahoo saga, I believe Steve Ballmer was brave. He faced the truth and saw that, while Microsoft had spared no expense and made a valiant effort to compete in the Internet space, those efforts would not be enough to ensure the continued growth of the company. That’s why its stock has languished in recent years. Analysts and smart investors know this.

So Ballmer took a bold step in moving to acquire Yahoo. He didn’t choose the easy path, since battling with Yahoo’s board and potentially its shareholders is a difficult and arduous task. Still harder will be the integration of the two companies. That’s where most mergers fail.

Win or lose, it’s a gutsy move and Ballmer was brave in making it.

Yahoo’s board of directors, on the other hand, has not acted so courageously. In June of last year, just one week after a contentious shareholder meeting, it bowed to shareholder pressure in accepting the resignation of CEO Terry Semel.

While that wasn’t necessarily the best move, it wasn’t a disaster, either. Sure, not everybody can run a company and even fewer can turn one around, but Semel wasn’t the only one, to be sure. What the board did the same day, however, was a disaster and it really surprised me. It installed the combination of Jerry Yang and Susan Decker as CEO and president respectively of the beleaguered company.

As I said at the time, Yang and Decker were poor choices. Neither had ever run a company or turned one around before. I couldn’t imagine a board being comfortable with on-the-job training of skills few possess with so much at stake.

Looking back on that decision now, I have no better inkling of what the board was thinking than I did then. In addition to being surprisingly reactive and poorly thought out, it now seems like an almost frivolous decision.

We all know what happened next. Yang did little to get the company on the right track, Ballmer made the offer, and here we are, just a few days away from Microsoft’s “take it or we’ll take it to the shareholders” deadline.

Just to reiterate what I’ve said before, Yahoo’s board is made up of smart people. That said, they’re too smart to let this turn into a proxy fight that will ultimately harm the company. In the end, the deal will get done. But smart as they are, the big mistake they made was to turn a once great company in trouble over to novices.

But remember, as I said, these are highly accomplished people. They’re no dummies. So how do you explain their actions?

In my opinion, at a crucial moment in the company’s history, Yahoo’s board stuck its head in the sand and made believe things weren’t as problematic as they were. If the members felt any concern or fear at all, they ignored it. Not only isn’t that what boards are supposed to do, it isn’t the brave thing to do, either.

I’m neither a Yahoo fan nor a Microsoft foe. But I still mourn the loss of a unique business entity that, but for the lack of a few brave people, might have survived this ordeal. After all, survival is what life is all about, isn’t it?

(Credit:
Daniel Terdiman/CNET News.com)

As Gizmodo itself reported in its initial story on the prank, “when Make offered us some TV-B-Gone clickers to bring to the show, we pretty much couldn’t help ourselves…Thanks to Phil Torrone for the gear.”

To be fair, Torrone’s bag is a production model from the Dutch firm Vlieger & Vandam, and I’m sure he’s not the only person traveling around with one. In fact, the firm makes the bag in three colors and also has one with an embossed knife.

But holy cow! What chutzpah. Especially because we all know that airport security don’t take things that make them think of weapons lightly. Witness what happened to MIT student Star Simpson when she wore a shirt with some home-made electronics built-in to the Boston airport last year.

I bet he did.

Over the years, I’ve done a number of stories about his various exploits, including Roomba Frogger at South by Southwest 2006, his laser-etching business, his jamming of TVs at a hotel in Austin, Texas, and his work in helping organize Maker Faires. Beyond that, I’ve always enjoyed talking with him, as he’s a world traveler, a top-notch intellect, and a world-class culture jammer. He’s just my kind of guy.

So all I can say is, if you happen to be heading to Austin later this week for this year’s South by Southwest conference–where I know Torrone will be–keep an eye on him. You never know what might happen.

And I’m not at all surprised. If you recall, during this year’s Consumer Electronics Show, the gadget blog Gizmodo caused a huge uproar when it ran a prank turning off TVs at the show, including those being used for a major Motorola presentation.

As Boing Boing blogger David Pescovitz put it in his entry, “Fortunately, (Torrone) made it through security with enough time to catch his flight.”

And there’s certainly one thing about Torrone that is evidenced in the things he does for fun and for work: he is not shy about pushing social and cultural boundaries. In fact, based on my personal observations of him, he kind of revels in doing so.

(Credit:
David Pescovitz/Boing Boing.net)

One of my favorite people in the world of tech culture has always been Make magazine senior editor Phil Torrone.

Gizmodo took a massive amount of flak for the prank–though its profile was also raised immeasurably–but one thing was lost in the mix.

At the ETech conference in San Diego, Torrone was spotted carrying this bag, a model from Dutch firm Vlieger & Vandam

So when I saw a Boing Boing post on Tuesday reporting that Torrone was seen at this week’s ETech conference in San Diego with a carry-on bag that has a fully formed imprint of a handgun on it, I was both shocked and not at all surprised.

‘Make’ magazine editor Phil Torrone playing with a TV-B-Gone at a hotel in Austin, Texas in October, 2006.

What I would have given, I thought, to have seen him take that bag through airport security; to see what I’m sure was his straight-faced gaze as Transportation Security Administration personnel encountered the bag.

When I read that, I had to smile, especially after the firestorm of controversy that erupted afterward, not one single bit of which was targeted at Torrone. But I knew that somewhere, he was laughing his behind off at what he had wrought.

I’m sure there are those who think his brand of humor and sense of boundaries is anti-social and even dangerous. Having been there for the Roomba Frogger episode and having read the many, many comments readers left after I wrote about it, I actually know that for a fact.

The reality is, Torrone is one of those people worth watching, no matter where he goes because he’s always up to something interesting.

But at the same time, I think that society’s conventions need a little tweaking from time to time, and it takes people with a little chutzpah to do so, people who aren’t afraid of the kind of response their actions will engender. And I also know that Torrone would never actually put anyone in danger.

(Note: some of these songs were recorded from an LP, so while their “official” length on the CD may not be 2:42, and they may not have registered as 2:42 on Muxtape, they all showed up as 2:42 in my library.)

(Credit:
Screenshot)

My Zune library has 23 songs clocking in at 2:42.

I like long songs, but As Eliot Van Buskirk over on Listening Post reports, at least two separate writers have come to the conclusion that the perfect song is short. Two minutes and 42 seconds, to be exact–the length of “There She Goes” by The La’s.

Personally, I think “La La Love You” by the Pixies (2:43) is closer to the ideal song, but my own collection does reveal a remarkable number of good songs at 2:42. Without further ado, my 2:42 Muxtape.

The Beatles–”Back in the U.S.S.R.”, The White Album

Animal Collective–”Leaf House”, Sung Tongs

Pavement–”Gold Soundz”, Crooked Rain Crooked Rain

Jack Logan–”Just Go Away”, Bulk

Frank Black–”Big Red”, Teenager of the Year

Magnetic Fields–”A Chicken With Its Head Cut Off”, 69 Love Songs

Neko Case–”Fox Confessor Brings the Flood”, Fox Confessor…

Johnny Cash–”Folsom Prison Blues”, Johnny Cash At Folsom Prison

X–”Motel Room In My Bed”, Beyond & Back

The Pretenders–”Stop Your Sobbing”, The Pretenders

Otis Redding–”Ole Man Trouble”, The Best Of Otis Redding

Elmer Bernstein–”The Street (Main Theme)”, Crime Jazz: Music in the First Degree

Satellite radio is the same exact radio as anything ClearChannel pumps out, but you’re forced to pay for it and it’s not regulated by the FCC. Aside from that, you can listen to both company’s content in your
car or at home.

Unfortunately, you can bet ClearChannel Radio and other terrestrial monsters have something do with it.

Let’s hope that happens soon.

What exactly is so bad about the XM-Sirius merger? Some critics say the company, as the only provider of satellite radio, could jack prices up to finally move into the black. And while that is always a concern to some, the two companies have already published postmerger pricing plans and believe it or not, it’ll actually cost you less to enjoy satellite radio. Ironic, eh?

Yesterday on CNET News.com, my colleague Richard Derfendorf wrote about the impending decision on the part of the FCC to either allow or deny the merger between XM radio and Sirius Satellite radio.

Competition is not only measured by the number of companies in a market, but by the customers available to use different services. As far as I’m concerned, the smallest radio station in your area is just as much a competitor to Sirius as XM. Why? Because you have every right in the world to listen to both. The only difference is that you’re forced to pay for satellite.

As it stands, XM and Sirius on their own are performing poorly. Sure, Howard Stern has helped Sirius increase subscribers to a healthy level, but the company’s current cash outlay to maintain the business are simply too high. The same can be said for XM.

But as the days wear on and more pressure is being placed on the FCC to make a decision, the more likely it is to finally give in.

Next, and most importantly, deal detractors say that the merger would create an environment where this single company would control all facets of the industry and the lack of competition would mean, gasp, a monopoly that’s in violation of section 7 of the Clayton Act that clearly states that no merger should be approved if competition is substantially lessened.

Of course, that assertion is not only sadly misguided, but those who espouse that belief fail to look at the big picture.

Realizing this, some have said that the lack of competition could produce a situation where all of the radios that have been improved at such a rapid rate will suddenly turn to crap as the companies have no reason to produce nicer radios. Talk about grasping at straws.

According to Derfendorf, the FCC is “inching closer” to making a decision on the deal and does not look “as daunting” as it once did. He went on to explain that some analysts believe the long wait (a little over 400 days) is actually working in the satellite companies’ favor.

At its very core, a merger between XM and Sirius has nothing to do with a monopoly and everything to do with increasing the very competition that detractors are trying to rail against.

And while all that may be true, there’s something going on behind the scenes that shouldn’t be overlooked. The fact that XM and Sirius were forced to wait this long to finally receive a decision is both ridiculous and just plain wrong.

How can anyone with common sense possibly say that the only competitor facing Sirius right now is XM and the only competitor facing XM is Sirius? Aren’t both services competing for the same listeners as those who might listen to Rush Limbaugh or Jim Rome? Isn’t it possible that those same listeners may also decide to listen to XM or Sirius personalities?

But if these two companies finally merge, they could reduce overhead expenses, leverage assets far more efficiently and finally compete in an incredibly competitive market. And to say that there’s no competition in the satellite radio game is simply false.

There is no reason why XM and Sirius were forced to wait this long for the merger to be approved. Unfortunately, it looks like the FCC, which is notorious for its desire for control, wants nothing more than to make sure this deal is denied unless major radio enterprises OK it and it can exert influence on the content.

Although we believe that we have complied with our obligations under the various applicable licenses for open source software that we use such that we have not triggered any such conditions, there is little or no legal precedent governing the interpretation of many of the terms of certain of these licenses, and therefore the potential impact of these terms on our business is somewhat unknown and may result in unanticipated obligations regarding our products and technologies.

VMware seems to be dancing around the elephant in the room: its controversial use of Linux in its proprietary hypervisor technology. It’s interesting that the company, which has refused to comment publicly on these specific allegations, is content to serve up a blanket advisory in its 10-Q.

commentary

For example, we may be subjected to certain conditions, including requirements that we offer our products that use the open source software for no cost [Asay note: VMware legal team: Time to brush up on your understanding of open-source licensing - this is blatantly false], that we make available source code for modifications or derivative works we create based upon, incorporating or using the open source software and/or that we license such modifications or derivative works under the terms of the particular open source license.

If our defenses were not successful, we could be subject to significant damages, enjoined from the distribution of our products that contained the open source software and required to comply with the foregoing conditions, which could disrupt the distribution and sale of some of our products.

It is customary for public companies to overstate risks to their businesses in an effort to forestall shareholder lawsuits. Better safe than sorry, seems to be the thinking.

A significant portion of the products or technologies acquired, licensed or developed by us may incorporate so-called “open source” software, and we may incorporate open source software into other products in the future….We monitor our use of open source software in an effort to avoid subjecting our products to conditions we do not intend.

In addition, if we combine our proprietary software with open source software in a certain manner, under some open source licenses we could be required to release the source code of our proprietary software, which could substantially help our competitors develop products that are similar to or better than ours.

If an author or other third party that distributes such open source software were to allege that we had not complied with the conditions of one or more of these licenses, we could be required to incur significant legal expenses defending against such allegations. [Asay note: Or you could simply contribute the code as per the license rather than fighting it out in court.]

VMware has been publicly chastised for allegedly violating the GPL in its proprietary vmkernel technology. Now, in VMware’s most recent quarterly report, the company calls out widespread use of open-source software in its products.

Our use of “open source” software could negatively affect our ability to sell our products and subject us to possible litigation.

We have established processes to help alleviate these risks, including a review process for screening requests from our development organizations for the use of open source, but we cannot be sure that all open source software is submitted for approval prior to use in our products. In addition, many of the risks associated with usage of open source, such as the lack of warranties or assurances of title, cannot be eliminated, and could, if not properly addressed, negatively affect our business. [Asay note: Additional paragraph breaks added to make it easier to read.]

In addition to risks related to license requirements, usage of open source software can lead to greater risks than use of third party commercial software, as open source licensors generally do not provide warranties or assurance of title or controls on origin of the software.

The developer community hasn’t been amused by VMware’s use of embedded Linux in its hypervisor technology. Why not call out specifically why VMware feels it is in compliance with the GPL?

If I were a VMware shareholder, I’d want clarity. The company suggests that it’s complying with all open-source licenses, to the best of its knowledge. If this is true, it’s perhaps time for the company to put those claims to a public sniff test.

Even so, I find it fascinating to see the extent of VMware’s admission to using open-source software in its products, especially in light of the criticism noted above. Here is the relevant section of VMware’s 10-Q in its (near-) entirety:

Software vendors of the world, take note: Red Hat has just demonstrated a truly open-source friendly way to tackle patent lawsuits. In settling a patent lawsuit with DataTern and Amphion Innovations PLC, Red Hat protected its short-term interests in the JBoss software. But it also went much further.

Unlike other patent deals (Read: Every single one that Microsoft has signed), which try to create a walled garden of protection for the signing parties, Red Hat opted to go much broader:

No, Red Hat isn’t completely out of the woods on patent lawsuits. It is still fighting IP Innovation’s suit, but it at least has shown us how it intends to fight the patent threat to open source (and all software).

commentary

This is how to do a patent agreement. It’s how an open-source friendly company works with patents. Consider it a primer for the rest of us.

In case you missed that, Red Hat’s policy protects upstream and downstream users of its software, regardless of whether they signed a patent agreement with Red Hat. Red Hat competitors like Novell benefit. Red Hat customers benefit. The open-source community at large benefits.

“Typically when a company settles a patent lawsuit, it focuses on getting safety for itself,” said Rob Tiller, Vice President and Assistant General Counsel, IP [Red Hat]. “But that was not enough for us, we wanted broad provisions that covered our customers, who place trust in us, and the open source community, whose considerable efforts benefit our business.”

The free Music Genome Project-based service, which is fast gaining a cult following similar to that of Apple products for its simple user interface and innovative edge in music consumption, is sure to present some serious competition to iTunes on any mobile device.

Sure, Pandora technically is Apple-friendly, letting users bookmark songs they hear on their customized radio stations, then buy them through iTunes. But when you’ve customized your “Paul Simon Radio” station to the point that you consistently hear more songs you really like–and ones you’ll grow to love–through natural Pandora play than through listening to songs in your iTunes library in shuffle mode, there isn’t much of a compelling reason to pay to further clutter your handset memory with more tunes.

Which will come first to the iPhone: Pandora or an Apple-branded music subscription service?

Is there a connection within Apple’s executive ranks? Perhaps not. But it seems logical that Apple would want to endorse its own subscription service before enabling a popular Flash-reliant music service such as Pandora to grace its mobile hardware.

(Credit:
Pandora Media)

It’s no surprise that Pandora users are excited about the idea of using the service, through which users can hone what they hear by suggesting artists and songs, and giving a thumbs-up or thumbs-down (or bookmark) to any song they hear, on the
iPhone and
iPod Touch.

So it’s interesting to me that the same day Adobe CEO Shantanu Narayen is publicly pushing the idea of Flash compatibility for the iPhone, we hear rumors of Apple negotiating with the record labels to create an all-you-can-eat subscription service for the iPod and iPhone.

Months later, other users chimed in on the comments thread: “Pandora and the iPhone were made for each other,” Bill said in August. “I NEED PANDORA ON MY IPHONE…I’m dying…Please design a simple interface that can be accessed online by iPhone–or a plugin, as per the YouTube/iPhone setup. Apple better help,” Rab said in September.

Apple may have many reasons for preventing Flash applications to work on the iPhone and iPod Touch, but I can’t think of one more compelling than Pandora.

“I would pay for this service,” Ben Grey said. “Pandora on an iPhone would make me buy both! The iPhone already has the car interface and unlimited data plans. All we need is a compatible Web app. Please, please, please!” Thomas W. Watson said.

“Only problem with Pandora on iPhone is that iPhone doesn’t support Flash,” user Jase commented on the Pandora blog in June, referring to the
Mac maker’s resistance to letting its mobile iteration of the Safari browser support the Adobe Systems technology, upon which Pandora’s service relies. “Maybe Pandora can come up with an iPhone-compatible interface. Now that would really rock!”

You get the idea: in terms of common enthusiasts, at least, this would be such a good match that Apple must be thinking to itself, gee, maybe we can create a Pandora-like magic for the iPhone on our own. And charge for it. After all, though recent research indicates that having a sheer scale of users helps iTunes generate a decent amount of cash, CEO Steve Jobs says iTunes–as well as the App Store–is not set up to make money.

The hard drive will not die. Let’s get this on the record now, at the beginning of 2008, because readers may see a fair number of stories proclaiming its demise. Though Friday’s Intel-Micron high-speed flash memory announcement points to increasing use of solid state drives (SSDs) in digital products, flash is chasing prey that has eluded imminent death for years. SSDs are gaining acceptance selectively not broadly. SSDs in standard notebooks? No. And even if you’re, for instance, a PC vendor trying to compete in the ultra-thin notebook market, chances are you will still opt in most cases for a 1.8-inch drive or even a slim 2.5-inch drive like Toshiba uses in its Portege R500 subnotebooks. The SSD option will either be an asterisk or come at a high premium. Look no further than the Apple MacBook Air: priced at $1,800 with a hard drive and $3,100 with the SSD. Granted, the pricier Air comes with a few more extras like a faster Intel chip but the SSD option provides less storage, 64GB versus 80GB for the hard drive. The price gap is just as pronounced on Hewlett-Packard’s HP Compaq 2510p subnotebook, where the price jumps $909 for an SSD from a 80GB drive.

The new high-speed NAND from Intel and Micron can reach speeds up to 200 megabytes per second (MB/s) for reading data and 100 MB/s for writing data, achieved by leveraging the new ONFI 2.0 specification, which allows double-data-rate (DDR) signaling, among other tricks, to speed things up, according to Micron. The NAND design also uses a four-plane architecture with higher clock speeds beating conventional single level cell NAND that is limited to 40 MB/s for reading data and less than 20 MB/s for writing data, Micron said. When used in a hybrid hard drive (i.e., a hard drive paired with flash memory), high-speed NAND can allow the system to read and write data anywhere between two or four times the speed of conventional hard drives, Micron claims.

(Credit: Micron Technology)

SSD versus HDD: SSD’s technological advantages are fairly compelling. Faster access times, no moving parts, low power requirements, and less heat. One disadvantage, however, is limited write cycles. That is, flash drives can eventually “wear out” after hundreds of thousands of write cycles. File systems that spread the write over the device can extend the life cycle but it’s still an issue. HDDs principal advantage for the foreseeable future will be capacity coupled with price. A $1,000 64GB SSD or a $100 (or less) 120GB HDD? In standard notebooks this price-capacity SSD-HDD gap is even larger, as mainstream notebooks come standard with 160GB drives now. Though prices for NAND are falling.

Micron said that it is sampling the flash product now to some major OEMs and enablers and expects production to start in the second half of 2008.

The magazine notes that guys are natural gadget lovers and with Apple’s sales soaring, “more men than ever are stopping by Apple boutiques.”

Not a
Mac lover, not to worry. Another of the magazine’s recommendations is going to work for a tech company. More than a fifth of workers meet their spouse on the job, the magazine notes, adding that Cisco Systems is 78 percent male, while Hewlett-Packard’s workforce is 68 percent men.

I’m not sure this is what Ron Johnson had in mind when he set out to create Apple’s chain of retail stores, but recently the shops unexpectedly topped a list of hot spots.

“The vibe at the stores is conducive to man meeting too: You can check your email among cuties, take a free workshop on anything from Photoshop to podcasting (a great opportunity to strike up a conversation), or just survey the, ahem, good-looking merchandise,” Cosmo concludes.

Cosmo says that if you are looking to meet a man, you can’t do much better than heading to your nearest Apple store.

The article would appear to suggest that geeks could be faring better than ever in the social scene, though the weight room at the gym was also on the list. So perhaps it still takes brains and brawn.