The all brand-new Samsung Galaxy Tab has actually made a point that Android tablets does not have to be released that ugly compared to the standalone rival, the Apple iPad2. Looking at it right off the bat, the tablet shows off a sparkling design of a sparkling looking screen, an appropriate battery and a very durable video as well as audio playback.

However most of all, its is incredibly relaxed to hold specifically by having its back cover. In spite of its limited connection, you can easily not assist however understand that software fault is entirely within the Android apps. But the OS is moving forward to transform and make improvements.

You can easily not aid however view exactly how such a Samsung tablet can be so much comparable to the iPad 2. Whenever you consider one, it is the thing that promptly pops in your head. Apart from its sparkling and massive ten point one inch screen display, the powerful Honeycomb three point one operating system from Android shows that this is the finest thing however that Android needs to provide.

Apple’s iOS may be rejoicing its solely structured as well as controlled system but the Honeycomb version of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 is haltering any laughter from the rival placing Samsung in serious contention. Finest think, Samsung is the only product so far that boasts the greatest Android powered tablet in the heavily occupied tablet market.

The unveiling of the new item signals a flare warning to Apple which is has a remarkably major competitor from the additional end ready to take the challenge. For such a fantastic device, it loads an extremely thin as well as slim design. At eight point 6 millimeters thick as well as 5 hundred sixty five grams light it is extremely compact and light-weight compared to the iPad2. You may not notice much about the changes visually until you hold onto it.

John Sanders writes news and reviews for a popular technology site. Visit it now for more details on the Galaxy Tab, as well as all the latest technology news and reviews.

Are we becoming slaves to the “like” button, the retweet and the thumbs up — and now the Google+ “plus one” button? In a recent piece in the Wall Street Journal, writer Neil Strauss argues that we are, and that all of this implicit and explicit voting that takes place in social networks is encouraging a kind of vicious conformity. We no longer reveal our true selves online, he says, because so many of us are obsessed with judging our conduct based on whether it is approved by our friends, followers or social graph. But is that true? And if so, is it social networking’s fault?

Strauss argues that widespread use of social-networking features such as the “like” button, the retweet and the +1 button that is part of the new Google+ are effectively training us to only respond to things that have become popular — and to govern our own behavior so that it gets more likes and retweets, which he says effectively suppresses any unusual or controversial opinion in favor of the mainstream or predictable.

Just as stand-up comedians are trained to be funny by observing which of their lines and expressions are greeted with laughter, so too are our thoughts online molded to conform to popular opinion by these buttons. A status update that is met with no likes (or a clever tweet that isn’t retweeted) becomes the equivalent of a joke met with silence.

A real-time version of high school

The result of all this, Strauss says, is that “we don’t show our true selves online, but a mask designed to conform to the opinions of those around us.” To the Wall Street Journal writer, the Internet used to be a “liberation from conformity” that was eventually hijacked by advertising and commerce, and has now been turned into a giant, real-time version of high school, in which we all seek approval by tailoring our behavior and the way we look to the preconceptions of the group.

“Like” culture is antithetical to the concept of self-esteem, which a healthy individual should be developing from the inside out rather than from the outside in. Instead, we are shaped by our stats, which include not just “likes” but the number of comments generated in response to what we write and the number of friends or followers we have.

Is Strauss right in his fear of the “tyranny of the like button?” I would say yes and no — but mostly no. Not that what the author is describing doesn’t exist, because I think it does. Anyone who has spent any time blogging, or on Twitter or Facebook (or any one of a dozen other online discussion forums and websites) has probably felt the same way at times: wondering why something they posted didn’t get more attention, and thinking about ways to draw more eyeballs or comments or likes.

Always be closing

Dave Pell, a veteran blogger and technology entrepreneur, wrote a great post about this very phenomenon not too long ago, in which he described how social networking and living huge parts of our lives online can result in a pressure to judge ourselves by how many votes or tweets or likes we get — which he compared to the famous line from the movie (and play) Glengarry Glen Ross: “Always be closing.”

When I post a photo of my two year-old daughter on Facebook, I expect likes. I expect comments about how cute she is. And if I don’t get them, I consider the sales-effort to be a failure. Maybe it’s my camera skills. Maybe the timing of my posts is off. Or maybe it’s my two year-old. Sure, everyone in my family likes to think she’s the cutest little button in the whole wide world. But the numbers don’t lie.

Do we all feel a subtle — or not so subtle — pressure to conform because of the explosion of features and services that allow people to vote on what we produce? Sure we do. If I post a photo on Instagram, I want it to get a lot of comments and “likes,” and if I post something I think is funny or smart on Twitter, I like to see it get retweeted a lot. And if I write a blog post (like this one, for example) I would love to see lots of comments, and a big number next to the tweet button and the Facebook like button.

I’m not sure this is something terribly new, though, or that social networking is to blame. Strauss seems to contrast our current era with some mythical period when the Internet was a bastion of non-conformity and everyone was entitled to their own point of view, or when we were all free to “show our true selves online.” I’ve got news for the Wall Street Journal writer though: there was no such time. For the most part, people have always promoted a less-than-true or idealized version of themselves online — just as they try to do in the real world. Social networks may have amplified this, but it has always occurred.

We all create versions of ourselves

Sociologists have described at length how users of social networks and other online worlds create personas for themselves that are either entirely fake (i.e., a different sex or a different background) or at least partially fake, in that they portray a much better version of themselves than they would otherwise — which is just one reason why so many online-only relationships disintegrate when the two people involved meet “in real life.”

And while the online world may seem a lot like high school in that we are all feeling the pressure to conform, that could be said of the real world too — why else would so many people wear clothes they hate, pretend to like sports they can’t stand, or laugh at a joke that isn’t funny simply because their boss told it?

Strauss is right, however, that bowing to this kind of pressure — submitting to the tyranny of the like button — can be bad in a lot of ways. If it encourages people to submerge the things they are really passionate about and not take chances for fear of not being accepted, then that’s probably not good. Dave Pell describes how a venture he started recently called Delivereads (which sends long-form articles to your Kindle) didn’t get much traction when he launched it, and this caused him to doubt whether it was a good idea or not. But he persevered with it, and tried not to think about how many hits it was getting or not getting.

So is there a subtle or even overt pressure exerted by all the like buttons and retweeting we see around us? Sure there is. But it wasn’t invented by social networking, and it won’t disappear even if we get rid of Twitter and Facebook. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to resist that pressure to conform — it just means we should be aware that it’s part of the way human beings operate, whether they are online or not.

Post and thumbnail photos courtesy of Flickr user Gabrie Coletti

Related content from GigaOM Pro (subscription req’d):

• Players and Strategies for Real-Time In-Stream Advertising
• A Media Tablet Forecast, 2011 – 2015
• Finding the Value in Social Media Data

alt=''
border='0'
/>

GigaOM — Tech News, Analysis and Trends

Because the auction house did not see the portrait to be anything but a knockoff of a 17th century Rembrandt, the price was set at only $3,100. Paying 1,500 times more than that was a British buyer who apparently knew what he was doing at the time. An English auction house sold the Rembrandt Laughing, which experts authenticated to be a self portrait done by the Dutch master depicted with his head tilted back in easygoing laughter, for a bargain price of four and a half million.

One collector specializing in Dutch and Flemish masters was surprised that the piece did not go for a higher price at the auction because such artwork could have easily went for $30 to $40 million.It was according to the art expert from Sotheby’s that the value of the painting could not be changed. When it comes to the works of Rembrandt they only come on the market every couple of years so this is such a rare opportunity. Further information on Photo To Painting can be found there.

In his hometown of Leiden was where Rembrandt painted the self portrait and he was in his early 20s then in 1628. Expressions became his focus during this time when he was already earning his reputation as an artist and he made use of a mirror and his face. You could say that it has an unbelievable presence. It was the light as well as the laughter which were in their most natural form.

About 100 years was how long the painting had been in the possession of an English family. Either it was one of Rembrandt’s students or it was his imitator. When it comes to the low evaluation given by the auction house, to blame are poor photographs that may have shown little of the painting’s luminosity or depth. There was a 23 page analysis that supports the claim that Rembrandt was indeed the creator of the art work when the brush stroke, monogram, contour, and materials all point to him.

Considering the rare style used by the artist for a year or so, the winner of the auction might have known that the painting was a genuine Rembrandt from the monogram RHL. For the monogram, it meant Rembrandt Harmenszoon of Leiden. What the auction house recorded in its assessment was the signature HL. More convincing are these initials for they were painted onto the background and the direction of the brush strokes match another one of Rembrandt’s monograms. For top-quality resources on Photos To Painting make sure to visit them.

When it comes to the shape of the body of the laughing Rembrandt the experts were baffled. There was little definition of the anatomy below other than it having a woolly blanket for clothing, lying in lumpy folds, and the metal armor and glossy shirt appearing amorphous. In his other works he also used the same distinct contour he applied here. It is possible that Rembrandt was trying out a new way of painting the body for the contour had a certain autonomy to it.

When it comes to the thin copper plate on which the piece is painted, it matches the size and type of others used in the paintings of Rembrandt. When it comes to the xrays, the piece has a second painting underneath and this is consistent with other paintings by Rembrandt. Before 1800 no one knew where the painting had been and during this time a Flemish engraver did not realize that the face in the picture was Rembrandt’s when he made a reproductive print and he attributed the original to the Dutch painter Frans Hals. What followed was silence and then the painting was again lost.

A little update on Conan O’Brien, seeing as though we spent a couple of days there talking about his every move. The man is taking his show on the road, bringing the funny to a city near you in the coming weeks! It’s the called “The Legally Prohibited From Being Funny On Television Tour,” and I’m sure it’ll be wonderful.

Conan made the announcement on Twitter a few hours ago, but there’s really not a whole lot of info. Presumably it’ll be the things you know and love from the show, but in a Broadway-like setting.

The show begins touring in April, kicking off in Eugene, Oregon, which could be the strangest place to kick off a tour I’ve ever seen. Good for Coco.

They’re in New York on June 1 and June 2. Do I go or not go?

Back in November, former TBWA\Chiat\Day creative Ken Segal said that Steve Jobs‘ original name for the iMac would “curdle your blood.” I guessed Macternet, but according to this account, that wasn’t blood-curdling enough. Jobs’ alleged proposal was a lot worse:

Our sources claim that the name that Steve Jobs wanted was… MacMan. At the time, the name was being used by another company, called Midiman. They manufactured the MacMan, a serial-to-MIDI adapter with one input, three outputs, a serial passthrough switch, and MIDI indicator LEDs. According to this account, Apple came to them with an offer for the name, but Midiman’s owner thought they didn’t offered enough ruby rupees. He declined Apple’s offer.

If this is true—and it rings real to me—I’m glad the owner declined. Just imagine if they called that bondi blob the MacMan. We would still be hearing the echoes of the worldwide laughter.

For the same reasons, I hope they don’t go with Apple iSlate (Apple Is Late?). It’s not as bad as MacMan, but it’s almost there.

One thing that all people have is their emotions.  On some people these emotions are more easily displayed.  For some emotions it is good.Some people display emotions such as happiness and excitement and laughter.Other people show anger and sadness more. Most people experience these emotions but sometimes they get out of hand. Anger is one of these emotions.

As you have read in this article anger can be dangerous and detrimental to family life. In my practice doing anger management in San Diego I have seen the effects it can have on a family. It could make staying with that person very very uncomfortable for the people staying with him/her. It makes everyone around the person afraid and be aloof with that person. It can turn what is supposed to be a place of safety into a negative place. That place of safety is home life. 

It may be surprising but anger sometimes stems from an emotional issue like depression. Whatever the case may be a person might be in a depressed mode. Often times it leads to anger when some problems seem unsolvable or there is no way out. That is why I advice everyone feeling depression to seek a depression counselor. It is best to stop something before it escalates into something worse. After all it might not lead to anger but maybe to something worse where they hurt themselves. 

Whatever the case may be these two emotions should be dealt with seriously. If you let either of the two emotions get the best of you and do not seek help then it will definitely get worse.It can ruin your family. It can ruin relationships.  Being a family therapist in San Diego I stress the importance of good relationships in family life. So I stress to you that any kind of emotional issues be dealt with immediately. Sometimes it is hard to go to someone for help. But this would prove to be very helpful in the long run especially for the person affected.