I've noticed a disturbing trend by certain web developers to host their site's images on flickr. This is a HORRIBLE idea in so many ways so if you're thinking of using flickr to serve up your static images consider the following:

1. Flickr is an evolving service.  This means that there will be downtime, system upgrades and perhaps even changing URLs.  All of which can lead to slow load times or even broken links.

2. Flickr is public facing.  What I mean by this is that they're a self-described photo sharing web-site where most people use the flickr site to browse and manage photos.  A ramification of this is that if your site gets dugg all those hosted image requests are going to hammer the flickr site and perhaps slow down all the "real" flickr users which can in turn lead to your account being banned.  It's in flickr's best interest to watch out for it's main users, NOT for people using it as a way to get around bandwidth restrictions.

3. Annoying for users.  I came across this one today.  Someone had a series of screen shots in their blog and I wanted to see one full size, so like I've done a hundred times I clicked on the image.  Usually you expect to see a larger version of the image but this time I ended up on flickr, showing me an even smaller thumbnail.  To see the full-size version I had to actually log in to flickr and then click on "All Sizes".  This was highly annoying and a very poor user experience.

If you are really looking for a good off-site static image host so you're not blowing your monthly bandwidth allocation try a service that was actually meant for it.  My suggestion would be Amazon's S3 service.  It was actually meant for exactly this type of thing and their rates are very reasonable, probably  under a buck most months.

Flickr is an awesome photo sharing and exploring site, but it makes much more sense to use it for actual photos.

Gizmodo recently ran something I was just thinking I wanted to see, an Apple TV vs. XBox 360 showdown.  Gizmodo is one of those sites that has a bunch of different contributing news bloggers and I'd say at least 70% of them are highly biased in some fashion, with most of their "news" coming off as impassioned mini-editorials about a single product.  That's why I was impressed with how balanced the comparison between the 360 and Apple TV was.  If you're in the market for an Apple TV but are also open to a 360 give it read though.

I would actually like to see a comparison of Apple TV vs. the native photo, music and video streaming abilities of the XBox 360.  I'm pretty sure most people would consider the Apple TV UI the winner in that one but I'm interested in functionality at that point.

Another thing missing in the Gizmodo showdown was that lack of mention that you can also use the XBox 360 + MCE as a DVR, which you can't do with Apple TV.

Spoiler: XBox 360 is declared the winner by a slim margin.

Thomas Hawk, a new Mac convert, has recently been praising all things Apple.  That's why I was pleasantly surprised to see a level-headed assessment of Apple's new media extender, Apple TV.

I agree with all of his points and then some.  It was nice to see his tip of the hat towards Media Center and using the XBox 360 as an extender.  He mentioned that he never really planned on using his 360 as a game console but found some game joy none the less, which helps debunk the myth that the XBox is only for the "hardcore gamer".

It used to be that the desktop ruled the computer landscape.  Servers were for large corporations while laptops were the province of rich college kids and sales creatures.  I see all of that changing, the future belongs to the laptop and the consumer-level home server.  We're already seeing more and more laptops and I know of small software companies where everyone is on a laptop, even those that never take them of off their desk.  I've seen households where the only person on a desktop is the nerdling, tinkering husband and even he usually also has a laptop.

They make sense as they are small, sleek and easily attach to a docking station for when you want a full size keyboard and multiple monitors.  The price difference between a similar equipped laptop and desktop are getting smaller everyday as is the gap between performance.  My HP dv9000 laptop screams compared to all the desktop machines at home or at the office.

There are some obvious limitations, one being the hardcore gamer's need for a top of the line video card.  There are some pretty beefy gaming laptops out there, though they are rather pricey.  As an alternative I see the external video card gaining traction.  A laptop plus external video is still easier to lug around than a full desktop unit to various gaming sessions plus you lose all those pesky cooling issues if it's in it's own housing.

Another laptop issue is expansion and storage.  That's where the consumer-level home server comes into play.  I see a future of small, headless servers that sit in a closet or a bookshelf somewhere with one, two or ten external hard drives all offering up terabytes of storage.  With the promise of remote access you are never more than a WiFi connection away from all your stored media, regardless of where you are in the world.

I'm hoping that some smart hardware vendor out there actually takes this home-server concept and runs with it.  For example I'm a huge fan of Western Digital's My Book series of external hard-drive enclosures.  They are reliable, quiet and attractive without being overstimulating or threatening.  If Western Digital was smart they'd partner with a PC OEM and create a headless home-server using the same external case styling.  Want to get even more creative, why not partner with a TV tuner card manufacture and stuff a couple inside another My Book case?  You now have a full suite of home-server related hardware components, all of which can be chained together via USB.  Instead of a hodge-podge of various hardware cases and wires you have a single suite that looks sleek sitting on an office desk or inside a closet.  Three or four identical cases purring along doing their tasks; backing up PC's, recording TV, streaming media, routing Skype calls, serving up a web page, acting as a Subversion repository.  Easily expanded or replaced.

Consumers like things to match, it gives them a sense of security, that things will work.  They are also a lot more likely to buy the matching components than another third-party simply so they can have the full set.  I know someone out there will pick up on this, probably Sony first when Windows Home Server comes on the scene with a full suite of hardware bits but I'd hope that others will recognize that consumers do want a bit of style even in their computing.

All this being said desktops will still exist, just not in the majority.  They will probably always be cheaper, especially if building one by hand, and for some tasks a desktop still makes more sense.  These will become the exceptions though, not the rule.