What is WRONG with people? The iPad is a product. It is a voluntary purchase. Yet, the vitriol is incredible.
First, Yes, I bought one.
For what purpose?
For me....:
1) web browsing
2) book reading
3) expense reports
4) email
5) planner
6) games
7) watch movies
8) listen to music
9) view and edit photos
10)finances
11) remote desktop
12) note taking with synchronized voice recording.
Now let's break down web browsing. Note that Adobe Flash is not supported on i-anything.
1-eBay
2-craigslist
3-Anything that doesn't require flash.
4-This blog.........and on and on and on.
Here is the kicker - all this in a hand held form factor. About 1.5 pounds. Instant on...no bootup wait. 10 hour battery life. Perfectly executed touchscreen. For me, it takes the iPod touch and makes it useful.
Over 90% of the time I used to spend on a pc is now spent on the iPad.
Do I wish that this little marvel could function for my complete computer needs? Heck yes I do!!! It is all the more frustrating because this thing is so close to being able to do just that. Yet, it is a huge step forward. Remember, it was this company that pushed us all from the world of the command line to the world of the graphical user interface. Sooner or later, I think we will see high horsepower tablets that can do CAD, run Photo Shop, rip music and movies, edit video, and play the latest games.
Now, to the insanity.
I have seen articles that have
Accused users of the iPad of
1) Being Apple Fanboi's (what is fan boy too mundane????)
2) Being narcissisists
3) Being unintelligent
4) Being a mind slave to Steve Jobs.
5) Being anti open source.
6) Being unkind people.
I have also seen much mud slung the other way as well.
Just how did I end up with one? What made me decide to purchase one.
I had a Sony Reader. I had started getting books on it. I had placed all of my technical literature on it. I liked it a lot too. Then one day, I took it out to read a book I had just downloaded. The e-ink cells had ruptured in the screen turning it black. I sent it back to Sony to be repaired. The next day, I had to drive to St. Louis on a business trip. I stopped near Huntington,WV for supper. There was a Best Buy there. I went in considering purchasing a second Sony reader. I had heard of the iPad. (this was three days after launch in April) I was doubtful. I went to see it just out of curiosity. Obviously, I liked what I saw. Now, I have the Sony back. My wife has it, but she not so secretly lusts after my iPad. I have bought ebooks from numerous sources. They are all in Ibooks. If you know that you aren't supposed to be able to do that, ask me no questions. (if I sound a bit smug, I am. I BUY the books. I will NOT be told what I can and cannot do with it. Screw DRM. By the same token, don't pirate the book. That is why the DRM weed was able to sprout in all forms of media digital.)
Try one if you are interested. Best Buy in Lynchburg, Va and in Christiansburg, Va have them. The Roanoke Best Buy is so abysmal that I wonder if they will ever get them. Try it, if you like it enough, buy one. If not then don't. I like it. It fits my needs well. Is there any need to insult me because of it?
- Posted using The dark side of the shwartz.
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Rights and Healthcare
What is a right? Can you define it? Most of us have an amorphous idea of rights. I tend to be more libertarian with a couple of kinks thrown in here and there. To have complete liberty, one must be alone on an island somewhere. Then one can do whatever one wishes and will bear the responsibility and the consequences of ones choices. It is on the island that you will find the only intrinsic absolute. One has the here and now and one's past. That is IT! One has the right to make decisions that affect one's life, and one bears the consequences of those decisions. Add another person to the island. Now the stronger overall will rule the weaker to the extent of the strength of the stronger, the desire to influence of the stronger, and the tolerance of the weaker. The strength of which I speak is not necessarily physical, but it can be. Now what are the rights of each? They are each still bound by the intrinsic absolute of the decision of the moment. They still each bear the consequences. If the weaker follows the stronger and the stronger makes a bad decision, the weaker does bear the consequences of the bad decision made by the stronger. However, those consequences flow back further to the decision to submit to the stronger.
I listen to many of the conservative pundits. I agree with much of what they have to say. However, I start to get real angry when they start shoveling the rights by God horse manure. Now I am in no way an atheist. What I am is attentive to the most fundamental thing my religion states. Free Will. There are things that God wants of us, but he is hands off. For Pat Robertsons and Falwells that claim that some natural disaster is Devine retribution for some failing as a society, guys...who made YOU gods? Who are YOU to sit in judgement? For you Islamic adherents that like to use force to spread the message of Allah, I ask you this. Is Allah such an effeminate deity that he can't take care of things such as judgement for himself? God is hands off. Furthermore, if we distill it down to an issue of a decision in a moment, not even an atheist can argue. What we have beyond the intrinsic NOW are rights created by civilization.
Free speech, right to bear arms, searches and seizures are all rights created by our American Society. Does our being cry out for these freedoms? Perhaps, but that does not mitigate the fact that they are enjoyed because we value them as a people. This makes our rights all the more fragile - all the more precious.
So do you have a right to healthcare? If you are alone on the island, how does that work? There may be a civil right to healthcare if the society as a whole deems it so. However, societal rights are even more complex than the simple case of two people on an island. Now we have millions and millions. Let's look at a case of freedom of speech in society.
I have a freedom of speech. However, I am not on a desert island. How does my freedom of speech interplay with someone else's right to be secure in their person? If one has an absolute right of freedom of speech then one can threaten and intimidate. The other party has no recourse. However, by the same token, one can not have absolute security in their person. That would mean that any speech that made them angry or uncomfortable must be squelched. As a rule, the borderland between rights tends to be on a physical level. I can call you a dumb ass, but I can't threaten to physically harm you. I can tell others that I think you are stupid, but I may not tell falsehoods about you to cause damage to your standing amongst other men.
Let's look at another thing that some call a right. That thing is healthcare.
Healthcare is a product. It is a service. Should it be a right? That is for society as a whole to decide and for individuals to decide whether or not that will stand. Consider this. Unlike other rights that we have, healthcare IS a product and a service. This means that another human must labor to provide healthcare to someone. Labor and Invention are rooted in time. Time is a finite thing for any individual. To assert a right to a product or service is to assert a right to someones time. If a product or service is a right, then the person providing it has no choice but to provide the product or service. So now one person has the right to take part of someone's life. Is this where we want to go? Perhaps you say it is not healthcare but access....... We already have that. If you can pay the price that the provider requests, you can have any procedure you want. Do you call that evil? Why?
Do you say that the doctors and nurses will be paid by the government? Where is that money coming from? Will the doctor still be able to be in business for himself and not have to take what the government offers, but be able to charge what he wants? I would say not. If that is allowed the system falls apart even faster. The talent will go where the reward is.
So many people want health insurance to be that which pays everything medical. If people treated car insurance this way, all car repairs would be covered under insurance. Insurance is meant to protect against catastrophic events. It is not meant to cover a doc's visit for a cold. What we have done by pushing insurance down to the office visit level is to increase the price of the office visit. Now the fee for the office visit must also cover the cost of the paper pushing staff. What we have done is obfuscated the price for anything medical. When I was a child, I used to go to Dr. McLung or Dr. Coffey. We knew the office visit was going to be a certain amount. If a shot was involved, that was a certain amount. However, the corruption was proceeding even then.
It is also human nature to use something more freely if one does not attribute a concrete value to it. So many people with insurance go to the doctor for things that they would otherwise let time heal. This drives up costs as well. And the office visit fee not only pays for the doctors office paper pushers, it also has to account for those in the insurance company. Every middleman involved has his cost added to the tab. Do you really want government healthcare with government as an additional middleman?
Also we are already paying for medical care for others. Should we be? Should we be paying for treatment for the abusers of modern chemistry? Should we be paying for treatment for those who engaged in risky sexual behaviors? Both of these groups of people made a choice to engage in these activities. Both of these groups of people would protest my interference in their engaging of these activities. Each group would assert their right to their own individuality and choices. If I get no say in your behavior, why should I be forced to bear the financial repercussions of your behavior? I agree completely with Andrew Wilkow in the following statement. Your freedom to be you includes my right to be free from you.
The fact is as with anything that new drugs and treatments are expensive at first. With adoption and use, price goes down. The 16gb iPad wifi only is $500.00 right now. Five years from now, a tablet that dwarfs the $500 iPad in ability will cost substantially less. The fact that we are talking about things that save lives is irrelevant. Would you rather these things not come at all? Brilliant people are not going to invent and innovate under compulsion.
So if you have some disease and the price of treatment is too high, beg charity, friends, family, and those wealthy enough to pay. What of those before the treatment was invented? They suffered or died. They were not so greedy that in their grasping, they prevented the treatment from being invented. Are you so greedy that you feel if you can't have it, no one should? You are a fool if you think you can compel invention and innovation.
- Posted using The dark side of the shwartz.
I listen to many of the conservative pundits. I agree with much of what they have to say. However, I start to get real angry when they start shoveling the rights by God horse manure. Now I am in no way an atheist. What I am is attentive to the most fundamental thing my religion states. Free Will. There are things that God wants of us, but he is hands off. For Pat Robertsons and Falwells that claim that some natural disaster is Devine retribution for some failing as a society, guys...who made YOU gods? Who are YOU to sit in judgement? For you Islamic adherents that like to use force to spread the message of Allah, I ask you this. Is Allah such an effeminate deity that he can't take care of things such as judgement for himself? God is hands off. Furthermore, if we distill it down to an issue of a decision in a moment, not even an atheist can argue. What we have beyond the intrinsic NOW are rights created by civilization.
Free speech, right to bear arms, searches and seizures are all rights created by our American Society. Does our being cry out for these freedoms? Perhaps, but that does not mitigate the fact that they are enjoyed because we value them as a people. This makes our rights all the more fragile - all the more precious.
So do you have a right to healthcare? If you are alone on the island, how does that work? There may be a civil right to healthcare if the society as a whole deems it so. However, societal rights are even more complex than the simple case of two people on an island. Now we have millions and millions. Let's look at a case of freedom of speech in society.
I have a freedom of speech. However, I am not on a desert island. How does my freedom of speech interplay with someone else's right to be secure in their person? If one has an absolute right of freedom of speech then one can threaten and intimidate. The other party has no recourse. However, by the same token, one can not have absolute security in their person. That would mean that any speech that made them angry or uncomfortable must be squelched. As a rule, the borderland between rights tends to be on a physical level. I can call you a dumb ass, but I can't threaten to physically harm you. I can tell others that I think you are stupid, but I may not tell falsehoods about you to cause damage to your standing amongst other men.
Let's look at another thing that some call a right. That thing is healthcare.
Healthcare is a product. It is a service. Should it be a right? That is for society as a whole to decide and for individuals to decide whether or not that will stand. Consider this. Unlike other rights that we have, healthcare IS a product and a service. This means that another human must labor to provide healthcare to someone. Labor and Invention are rooted in time. Time is a finite thing for any individual. To assert a right to a product or service is to assert a right to someones time. If a product or service is a right, then the person providing it has no choice but to provide the product or service. So now one person has the right to take part of someone's life. Is this where we want to go? Perhaps you say it is not healthcare but access....... We already have that. If you can pay the price that the provider requests, you can have any procedure you want. Do you call that evil? Why?
Do you say that the doctors and nurses will be paid by the government? Where is that money coming from? Will the doctor still be able to be in business for himself and not have to take what the government offers, but be able to charge what he wants? I would say not. If that is allowed the system falls apart even faster. The talent will go where the reward is.
So many people want health insurance to be that which pays everything medical. If people treated car insurance this way, all car repairs would be covered under insurance. Insurance is meant to protect against catastrophic events. It is not meant to cover a doc's visit for a cold. What we have done by pushing insurance down to the office visit level is to increase the price of the office visit. Now the fee for the office visit must also cover the cost of the paper pushing staff. What we have done is obfuscated the price for anything medical. When I was a child, I used to go to Dr. McLung or Dr. Coffey. We knew the office visit was going to be a certain amount. If a shot was involved, that was a certain amount. However, the corruption was proceeding even then.
It is also human nature to use something more freely if one does not attribute a concrete value to it. So many people with insurance go to the doctor for things that they would otherwise let time heal. This drives up costs as well. And the office visit fee not only pays for the doctors office paper pushers, it also has to account for those in the insurance company. Every middleman involved has his cost added to the tab. Do you really want government healthcare with government as an additional middleman?
Also we are already paying for medical care for others. Should we be? Should we be paying for treatment for the abusers of modern chemistry? Should we be paying for treatment for those who engaged in risky sexual behaviors? Both of these groups of people made a choice to engage in these activities. Both of these groups of people would protest my interference in their engaging of these activities. Each group would assert their right to their own individuality and choices. If I get no say in your behavior, why should I be forced to bear the financial repercussions of your behavior? I agree completely with Andrew Wilkow in the following statement. Your freedom to be you includes my right to be free from you.
The fact is as with anything that new drugs and treatments are expensive at first. With adoption and use, price goes down. The 16gb iPad wifi only is $500.00 right now. Five years from now, a tablet that dwarfs the $500 iPad in ability will cost substantially less. The fact that we are talking about things that save lives is irrelevant. Would you rather these things not come at all? Brilliant people are not going to invent and innovate under compulsion.
So if you have some disease and the price of treatment is too high, beg charity, friends, family, and those wealthy enough to pay. What of those before the treatment was invented? They suffered or died. They were not so greedy that in their grasping, they prevented the treatment from being invented. Are you so greedy that you feel if you can't have it, no one should? You are a fool if you think you can compel invention and innovation.
- Posted using The dark side of the shwartz.
Monday, July 12, 2010
Are you really a liberal?
If you ever wondered what side of the fence you sit on, this is a great test!
If a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn`t buy one.
If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants guns outlawed.
If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat.
If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants meat products banned.
If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.
If a conservative is down-and-out, he tries to better his situation.
A liberal wants to know who is going to fix it for him.
If a conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Liberals want those they don't like to be silenced.
If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.
If a liberal is a non-believer he wants any mention of religion silenced.
If a conservative needs health insurance he shops for it, or looks for a job that will provide it.
A liberal demands that the rest of us provide for it.
A conservative will read this and will forward it, so his friends can have a good laugh.
A liberal will read this and delete it, because he's offended.
- Posted using The dark side of the shwartz.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)