This 65-Inch Sony OLED TV Is $500 Off
1 hour ago
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Apple is becoming Big Brother, Hal. But?resistance is NOT futile!
Last Friday, police – yes, police! – barged into the home of Jason Chen, the Gizmodo editor who left the prototype iPhone in a bar, and seized a laundry list of computers, documents, and other electronic devices. This is one of the main reasons I refuse to buy anything Apple: while Android and WinMo are – at least for the time being – open source, Apple has always been a police state. This was fine when it was just a little thorn in Microsoft’s side, but now that it’s become so pervasive in our everyday lives, it’s megalomania has become our problem.
Of course, if there was any legal wrongdoing, Apple does have every right – and, arguably, the obligation – to seek legal action in order to recoup its losses. However, the rather brutal arrest of Chen really just indicates to a much larger problem: Apple controls many people’s “virtual” lives. With its products becoming the de facto portal to our online, mobile, and computing lives, the idea of one company having such control over that to which we do and do not have access is more than a little frightening.
But, perhaps people aren’t as “sheepish” as we may think. Check out these stats:
In recent months, Android is clearly arching upwards while the iPhone sales have declined. This is an excellent sign that people are realizing the tight grip Apple holds and are turning to the alternate, open source Android. The Android operating system is every bit as capable as iPhone’s OS (if not better, from both a programmatic and end-user point-of-view).
Tim Bray, creator of XML markup language and popular blogger, has recently joined the Android team, and I think that he sums it all up quite well:
The iPhone vision of the mobile Internet’s future omits controversy, sex, and freedom, but includes strict limits on who can know what and who can say what. It’s a sterile Disney-fied walled garden surrounded by sharp-toothed lawyers. The people who create the apps serve at the landlord’s pleasure and fear his anger.
I hate it.
I hate it even though the iPhone hardware and software are great, because freedom’s not just another word for anything, nor is it an optional ingredient.
The big thing about the Web isn’t the technology, it’s that it’s the first-ever platform without a vendor (credit for first pointing this out goes to Dave Winer). From that follows almost everything that matters, and it matters a lot now, to a huge number of people. It’s the only kind of platform I want to help build.
Apple apparently thinks you can have the benefits of the Internet while at the same time controlling what programs can be run and what parts of the stack can be accessed and what developers can say to each other.
I think they’re wrong and see this job as a chance to help prove it.
Perhaps it’s time for people to throw their iPhones into the river. And being from (and living in) Boston, I can really appreciate that!
Monday, April 26, 2010
Stephen Hawking: Aliens may pose risks to Earth
LONDON - British physicist Stephen Hawking says aliens are out there, but it could be too dangerous for humans to interact with extraterrestrial life.
Hawking claims in a new documentary titled "Into the Universe With Stephen Hawking" that intelligent alien life forms almost certainly exist — but warns that communicating with them could be "too risky."
"We only have to look at ourselves to see how intelligent life might develop into something we wouldn’t want to meet," Hawking said. "I imagine they might exist in massive ships ... having used up all the resources from their home planet. Such advanced aliens would perhaps become nomads, looking to conquer and colonize whatever planets they can reach.”
The 68-year-old scientist said a visit by extraterrestrials to Earth might well be like Christopher Columbus arriving in the Americas, "which didn't turn out very well for the Native Americans."
He speculated that most extraterrestrial life would be similar to microbes, or small animals. Microbial life might exist far beneath the Martian surface, where liquid water is thought to trickle through the rock. Marine creatures might also conceivably live in huge oceans of water beneath a miles-thick layer of ice on Europa, a moon of Jupiter.
But if a scientific census could be extended beyond our solar system to the rest of the Milky Way and beyond, the odds in favor of life's existence rise dramatically, Hawking said.
"To my mathematical brain, the numbers alone make thinking about aliens perfectly rational," he said. “The real challenge is to work out what aliens might actually be like."
Hawking said an attack by interstellar predators is just one of the dismaying possibilities in the search for intelligent life beyond Earth. Another possibility is that intelligence itself might be inimical to life. Hawking pointed out that humanity has put itself on the edge of its own destruction by creating nuclear bombs and other weapons of mass destruction.
"If the same holds for intelligent aliens, then they might not last long," he said. "Perhaps they all blow themselves up soon after they discover that E=mc2. If civilizations take billions of years to evolve, only to vanish virtually overnight, then sadly we've next to no chance of hearing from them."
Hawking has become one of the world's best-known scientists — not just because of his theoretical work on cosmology and black holes, but also because he has achieved so much while coping with a paralyzing neural disease for most of his life. In recent years he has become a prominent advocate for space travel, contending that humans must journey into the heavens and going through zero-gravity training himself.
"Into the Universe With Stephen Hawking" had its television premiere in the United States on the Discovery Channel on Sunday, and is due for broadcast in Britain next month.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Two apps I wouldn?t be without
Live Mesh
Microsoft has (finally!) done something right, and, actually, the did it quite a while ago. Live Mesh is a service that brings cloud computing to new heights. What it does is simple…and brilliant!
Instead of the dealing with the whole file sharing game (where you upload your files to a remote server for access when you’re away from your computer), cloud computing puts everything “in the cloud” automatically. What makes Microsoft’s Live Mesh so great is that it offers both the security of file upload (your files aren’t in Neverland but reside on your computer) and the cloud. This is achieved by selecting the folders/files that you wish to associate with your mesh. These files are automatically synced to Mesh’s “Live Desktop.” And, if you have more than one computer, you can choose to allow full and completely invisible synchronization between all of the computers that subscribe to your mesh as well as Live Desktop.
Here’s how it works.
- Register on Live and download the file, click here.
- Once the file is installed on your primary machine (i.e. home/office desktop), you’ll see the sign-in dialogue box. I strongly recommend that you check all three boxes so that you don’t have to think about logging in and entering your password each time you restart your machine.
- Next, you’re going to select the files/folders you’d like to add to your mesh. To do this, simply launch Windows Explorer and select (click once) on the file/folder you’d like to include in your mesh.
- Now, right-click and select “Add to Live Mesh”.
- The dialogue box will open. Click, “Show synchronization options”.
- Select the appropriate rules for the synchronization. I have never used the “Never with this device,” but you may find some reason for it. If you do, please let me know.. ;)
- That’s it! If you chose a folder, every time you save anything into that folder, it will automatically be synced with both your Live Desktop and any other machine on which you’ve installed Live Mesh!
Now, if you navigate back to your mesh, you’ll see your Live Desktop. If you don’t see all of your files/folders here, give it some time as it may take awhile for the sync to complete.
Here’s a screenshot of my Live Desktop:
(You’ll notice that the laptop icon is grayed out. This is because I don’t have my laptop online at the moment.)
PowerMenu
Ever wish that you could keep a particular window “always on top” on your computer’s desktop? Of course you have! We’ve all suffered the clicks of death, and, really, I don’t understand why Microsoft has never added this feature – it’s long overdue! Anyway, here’s a nifty (and free) little program that’ll end your frustration forever. It’s called PowerMenu, and you can download it here.
After you download and install it, you’ll see the little black arrow in your taskbar.
To use it, simply right-click on the window you’d like to keep on top and select “Always on top”. The program also offers several other options, one of which is “Transparency” which can come in quite handy when you’re trying to work with, say, an Excel where you’re copying information from another window into your spreadsheet. If you set the Excel window to “transparent,” you’ll be able to see the other window with your information underneath.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Monday, April 19, 2010
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Friday, April 16, 2010
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Friday, April 2, 2010
Updated an old post: Dan Quayle still pushing "Perot elected Clinton" nonsense http://tinyurl.com/yb2bep7
Dan Quayle still pushing "Perot elected Clinton" nonsense
In 1992, Bill Clinton won a decisive victory in the presidential race, snagging 370 electoral votes and relegating George H.W. Bush to a smaller share of the vote than any incumbent president since William Howard Taft in 1912.
The right is still pretending this didn�t really happen. Oh sure, they acknowledge that Bill Clinton was elected and sworn-in as the nation�s 42nd president. They just claim it wasn�t really a legitimate victory. Case in point: an op-ed from Dan Quayle set to appear in Sunday�s Washington Post. Quayle writes:
Many remember the Reform Party of the 1990s, which formed around the candidacy of Ross Perot. I sure do, because it eliminated any chance that President George H.W. Bush and I would prevail over Bill Clinton and Al Gore in 1992. What started as a grass-roots phenomenon ended with 19 percent support at the ballot box -- and a majority of those voters would probably have gone Republican in a two-party race. Speaking on behalf of the Bush-Quayle campaign, to this day we firmly believe that Perot cost the Republican Party the White House.
Republicans have been blindly pushing this argument for nearly 20 years now, acting like George H.W. Bush was all set to win a second term until some crazy Texas billionaire came along and messed it all up. It�s understandable why they like this narrative: it lets them off the hook for losing the public�s confidence in the late �80s and early �90s -- and casts Clinton�s electoral triumph as an accident of history.
But let me try, one more time, to set the record straight: there is absolutely no rational reason -- none -- to believe that Perot cost Bush and Quayle the 1992 election. To understand why, let�s quickly review what happened in the �92 campaign.
In the early stages of the race, just after the Gulf War in 1991, Bush looked positively unbeatable. As a result, every big-name Democrat -- Bill Bradley, Mario Cuomo, Al Gore, Jay Rockefeller and on and on -- backed out. And for the spring and summer of �91, virtually no other Democrats stepped up to the fill the void. Former Massachusetts Senator Paul Tsongas was the only active candidate until the middle of the summer, and few took him seriously.
But as the Gulf War afterglow faded and the sputtering economy gained more attention, Bush�s popularity returned to earth. Several Democrats, including Clinton, Tom Harkin, Bob Kerrey and Jerry Brown, entered the race. And when, in December, Cuomo resisted a last-minute push to recruit him into the race, Clinton emerged as the clear front-runner. He was badly damaged by scandal in early �92 and nearly overtaken by Tsongas, but by April, Clinton had emerged as the inevitable Democratic nominee.
At that point, he was given little chance of winning, mainly because of the scandals (Gennifer Flowers, draft-dodging and so on). But economic anxiety was widespread, and Bush�s job approval ratings were poisonous. He was a plainly vulnerable incumbent. This is where the Perot phenomenon took hold: With voters initially unwilling to trust Clinton, Perot stepped forward and rocketed to the top of national polls. By the late spring, he led in three-way trial heats, with Clinton lagging in a very distant third place.
Then came the Perot crack-up. Faced with media scrutiny he�d never before experienced, Perot�s erratic, paranoid and even delusional tendencies became evident to the general public. His numbers began to slide. He grew cranky � with the media and with the campaign team he�d assembled. In July, hours before Clinton was to deliver his acceptance speech at the Democratic convention, Perot withdrew from the race.
Here the GOP�s �blame Perot� excuse-making falls apart, because immediately after the Democratic convention, Clinton soared ahead of Bush in polls -- by more than 20 points. This was with no Perot in the race. The explanation was obvious: Clinton, after a beautifully choreographed convention, had convinced millions of Americans to give him a second look. It had been clear for months that voters were ready to throw out Bush, but they�d been unwilling to embrace Clinton. After the convention, though, they were.
Clinton�s one-on-one lead over Bush survived for the next 11 weeks. Not a single independent poll after the Democratic convention ever showed Bush leading Clinton � not even immediately after the August �92 GOP convention (after which Bush temporarily closed the gap, to as few as six points in one poll). By Labor Day, the Bush convention bounce was gone and Clinton was back ahead by double-digits -- a lead that endured all the way through September.
It was then, as October arrived, that Perot jumped back in the race. But his re-emergence didn�t disproportionately hurt Bush -- who, it cannot be emphasized enough, was already being drubbed by Clinton. In a CBS poll on the eve of Perot's re-entry, Clinton led Bush by 13 points in a two-man race � and by 11 in a three-way race. In other words, Clinton�s lead actually declined (very slightly) with Perot back in the mix.
Throughout October, Clinton maintained a steady, commanding advantage over Bush. Three presidential debates were held that month. In the first, Perot stole the show and earned a measurable polling bounce -- from single digits back to double-digits. In the second, Bush was excoriated for glancing at his watch, feeding the impression that he was insufficiently energized and engaged as president; his poll numbers ebbed. In the third, Bush fared better, and by the end of October, he�d pared Clinton�s lead back to the mid- to high- single-digits.
Any last-minute Bush momentum, though, was undermined on the Friday before the election when Iran-Contra independent counsel Lawrence E. Walsh indicted Caspar Weinberger, Ronald Reagan�s old Defense secretary � and, in a statement released with the indictment, implicated Bush, who had been dogged for years by questions about his Iran-Contra involvement.
The following Tuesday, Clinton nabbed 43 percent of the vote, good for 370 electoral votes. Bush finished with 37 percent and 168 electoral votes. Perot tallied nearly 20 percent, and exit polls showed that his voters were roughly split evenly on whom their second choice would have been.
In other words, take Perot out of the mix, and Clinton still wins -- handily. The argument of Quayle and other Republicans that Perot cost Bush the election would be more credible if there had been even a single independent poll after the Democratic convention giving Bush the lead over Clinton in a head-to-head race. There never was. Clinton won the race and Bush lost it -- no asterisks needed.
Related Blogs
- Tech � English Teaching Robot Comes with a Cost
- Leeds United vs Swindon Town Live Streaming English League One 3/4 ...
- SCOTUSblog � This week's opinions in plain English
- Immediate Teaching Vacancies for Native English Teachers-Start ...
- Job teaching English in Jaen Spain
- book publishing in english our book is a spiritual content we need ...
- Video Clips For English Literature | Larry Ferlazzo's Websites of ...
- Concert announcement: The English Beat at Blueberry Hill | The ...
The iPad? Perhaps
Anyway, the iPad. Yes, it�s intriguing because, like I said, it�s sidekick, the iPhone is excellent. While I�m still reluctant to move towards the iPhone � I use a Windows (WinMo 6.5) phone � I�m really starting to wonder, mostly because my Imagio (and no other current WinMo phone, by the way) will be able to run the new WinMo 7 OS.
Which brings me to the iPad.
As you can see from the picture above, it�s rather sexy. And it�s very portable. These two factors, alone, make the device very desirable. It�s a touch-screen tablet computer, roughly the size of a magazine, with three models that connect to the Internet strictly over Wi-Fi (16GB for $499, 32GB for $599, 64GB for $699) and three that use a combination of Wi-Fi and AT&T's 3G wireless (16GB for $629, 32GB for $729, and 64GB for $829--pay-as-you go for the data subscription).
If you've ever used an iPhone or iPod Touch, the iPad will feel immediately familiar. Out of the box, you get many of
The iPad's refined feel and high-quality materials won't surprise Apple devotees, but in the larger landscape of tablets, Netbook computers, and e-readers, the design feels distinctly upscale--especially given its price. Next to the Asus Eee PC, Amazon Kindle, or Fusion Garage JooJoo, the iPad looks like it was made on a different planet (where plastic doesn't exist).
Size also matters. As one of the first tablet computers to go mainstream, you'll need to assess the iPad's size on a case-by-case basis. For the advertised purposes of Web browsing, reading books, and checking your e-mail, we found the magazine-size screen perfectly adequate. After years of watching videos on devices like the iPod Touch, or even dedicated video players like the Archos 5, video playback on the iPad's 9.7-inch screen feels downright luxurious.
The missing feature? Handwriting. I can�t believe that with such a great piece of hardware � not to mention the fact that the iPad is, after all, a tablet! � that Apple didn�t include handwriting input. Still, though, it will be interesting to watch-and-see. Once in the hands of consumers for a few months, all of the bugs will be worked out, and we�ll get something like the iPadii. Perhaps then, I�ll ditch Microsoft. But until then, I think I stick with Old Faithful.
If you get an iPad, you should throw in this wireless keyboard. At around $70.00, it�s totally worth it, and, I don�t know about you, but I find it much more comfortable to type on a keyboard than glass.
Related Blogs
- Sharp unveils 3D glasses-free touchscreen LCD Display
- Sony AK Knowledge Center � Display Avatar using Gravatar on your ...
- How FX Margin Trading Can Make You Big Profits | Investing Blog
- FOX News Radio - � The Morning Buzz: Apple iPad, Good Friday
- On The Margin: Total Unemployment March 2010 | FavStocks
- Nintendo Wii Fit In Stock and Helping Cure Obesity
- Download Nintendo Wii Fit Games � Where To Download Wii Fit Games?
- Margin Trading Will Help You To Earn More! � Hope is not Lost � It ...
- Sistema Forex - Margin Trading In The Forex | PediaWorld
- Tech � English Teaching Robot Comes with a Cost
- Gadget Reviews: How can I inline the Google 15 gadget to put it on ...
- JavaScript Ignore HREF Attribute Value � Akbar's Blog
- jQuery change anchor tag href url via select option � alexyz.com
- Yahoo! Fantasy Baseball '10 for iPhone and iPod touch Takes You ...
- CHAD Industries Announces Automated Wafer Handling Capability for ...
- Apple Taunts Flash With List of 'iPad Ready' Websites | Webmonkey ...
- Sales Manager Training, Proposals: Strategies for Writing Proposals
- StyleQ&A | Art & Style
- Roller Derby Coyote Adjustable Girl's Inline Skates - - Sport News Top
- Cynthia Vincent's Lust-Worthy Shoe Collection For Target Deserves ...
The iPad?
Are you getting an iPad? What makes me even consider anything by Apple is that I really do like the iPhone. For what it does, it does it supremely. That said, if Microsoft was more on-the-ball, they could have owned this market, hands down, because their OS is far superior to the iPhone’s and the iPad’s. But that’s another article!
Anyway, the iPad. Yes, it’s intreguing because, like I said, it’s sidekick, the iPhone is excellent. While I’m still reluctant to move towards the iPhone – I use a Windows (WinMo 6.5) phone – I’m really starting to wonder, mostly because my Imagio (and no other current WinMo phone, by the way) will be able to run the new WinMo 7 OS.
Which brings me to the iPad.
As you can see from the picture above, it’s rather sexy. And it’s very portable. These two factors, alone, make the device very desirable. It’s a touch-screen tablet computer, roughly the size of a magazine, with three models that connect to the Internet strictly over Wi-Fi (16GB for $499, 32GB for $599, 64GB for $699) and three that use a combination of Wi-Fi and AT&T's 3G wireless (16GB for $629, 32GB for $729, and 64GB for $829--pay-as-you go for the data subscription).
If you've ever used an iPhone or iPod Touch, the iPad will feel immediately familiar. Out of the box, you get many of
the iPhone's capabilities, including Apple-designed applications (apps) for Web browsing, e-mail, maps, photos, music, video, YouTube, and more. More apps can be installed using the built-in App Store software or by connecting the iPad to iTunes via your computer using the included cable. If you already own apps purchased for an iPhone or iPod Touch, you can transfer these apps to the iPad, as well.
The iPad's refined feel and high-quality materials won't surprise Apple devotees, but in the larger landscape of tablets, Netbook computers, and e-readers, the design feels distinctly upscale--especially given its price. Next to the Asus Eee PC, Amazon Kindle, or Fusion Garage JooJoo, the iPad looks like it was made on a different planet (where plastic doesn't exist).
Size also matters. As one of the first tablet computers to go mainstream, you'll need to assess the iPad's size on a case-by-case basis. For the advertised purposes of Web browsing, reading books, and checking your e-mail, we found the magazine-size screen perfectly adequate. After years of watching videos on devices like the iPod Touch, or even dedicated video players like the Archos 5, video playback on the iPad's 9.7-inch screen feels downright luxurious.
Still, though, it is Apple, after all, and I’m not sure that I want to invest in a company micromanages to the point of meglomania. I really don’t like the fact that Apple restricts application development. Granted, today, it’s not that big a deal, and one could even make the argument that it insures security on the Apple products. But we all know what happens when this sort of regulating gets out of control: think seatbelt law, cigarette tax, etc.! Think Big Brother. I believe that Apple will only get stronger, and strength equals power. In fact, I’d say that within a few years, they’ll surpass Microsoft.
The missing feature? Handwriting. I can’t believe that with such a great piece of hardware – not to mention the fact that the iPad is, after all, a tablet! – that Apple didn’t include handwriting input. Still, though, it will be interesting to watch-and-see. Once in the hands of consumers for a few months, all of the bugs will be worked out, and we’ll get something like the iPadii. Perhaps then, I’ll ditch Microsoft. But until then, I think I stick with Old Faithful.
If you get an iPad, you should throw in this wireless keyboard. At around $70.00, it’s totally worth it, and, I don’t know about you, but I find it much more comfortable to type on a keyboard than glass.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
The ego is as the ego does
For most people, it’s the ego that’s their most potent nemesis. This is because we actually believe that inner voice, that inner dialogue, that chatter. But, while the ego is part of who we are (and, therefore, we must always show it nothing but love), it can annihilate those who don’t have it on a tight leash.
The first step to knowing your ego is to train yourself to recognize its voice. And you know its voice quite well. For many, it has become their very identity. They believe in that voice, believe that the voice in their head is their “gut instinct.” But it isn’t. If it’s language, it’s ego. Truth is beyond language; language is far too limited for Truth. Language is the flesh and bones of the ego.
The second step is to trust what you experience of Truth – some call this faith, but don’t confuse a text (which is language) with Truth. Truth won’t speak to you. Truth is perceived, it communicates non-locally and, therefore, transcends language. Defies it, even. Truth is far too powerful for language, for thought. Truth isn’t understood, it isn’t thought. Thought is language. And language is ego. As I’ve said, the ego must be loved. But, for most of us, it’s the “tough” brand of love that’s necessary. But the ego will eventually come to not only accept the leash but, eventually, to rely on it. This is balance.
The third and final step is to realize that the there is no end to this process. Enlightenment (if that’s what you want to call it) isn’t some mystical explosion of universal energy that transports one to the heights and depths of divination but rather, it’s organic, precise, relevant, immediate, subtle. It’s the opening of a flower, the roll of a wave, the heat of the sun. It’s in the moment, so to speak. It exists only in the now, in the present. The past and the future do not exist. The past and the future are language. And language is ego. To live in the “now” frightens the ego; it finds its comfort in the past or in the future. By harnessing (or “training”) the ego, you will eventually live in the now. This is balance. This is Truth.
The ego is as the ego does
For most people, it’s the ego that’s their most potent nemissis. This is because we actually believe that inner voice, that inner dialogue, that chatter. But, while the ego is part of who we are (and, therefore, we must always show it nothing but love), it can inhilate those who don’t have it on a tight leash.
The first step to knowing your ego is to train yourself to recognize its voice. And you know its voice quite well. For many, it has become their very identity. They believe in that voice, believe that the voice in their head is their “gut instinct.” But it isn’t. If it’s language, it’s ego. Truth is beyond language; language is far too limited for Truth. Language is the flesh and bones of the ego.
The second step is to trust what you experience of Truth – some call this faith, but don’t confuse a text (which is language) with Truth. Truth won’t speak to you. Truth is perceived, it communicates non-locally and, therefore, transcends language. Defies it, even. Truth is far too powerful for language, for thought. Truth isn’t understood, it isn’t thought. Thought is language. And language is ego. As I’ve said, the ego must be loved. But, for most of us, it’s the “tough” brand of love that’s necessary. But the ego will eventually come to not only accept the leash but, eventually, to rely on it. This is balance.
The third and final step is to realize that the there is no end to this process. Enlightenment (if that’s what you want to call it) isn’t some mystical explosion of universal energy that transports one to the heights and depths of divination but rather, it’s organic, precise, relivent, immediate, subtle. It’s the opening of a flower, the roll of a wave, the heat of the sun. It’s in the moment, so to speak. It exists only in the now, in the present. The past and the future do not exist. The past and the future are language. And language is ego. To live in the “now” frightens the ego; it finds its comfort in the past or in the future. By harnessing (or “training”) the ego, you will eventually live in the now. This is balance. This is Truth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
