Steve Jobs says the iPhone is the best iPod ever, but he's lying. Jobs wants to push the iPhone because he gets a cut from at&t, understandable. I, however, don't want to do business with at&t-- and that is reason #1 to opt for the iPod Touch.
The Touch has the same awesome interface as the iPhone and twice the memory for the price. The draws are there, and so are the drawbacks. It doesn't replace a phone, it doesn't have internal speakers, and you can't use internet anywhere that doesn't connect to a wifi network... I like my current phone (first time in my life I can say that), I think playing sounds from you personal media device in public is rude, and I almost never need the internet unless I am around wifi (besides the at&t data network is so slow I couldn't bear using it anyway).
If you need a new phone and are already with at&t, get the iPhone if you are in the market for one. But, remember the phone is only as good as the network. I'm happy with my iPod Touch.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Free Poker!
For those of you that didn't know, on-line gaming (gambling) was made illegal in the US not long ago when the law was slipped into some off-topic legislation by Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) and his counterpart Rick Boucher (D-VA). By the way, don't vote for them. I have since quit playing on-line even though some poker rooms still accept US money. I'm posting now because of a new development.
The European Union wants upwards of 100 billion dollars compensation for violating international trade acts by the illegalization of on-line gaming. Makes sense for them since most on-line poker rooms are in Europe or otherwise abroad. I say good for them.
What the US should do to make it right is to free us from this prohibition and let Las Vegas open up on-line poker rooms of their own. Hell, tax it it you have to. When you European Union gives you lemons, make lemonade.
That is all.
The European Union wants upwards of 100 billion dollars compensation for violating international trade acts by the illegalization of on-line gaming. Makes sense for them since most on-line poker rooms are in Europe or otherwise abroad. I say good for them.
What the US should do to make it right is to free us from this prohibition and let Las Vegas open up on-line poker rooms of their own. Hell, tax it it you have to. When you European Union gives you lemons, make lemonade.
That is all.
Friday, August 24, 2007
Join the 3rd Party Revolution
I talk to friends and coworkers about the usual stuff-- the weather, what's on TV, politics... and it got me thinking. Many people are Republicans because they don't want to be Democrats, Democrats because they don't want to be Republicans. I know some that would vote Libertarian, but think they would just be throwing their vote away. In almost all cases, people don't agree with most of their own party's politics. A friend of mine is almost the ideal Democrat, but is against abortion so votes Republican. Another would literally need a party formed around them to be happy.
I know not everyone can be completely happy with the wide range of issues a party deals with, but they could be happier.
There's my rational. Now a little background on me: First, I've never been into politics. I was always the last to enter a political conversation and the first to leave. I consider myself moderate. I do vote, but never criticize people who don't. This is why I think I can start the ball rolling at Politicl. Politicl.com is my new website to form a community around a new political party.
The internet is allowing us to connect in ways we never have before. Look at the power of social networks. MySpace and Facebook have a user base so populous that it is easy for me to believe that Politicl can grow to a number of supporters beyond the current third parties in a matter of years. Strong enough that by the presidential election of 2012, we will have candidate of our own in position to truly compete and defeat the big two parties of today.
Politicl.com is currently closed. Comment here if you like the idea and I'll let you know when it's running again.Thursday, August 9, 2007
The Ad-supported Cellphone
Now that everyone has had a chance to play with Apple's take of cellphones, who wants to see what Google can do? I believe Google is on that path.
Recently Google has acquired a variety of interesting cell and VoIP companies including GrandCentral.com, a start-up I mentioned in a previous post. Most importantly, they are taking part in the auction for the analog spectrum now open from television's switch to digital. They, or a major cell company most likely, will be purchasing the spectrum for over ten billion dollars. The winner would be in position to offer cell coverage cheaper than ever... or as expensive as ever while taking a much bigger profit.
If Google wins this I believe they will enter the cellular arena with an ad-supported phone. A phone that would involve either a free or cheap monthly plan as a trade off for ad placement. I could see ad placement taking advantage of the phone's built in GPS so the advertisments would be localized. Google knows a device you carry with you and listen to constantly is very valuable of real estate.
Even if Google is trying to take over the world, I hope this victory will be theirs. Cell companies as they are now take advantage of their customers to no end. They either need to be put out of business or change their business model.
Recently Google has acquired a variety of interesting cell and VoIP companies including GrandCentral.com, a start-up I mentioned in a previous post. Most importantly, they are taking part in the auction for the analog spectrum now open from television's switch to digital. They, or a major cell company most likely, will be purchasing the spectrum for over ten billion dollars. The winner would be in position to offer cell coverage cheaper than ever... or as expensive as ever while taking a much bigger profit.
If Google wins this I believe they will enter the cellular arena with an ad-supported phone. A phone that would involve either a free or cheap monthly plan as a trade off for ad placement. I could see ad placement taking advantage of the phone's built in GPS so the advertisments would be localized. Google knows a device you carry with you and listen to constantly is very valuable of real estate.
Even if Google is trying to take over the world, I hope this victory will be theirs. Cell companies as they are now take advantage of their customers to no end. They either need to be put out of business or change their business model.
Monday, July 30, 2007
Grundy On Poker: Part 1
I know a lot of poker players who are able play the game well enough to profit in the long run, but don't. It isn't because they're calculating the odds wrong or even misreading the opponents, it is because of their lack of discipline.
Playing a friendly game once a month for low stakes is one thing, but to make a living from the game is another. It's because playing at your best in the short game is far easier than stretching that amount of focus over a day-long tournament, a week-long tournament, or a multiple year-long professional poker career.
Next time you have a string of bad beats, and you will if you haven't already, stick to your game. You can do everything right and still loose in the short-run, but in the long-run the best player will be known. It takes patience, focus, and a little humility to stay off the tilt that will loose the day.
I leave you with a passage from Robert Service's poem "Carry On!"
It’s easy to fight when everything’s right,
And you’re mad with thrill and the glory;
It’s easy to cheer when victory’s near,
And wallow in fields that are gory.
It’s a different song when everything’s wrong,
When you’re feeling infernally mortal;
When it’s ten against one, and hope there is none,
Buck up, little soldier, and chortle.
Playing a friendly game once a month for low stakes is one thing, but to make a living from the game is another. It's because playing at your best in the short game is far easier than stretching that amount of focus over a day-long tournament, a week-long tournament, or a multiple year-long professional poker career.
Next time you have a string of bad beats, and you will if you haven't already, stick to your game. You can do everything right and still loose in the short-run, but in the long-run the best player will be known. It takes patience, focus, and a little humility to stay off the tilt that will loose the day.
I leave you with a passage from Robert Service's poem "Carry On!"
It’s easy to fight when everything’s right,
And you’re mad with thrill and the glory;
It’s easy to cheer when victory’s near,
And wallow in fields that are gory.
It’s a different song when everything’s wrong,
When you’re feeling infernally mortal;
When it’s ten against one, and hope there is none,
Buck up, little soldier, and chortle.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
The Superman Debate
Today marks my first posting in response to another posting, in this case The Lars lastest episode. For those of you who don't listen to podcasts, I'm not going to try to convince you. For those who do, check out the Dharmalars on iTunes for movie reviews, discussion on the TV show Lost and (infuriating) debates on pop culture icons.
Most that know me personally know that my favorite fictional character is Superman. People have seen my wallet marked with the S-shield as well as a dog tag hanging on my computer supporting the Christopher Reeve foundation. This post allows me to both answer the question "why do I like Superman" and defend Ben of the Lars' stance on the "awesomness of Superman."
I don't like Superman for his powers or his status. He's not as cool of a character as Batman or Spawn or members of the X-Men. He's my favorite because of what he stands for. Ralph, the Lars counterpart to Ben, made the argument that Superman is irrelevant because he cannot relate to him. In his stories, Superman saves lives without taking credit because he cannot let the world know who he really is, Clark Kent, without endangering everyone he cares about. Superman restrains power enough to vaporize someone with a glance with his oath to never take a life. He has enough power to take the world and reshape it, but knows it's not his place. Absolute power never corrupts him. With greater power comes greater responsibility. You're right, Ralph, no one can relate to him-- that's why he's the best.
Most that know me personally know that my favorite fictional character is Superman. People have seen my wallet marked with the S-shield as well as a dog tag hanging on my computer supporting the Christopher Reeve foundation. This post allows me to both answer the question "why do I like Superman" and defend Ben of the Lars' stance on the "awesomness of Superman."
I don't like Superman for his powers or his status. He's not as cool of a character as Batman or Spawn or members of the X-Men. He's my favorite because of what he stands for. Ralph, the Lars counterpart to Ben, made the argument that Superman is irrelevant because he cannot relate to him. In his stories, Superman saves lives without taking credit because he cannot let the world know who he really is, Clark Kent, without endangering everyone he cares about. Superman restrains power enough to vaporize someone with a glance with his oath to never take a life. He has enough power to take the world and reshape it, but knows it's not his place. Absolute power never corrupts him. With greater power comes greater responsibility. You're right, Ralph, no one can relate to him-- that's why he's the best.
Sunday, June 10, 2007
Atheists may Consider Gambling on Heaven
I've been thinking of the devout believers in my life. As far as religion goes, I know more devote Christians in my life then other religions, so I will be referring to them as my example.
Many people who do not frequent church or take part in organized religion, and even some who do, are often annoyed when a friend works to hard in an attempt to convert you. I suppose you can relate, after all who are they to tell you what to believe. However, if they are truly your friend and believe in their heart that if you don't convert to their beliefs that you will certainly go to hell, then what kind of friend would they be if they didn't spend every waking hour preaching to you the gospel.
What I'm saying is that I at least understand their motivation. It is a mission of charity based on deep faith. What I didn't understand is the same devotion from an atheist. I think of atheism as a lack of belief in any god. I don't think anything is wrong with that, but why do they need to convert anyone? Religion should not matter to them because it has no influence on their life. I didn't want this posting to sound one-sided so I researched all possible motivatations for speading doubt in other peoples faith in god. The main reason that made sense to me was that most of the wars and bloodshed throughout human history have been grounded in two opposing beliefs in a higher power and widely adapted atheism would put an end to these holy wars. Also I can see that certain religions can slow scientific progress.
After realizing this, I can see their point. Ending widespread violence is a very good reason, but I doubt atheism would herald in world peace. And even if it could, it may be too big a price to pay. For those who have faith, it brings so much fulfillment to their life that they would never give it up, and are willing to give their lives for it. I think I understand atheism, and as a "man of science" I can emphasize with their doubts in Christianity, but for now I will leave you with an argument for faith based on a principle of mathematics- probability. Blaise Pascal, a mathematician from the 1600's, said: if you believe in god and there is a god, then you can go to heaven; if you believe in god and there is no god then it doesn't matter; if you don't believe in god and there is a god, you risk going to hell; and if you don't believe in god and there is no god, then it doesn't really matter. The possible gain from belief is so much greater than the possible gain from unbelief, christianity was the bet that gave the highest gain. This is what is referred to as Pascal's wager.
Many people who do not frequent church or take part in organized religion, and even some who do, are often annoyed when a friend works to hard in an attempt to convert you. I suppose you can relate, after all who are they to tell you what to believe. However, if they are truly your friend and believe in their heart that if you don't convert to their beliefs that you will certainly go to hell, then what kind of friend would they be if they didn't spend every waking hour preaching to you the gospel.
What I'm saying is that I at least understand their motivation. It is a mission of charity based on deep faith. What I didn't understand is the same devotion from an atheist. I think of atheism as a lack of belief in any god. I don't think anything is wrong with that, but why do they need to convert anyone? Religion should not matter to them because it has no influence on their life. I didn't want this posting to sound one-sided so I researched all possible motivatations for speading doubt in other peoples faith in god. The main reason that made sense to me was that most of the wars and bloodshed throughout human history have been grounded in two opposing beliefs in a higher power and widely adapted atheism would put an end to these holy wars. Also I can see that certain religions can slow scientific progress.
After realizing this, I can see their point. Ending widespread violence is a very good reason, but I doubt atheism would herald in world peace. And even if it could, it may be too big a price to pay. For those who have faith, it brings so much fulfillment to their life that they would never give it up, and are willing to give their lives for it. I think I understand atheism, and as a "man of science" I can emphasize with their doubts in Christianity, but for now I will leave you with an argument for faith based on a principle of mathematics- probability. Blaise Pascal, a mathematician from the 1600's, said: if you believe in god and there is a god, then you can go to heaven; if you believe in god and there is no god then it doesn't matter; if you don't believe in god and there is a god, you risk going to hell; and if you don't believe in god and there is no god, then it doesn't really matter. The possible gain from belief is so much greater than the possible gain from unbelief, christianity was the bet that gave the highest gain. This is what is referred to as Pascal's wager.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
