Just a scant few hours away, and the pre orders for Apple's iPad mini and the official launch of Windows 8 and Windows Surface, and I think it's about time that I came back to posting.
If I'm honest, no one really cared about the iPad mini despite it having overshadowed almost all of the new showings at the recent Apple event. Sure, everyone has seen/heard about the new Mac mini, the new iMac being thinner than most textbooks in the world, and the new retina display 13" Macbook Pro. However, the fourth generation iPad is overshadowed, by it's tinier, market catch-up of a brother.
Why IS the iPad mini among Apple's lineup? It's difficult to really understand from an outsider's point of view, but it's easy to see that Apple is playing catch up. Everyone else has one, and lots of people have been bugging Apple for a tablet that's smaller than the existing iPad. The long line of success could potentially boost it's already large market share in the tablet world. Why not give it a try?
Here's why : the iPad worked because of what it is. It was about the size of a piece of paper, yet it did more than any piece of paper could ever do. It was interactive, it felt right, it made sense, and it was comparable to the size of an average magazine, which was one of the many primary functions the iPad had and was highlighted by Apple, two and a half years ago, in the spring of 2010. So has Tim Cook proven to the entire world that the death of Steve Jobs really brought about a less innovative era for Apple? Is the tech giant that always starts new trends now doing the opposite and playing catch up?
No and possibly yes, respectively. Steve Jobs was backed by a team of hardworking engineers who come up with innovative designs. The entire OS X team is still running strong, and Jony Ive is still pushing out designs that make people drool at it's simplistic, yet beautiful designs. As I've mentioned in my obituary to Steve Jobs, I believed that he had done what many people hadn't been able to do, and bring Apple into something magical, and worthy of cult status, but he needed people working with him. What Tim Cook can do, is exactly what Steve Jobs can do. After all, both only want whats best for Apple.
So is the new iPad mini Apple's demise? I won't say so. Apple still maintains its quirky design and style with a smaller tablet, but they've done it in ways that makes all other 7"-range tablets seem like plastic toys. You get what you pay for, so for all Apple haters out there, there's a reason why your tablet cost less than half the iPad mini : it's dirt cheap, cause it was made with dirt cheap materials.
However, this is not to say the iPad mini is free of flaws. It is still utilizing iPad 2 guts, which makes it as powerful as a mobile phone at best, and hardly worthy of any praise especially when it comes to screen resolution. Personally, I don't see why this is worth getting unless it's to be used for corporate purposes. If you really want an iPad, and you don't already have one, then go for the third generation iPad. It's cheaper, and because the connector is going to be phased out, many people are willing to sell you spare cables/accessories for cheap.
Now, to diverge away from Apple and to actually make a proper comment on the launch of Windows 8 and Windows Surface. Windows Vista had left a lot of people with a terrible after taste of what Windows OS upgrades can be, that Windows 7 had it's work cut out since day 1. Amazingly, it didn't disappoint. However, with the launch of Windows 8, it's hard to see what they can do, without destroying the faith of people who finally decided to trust Windows again after the whole Vista fiasco.
It's a very interesting approach because Windows 8 attempts to catch the hearts of people who have put down their computers and laptops in favour of the tablet computer. Touch screen interfaces, small light and portable devices that are less bulky to carry around, and do not entirely rely on keyboards, big batteries and insane power cables. just to keep itself running is a hard thing to turn down. Windows 8 seems to have hit the right spot by making all of this a reality in basing an OS that isn't as computer-based as Windows 7. Sure, new hardware including touchscreen monitors has been developed (yours truly has one already), touchscreen laptops/ultrabooks have been developed, and even the new Microsoft Surface has been announced to make all of this work together.
Different design tweaks have been added, complete with many different usability habits have been analyzed. All of this culminates in a really new and awesome looking "Metro UI" that's garnered praise from all sorts of reporters. However, the average consumer might not be too happy with these changes as they really disrupt the status quo. Users tend to mold into the computer and systems they're used to, which made the transition from Windows XP and Windows Vista so difficult, as it was a huge leap from what most users are used to. The entire interface no longer made sense to some people, still hopped up on the joy and wonder of Windows XP. It was a fantastic operating system, and it's hard to really try to replace a classic. It's also the same reason why Sinatra can never be replaced, or why Louis Armstrong could never be reproduced.
So is the announcement of Windows 8 will instantly dominate the world this Saturday, and more amazingly, Windows Surface will also debut. Sure, it's Microsoft's late answer to the tablet market dominated by the iPad, and the still undeniably ridiculous excuse of copies from numerous manufacturers running the Android operating system, but it can't be totally ignored. The surface did what the Android tablets couldn't do, and it was instilling fear through beautiful designs and ingenious design. Windows Surface has been a huge hit with a lot of people since it was announced, because it wasn't just a tablet. It leaked great amounts of passion and a significant amount of pressure to the competition because it wasn't just trying to take a stab at the iPad market, and make a sizable dent in it. It wanted to change the way people used tablets. Back in late 2010, when Blackberry decided it was time for them to fight into the tablet market by introducing the terrible failure known as the Playbook, it seemed to have been filled with pomp and circumstance. Unfortunately, it was anything but, and it's demise as of Day 1 was also the advent for all other iPad copies to eventually meet their doom by even trying to exist on the market.
What made Apple's iPad successful was because it was built on an infrastructure that worked. It was simple to use and also had a great app store, which really propelled it to new heights. The iPad has such a great ability to instill upon so much imagination into many developers, it's virtually turned the iPad into (as Jony Ive puts it) "something magical".
Microsoft actually has a chance to replicate the success of the iPad because the Windows operating system was successful because it is the most popular in the whole world. Regardless of the high number of Macbook owners, Windows still has a large foothold. This loyal fanbase, complete with legacy that it cannot fight, including their large number of existing apps can easily make Windows 8 and Windows Surface a success. If Microsoft plays their cards right, they don't have to end up as cheap plastic touchscreen toys that are competitively slightly cheaper than the iPad, but hugely more unattractive. Windows Surface can be a major hit. Of course, time will tell, and it won't be too long before the results come out.
Thursday, October 25, 2012
Thursday, September 20, 2012
Post 023
The next generation iPhone, better known as the iPhone 5, is the sixth iPhone to be released by Apple computer since they've started making iPhones, will be released tomorrow. Now, I can't help but say that I'm utterly bored by it.
Don't get me wrong, I love the iPhone much more than any Android device. It wasn't always like that. Prior to the boom of mobile computing and smartphone technology, I had found smartphones to be ridiculous. I believed that a touchscreen really lacked a lot of necessary tactile response and feel. With that, the innovations grew. The number of applications ballooned. Not only that, the phone got better.
However, this latest iPhone seems like Apple is playing catch up yet again. The iPhone 4S seemed like a patch to cover up the flaws of the iPhone 4. It felt like that Apple tried to do everything that Android is succeeding for, and the introduction of Siri was still much to be desired for.
This latest generation finally has some of the things that an average smartphone has, like LTE, but it also marks the dawn of a very tough age for the iPhone 5 and iOS6. iOS 6 marks Apple's official departure from using Google maps as the default map application. This is a rather bold move, as Google maps is a nearly ubiquitous application that is known to be one of the best mapping applications in the world. Not only does it provide accurate and fast maps and directions, but it was simple to use, and helpful in many ways that people never realized.
However, to make a map application is not simple. It requires loads of data, complete with complex algorithms and different behaviours and parsers that recognize what the user is referring to. None of this can be done overnight, and surely, none of it can be fixed overnight either. Therefore, to take that jump from Google maps, while risky, can be dangerous.
To this date, people have done many side-by-side comparisons, and while far from promising, the new iOS6 maps application is a rather interesting take on maps, as it is very aesthetically pleasing, but unfortunately, is rather slow. Apple does deserve props for how good it is, considering I was expecting total failure.
Next there's Passbook, an absolutely ridiculous app that really doesn't help much to non-Americans. Go figure, because everyone can access these American establishments to use their coupons and cards. Everyone was hoping for NFC to exist on the iPhone5, but once again Apple has backed out.
It's probably a good that a new iPhone can still show up without the leadership of Steve Jobs. However, at the rate Apple is going, they fear being beaten by their competitors due to this constant need to play catch up, rather than being the pioneer in technology.
Don't get me wrong, I love the iPhone much more than any Android device. It wasn't always like that. Prior to the boom of mobile computing and smartphone technology, I had found smartphones to be ridiculous. I believed that a touchscreen really lacked a lot of necessary tactile response and feel. With that, the innovations grew. The number of applications ballooned. Not only that, the phone got better.
However, this latest iPhone seems like Apple is playing catch up yet again. The iPhone 4S seemed like a patch to cover up the flaws of the iPhone 4. It felt like that Apple tried to do everything that Android is succeeding for, and the introduction of Siri was still much to be desired for.
This latest generation finally has some of the things that an average smartphone has, like LTE, but it also marks the dawn of a very tough age for the iPhone 5 and iOS6. iOS 6 marks Apple's official departure from using Google maps as the default map application. This is a rather bold move, as Google maps is a nearly ubiquitous application that is known to be one of the best mapping applications in the world. Not only does it provide accurate and fast maps and directions, but it was simple to use, and helpful in many ways that people never realized.
However, to make a map application is not simple. It requires loads of data, complete with complex algorithms and different behaviours and parsers that recognize what the user is referring to. None of this can be done overnight, and surely, none of it can be fixed overnight either. Therefore, to take that jump from Google maps, while risky, can be dangerous.
To this date, people have done many side-by-side comparisons, and while far from promising, the new iOS6 maps application is a rather interesting take on maps, as it is very aesthetically pleasing, but unfortunately, is rather slow. Apple does deserve props for how good it is, considering I was expecting total failure.
Next there's Passbook, an absolutely ridiculous app that really doesn't help much to non-Americans. Go figure, because everyone can access these American establishments to use their coupons and cards. Everyone was hoping for NFC to exist on the iPhone5, but once again Apple has backed out.
It's probably a good that a new iPhone can still show up without the leadership of Steve Jobs. However, at the rate Apple is going, they fear being beaten by their competitors due to this constant need to play catch up, rather than being the pioneer in technology.
Sunday, August 26, 2012
Post 022
While most things that get posted on this blog are generally computer related, it's without a doubt that science is hardly something we should ever ignore. With that said, I think it's time for the second ever obituary to ever show itself on this blog. This time, it's to the ever amazing, Neil Armstrong.
When US President John F. Kennedy made a speech on May 25, 1961 to kick start the program to put a man on the moon, many people laughed and jeered. In fact, to this day, many people believe that the Apollo landings were nothing but a hoax, and that July 20, 1969 was nothing worth mentioning. However, for everyone else who believes that mankind has made the giant leap forward by landing on the moon, this was no hoax at all. It was very serious. Throughout all this time, it's without a doubt that space exploration was just starting and the big names such as John Glenn, the first American to orbit the earth, Alan Shepard, first American in space, Edward White, first man to walk in space, weren't even known yet. At the time, there was no such thing as docking space craft, landing on unknown terrain...nothing.
Kennedy's speech was nonetheless a multi-staged taunt directed at the Soviets. First, America has more money. Second, America will conquer space before the Soviets, and lastly, and most important of all : America was better than the Soviet Union. With that in mind, a lot needs to be done. Mankind had no idea how humans behave or survive in space. They also have no idea how spacecraft will handle in space. Now that those questions needed to be answered, even more questions presented itself in the form of how humans and spacecraft will behave on the moon.
The next 10 years would be the biggest leap in technological advancement with regards to space travel. Not only were we to determine how best to get off Earth, how best to go around Earth, and we also had to figure out how best to keep something off of Earth and on the Moon. The next 10 years also saw many records being broken, two of which involved the great Neil Armstrong.
Neil Armstrong was a man who was nothing short of extraordinary. This may have been the defining quality that made him the best candidate for the missions he undertook. Armstrong's first spaceflight was the docking of 2 spacecraft in space. Being part of the Gemini program, Armstrong took his Gemini 8 and managed to dock with the unmanned Agena in orbit. The mission was unfortunately cut short, when the two craft began to roll uncontrollably. This was a great setback for Armstrong but that didn't stop him from trying for a second mission.
The mission that truly defined Armstrong's career was the Apollo mission to the moon. It was just slightly more than 8 years after Kennedy wanted to put a man on the moon, and Armstrong had done it. Along with the lesser known Buzz Aldrin, they successfully completed a series of tests on the Moon and established the superiority that Kennedy had wanted to show. All of this, in a span of 8 years.
It is without a doubt that a man like this is greatly revered. The first to manage something is always someone who is far more than just "someone" who had managed something new and unique. Only a handful of people could ever have the chance to leave Earth, and even then only 24 of them have ever made it to the Moon. However, despite these distinguished and unique things that Neil Armstrong had managed, there was one way to honour him as laid out by his family. They wish for nothing much, but if you look upon the moon, and it appears to smile at you, just think of the great and humble man who first landed there, and wink.
When US President John F. Kennedy made a speech on May 25, 1961 to kick start the program to put a man on the moon, many people laughed and jeered. In fact, to this day, many people believe that the Apollo landings were nothing but a hoax, and that July 20, 1969 was nothing worth mentioning. However, for everyone else who believes that mankind has made the giant leap forward by landing on the moon, this was no hoax at all. It was very serious. Throughout all this time, it's without a doubt that space exploration was just starting and the big names such as John Glenn, the first American to orbit the earth, Alan Shepard, first American in space, Edward White, first man to walk in space, weren't even known yet. At the time, there was no such thing as docking space craft, landing on unknown terrain...nothing.
Kennedy's speech was nonetheless a multi-staged taunt directed at the Soviets. First, America has more money. Second, America will conquer space before the Soviets, and lastly, and most important of all : America was better than the Soviet Union. With that in mind, a lot needs to be done. Mankind had no idea how humans behave or survive in space. They also have no idea how spacecraft will handle in space. Now that those questions needed to be answered, even more questions presented itself in the form of how humans and spacecraft will behave on the moon.
The next 10 years would be the biggest leap in technological advancement with regards to space travel. Not only were we to determine how best to get off Earth, how best to go around Earth, and we also had to figure out how best to keep something off of Earth and on the Moon. The next 10 years also saw many records being broken, two of which involved the great Neil Armstrong.
Neil Armstrong was a man who was nothing short of extraordinary. This may have been the defining quality that made him the best candidate for the missions he undertook. Armstrong's first spaceflight was the docking of 2 spacecraft in space. Being part of the Gemini program, Armstrong took his Gemini 8 and managed to dock with the unmanned Agena in orbit. The mission was unfortunately cut short, when the two craft began to roll uncontrollably. This was a great setback for Armstrong but that didn't stop him from trying for a second mission.
The mission that truly defined Armstrong's career was the Apollo mission to the moon. It was just slightly more than 8 years after Kennedy wanted to put a man on the moon, and Armstrong had done it. Along with the lesser known Buzz Aldrin, they successfully completed a series of tests on the Moon and established the superiority that Kennedy had wanted to show. All of this, in a span of 8 years.
It is without a doubt that a man like this is greatly revered. The first to manage something is always someone who is far more than just "someone" who had managed something new and unique. Only a handful of people could ever have the chance to leave Earth, and even then only 24 of them have ever made it to the Moon. However, despite these distinguished and unique things that Neil Armstrong had managed, there was one way to honour him as laid out by his family. They wish for nothing much, but if you look upon the moon, and it appears to smile at you, just think of the great and humble man who first landed there, and wink.
Monday, August 6, 2012
Post 021
I mentioned last time that I had a love hate relationship with tablets. The computing world is of course getting absolutely flooded by this new platform, but what is really revolutionized at the heart of all this is nonetheless, the smartphone industry.
The first tablet to be of any commercial success is the iPad. Like the iPhone that preceded it, Apple was the first to launch it, and annoyingly, like the iPhone, everyone tried to copy its commercial success by actually trying to put one out. Amazingly, unlike the original case, anyone who DID make a tablet after Apple, sort of failed miserably. I mean, yes, Samsung has almost made 3 tablets for every iPad that's ever come out, but does anyone seem to care? I didn't. I even made the number 3 up because I keep hearing Galaxy Tab Something. There are so many iterations of it, I don't even know which is which. I'm pretty sure they made a second generation one, but like the first iteration, not that many people seemed interested enough to buy one.
That brings me to the next point because Samsung is crucial to this bit. Samsung is one of the largest smartphone manufacturers in the world, mainly because of it's successful Galaxy S smartphone line. Not only has it managed to provide an entryway into creating two iterations of Nexus phones for Google, but it's also launched them into the most intense series of lawsuits with Apple.
But I digress. My main focus is the Galaxy Note. Samsung has done many things to shake the foundation of iPhone's customer base. They've even jumped the gun on NFC, which Apple still can't manage to push out. Hardware-wise though, Samsung has managed to outdo the iPhone consistently, but at a price that many people somehow are willing to pay.
I remembered how in Zoolander, there was a joke made about how cell phones were getting smaller and smaller, so much so that Derek Zoolander, played by Ben Stiller was using a phone that was smaller than his thumb when unfolded. I also remembered how people made fun of Apple when they introduced the iPad by saying that while everyone is going forward by making smaller devices, Apple was going backwards by introducing a larger device.
It was funny, because everyone made a fuss about it, and at the same time, they still flooded the stores to buy it, and even worse, they went and promoted it with the dawn of the second generation of Android phones. Android phones are getting larger and larger as I continue to type this out, starting with the launch of the Galaxy S II, the LG Optimus, and...a whole slew of other ridiculous Android powered devices that basically just decided to be bigger in size, but gain nothing in battery life. Yet, like I said, people bought these devices. They were humongous. They were absolutely stupid and bizarre to the point where they barely even fit into a person's pocket.
That's when Samsung stood up and said : "hey, let's bridge that gap between cell phone and tablet by making the Galaxy Note". That was the thing, people believed they somehow needed this ridiculous item. People made fun of Apple for launching the iPad and yet not a word was said to Samsung about releasing the Galaxy Note? That can't be fair. There has to be some harsh words thrown at them for releasing such a stupid device.
I tried one of them. Yes, on the display at the local Best Buy, it looks shiny and promising. However, I've managed to find it cumbersome. I borrowed one for app testing one time, and aside from being absolutely annoying how every time I tried to swipe sideways to turn the page in the menus, I ended up dragging an icon to the home screen. It was stupid. The largest smartphone in the world, is also the largest pain in the ass because it won't fit in your pocket, and because it won't let you navigate your apps menu. How is that even forgivable? Compared to the iPad's absolutely suave handling, and absolutely insanely captivating interface, this Android powered device was nothing but an eyesore.
That's the thing, people somehow believe this larger screen will help, and I've found that it didn't. People believed that it'd be amazing. It wasn't. That's the irony behind all of this. In spite of many smartphone purists like myself who believe that the Galaxy Note was stupid, Samsung has decided to make a decision about the Galaxy Note. Samsung believed it was a success and decided that the second generation of the Galaxy Note be even bigger. I love how corporate management can be so stupid sometimes.
There are reasons for Apple's choice of a 3.5" screen. The idea was, when you're holding onto the phone with one hand, the average person should still be able to reach all 4 corners of the screen with their thumb alone. When other companies copied the iPhone, they made similar sized phones as well, until they realized their phones weren't fast enough. They wanted more speed so they put in a faster processor. That drained more battery, so they needed a larger battery, thus a larger shell, and a larger screen. That's why no Android device can have a standardized screen size, and to make matters worse, no two of them could work in the same way.
Now, I know I sound like I'm ranting, and I am, because that's what this blog is all about. However, what's the point of a phone that can't fit in your pocket, is too big to operate one-handed, and covers half your face when you try to make a phone conversation?
See, if new technology isn't solving existing problems, then how is it even a good new solution? It isn't, that's why they fail.
The first tablet to be of any commercial success is the iPad. Like the iPhone that preceded it, Apple was the first to launch it, and annoyingly, like the iPhone, everyone tried to copy its commercial success by actually trying to put one out. Amazingly, unlike the original case, anyone who DID make a tablet after Apple, sort of failed miserably. I mean, yes, Samsung has almost made 3 tablets for every iPad that's ever come out, but does anyone seem to care? I didn't. I even made the number 3 up because I keep hearing Galaxy Tab Something. There are so many iterations of it, I don't even know which is which. I'm pretty sure they made a second generation one, but like the first iteration, not that many people seemed interested enough to buy one.
That brings me to the next point because Samsung is crucial to this bit. Samsung is one of the largest smartphone manufacturers in the world, mainly because of it's successful Galaxy S smartphone line. Not only has it managed to provide an entryway into creating two iterations of Nexus phones for Google, but it's also launched them into the most intense series of lawsuits with Apple.
But I digress. My main focus is the Galaxy Note. Samsung has done many things to shake the foundation of iPhone's customer base. They've even jumped the gun on NFC, which Apple still can't manage to push out. Hardware-wise though, Samsung has managed to outdo the iPhone consistently, but at a price that many people somehow are willing to pay.
I remembered how in Zoolander, there was a joke made about how cell phones were getting smaller and smaller, so much so that Derek Zoolander, played by Ben Stiller was using a phone that was smaller than his thumb when unfolded. I also remembered how people made fun of Apple when they introduced the iPad by saying that while everyone is going forward by making smaller devices, Apple was going backwards by introducing a larger device.
It was funny, because everyone made a fuss about it, and at the same time, they still flooded the stores to buy it, and even worse, they went and promoted it with the dawn of the second generation of Android phones. Android phones are getting larger and larger as I continue to type this out, starting with the launch of the Galaxy S II, the LG Optimus, and...a whole slew of other ridiculous Android powered devices that basically just decided to be bigger in size, but gain nothing in battery life. Yet, like I said, people bought these devices. They were humongous. They were absolutely stupid and bizarre to the point where they barely even fit into a person's pocket.
That's when Samsung stood up and said : "hey, let's bridge that gap between cell phone and tablet by making the Galaxy Note". That was the thing, people believed they somehow needed this ridiculous item. People made fun of Apple for launching the iPad and yet not a word was said to Samsung about releasing the Galaxy Note? That can't be fair. There has to be some harsh words thrown at them for releasing such a stupid device.
I tried one of them. Yes, on the display at the local Best Buy, it looks shiny and promising. However, I've managed to find it cumbersome. I borrowed one for app testing one time, and aside from being absolutely annoying how every time I tried to swipe sideways to turn the page in the menus, I ended up dragging an icon to the home screen. It was stupid. The largest smartphone in the world, is also the largest pain in the ass because it won't fit in your pocket, and because it won't let you navigate your apps menu. How is that even forgivable? Compared to the iPad's absolutely suave handling, and absolutely insanely captivating interface, this Android powered device was nothing but an eyesore.
That's the thing, people somehow believe this larger screen will help, and I've found that it didn't. People believed that it'd be amazing. It wasn't. That's the irony behind all of this. In spite of many smartphone purists like myself who believe that the Galaxy Note was stupid, Samsung has decided to make a decision about the Galaxy Note. Samsung believed it was a success and decided that the second generation of the Galaxy Note be even bigger. I love how corporate management can be so stupid sometimes.
There are reasons for Apple's choice of a 3.5" screen. The idea was, when you're holding onto the phone with one hand, the average person should still be able to reach all 4 corners of the screen with their thumb alone. When other companies copied the iPhone, they made similar sized phones as well, until they realized their phones weren't fast enough. They wanted more speed so they put in a faster processor. That drained more battery, so they needed a larger battery, thus a larger shell, and a larger screen. That's why no Android device can have a standardized screen size, and to make matters worse, no two of them could work in the same way.
Now, I know I sound like I'm ranting, and I am, because that's what this blog is all about. However, what's the point of a phone that can't fit in your pocket, is too big to operate one-handed, and covers half your face when you try to make a phone conversation?
See, if new technology isn't solving existing problems, then how is it even a good new solution? It isn't, that's why they fail.
Friday, June 22, 2012
Post 020
I've always had a love-hate relationship with tablets. I think it all started out when the early tablets were merely laptops with a touchscreen and stylus, and swiveled so that the keyboard can be an optional thing. It seemed like a cool thing to have. It was beyond what we know because there was the touchscreen capability. However, that was nothing but a two minute gimmick. if anything, it was a disappointment.
These early tablets were clunky, expensive and really not that useful. You were better off just using a regular mouse to do all of your drawings instead.
Apple, as per usual, decided to rewrite the rule book and came up with the iPad back in early 2010. The iPad looked like a joke to a lot of people. It looked like an iPod Touch being magnified four times, it acted like an iPod Touch. In fact, it ran a similar piece of software that runs on the iPod Touch. Everything about it, screamed iPod Touch. There were people who joked that while the rest of the world was finding ways to shrink their products, Apple, decided to do the opposite. In retrospect, that seems to be the trend, with Android phones getting bigger and bigger, reaching to the point of the Galaxy Note, the One X and even the Lumia.
The thing about the iPad was that even though it was like an iPod Touch, it worked. It made sense. It was a device that really did put a a lot of things on the market to shame. What was the point of an ebook reader, or a digital photo frame? Why would you want to bring your laptop away from home, and furthermore, why would you bother to buy a netbook.
Naturally, when the rest of the world rolled out with their versions of tablets to satisfy the Apple haters, much was at stake. Unfortunately, many people have failed. Lenovo's was too slow, Acer's was rubbish by definition of being an Acer, Samsung had many to choose from, but they never caught on, Motorola made one, many people didn't seem to know that, Asus made one, and it was well received, but it's not mainstream, HP made one, but then axed it, and lastly, even Blackberry made one, which was a monumental failure. Let's be honest, the iPad was well designed, and everything about it was slightly superior to their competitors. Unlike the Playbook by Blackberry, no McMaster business professor gave an interview, highlighting how useful it's built-in HDMI output was useful. That could be because the iPad didn't have one, but that's not the main reason.
What made the iPad so successful was because it was a simple thing to work with. It wasn't filled with the insane intricacies of the Android operating system. Even though everyone praises the Android operating system to be free of bounds that Apple products have, I never found it easy to use. It was a pain to navigate, it was cumbersome, and required a slight learning curve that Apple products lacked. All iOS devices are relatively universal, so the amount of work required in learning to use their products is virtually little if any.
This is what opens up a new opportunity for competitors. A newcomer into the tablet market can capitalize on Android's ridiculous system, and Apple's strict stronghold on non-jailbroken devices. Microsoft has made that attempt this week with their new Microsoft Surface tablet. The tablet features a built in kickstand. It features a pressure sensitive keyboard, that doubles as the smart cover. This makes it easier to type than any tablet on the market. It features Windows 8 interface, and even has quite a bit of power to punch.
All of this makes the Microsoft Surface seem like a very attractive device. Reviews have been great for Windows 8, especially with how well the social integration aspect was so good on its UI. I've never been a fan of social networking, so I can care less. What is most important, is the entire issue with apps. Apps are what make or break a device. Apple's great success lies within the fact that they have hundreds of thousands of apps. The apps range from small and useless apps that make fart noises, to ridiculously high end ones that allow you to do 3D mapping of an object you've only taken photos of. Android isn't far behind, but is slowly trying to catch up. This is precisely what broke the Playbook, because it made no sense to use, and had very little, if any applications. So, the most important question to ask is : Can this tablet by Microsoft make it as a latecomer?
Will Microsoft be able to learn from its mistakes from the development of the Windows Phone OS and actually try to make something that's user-friendly? Only time will tell.
These early tablets were clunky, expensive and really not that useful. You were better off just using a regular mouse to do all of your drawings instead.
Apple, as per usual, decided to rewrite the rule book and came up with the iPad back in early 2010. The iPad looked like a joke to a lot of people. It looked like an iPod Touch being magnified four times, it acted like an iPod Touch. In fact, it ran a similar piece of software that runs on the iPod Touch. Everything about it, screamed iPod Touch. There were people who joked that while the rest of the world was finding ways to shrink their products, Apple, decided to do the opposite. In retrospect, that seems to be the trend, with Android phones getting bigger and bigger, reaching to the point of the Galaxy Note, the One X and even the Lumia.
The thing about the iPad was that even though it was like an iPod Touch, it worked. It made sense. It was a device that really did put a a lot of things on the market to shame. What was the point of an ebook reader, or a digital photo frame? Why would you want to bring your laptop away from home, and furthermore, why would you bother to buy a netbook.
Naturally, when the rest of the world rolled out with their versions of tablets to satisfy the Apple haters, much was at stake. Unfortunately, many people have failed. Lenovo's was too slow, Acer's was rubbish by definition of being an Acer, Samsung had many to choose from, but they never caught on, Motorola made one, many people didn't seem to know that, Asus made one, and it was well received, but it's not mainstream, HP made one, but then axed it, and lastly, even Blackberry made one, which was a monumental failure. Let's be honest, the iPad was well designed, and everything about it was slightly superior to their competitors. Unlike the Playbook by Blackberry, no McMaster business professor gave an interview, highlighting how useful it's built-in HDMI output was useful. That could be because the iPad didn't have one, but that's not the main reason.
What made the iPad so successful was because it was a simple thing to work with. It wasn't filled with the insane intricacies of the Android operating system. Even though everyone praises the Android operating system to be free of bounds that Apple products have, I never found it easy to use. It was a pain to navigate, it was cumbersome, and required a slight learning curve that Apple products lacked. All iOS devices are relatively universal, so the amount of work required in learning to use their products is virtually little if any.
This is what opens up a new opportunity for competitors. A newcomer into the tablet market can capitalize on Android's ridiculous system, and Apple's strict stronghold on non-jailbroken devices. Microsoft has made that attempt this week with their new Microsoft Surface tablet. The tablet features a built in kickstand. It features a pressure sensitive keyboard, that doubles as the smart cover. This makes it easier to type than any tablet on the market. It features Windows 8 interface, and even has quite a bit of power to punch.
All of this makes the Microsoft Surface seem like a very attractive device. Reviews have been great for Windows 8, especially with how well the social integration aspect was so good on its UI. I've never been a fan of social networking, so I can care less. What is most important, is the entire issue with apps. Apps are what make or break a device. Apple's great success lies within the fact that they have hundreds of thousands of apps. The apps range from small and useless apps that make fart noises, to ridiculously high end ones that allow you to do 3D mapping of an object you've only taken photos of. Android isn't far behind, but is slowly trying to catch up. This is precisely what broke the Playbook, because it made no sense to use, and had very little, if any applications. So, the most important question to ask is : Can this tablet by Microsoft make it as a latecomer?
Will Microsoft be able to learn from its mistakes from the development of the Windows Phone OS and actually try to make something that's user-friendly? Only time will tell.
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Post 01F
Writing in a blog is often considered to be just another crazy person writing about anything that tickles their fancy online. I'm sure a lot of people have tried to move away from that, and have tried to make it seem more like an informative piece. Informative writing is actually both important and an art form in itself. Some people take this for granted, and have done some pretty ludicrous things when it came to informative writing. While the people of the net can write whatever the hell they want, being an actual reporter doing a piece is not entirely the same.
Though I'm a bit late in writing about this issue, but Mike Daisey, a presenter of "This American Life" had published a piece that describes his visit to Foxconn.
It's interesting to point out, but Foxconn is the centre of scrutiny whenever we discuss consumer electronics being made today. Many people go on and on about how the labour forces are being treated in an unfair manner in those factories. Foxconn has been so negatively portrayed by so many different media outlies that the mere mention of Foxconn will bring about various different negative attitudes and dirty rumours, ranging from suicides, living conditions, chemicals used, work schedules, etc.
Therefore, when media coverage is being made about a man who has the chance to visit the Foxconn factories, there are a few things to keep in mind. Number 1 : this guy will make claims that they are hiding the real conditions. Number 2 : there will be a remark about how the whole tour seemed orchestrated. Number 3 : they will discuss something about working conditions being too tough.
However, that is the standard outlook behind these things. What people never seem to remember, is that Foxconn has it's doors flooded with people at 3 am in the morning whenever there is a job fair. They fail to recognize that if these people need to be employed to give some welfare to their families. People also never remember that reporteres need to spark controversy. That is an implicit line within their job description, because their work needs to bring in more audience members.
Mike Daisey's report on Foxconn was an interesting one. Not only has he made a laughing stalk of the show, Ira Glass and all that they represent, but he goes on to defend himself when he was in the wrong. Mike Daisey's controversial report started when he decided to lie about what he has seen, how much he has seen, and even who his translator was. Why did he go to such lengths to make a falsified report about a company that already is gaining so much negative reviews? Did the fact that his piling on will make matters better? If anything, Mike Daisey is actually abusing his position as a journalist to bully a company that is already under negative review all the time.
Then there was the issue of him lying to his producers. Was there some kind of reasoning to lie to your own boss about your work? Last time I checked, lying to your boss is a huge issue. What I think is most interesting, is how Mike Daisey went on to say he apologizes not because he mislead everyone with his lying report, or how he lied to his producers, but he apologizes because he didn't release this as drama. I'm sorry, is that supposed to constitute as an apology? What I find very disturbing is that when people make mistakes, they don't do what is necessary by standing up and admtting to be at fault. It seems that, while Mike Daisey has the audacity to go on public radio, denounce a company that is working hard to make consumer electronics for an American company that is boosting the American economy in this American life he's living (pun intended) during this economic downturn, he hasn't got the slightest bit of gut (in spite of his immense physical gut) to own up to a mistake he's made.
I remembered how much more trouble I got into whenever I made excuses as a child. Growing up, I learned that excuses never really got you anywhere. I always had an image where excuses only wound up putting you in more trouble in the real world. I don't know why someone like Mike Daisey is still given any more right to publish anything ever again, but I think that a man who lacks any self respect as a reporter, and a fellow human being lacks the right to try to report to the American public.
Though I'm a bit late in writing about this issue, but Mike Daisey, a presenter of "This American Life" had published a piece that describes his visit to Foxconn.
It's interesting to point out, but Foxconn is the centre of scrutiny whenever we discuss consumer electronics being made today. Many people go on and on about how the labour forces are being treated in an unfair manner in those factories. Foxconn has been so negatively portrayed by so many different media outlies that the mere mention of Foxconn will bring about various different negative attitudes and dirty rumours, ranging from suicides, living conditions, chemicals used, work schedules, etc.
Therefore, when media coverage is being made about a man who has the chance to visit the Foxconn factories, there are a few things to keep in mind. Number 1 : this guy will make claims that they are hiding the real conditions. Number 2 : there will be a remark about how the whole tour seemed orchestrated. Number 3 : they will discuss something about working conditions being too tough.
However, that is the standard outlook behind these things. What people never seem to remember, is that Foxconn has it's doors flooded with people at 3 am in the morning whenever there is a job fair. They fail to recognize that if these people need to be employed to give some welfare to their families. People also never remember that reporteres need to spark controversy. That is an implicit line within their job description, because their work needs to bring in more audience members.
Mike Daisey's report on Foxconn was an interesting one. Not only has he made a laughing stalk of the show, Ira Glass and all that they represent, but he goes on to defend himself when he was in the wrong. Mike Daisey's controversial report started when he decided to lie about what he has seen, how much he has seen, and even who his translator was. Why did he go to such lengths to make a falsified report about a company that already is gaining so much negative reviews? Did the fact that his piling on will make matters better? If anything, Mike Daisey is actually abusing his position as a journalist to bully a company that is already under negative review all the time.
Then there was the issue of him lying to his producers. Was there some kind of reasoning to lie to your own boss about your work? Last time I checked, lying to your boss is a huge issue. What I think is most interesting, is how Mike Daisey went on to say he apologizes not because he mislead everyone with his lying report, or how he lied to his producers, but he apologizes because he didn't release this as drama. I'm sorry, is that supposed to constitute as an apology? What I find very disturbing is that when people make mistakes, they don't do what is necessary by standing up and admtting to be at fault. It seems that, while Mike Daisey has the audacity to go on public radio, denounce a company that is working hard to make consumer electronics for an American company that is boosting the American economy in this American life he's living (pun intended) during this economic downturn, he hasn't got the slightest bit of gut (in spite of his immense physical gut) to own up to a mistake he's made.
I remembered how much more trouble I got into whenever I made excuses as a child. Growing up, I learned that excuses never really got you anywhere. I always had an image where excuses only wound up putting you in more trouble in the real world. I don't know why someone like Mike Daisey is still given any more right to publish anything ever again, but I think that a man who lacks any self respect as a reporter, and a fellow human being lacks the right to try to report to the American public.
Friday, March 23, 2012
Post 01E
Many of the computer science students actually find joy in some TV shows. While not all TV shows are universal, and amazingly, we haven't really been stereotypical when it comes to choosing these shows, but nevertheless, they are great shows.
Specifically speaking, I'm referring to Community. Not everyone watches this show, but it is, without a doubt one of the more popular shows among the computer science group. Community is essentially about a college study group comprising of 7 students and several characters who interact with this group. The story's concept is pretty simple, where character chemistry is easy to concoct because of their various personalities. Most of the show's jokes actually comes from cultural references and meta-humour, which too people like our computer science class is a big deal.
As most people within the program are slightly introverted, it is with great ease that I can make the claim that most of us have not bothered to fit in with mainstream. When I say that, I mean yes, computer science students still have Facebook and Twitter accounts, but they don't generally buy in to mass media, like listening to music broadcast on the radio, or watch Glee (some people in the class do, but they're a small minority). It's without a doubt, that when we watch a TV show that speaks to our hearts, and helps us to use humour to explain why we don't buy in to the mainstream, we'd instantly be hooked.
Community has faced an unfair yet inevitable predicament as of late. Poor ratings combined with flattening character plots are really turning off most of the viewers. Computer science students are not the only ones watching the show, as many people have similar mindsets to computer science students. Therefore, if the episodes start losing the original charisma, it's hard to win the audience. That was what led to Community's hiatus. It was unfortunate, because Community was up against The Big Bang Theory every Thursday. Ratings will definitely fall, when a show of such high calibre, is the rival, and the show is lacking any sign of livelihood.
So, what am I going on about today? It's true that Community has lost its touch from the beginning, and they've gone on hiatus, but ever since last week, they've returned. Unfortunately, they've also lost their touch. The episodes aired are no longer the same joyful meta-humour with references to pop culture. It's become generic, and it's greatly lacking in the same substance from before. Most importantly, it's also lost the elements that made it funny.
Are the writers really to blame again? In a way, yes. A story is only as good as someone willing to tell it. The writers have essentially run out of material to write about. They have to bypass the FCC, they have to be able to appeal to audiences, etc. This has led to Shirley's character being absolutely unbearable, Britta's character being slightly annoying, and Jeff's strange relationship with Annie being overly milked. It has reached the point where characters are just difficult to live with.
However, while I think writers have some room for improvement, I also think that viewers are very odd and fickle people lately. Often times, they criticize a show for not being funny, but I always find these reasons to be rather unfair. They compare it to the previous season sometimes, claiming that the current season isn't as good. Of course, in the case of shows like The Office, the critique is : that it's the same every season. The jokes are similar in nature so that it's consistently funny, but the fact that people are being obtuse about what it's like compared to the previous season isn't fair. In the event of a new show, they claim that it's "too forced", when genuinely it can still merit a few chuckles. I think it's alright to be analytical about a comedy at times, but I feel that most viewers are critical of comedies for all the wrong reasons. A comedy is not meant for you to use it for a novel study (though I wouldn't mind), because the sole purpose is to tickle your funny bone. It's not going to be consistent, because there are times when you aren't feeling in the mood for that specific joke, or you've been too familiar with a specific joke. I think a comedy is meant for laughs only. Either you get the joke or you don't. You shouldn't compare it to what it's like compared to the last time you heard the joke, or compare it to how the content isn't as funny as last season. It should be a brainless matter, and if it doesn't tickle your funny bone, then just stop there, and don't give some convoluted reasoning as to why one shouldn't watch this show.
The airwaves is full of terrible TV shows as is already, so why complicate it? I think new shows should be given a chance, and if it really doesn't suit your tastes, then just ignore it and cut out the ridiculous judgment about how your life didn't benefit from watching it. Life is rarely benefited from watching dramas/sitcoms anyway. Live with it.
Specifically speaking, I'm referring to Community. Not everyone watches this show, but it is, without a doubt one of the more popular shows among the computer science group. Community is essentially about a college study group comprising of 7 students and several characters who interact with this group. The story's concept is pretty simple, where character chemistry is easy to concoct because of their various personalities. Most of the show's jokes actually comes from cultural references and meta-humour, which too people like our computer science class is a big deal.
As most people within the program are slightly introverted, it is with great ease that I can make the claim that most of us have not bothered to fit in with mainstream. When I say that, I mean yes, computer science students still have Facebook and Twitter accounts, but they don't generally buy in to mass media, like listening to music broadcast on the radio, or watch Glee (some people in the class do, but they're a small minority). It's without a doubt, that when we watch a TV show that speaks to our hearts, and helps us to use humour to explain why we don't buy in to the mainstream, we'd instantly be hooked.
Community has faced an unfair yet inevitable predicament as of late. Poor ratings combined with flattening character plots are really turning off most of the viewers. Computer science students are not the only ones watching the show, as many people have similar mindsets to computer science students. Therefore, if the episodes start losing the original charisma, it's hard to win the audience. That was what led to Community's hiatus. It was unfortunate, because Community was up against The Big Bang Theory every Thursday. Ratings will definitely fall, when a show of such high calibre, is the rival, and the show is lacking any sign of livelihood.
So, what am I going on about today? It's true that Community has lost its touch from the beginning, and they've gone on hiatus, but ever since last week, they've returned. Unfortunately, they've also lost their touch. The episodes aired are no longer the same joyful meta-humour with references to pop culture. It's become generic, and it's greatly lacking in the same substance from before. Most importantly, it's also lost the elements that made it funny.
Are the writers really to blame again? In a way, yes. A story is only as good as someone willing to tell it. The writers have essentially run out of material to write about. They have to bypass the FCC, they have to be able to appeal to audiences, etc. This has led to Shirley's character being absolutely unbearable, Britta's character being slightly annoying, and Jeff's strange relationship with Annie being overly milked. It has reached the point where characters are just difficult to live with.
However, while I think writers have some room for improvement, I also think that viewers are very odd and fickle people lately. Often times, they criticize a show for not being funny, but I always find these reasons to be rather unfair. They compare it to the previous season sometimes, claiming that the current season isn't as good. Of course, in the case of shows like The Office, the critique is : that it's the same every season. The jokes are similar in nature so that it's consistently funny, but the fact that people are being obtuse about what it's like compared to the previous season isn't fair. In the event of a new show, they claim that it's "too forced", when genuinely it can still merit a few chuckles. I think it's alright to be analytical about a comedy at times, but I feel that most viewers are critical of comedies for all the wrong reasons. A comedy is not meant for you to use it for a novel study (though I wouldn't mind), because the sole purpose is to tickle your funny bone. It's not going to be consistent, because there are times when you aren't feeling in the mood for that specific joke, or you've been too familiar with a specific joke. I think a comedy is meant for laughs only. Either you get the joke or you don't. You shouldn't compare it to what it's like compared to the last time you heard the joke, or compare it to how the content isn't as funny as last season. It should be a brainless matter, and if it doesn't tickle your funny bone, then just stop there, and don't give some convoluted reasoning as to why one shouldn't watch this show.
The airwaves is full of terrible TV shows as is already, so why complicate it? I think new shows should be given a chance, and if it really doesn't suit your tastes, then just ignore it and cut out the ridiculous judgment about how your life didn't benefit from watching it. Life is rarely benefited from watching dramas/sitcoms anyway. Live with it.
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Post 01D
Did I ever mention how ridiculously stupid the concept of social networking is?
I think, that I haven't been quiet about how stupid I think it is. Complete with a list of creations that are a result of social networking, especially Facebook, Twitter, so on and so forth, I've been relatively successful at being unaffected by these things. Part of it stems from a lack of want to conform to society, but most of it is to do with the fact that I never saw the point. Why do I need to know what everyone else is doing at any given time of day? Why do I need a computer program to talk with all my friends? Why do I need to tell everyone else what I'm doing, and why do I need them to hit my "like" button?
My latest revelation about social networking is that, not only does news about individuals become news for everyone else, but everyone wants to use it to join in and make it sound like they really do read the newspaper or watch/listen to the news. Case in point, the death of the great Whitney Houston. This is sourced from Gizmodo, where people really couldn't tell Whitney Houston apart from Oprah Winfrey.
In an attempt to start the "RIP Whitney" trend, ignorant fools decide to put up pictures of an African American woman with a simple "RIP Whitney" scrawled below it. It's a surprise they didn't start posting Michelle Obama's pictures first. This begs the question : in what world does Oprah Winfrey resemble Whitney Houston? Of course, because there are posts, there will be comments. One comment even reads : "OMG Oprah and Whitney both died?"
It seems that social media now exploits idiocy and because of idiocy, it even spreads confusion to other idiots on the planet. Being a highly tech savvy person, people have always asked me why I never joined on the bandwagon. I think I have another reason : I'm allergic to idiots, and I don't want to be constantly notified of their existence.
I think, that I haven't been quiet about how stupid I think it is. Complete with a list of creations that are a result of social networking, especially Facebook, Twitter, so on and so forth, I've been relatively successful at being unaffected by these things. Part of it stems from a lack of want to conform to society, but most of it is to do with the fact that I never saw the point. Why do I need to know what everyone else is doing at any given time of day? Why do I need a computer program to talk with all my friends? Why do I need to tell everyone else what I'm doing, and why do I need them to hit my "like" button?
My latest revelation about social networking is that, not only does news about individuals become news for everyone else, but everyone wants to use it to join in and make it sound like they really do read the newspaper or watch/listen to the news. Case in point, the death of the great Whitney Houston. This is sourced from Gizmodo, where people really couldn't tell Whitney Houston apart from Oprah Winfrey.
In an attempt to start the "RIP Whitney" trend, ignorant fools decide to put up pictures of an African American woman with a simple "RIP Whitney" scrawled below it. It's a surprise they didn't start posting Michelle Obama's pictures first. This begs the question : in what world does Oprah Winfrey resemble Whitney Houston? Of course, because there are posts, there will be comments. One comment even reads : "OMG Oprah and Whitney both died?"
It seems that social media now exploits idiocy and because of idiocy, it even spreads confusion to other idiots on the planet. Being a highly tech savvy person, people have always asked me why I never joined on the bandwagon. I think I have another reason : I'm allergic to idiots, and I don't want to be constantly notified of their existence.
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Post 01C
The biggest news around the world recently relates to SOPA and PIPA.
SOPA, or the Stop Online Piracy Act, and PIPA, or the PROTECT IP Act (which apparently means Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act), is essentially America's government trying to find new ways to wage war.
Before I go on about America trying to find a new enemy, I just want to point out two things. First off, how much money was spent in hiring the people responsible for making these names sound like they have meaning? It seems like that whole PROTECT thing was a bit of an unnecessary acronym. An acronym within another acronym? That's like using the English language with recursion, i.e..defining a word while using the word inside the definition. Second of all, why does America want to stick its nose into something that is almost impossible to curb now that it has boomed? The Internet boom was so big 10 years ago, that it's virtually unstoppable now. This sounds like an uphill battle, and for at least the third time in America's history, this war is going to end in disaster.
With the troops dragging themselves outside of Iraq, and the impending war on Iran not exactly finalized yet, America has a huge load of money to spend. It just really pains me, because I think I don't see what impending problems America has that would need money. Maybe that's why they're justified into making a decision that would cost $47 million through 2016. One of the things that have been worrying people recently is the shortage of food. The shortage of food is actually attributed to a few things, some of them relevant to the shortage of water and even erosion of topsoil. Of course, in today's society, no one wants to eat any food, so fixing the shortage of water and erosion of topsoil is obviously nothing to be of concern. Again, if anything I just said made sense at all, then of course I'm totally bullshitting the reader. America has a lot of things on its agenda that can make use of $47 million. Might I suggest medical research? Better subsidized sports programs to cut down on obesity and perhaps cut back on the number of heart attacks or cholesterol pill abusers? In fact, why not just a better education program that can educate the next generation?
You see, a computer science student has been taught many many things with regards to security and data communications. If America really intends to go through with PIPA and SOPA, a few things needs to be done. First off, they would need to train personnel to be able to sift through network content, and like the TSA, find ways to track down "illegal activity". They will invade your privacy and find a wonderful way to put you in jail for it. Secondly, after sniffing through all the network content, they have to be able to do something to aggressors. Of course, what world would it be if the hero doesn't get to put the baddie into jail and give them a nice beating for it in the process? That is America, the world where everyone is a baddie but America and its allies.
America, land of the free, and oppressor of the dictator and communists, is now putting a stop on your freedom to go online to do whatever you want. It's funny, because the America is against North Korea for being a dictator and controlling of its people, going so far as to deem the crying crowd at the funeral of Kim Jong-Il to be fake, and yet they are now putting barriers on its own people. The enemy of the state is now officially, the state itself. Let's go further into law with this, The First Amendment. America came up with a list of Amendments, also known as the Bill of Rights. For some reason, violating these is absolutely okay, because the government is doing it. Censorship is now allowed, because America deems that it's okay. America has been condemning censorship since day one. They've spoken out against the Russians, the Cubans, the North Koreans, the Vietnamese, and even their latest and most favourite business partner, the Chinese. Does this mean that the war against everything America believes for has changed? Or does it mean America has finally admitted that they ran out of things to fight for, so they'll fight themselves if needed?
Let's go and talk about costs. Let's sit down and think how far this will go. The $47 million that was to go to these two acts, if passed on January 24th will definitely not be $47 million. Like I said, that money could have been wisely spent in other fields. Then there's the issue about maintenance. Maintenance fees will be on TOP of the $47 million, unless of course, America forgets that it is necessary, in a manner similar to most of their aging technology, then yes, it isn't a huge fee. Then there comes the cost for the legal aspect. Of course, no one ever puts these charges into play until the cases actually go through. The average tax payer, having been shut down from the Internet only wants to reason with the governing body to give him his life back, now has to go to court, and lose a lot of money to the lawyers so that he could be granted freedom he truly deserved. Another ploy against the tax payer.
In fact, there's another very funny bit to this, because they want to stop drug dealers online. People who sell over the counter drugs online, are a target here as well. However, it's a situation similar to the disturbing images on cigarette cartons. Why are we doing this? Shouldn't we have educated the children to know better? Does anyone even pay attention to the pictures or will they even pay attention to what happens when they stop these sales? Like the situation in Pakistan, where text messages have a list of banned words, people will find a way around the problem. This opens up new markets of employment where people will now be a certified illegal online drug dealer. Absolutely new, absolutely 100% more dangerous.
So, since America is doing this in the interest of America, where is it? What is it that they aim to achieve? Has America been at war with other people so much that slapping itself in the face once in a while feels right? Now that America is making a move, when will Canada, America's understudy, decide that they need to do the same? Canada has been in the footsteps of America since the beginning. The whole country has basically mapped itself after the country that prides itself in most heart attacks a year, by being within the top 10. We're very close behind America when it comes to rampant morbid obesity, and just about as far behind if not worse when it comes to technology. Canada claims to be a developed country, but we're every bit as far behind as most countries when it comes to technology, efficiency, and literacy. So, why not keep on with status quo and just do what the Americans do, it's what our government does best anyway.
SOPA, or the Stop Online Piracy Act, and PIPA, or the PROTECT IP Act (which apparently means Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act), is essentially America's government trying to find new ways to wage war.
Before I go on about America trying to find a new enemy, I just want to point out two things. First off, how much money was spent in hiring the people responsible for making these names sound like they have meaning? It seems like that whole PROTECT thing was a bit of an unnecessary acronym. An acronym within another acronym? That's like using the English language with recursion, i.e..defining a word while using the word inside the definition. Second of all, why does America want to stick its nose into something that is almost impossible to curb now that it has boomed? The Internet boom was so big 10 years ago, that it's virtually unstoppable now. This sounds like an uphill battle, and for at least the third time in America's history, this war is going to end in disaster.
With the troops dragging themselves outside of Iraq, and the impending war on Iran not exactly finalized yet, America has a huge load of money to spend. It just really pains me, because I think I don't see what impending problems America has that would need money. Maybe that's why they're justified into making a decision that would cost $47 million through 2016. One of the things that have been worrying people recently is the shortage of food. The shortage of food is actually attributed to a few things, some of them relevant to the shortage of water and even erosion of topsoil. Of course, in today's society, no one wants to eat any food, so fixing the shortage of water and erosion of topsoil is obviously nothing to be of concern. Again, if anything I just said made sense at all, then of course I'm totally bullshitting the reader. America has a lot of things on its agenda that can make use of $47 million. Might I suggest medical research? Better subsidized sports programs to cut down on obesity and perhaps cut back on the number of heart attacks or cholesterol pill abusers? In fact, why not just a better education program that can educate the next generation?
You see, a computer science student has been taught many many things with regards to security and data communications. If America really intends to go through with PIPA and SOPA, a few things needs to be done. First off, they would need to train personnel to be able to sift through network content, and like the TSA, find ways to track down "illegal activity". They will invade your privacy and find a wonderful way to put you in jail for it. Secondly, after sniffing through all the network content, they have to be able to do something to aggressors. Of course, what world would it be if the hero doesn't get to put the baddie into jail and give them a nice beating for it in the process? That is America, the world where everyone is a baddie but America and its allies.
America, land of the free, and oppressor of the dictator and communists, is now putting a stop on your freedom to go online to do whatever you want. It's funny, because the America is against North Korea for being a dictator and controlling of its people, going so far as to deem the crying crowd at the funeral of Kim Jong-Il to be fake, and yet they are now putting barriers on its own people. The enemy of the state is now officially, the state itself. Let's go further into law with this, The First Amendment. America came up with a list of Amendments, also known as the Bill of Rights. For some reason, violating these is absolutely okay, because the government is doing it. Censorship is now allowed, because America deems that it's okay. America has been condemning censorship since day one. They've spoken out against the Russians, the Cubans, the North Koreans, the Vietnamese, and even their latest and most favourite business partner, the Chinese. Does this mean that the war against everything America believes for has changed? Or does it mean America has finally admitted that they ran out of things to fight for, so they'll fight themselves if needed?
Let's go and talk about costs. Let's sit down and think how far this will go. The $47 million that was to go to these two acts, if passed on January 24th will definitely not be $47 million. Like I said, that money could have been wisely spent in other fields. Then there's the issue about maintenance. Maintenance fees will be on TOP of the $47 million, unless of course, America forgets that it is necessary, in a manner similar to most of their aging technology, then yes, it isn't a huge fee. Then there comes the cost for the legal aspect. Of course, no one ever puts these charges into play until the cases actually go through. The average tax payer, having been shut down from the Internet only wants to reason with the governing body to give him his life back, now has to go to court, and lose a lot of money to the lawyers so that he could be granted freedom he truly deserved. Another ploy against the tax payer.
In fact, there's another very funny bit to this, because they want to stop drug dealers online. People who sell over the counter drugs online, are a target here as well. However, it's a situation similar to the disturbing images on cigarette cartons. Why are we doing this? Shouldn't we have educated the children to know better? Does anyone even pay attention to the pictures or will they even pay attention to what happens when they stop these sales? Like the situation in Pakistan, where text messages have a list of banned words, people will find a way around the problem. This opens up new markets of employment where people will now be a certified illegal online drug dealer. Absolutely new, absolutely 100% more dangerous.
So, since America is doing this in the interest of America, where is it? What is it that they aim to achieve? Has America been at war with other people so much that slapping itself in the face once in a while feels right? Now that America is making a move, when will Canada, America's understudy, decide that they need to do the same? Canada has been in the footsteps of America since the beginning. The whole country has basically mapped itself after the country that prides itself in most heart attacks a year, by being within the top 10. We're very close behind America when it comes to rampant morbid obesity, and just about as far behind if not worse when it comes to technology. Canada claims to be a developed country, but we're every bit as far behind as most countries when it comes to technology, efficiency, and literacy. So, why not keep on with status quo and just do what the Americans do, it's what our government does best anyway.
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Post 01B
2012 is supposedly the end of the world for most people. The Mayans had predicted this end many many years ago, and people live in fear of what is to come. Let's get one thing straight : if the world will end, what can you do? Stop the world from moving? Maybe travel back in time and change the Mayan prophecy? Seeing that I really can't be bothered with the fact that the world will end, let's just continue shall we?
To start, telemarketers. Has anyone ever had the feeling that there is no end to these people? If memory serves me right, I was supposed to be on that "do not call list" that was so big a few years back. The fact that I'm still getting phone calls confuses me, and since putting yourself on the "do not call list" isn't changing things, I'll resort to other means of ending these meaningless and rather annoying phone calls from telemarketers. To start, I'll go with tricks that allow for easy ways to end these phone conversations, or if you would rather take the long route, I have ideas that can help make it excruciatingly painful to sit through a phone conversation with you.
Let's start with the quick and easy.
The Accident
Step 1: Answer the first few questions as quickly as possible
Step 2: Randomly hang up
The Disaster
Step 1: To perform The Disaster, here's what you need : calmness in your voice
Step 2: Answer positively to whoever is on the other side of the phone for the first few tolerable questions
Step 3: When you've had enough, quickly shout either of the following phrases in a huge panic before quickly hanging up
Step 1: Answer the phone casually as if you don't care what happens.
Step 2: When asked how you're doing today, tell them that you've got diarrhea and haven't had a proper bowel movement in the last week, and that you'd really like to be on the toilet seat right now rather than go through the conversation of what they're trying to sell.
/**The hang up should happen now for quick and easy, but if you wanna make the phone conversation really long, move on to Step 3*/
Step 3: If they haven't let you go yet, wait for a short while, and suddenly sniff and say : I smell something
Step 4: If they ask you what's going on, just tell them you think you're finally passing gas.
Step 5: Suddenly shout : "OMG I'VE SOILED MY PANTS!" and hang up.
The Know-it-all
Step 1: Calmly go through the usual procedures
Step 2: When they get to the part where they inform you that the phone call is recorded, ask them : "Are you also picking up your background? It's awful noisy on your end."
Step 3: They'll try to fix their phone, so you tell them : "Is that your supervisor back there? Tell them I said hi, and to be nicer to you."
Step 4: If they seemed stunned for even a split second, hang up.
The Foreigner
Step 1: Practice saying "What?" and "I don't understand!" in English with an accent and with as many grammatical errors as you can think of.
Step 2: As they talk to you, use ONE particular accent and keep repeating the above phrases
The Colonial
This works best if someone is calling about technical support you didn't ask for, or if the operator on the line doesn't answer (it's a habit of theirs these days, to not answer for the first half a minute)
Step 1: Appear to negotiate whatever it is that they're trying to sell
Step 2: Partway through, talk in a really croaky voice and tell them: "I'm not interested in what you're trying to sell, Cylon (pronounced "sigh-lawn") and you'd best hang up before I send my Vipers out to blast a hole in that ship you call a base star"
Of course..be creative with this, because it is a Battlestar Galactica reference.
Case in point : I once had a guy call me telling he was calling from "windows" regarding an issue with my computer. My reply was : "My home computer runs Linux, how'd you get this number". That stunned him, and that's when I launched into The Colonial. True story.
I think you understand the gist of the short ones, so let's move on with the tough and excruciating ones.
The Depressed One
Everyone has bad days, and faking one as if you're drunk off your rocker is a nice touch to totally mess with the telemarketer.
Step 1: Prepare a list of things that makes a day horrible. Have you got one? Good!
Step 2: When they ask how you're doing, tell them that you had a bad day.
Step 3: You can wait for them to ask if everything's alright, or you can go straight into asking : "did you want to hear about it?"
Step 4: Don't wait for them to answer and go through the list of bad things that can happen to you.
Step 5: Add a sob here or there and add a catch to your throat if you want. The key is to keep talking and not let them get a word in.
Step 6: Open a soda pop can if you want, and pretend to drink it every now and then while ranting.
Step 7: End with an attempt at popping pills to commit suicide or a determined : "I'm gonna go get that person for what they did to me" and quickly hang up.
The Babbler
Step 1: Wait until they need your input. They can be asking for information, or whether or not you're interested
Step 2: Tell them that you're 100% uncomfortable with what they're doing. Do not attack their job, but continually attack the fact that their job is invading your personal space, that you don't feel comfortable, and that you want them to leave you alone.
Step 3: At this point, you can move on to The Depressed One or you can continue to berate them with feigned intellectuality by using larger words or more complex sentences that essentially says how much you don't agree with talking about your personal life over the phone. Include the fact that they could have just sent an SQL query to register you into something you don't want to be a part of.
Step 4: Quickly tell them you're not interested, you're uncomfortable and if you're really scared, threaten to call the cops and hang up.
Now all of these tips and tricks are meant to make a fun task out of the menially telling the telemarketer to bugger off and leave you alone. I know of people who just hang up. Another good idea is to just always pretend to never be at home, that you're the housemaid or something. I do not condone attacking telemarketers, as done in 40-Year-Old Virgin (spoiler alert), where Catherine Keener told Steve Carrell (who was faking as a telemarketer) that he should get a real job and moves on by saying a lot of unfriendly things to him. I think that they're just doing their job, and we should respect them, and only disrespect their employers by wasting their time.
For all I know, you can reverse The Babbler and only ask the telemarketer how they're doing, what they thought of the weather, etc..etc, as if you guys are at a cigar bar talking about the day.
With that, I'm going to sign off. Have a great new year, and have fun;).
To start, telemarketers. Has anyone ever had the feeling that there is no end to these people? If memory serves me right, I was supposed to be on that "do not call list" that was so big a few years back. The fact that I'm still getting phone calls confuses me, and since putting yourself on the "do not call list" isn't changing things, I'll resort to other means of ending these meaningless and rather annoying phone calls from telemarketers. To start, I'll go with tricks that allow for easy ways to end these phone conversations, or if you would rather take the long route, I have ideas that can help make it excruciatingly painful to sit through a phone conversation with you.
Let's start with the quick and easy.
The Accident
Step 1: Answer the first few questions as quickly as possible
Step 2: Randomly hang up
The Disaster
Step 1: To perform The Disaster, here's what you need : calmness in your voice
Step 2: Answer positively to whoever is on the other side of the phone for the first few tolerable questions
Step 3: When you've had enough, quickly shout either of the following phrases in a huge panic before quickly hanging up
- OH NO! MY DOG HAS RAN OUTSIDE!
- OH NO! MY STOVE/OVEN IS ON FIRE!
- OH NO! MY [someone close enough to you that requires your attention] JUST FELL [optional : in the shower]!
- OH NO! MY WIFE'S GONE INTO LABOUR!
Step 1: Answer the phone casually as if you don't care what happens.
Step 2: When asked how you're doing today, tell them that you've got diarrhea and haven't had a proper bowel movement in the last week, and that you'd really like to be on the toilet seat right now rather than go through the conversation of what they're trying to sell.
/**The hang up should happen now for quick and easy, but if you wanna make the phone conversation really long, move on to Step 3*/
Step 3: If they haven't let you go yet, wait for a short while, and suddenly sniff and say : I smell something
Step 4: If they ask you what's going on, just tell them you think you're finally passing gas.
Step 5: Suddenly shout : "OMG I'VE SOILED MY PANTS!" and hang up.
The Know-it-all
Step 1: Calmly go through the usual procedures
Step 2: When they get to the part where they inform you that the phone call is recorded, ask them : "Are you also picking up your background? It's awful noisy on your end."
Step 3: They'll try to fix their phone, so you tell them : "Is that your supervisor back there? Tell them I said hi, and to be nicer to you."
Step 4: If they seemed stunned for even a split second, hang up.
The Foreigner
Step 1: Practice saying "What?" and "I don't understand!" in English with an accent and with as many grammatical errors as you can think of.
Step 2: As they talk to you, use ONE particular accent and keep repeating the above phrases
The Colonial
This works best if someone is calling about technical support you didn't ask for, or if the operator on the line doesn't answer (it's a habit of theirs these days, to not answer for the first half a minute)
Step 1: Appear to negotiate whatever it is that they're trying to sell
Step 2: Partway through, talk in a really croaky voice and tell them: "I'm not interested in what you're trying to sell, Cylon (pronounced "sigh-lawn") and you'd best hang up before I send my Vipers out to blast a hole in that ship you call a base star"
Of course..be creative with this, because it is a Battlestar Galactica reference.
Case in point : I once had a guy call me telling he was calling from "windows" regarding an issue with my computer. My reply was : "My home computer runs Linux, how'd you get this number". That stunned him, and that's when I launched into The Colonial. True story.
I think you understand the gist of the short ones, so let's move on with the tough and excruciating ones.
The Depressed One
Everyone has bad days, and faking one as if you're drunk off your rocker is a nice touch to totally mess with the telemarketer.
Step 1: Prepare a list of things that makes a day horrible. Have you got one? Good!
Step 2: When they ask how you're doing, tell them that you had a bad day.
Step 3: You can wait for them to ask if everything's alright, or you can go straight into asking : "did you want to hear about it?"
Step 4: Don't wait for them to answer and go through the list of bad things that can happen to you.
Step 5: Add a sob here or there and add a catch to your throat if you want. The key is to keep talking and not let them get a word in.
Step 6: Open a soda pop can if you want, and pretend to drink it every now and then while ranting.
Step 7: End with an attempt at popping pills to commit suicide or a determined : "I'm gonna go get that person for what they did to me" and quickly hang up.
The Babbler
Step 1: Wait until they need your input. They can be asking for information, or whether or not you're interested
Step 2: Tell them that you're 100% uncomfortable with what they're doing. Do not attack their job, but continually attack the fact that their job is invading your personal space, that you don't feel comfortable, and that you want them to leave you alone.
Step 3: At this point, you can move on to The Depressed One or you can continue to berate them with feigned intellectuality by using larger words or more complex sentences that essentially says how much you don't agree with talking about your personal life over the phone. Include the fact that they could have just sent an SQL query to register you into something you don't want to be a part of.
Step 4: Quickly tell them you're not interested, you're uncomfortable and if you're really scared, threaten to call the cops and hang up.
Now all of these tips and tricks are meant to make a fun task out of the menially telling the telemarketer to bugger off and leave you alone. I know of people who just hang up. Another good idea is to just always pretend to never be at home, that you're the housemaid or something. I do not condone attacking telemarketers, as done in 40-Year-Old Virgin (spoiler alert), where Catherine Keener told Steve Carrell (who was faking as a telemarketer) that he should get a real job and moves on by saying a lot of unfriendly things to him. I think that they're just doing their job, and we should respect them, and only disrespect their employers by wasting their time.
For all I know, you can reverse The Babbler and only ask the telemarketer how they're doing, what they thought of the weather, etc..etc, as if you guys are at a cigar bar talking about the day.
With that, I'm going to sign off. Have a great new year, and have fun;).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)