A Philosopher's Blog

Philosophical Essays on Many Subjects

ipod

Living Far from the Bleeding Edge

by Leave a Comment

IBM Portable Personal Computer :: Retrocomputi...
(Photo credit: br1dotcom)

I rather like technology and, as I have noted in other posts, I have sometimes shown poor judgment in my attempts to enhance my computers. Back in the day, squeezing out extra performance, drive space and so on was actually rather important-computers were so slow and storage so small that every increase really mattered. After all, if the hard drive is 20 MB, then saving 1 MB by compressing stuff was a big deal. These days when hard drives are 1TB or larger and processors scream with speed, such efforts are less essential-though some folks still like to get out on the bleeding edge. For example, DIY overclocking is still popular and still melting the occasional processor.

Thanks to being a professor, I’ve generally not been on the bleeding edge of technology. This is not from lack of desire, but a combination of reason and limited finances. Because of my budget, I cannot afford to spend the thousands it would take to be on the bleeding edge. Being rational, I do not endeavor to do this. Instead, I live way back on the plateau, watching the blood spray up into the sky.

As might be suspected, I tend to take a philosophical approach to this matter (or perhaps I am just rationalizing). While I have bought a few new computers, I generally have either built my PCs or acquired somewhat obsolete tech. Building a PC matches my view that a person should have the skill to repair anything he owns and depends on as well as a basic comprehension of how it works. This allows me to handle my own problems without having to impose on others. As might be guessed, I believe that people have a moral obligation to have a basic level of competence with their key technology. After all, they otherwise become burdens on others and waste time that could be better spent.

Using somewhat obsolete tech also matches my values. First, I’m from New England and hence have those famous frugal tendencies. I do not like to waste money and staying away from the bleeding edge helps a great deal. One reason is, obviously, that older tech is much cheaper than newer tech (in general) although the difference in performance need not be that great. To use the obvious example, the high end modern processors can cost well over $1,000. While they are very fast, they tend to be far more than the vast majority of folks would need. Since I have been working with computers for a while, I remember when people spoke of the blazing speed of the 486 chip relative to the 286, then spoke the same way about the Pentium. The same was true for the Mac: the 68000 was slow compared to the blazing 68040 and then there was the G3 and then the G4 chips. While this power can be useful for things like video editing and gaming, I obviously do not write any faster on my i7 920 than I did on my 68000 Mac Classic.

In practical terms, except for folks who need the speed (like folks rendering video, doing graphics work and hardcore gaming) a PC that is five or even ten years old would probably do the trick. It is, of course, possible to get last year’s models at a modest discount and even older ones for far less. Of course, old machines might have problems-which is why it is important to have the right skills if you decide to go with the older tech.

I also scavenge and rebuild fairly often-when I help people with their new machine, they will often give (or dump) their old or dead tech to me or sell it for a modest price. I’ve gotten laptops, desktops, iPods and such that way. In some cases I had to create a Frankenputer, but the price was right.

Second, I hate to waste stuff. Old tech that is not in use tends to end up in the landfill. By keeping old tech in use, I am able to keep some stuff out of the landfill. I also give away what I do not use-there is always a student who needs a laptop or a parent who needs a PC for the kids. This enables people to have a usable computer without having to spend what little money they might have. This Monday, I gave away my 2004 iBook G4. While I got in back when Office 2004 was brand new, after a restore of the OS it was actually quite snappy, what with its 1 GHz processor, 30GB hard drive and 768 MB of RAM. While Office 2004 is way out of date, it still works quite well-in fact, for most of what folks do, office 2004 is more than enough.

Of course, I do hope that some folks keep buying on the bleeding edge-the blood eventually trickles down to me and folks like me. Hmm, I guess that trickle down thing sort of works.

Enhanced by Zemanta

eReading

by Leave a Comment

Cover of "Kindle Wireless Reading Device,...
Cover via Amazon

Although I have had my Kindle for a while, my recent trip to Maine afforded me the chance to spend an entire week ereading. When I first got my Kindle, it was a bit odd and I was not sure that my money had been well spent. After all, for the price of the Kindle I could have purchased a box or two of used books. However, I have found that the Kindle really shines (metaphorically, of course-the screen is not lit) as a book substitute.

I found, like many others, that regular use of the Kindle makes the actual device recede into the mental background, allowing me to simply read it like a book. That is, of course, the most important “features” of an ereader is that the reader ceases to realize that he is reading on an ereader and simply reads. I also own a rooted Nook and an iPod Touch, both of which provide ereader functions (the Nook, obviously, is supposed to be an ereader) in addition to providing supports for wide range of apps. My preference for the Kindle over the iPod as an ereader is easily explained: the Kindle has a larger screen and a vastly better battery life. While it might seem odd, I actually prefer the one trick pony Kindle to the multifunction Nook. I have found that the Kindle’s screen “reads like paper” while the Nook makes me feel the same way I do when reading on a PC-it just doesn’t feel quite right. Also, the Nook has a high distraction factor: I can easily check my email, surf the web, play games and so on. When I simply want to read, these distractions are actually a minus.  There is, of course, an obvious downside to the Kindle: when I travel, I need to bring other devices to provide email, web and document access. With my Nook or some other tablet, I could have all these functions in one device.

Not surprisingly, I am following the rumors about the (allegedly) upcoming Amazon android tablets. One appealing rumor is that it will have two screens (or one screen with two “modes”): one that is like the current Kindles  (for reading0 and another that is a color screen. That, if done well, could provide the best of both worlds. Then again, perhaps a single screen would be just fine. There are also rumors that Amazon will release a Kindle 4, most likely a touch version of the Kindle aimed at Barnes and Nobles touch ereader. Since I have a Kindle 2, I might be tempted by a touch Kindle 4-by then, the battery in my current Kindle might be worn out. Then again, an Amazon android tablet might become my ereader of choice. Of course, the tablet market is in a frenzy now, so who knows for sure what needless luxuries the future shall bring us?

Of course, I still like actual books and magazines: until they make a waterproof Kindle, I’m not taking it near water. Also, there is still that time on flights when all electronics must (for no good reason) be turned off.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Waiting

by 11 Comments

Wait and see.
Image via Wikipedia

Like most folks, I make appointments to my dentist, doctor, mechanic or whatever and show up on time. Then I wait. Then wait some more. In some cases, I understand why I have to wait. For example, if someone comes into the doctor’s office with a screwdriver stuck in his chest, then I don’t mind waiting a while for my yearly checkup. As another example, I understand that appointments later in the day might not be quite on time because of some appointments going a bit over. However, having to wait 30 or more minutes past my early morning appointment time really summons up my inner grumpy old man. I’m especially annoyed when I get up at 5:00 am so I can work out before a 9:30 appointment and then not get called in until after 10:00. Hell, I could have slept another 30 minutes or gotten in four more miles.

I am not quite sure why it is so difficult for an appointment to start on time, or at least close to the time. After all, these things are scheduled way in advance and it is not like people have no idea how long some normal procedure (like a dental checkup) is likely to take. Sure, emergencies might result in some schedule problems, but I have never actually seen one of those going down while I have been waiting. Maybe they just think we should wait because we are called “patients.” Or maybe the people who schedule appointments have eternal amnesia and can never remember how long things take or what is scheduled when.

I have, of course, been tempted to just show up 20 minutes “late” for an appointment. However, I am sure they are wise to this ploy-after all, they always have a sign in sheet and no doubt would make a point of calling out the name of anyone who had an appointment but had failed to show on time. Some places even have a penalty charge for missing an appointment or being late. Of course, I have yet to hear of a place that gives the patient a discount or even some candy when they are forced to wait and wait.

In the past, I have tried switching in the hopes of not having to wait. However, either my luck is bad or this is standard practice. So, I’ve gotten to be good at waiting. I learned long ago to always bring something to do and the advent of the Game Boy and then the iPod Touch made waiting less of an ordeal.

I suspect I really need to get really rich-that way I can make them wait for me.

Enhanced by Zemanta

iPad(less)

by Leave a Comment

SAN FRANCISCO - JANUARY 27: Apple Inc. CEO St...
Image by Getty Images via Daylife

Today is the day the masses can acquire an iPad. Sadly, I will not be among these. No, Apple did not give me one in a clever marketing move. Rather, I will be among the many who do not have an iPad.

I must admit, the iPad is appealing. This might be due to the massive amount of free advertising Apple has been getting. As Stephen Colbert pointed out, Newsweek made the iPad the feature story for this week. Poor Amazon had to actually buy ad space on the back page of the same issue to push their Kindle. Colbert also spent much of the show waving around his new iPad. CNN also did a feature on the iPad as well. Apple clearly knows how to use the media folks to get this free coverage. Can you imagine a car company getting this sort of attention because it made a bigger car from a smaller model?

The iPad is definitely cool. However, it is still basically just a bigger iPod Touch/iPhone. Although I would gladly accept one as a gift, I could not justify spending that much for so little. For about the same cost, I could get a fully functional notebook (or a netbook and an iPod Touch) that would do so much more than the iPad. True, the notebook would not be as cool, sexy or hip…but it would be more useful and do pretty much everything the iPad actually does (other than funnel money to Apple via  the app store).

As I have mentioned before, the iPad is both too much and too little. It is too big to give it a clear portability advantage over a netbook. It is also too little in terms of not being a full computer. If I am staying in one place, I can just use my netbook or PC. If I am moving around a lot, I can just use my netbook or iPod touch.

The iBook does nicely target some niches, though. It seems like it will hammer the Kindle fairly badly as an eBook reader. It has a color screen and provides so much more than the Kindle (although the Kindle does have that “free” wireless connection). If I were a big fan of ebooks, I would certainly buy an iPad. But, I still prefer books and magazines.

It will also appeal to students. While it is really not very good for taking notes or typing a paper (although the kids today have some amazing texting skills that might allow the iPad to work this way), it does provide an excellent way to ignore a boring professor during class. Plus it has that cool factor that hip young kids will love.

The media capabilities will also appeal to folks who want portable entertainment and have the extra money for such gadgets. Of course, the iPad won’t run Flash. While Apple’s professed reason seems to be about security, running Flash does not seem like a significant risk. In any case, it would seem that this is a choice that should be left to the user (just like with other computers).

I suspect that Apple has locked Flash out to protect its app store. After all, if developers could just crank out Flash apps for the iPad (and iPhone), they would probably be much less inclined to go through Apple’s app store, thus hurting Apple’s income. Adobe has attempted to “bypass” this by providing a means by which Flash apps can be converted into apps suitable for the app store. This might help allay Apple’s “security concerns.”

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

iPad

by Leave a Comment

As the world now knows, Apple has announced the iPad. Interestingly, if you go to the Apple site and search using “iPad” you get this:

iPad

iPad

About iPad
A note pad in the shape of the white iPod with video, with an elongated screen to fit more text.

What’s New in this Version
– Now on an iPod with video (5g)
– New font face and size
– Now overflows with a scroll bar
– Updated graphics

Presumably Jobs will have the iPad folks “vanished” along with their little note pad, too.

While my invitation to Apple’s event was presumably lost in the digital ether, I have seen the coverage of the device and hence think I am fully qualified to engage in some commentary.

While touchscreen tablets have been around for a while, their acceptance has been lackluster at best. However, Apple has worked its media magic once more and seems to have the world in a fine frenzy over their tablet device. Of course, whether folks actually buy it as they did the iPod  remains to be seen.

Speaking of the iPod, the iPad seems to essentially be a big iPod Touch.  This is both good and bad. On the good side, the iPod Touch is a great piece of hardware and what is essentially a bigger version means that users will have all that Touch goodness with more screen space. Plus, users will have access to the apps for the iPhone/iPod Touch.

On the bad side, one reason I like my iPod Touch is that it is small enough to carry about easily. While the iPad is smaller than a typical laptop, it is bigger than the iPod Touch or iPhone.  As such, it is not as easy or convenient to carry about. I can put my iPod in my pocket or strap it to my arm.  Not so for the iPad-carrying it would be like carrying a book or netbook.

Of course, when I carry my netbook I get a full computer for my carrying effort. It can run normal programs such as Firefox, Word, Dreamweaver, Elements and so on. Plus, it has a keyboard for text entry. As presented, the iPad does not run normal Mac programs. So, for example, I could not use it to run the program I use to record my grades, Micrograde.

Naturally, there are iPhone apps that provide some of the functionality of standard programs (for example, Documents to Go provides what amounts to a mini version of Office) and with internet access the user can (possibly) run online programs.

It also comes with an iPad version of iWork, so it does have that as an office option. Of course, I don’t use iWork, so that is not terribly compelling.

If the iPad had been a full computer rather than a big iPod, I would have been sold on it. Since it is a bit smaller than a normal laptop and I rather like the iPod Touch touch interface I would have found it very useful. However, a big iPod is less useful to me, since I  need the ability to run standard programs rather than just iPhone apps.

I do, however, see some obvious uses for the iPad. As noted above, a user can get some of the functionality of normal programs by getting the right Apps. So, the iPad can be made to function like a normal computer. Also, it does provide a larger screen for browsing and watching videos, which are two killer functions.

Of course, since the iPad falls between an iPod Touch and a netbook, someone who already has both of these might find the iPad less compelling. I predict that sales will be good-which is hardly going out on a limb. Then again, I do have this vague feeling that consumers might think  “why should I buy an iPod that I can’t fit in my pocket?” I’m sure Steve Jobs has the answer.

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Government & Talk Radio

by Leave a Comment

In 1949 the FFC introduced the Fairness Doctrine that required those with broadcast licenses to present controversial issues of public importance in a way that was fair and balanced. This doctrine came to an end during the presidency of Ronald Reagen. Not surprisingly, there have been attempts to revive it.

As mentioned in the previous blog, conservatives dominate talk radio and this has lead some folks to think that the government should step in using something like the Fairness Doctrine to force more balance on the airwaves.

If there was evidence that the conservative dominance was the result of questionable means, then it would make sense for the government to get involved. However, it seems likely that existing laws would serve this purpose well enough. Liberal paranoia aside, the mere fact that talk radio is dominated by conservatives is no evidence of misdeeds-no more than the liberal dominance of other media is a clear sign of misdeeds.  Rather, much of it seems to be a matter of consumer choice and this is not something that the state should interfere with, unless this choice is somehow being tampered with in illegal ways.

To use an analogy, if the iPod is outselling its competitors, the government has no obligation or right to step in and try to balance things out-as long as Apple is playing fair. However, if a company is coercing customers or abusing a near monopoly, then intervention would be appropriate.

So, if conservatives dominate the airwaves because that is what people want to hear, then the government should do nothing about that. Of course, if there are some sort of shady or illegal reasons behind this dominance, then action would be appropriate.

My guess is that much of the conservative dominance is due to the hosts giving people what they want and they are doing this in a legitimate way-by outdoing their almost nonexistent competition. But, people should not be punished for winning-just for cheating.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
%d bloggers like this: