It sure looks like it. I'm now obsessing over the iPhone, after buying an iPod and an iMac.
The fact is that I will soon need a new phone anyway, since my current cell phone plan dates back to the days when my credit was too crummy, and I had to piggyback onto my parents' multi-line family plan, which I still belong to. But I would rather have full control over my line, so I may be looking for an individual plan soon. And I'll most likely get an iPhone with the new plan.
The reason for Apple's iPhone is that the more I see people carry it, and the more I play with it at the local Apple Store, the more I appreciate its usability. It's a typical Apple product - slightly overpriced ($399) and not the most advanced on the market, but easier to use in everyday life than the competition.
Currently, I carry a free Motorola phone that can give me stock quotes and Internet access, but I balk at the idea of paying through the nose to pull up a mobile-only website on the phone's tiny screen. The iPhone comes with unlimited data transfer plans and the capability to access normal websites, so Web access may be a feature I will eventually end up actually using, especially in conjunction with its Google Maps applet (it'll come in very handy when I am, say, doing a walking tour of San Francisco).
I've also seen people use the iPhone's 2MP camera at a recent KT Tunstall concert I went to, and the iPhone took much better pictures than my Motorola ever could.
Of course, the iPhone is also an 8GB iPod, so it will carry my music collection as well (I only have 3.7 GB of music right now - and have little plans for video beyond a few choice music videos). My current iPod has too many scratches (and short battery life), so an upgrade could do wonders.
Last, but not the least, its basic phone functions seem to be above par as well. I could use my Mac's Address Book to synchronize my contacts, pull them up on the phone, and dial or email with a touch of the screen.
I am well aware of the limitation on the iPhone: its slow Internet access speed. It's fine if I am near a WiFi hotspot - I can just go WiFi and surf the Net at high speed (some hotspots will make me pay, however). This will especially come in handy when I am traveling; I could use the numerous hotspots in Europe and the Far East without lugging a laptop around. If I am not at a WiFi hotspot, however, I need to use the cellular network for access, which is not much faster than a dial-up modem. Still, I could use that to find WiFi hotspots on the fly, or check Google Maps. Using cellular network for Internet access while roaming is also a very expensive proposition; fortunately, I can disable data roaming.
In any case, I will keep reading the feedback and reviews before committing. And in any case, I don't expect to get the iPhone until after the new year. My current line is contracted through May; I may wait until then, as my credit score should improve significantly by then. I'll also hope for a possible price drop after the holidays.
iPhone
26 November 2007
18 November 2007
Tendencies of Different Political Persuasions
Thanks to DiAnne Grieser for the link...
Zogby says conservatives, liberals, and moderates have different and similar tastes in entertainment. Some findings:
Zogby says conservatives, liberals, and moderates have different and similar tastes in entertainment. Some findings:
- Liberals are more likely to listen to conservative talk shows than vice versa, explaining why Rush Limbaugh is more popular than Air America.
- Conservatives don't like TV - but when they watch, it's Fox and Fox News.
- Liberals love video games - especially The Sims.
- Politically themed shows (such as Brothers and Sisters, starring my former idol Calista Flockhart as a Republican pundit) are a plus for liberals, a minus for moderates.
- Conservatives listen to country and gospel. Liberals listen to most other popular genres.
- Conservatives are into baseball and auto racing. Liberals are most likely to follow soccer.
- Conservatives like nonfiction. Liberals prefer fiction - and read more.
- Moderates watch Fox News and daytime and children's programming.
- Conservatives are more likely to predict one's political leanings based on the person's entertainment tastes. Moderates are least likely to do so.
- Half of conservatives believe that immigrants come to America to get benefits from the government. Almost all liberals believe that immigrants are searching for a better opportunity to work.
15 November 2007
A Moral Case for War?
I've meant to write this post for the past week, but I've been extremely busy with a project, and was unable to spare any time - beyond the few seconds needed for "I'm tired and exhausted" status update on Facebook.
A frequent visitor to this blog, who identifies as a liberal Republican, recently left a comment, saying that while he also desires peace, the conduct of certain dictators - such as Iraq's Saddam Hussein and Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - toward their people cannot be forgiven, and a war is needed to liberate their subjects. I promised a reply in the form of a post (as opposed to another comment), and here it is.
Very few people doubt the pain and suffering caused by Saddam and Ahmadinejad. But first, it bears remembering that Saddam once was a key US ally in the region, keeping the Iranians in check (after Ayatollah Khomeini overthrew a pro-US regime in 1979). Saddam got a lot of help from the US during his war against Iran, and bought lots of American weaponry - the very weaponry that was turned against American troops during the 1991 Gulf War. Saddam's hideous conduct was well-known to the US government well beforehand, and the US should have never helped him in the first place. The same holds for Iran - blatant intervention in the Iranian internal politics by the US in 1953 planted the seeds of the 1979 Islamic revolution. Even Afghanistan isn't much different - the Taliban were US-backed resistance fighters against the Soviet occupation.
In fact, the US has not only failed to act against some of the most hideous dictators around the world, it's actually helped many of them for strategic reasons. The House of Saud in Saudi Arabia, notorious for its primitive moral laws and human rights violations (not to mention breeding terrorists), is a valuable US ally. Outside the Middle East, Latin America has seen dictators such as Chile's Pinochet, whose disastrous privatization of government pension plans now is a template for the US neocons' own plans to privatize Social Security (not to mention the disappearance of many political dissidents). In Asia, there were South Korea, the Philippines, and South Vietnam (and arguably the Chinese Nationalist government in Taiwan); South Korea's Park is now the US template for the Unitary Executive Theory. While the Cold War standoff with the USSR made many of these alliances a necessity, many of these US allies were as horrible in their human rights records as the Soviet Bloc nations.
Even outside the US sphere of influence, human rights violations continue to happen, notably in Darfur, Sudan and northern Nigeria.
If the US is to play the moral enforcer, not only does it need to have invaded ALL of these nations, but its human rights record needs to be exemplary, which is simply not the case. Racial injustices were fact of life just half a century ago (even as many of these foreign interventions were happening), and even today, American women and LGBTs enjoy far fewer rights than their European and Canadian counterparts. The increasing gap between the rich and the poor, and the resulting deplorable living standards for many Americans, also take away from American moral authority. And more importantly, the US simply doesn't have the resources to invade all these nations - and these resources are better used fixing the problems at home, like an improved healthcare system.
The only thing that makes Iraq and Iran higher-priority targets for war is... PETROLEUM. The oil companies have been the biggest beneficiaries of the war, thanks to ever-rising oil prices and the bigger profits. Meanwhile, someone else is getting rich as well, as the Iraqi oil revenues are disappearing into the hands of shady contractors. Defense contractors, and mercenary firms such as Blackwater, are making a killing, even as American troops, many of whom had signed up for scholarships and other perks, find themselves either traumatized or dead (or at least demoralized). These wars are not being fought for national security, they are being fought to make money at the expense of lives. And American policies in Iraq, such as Blackwater getting away with killing Iraqi civilians at will, serve not to make the region safer, but create more enemies of the US and make the job harder for the troops.
Yes, dictators need to be overthrown. But it bears remembering that war is costly, both in human and economic terms. The best war victories are won without ever firing a shot. Diplomacy and a sound foreign policy do much better in terms of making America - and the world - safer and more democratic.
As for Republicans being more inclined than Democrats to start a war to liberate someone or protect freedoms: don't count on it. Contrary to what you may hear in Koreatown and Little Saigon, American military involvement to protect South Korea and South Vietnam were launched by Democratic administrations. Even as recently as the Clinton era, American peacekeepers were being deployed to Somalia and Kosovo, the latter in consultation with UN, NATO, and other international framework.
This pretty much is my rebuttal to that thought provoking comment.
A frequent visitor to this blog, who identifies as a liberal Republican, recently left a comment, saying that while he also desires peace, the conduct of certain dictators - such as Iraq's Saddam Hussein and Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - toward their people cannot be forgiven, and a war is needed to liberate their subjects. I promised a reply in the form of a post (as opposed to another comment), and here it is.
Very few people doubt the pain and suffering caused by Saddam and Ahmadinejad. But first, it bears remembering that Saddam once was a key US ally in the region, keeping the Iranians in check (after Ayatollah Khomeini overthrew a pro-US regime in 1979). Saddam got a lot of help from the US during his war against Iran, and bought lots of American weaponry - the very weaponry that was turned against American troops during the 1991 Gulf War. Saddam's hideous conduct was well-known to the US government well beforehand, and the US should have never helped him in the first place. The same holds for Iran - blatant intervention in the Iranian internal politics by the US in 1953 planted the seeds of the 1979 Islamic revolution. Even Afghanistan isn't much different - the Taliban were US-backed resistance fighters against the Soviet occupation.
In fact, the US has not only failed to act against some of the most hideous dictators around the world, it's actually helped many of them for strategic reasons. The House of Saud in Saudi Arabia, notorious for its primitive moral laws and human rights violations (not to mention breeding terrorists), is a valuable US ally. Outside the Middle East, Latin America has seen dictators such as Chile's Pinochet, whose disastrous privatization of government pension plans now is a template for the US neocons' own plans to privatize Social Security (not to mention the disappearance of many political dissidents). In Asia, there were South Korea, the Philippines, and South Vietnam (and arguably the Chinese Nationalist government in Taiwan); South Korea's Park is now the US template for the Unitary Executive Theory. While the Cold War standoff with the USSR made many of these alliances a necessity, many of these US allies were as horrible in their human rights records as the Soviet Bloc nations.
Even outside the US sphere of influence, human rights violations continue to happen, notably in Darfur, Sudan and northern Nigeria.
If the US is to play the moral enforcer, not only does it need to have invaded ALL of these nations, but its human rights record needs to be exemplary, which is simply not the case. Racial injustices were fact of life just half a century ago (even as many of these foreign interventions were happening), and even today, American women and LGBTs enjoy far fewer rights than their European and Canadian counterparts. The increasing gap between the rich and the poor, and the resulting deplorable living standards for many Americans, also take away from American moral authority. And more importantly, the US simply doesn't have the resources to invade all these nations - and these resources are better used fixing the problems at home, like an improved healthcare system.
The only thing that makes Iraq and Iran higher-priority targets for war is... PETROLEUM. The oil companies have been the biggest beneficiaries of the war, thanks to ever-rising oil prices and the bigger profits. Meanwhile, someone else is getting rich as well, as the Iraqi oil revenues are disappearing into the hands of shady contractors. Defense contractors, and mercenary firms such as Blackwater, are making a killing, even as American troops, many of whom had signed up for scholarships and other perks, find themselves either traumatized or dead (or at least demoralized). These wars are not being fought for national security, they are being fought to make money at the expense of lives. And American policies in Iraq, such as Blackwater getting away with killing Iraqi civilians at will, serve not to make the region safer, but create more enemies of the US and make the job harder for the troops.
Yes, dictators need to be overthrown. But it bears remembering that war is costly, both in human and economic terms. The best war victories are won without ever firing a shot. Diplomacy and a sound foreign policy do much better in terms of making America - and the world - safer and more democratic.
As for Republicans being more inclined than Democrats to start a war to liberate someone or protect freedoms: don't count on it. Contrary to what you may hear in Koreatown and Little Saigon, American military involvement to protect South Korea and South Vietnam were launched by Democratic administrations. Even as recently as the Clinton era, American peacekeepers were being deployed to Somalia and Kosovo, the latter in consultation with UN, NATO, and other international framework.
This pretty much is my rebuttal to that thought provoking comment.
09 November 2007
Upgrading my Mac's operating system
A frequent visitor to this blog has left a comment, for which I will reply in the form of a post (as opposed to another comment). But that will be the next post. In the meantime... some tech talk.
I'm known to be a sucker for new operating systems, and have been lucky with them. That was indeed true when Windows 95 came out - I ordered a new Gateway (back then, Gateway 2000) Pentium 100MHz machine, on the first day that Gateway started pre-loading Windows 95 on its computers. With the built-in Internet connectivity plus vastly improved layout and stability over Windows 3.1, I did not regret the decision at all. (Though aesthetically, I preferred Windows 3.1...) And earlier this year, I bought a retail upgrade copy of Windows Vista Home Premium, on the release date, and immediately loaded it onto my HP Pavilion laptop (with Intel Core 2 Duo 1.83 GHz processor and 2 GB of RAM), but aside from the built-in DVD player software, found little improvement.
Since then, I've moved over to the Mac world, but my habits stayed the same. I pre-ordered Mac OS X 10.5 (Leopard) and had it delivered on the release date, two weeks ago, even though 10.4 (Tiger) was working perfectly fine on my newish Mac. I ordered Leopard primarily for Time Machine (backup software), Boot Camp (Windows dual-boot), and Quick Look. I am happy to report that these functions are working as advertised.
Time Machine, with the help of an external hard drive, simplifies and automates the backup process, to a point where the only thing I have to do is to connect the external hard drive on a regular basis. Backups are a hassle to me, and making it a no-brainer has really helped me out. If I keep the external drive connected, I can even back up every hour. The good part will be the restoration, which will resurrect my data AND applications to any previous backed-up state. This beats having to reinstall all applications, most likely the case with Windows and often the case even on Mac OS.
Boot Camp, which creates a new partition for Windows to run on, was available as a beta (versions 1.x) on Tiger, but that beta has expired; in other words, no more reconfiguring, and no more driver updates, unless I upgraded to Leopard. Boot Camp is extremely important to me, as I still use quite a few Windows programs on my Mac, so this was a forced upgrade. At least, version 2.0, which Leopard comes with, works beautifully - my Mac runs Windows better than most PCs out there, thanks to lack of crapware. Too bad, Time Machine doesn't back up the Windows partition!
Quick Look, which lets me look at the contents of a document file with a tap of the space bar, is another nice feature that works well. Other improvements, such as a revamped Finder that looks a lot like iTunes, are just the icing on the cake.
The speed of the operating system is very good - on my Intel Core 2 Duo 2.16 GHz, 2 GB RAM iMac, it's nearly instantaneous start-up. It seems a tad slower than Tiger at the initial startup, but only by a second or two at most, and once started up, about the same speed, despite transparent menu bar and other eye candies.
The price, at $129, is a bit steep for just a few features, but on the mark if I consider all the other little features I am getting.
There was one hiccup with Leopard; an iTunes plug-in, which an application for Facebook had installed, crashed iTunes under Leopard. I had to remove the plug-in, and while I was hunting for it, I couldn't use iTunes for a few days. But that's taken care of, and I don't see further issues at this time.
I've been lucky with my operating system upgrades - even the much-maligned Windows Vista didn't give me too many headaches. But nevertheless, I am far more satisfied with my Mac experience, both under Tiger and now under Leopard, which works almost like a dream. Apple has legions of loyal fans, and now I know why - its products simply work!
Mac OS X Leopard
I'm known to be a sucker for new operating systems, and have been lucky with them. That was indeed true when Windows 95 came out - I ordered a new Gateway (back then, Gateway 2000) Pentium 100MHz machine, on the first day that Gateway started pre-loading Windows 95 on its computers. With the built-in Internet connectivity plus vastly improved layout and stability over Windows 3.1, I did not regret the decision at all. (Though aesthetically, I preferred Windows 3.1...) And earlier this year, I bought a retail upgrade copy of Windows Vista Home Premium, on the release date, and immediately loaded it onto my HP Pavilion laptop (with Intel Core 2 Duo 1.83 GHz processor and 2 GB of RAM), but aside from the built-in DVD player software, found little improvement.
Since then, I've moved over to the Mac world, but my habits stayed the same. I pre-ordered Mac OS X 10.5 (Leopard) and had it delivered on the release date, two weeks ago, even though 10.4 (Tiger) was working perfectly fine on my newish Mac. I ordered Leopard primarily for Time Machine (backup software), Boot Camp (Windows dual-boot), and Quick Look. I am happy to report that these functions are working as advertised.
Time Machine, with the help of an external hard drive, simplifies and automates the backup process, to a point where the only thing I have to do is to connect the external hard drive on a regular basis. Backups are a hassle to me, and making it a no-brainer has really helped me out. If I keep the external drive connected, I can even back up every hour. The good part will be the restoration, which will resurrect my data AND applications to any previous backed-up state. This beats having to reinstall all applications, most likely the case with Windows and often the case even on Mac OS.
Boot Camp, which creates a new partition for Windows to run on, was available as a beta (versions 1.x) on Tiger, but that beta has expired; in other words, no more reconfiguring, and no more driver updates, unless I upgraded to Leopard. Boot Camp is extremely important to me, as I still use quite a few Windows programs on my Mac, so this was a forced upgrade. At least, version 2.0, which Leopard comes with, works beautifully - my Mac runs Windows better than most PCs out there, thanks to lack of crapware. Too bad, Time Machine doesn't back up the Windows partition!
Quick Look, which lets me look at the contents of a document file with a tap of the space bar, is another nice feature that works well. Other improvements, such as a revamped Finder that looks a lot like iTunes, are just the icing on the cake.
The speed of the operating system is very good - on my Intel Core 2 Duo 2.16 GHz, 2 GB RAM iMac, it's nearly instantaneous start-up. It seems a tad slower than Tiger at the initial startup, but only by a second or two at most, and once started up, about the same speed, despite transparent menu bar and other eye candies.
The price, at $129, is a bit steep for just a few features, but on the mark if I consider all the other little features I am getting.
There was one hiccup with Leopard; an iTunes plug-in, which an application for Facebook had installed, crashed iTunes under Leopard. I had to remove the plug-in, and while I was hunting for it, I couldn't use iTunes for a few days. But that's taken care of, and I don't see further issues at this time.
I've been lucky with my operating system upgrades - even the much-maligned Windows Vista didn't give me too many headaches. But nevertheless, I am far more satisfied with my Mac experience, both under Tiger and now under Leopard, which works almost like a dream. Apple has legions of loyal fans, and now I know why - its products simply work!
Mac OS X Leopard
05 November 2007
A noteworthy transgender peace activist
CodePink activist Midge Potts, whose name I've repeatedly picked up from Karen Bradley of Democracy Cell Project (and also of CodePink), turns out to be transgender.
She is one of the numerous transgender Republicans, like Mann Coulter. But that's where the similarities end. Unlike the Mann, Potts has actually served in the military, and knows all about war. And her activism for peace is sincere, knows no partisan boundaries, and keeps going without the benefit of the media machine that the Mann can afford. And she is a true fiscal conservative, something most Republicans today are not. Most importantly, just as she shatters the male-female dichotomy, she also believes in shattering the liberal-conservative dichotomy that the powered elites have been propagating.
I'll definitely be paying more attention to her activism, which has helped put CodePink on the Capitol Hill political map.
Midge Potts
She is one of the numerous transgender Republicans, like Mann Coulter. But that's where the similarities end. Unlike the Mann, Potts has actually served in the military, and knows all about war. And her activism for peace is sincere, knows no partisan boundaries, and keeps going without the benefit of the media machine that the Mann can afford. And she is a true fiscal conservative, something most Republicans today are not. Most importantly, just as she shatters the male-female dichotomy, she also believes in shattering the liberal-conservative dichotomy that the powered elites have been propagating.
I'll definitely be paying more attention to her activism, which has helped put CodePink on the Capitol Hill political map.
Midge Potts
01 November 2007
Pick-up lines to not use on me
There are some people - including some of those loser men who don't get a clue from my double-female-symbol necklace - who continue to use these pick-up lines on me. And I just came across the lines - and the responses - from Ivy Le, a Vietnamese-American rapper. Thanks to Angry Asian Man for the link.
1) Where are you really from? "I really am from Texas, and I don't care where your Asian ex-girlfriend was really from, either."
Creative Loafing (Atlanta)
1) Where are you really from? "I really am from Texas, and I don't care where your Asian ex-girlfriend was really from, either."
2) Do you ... speak any other languages? "Nice try. Unless we're having a deep conversation about linguistics while the maitre d' decants our Malbec, stop asking me where I'm really from."
3) Ching chang chong? "I actually do speak a few languages, but I don't understand Bigot. I'd tell you what I usually say to this question, but you can't print it."
4) You know I love Asian women? "Yeah, Buttercup, I could tell you were sexually objectifying me due to my race from the parking lot. You know, your fortune cookie says I will never sleep with you?"
5) What are you? "I have no words to reply, only drinks to throw."
You've been warned.Creative Loafing (Atlanta)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)