An Apple Rant

In response to a post about the new Kindle Fire and the Apple discussion that ensued.

Task before tool is the same lie perpetuated by Apple users since the nineties. It's earlier incarnation was the blatant falsehood "It just works." Yes, it does "just work" if the "work" you do is "just" what Steve Jobs and Apple envision. If you're a Mac user, you're generally either blissfully stuck in Mac routines, ignorant of the capabilities unavailable to you, or you're a Terminal typing techie who would be at home using any operating system (which does make one wonder why you pay top dollar for outdated hardware and limited software...) Luckily Microsoft has the clout to do their own thing, but things haven't always been so rosy in the portable world.

Their iDevices are unusable for me. I had a 30GB Creative Nomad Jukebox 6 or 7 years ago that beat the pants off any iPod I've used, mostly because Creative was focused on making the best music player possible. It included EQ and more advanced audio processing, the ability to make playlists on the fly, and acted as simple removable storage when plugged into a computer (thus bypassing the need for a godawful "user friendly" DRM interface like iTunes). It also had more than one button, which allowed advanced navigation without looking at the thing which was important while driving. It also had a "car mode" feature where it would turn off when external power was shut off and resume state when the car turned on, making it function just like an in-dash CD player.

Unfortunately Apple came out with the iPod and made portable media players more about fashion than capability, and the products sold so well that the market followed, meaning that current media players are either iDevices or ripoffs. It's taken several years, but Android has finally come along and opened up development to people who want to use their devices in advanced ways, and we're getting uniquely capable devices from lots of different manufacturers.

The ironic thing about the "task before tool" argument is that most Apple users (especially iDevice users) don't care at all about tasks. They care about toys and shiny devices, about reassuring words from their colleagues about how cool or slick their new tech is. They're not buying iPads because they fill a void or do something that desperately needed doing - they're buying it to play Angry Birds or Plants vs. Zombies. They're cramping their hands gleefully trying to use it as a laptop, ignoring the fact that if they spent the same money on an actual laptop they'd have something more capable and usable. Apple is a marketing company first, a hardware company second, and a software developer third. They don't care about making things easier to do, they care giving you something easy to do and making you want to do it.

bin Ladin and the Death Cheerleaders

This is a post on an article about uneasiness with the joyful noise that's being made at the death of Osama bin Ladin.

Excellent article. For those commenters diagnosing the author with a hatred of Judaeo-Christian tradition, you couldn't be more off base. Whatever the author's personal beliefs, his article shares a humility and a respect for life that are right in line with the teachings of Christ.

I just wanted to say that I take great solace in this article. I generally can accept and understand and even participate in whatever various cultural trends are seizing the nation at a given time. There are occasions, however, where I find myself literally unable to comprehend the emotions and actions of those around me. A couple of movies come to mind to exemplify this phenomenon - Borat and Atonement. In each of these movies I sat hopelessly bored and uninterested while dozens of people around me in the theater laughed and cried respectively and the movies themselves went on to seemingly unanimous critical acclaim. It made me feel separated from humanity and isolated from that which others seemed to take for granted. I simply could not understand what was appealing about these movies, even as I understood the arguments about why people found them enjoyable. I just couldn't find a way to appreciate them, even on their supposed merits.

The death of Osama bin Ladin is like Borat and Atonement for me. I understand academically that people want revenge and are willing to cloak it in the concept of justice. I certainly agree that bin Ladin deserved to die more than your average Joe. Nevertheless I find the rejoicing that is going on inexplicable, and perhaps representative of an extremely dark motivation. The deaths associated with airplane crashes on September 11th 2001 (which accounts for about 2% of the deaths that occurred that day, assuming it was average) were tragic deaths, and should not be a source of rejoicing. Killing bin Ladin is a regrettable but necessary task given the grim reasons for undertaking the effort. Why rejoice in the occurance of 9/11? Rejoicing in vengeance is nothing more than rejoicing in the original deed, as is exhorting the crime to be part of "God's plan."

I don't get it, and I probably never will. But it is comforting to know that there are those, such as the author of this article, that share my opinion of this necessary tragedy. Death is always a tragedy, and Osama bin Ladin's death is absolutely a tragedy given the actions he took to necessitate it. The killing of Osama bin Ladin can help bring closure, but it should not bring joy except to the most sadistic dog kickers among us.

Religion!

Comment about a comment about an article about why The Book of Mormon is not worth seeing.

This is a somewhat pathetic discourse. The OP put out his ideas, and many took umbrage, responding with mostly anecdotal claims to point out the obvious fact that religion does not mean the end of the world. Big deal. As an atheist, I have a hard time relating to the OP, because really, what's the point? Is a post on a message board going to dissuade people from their faith? And why should you want it to? Many people find great strength and comfort from belief in some sort of spiritual world or supernatural being, and how does it do unbelievers any good to deprive them of that? As the author of the article points out, faith drives many people to do good humanitarian things. Would it be more aesthetically pleasing if they did it for humanistic reasons than religious ones? Perhaps, but I don't see too huge a difference. As long as there's no quid pro quo going on with religious humanitarian aid, then what's the big deal?

Logic and science will advance independent of religion. The world is not fettered by religion, but comforted by it. And, as an atheist, you should realize that the impulse for faith comes from human qualities, just as does the impulse for the wars that you blame on religion. Do you believe Hitler would have been less of a tyrant if he were an atheist instead of a Christian? Doubtful. The presence or absence of religion will not magically make humanity good or evil; smart or stupid. To suggest that religion itself could so radically shift the bell curve of human qualities is to give it supernatural power indeed.

Random

A truck just drove by my house. It's like one of those 20 seat recliner passenger vans. On the side of the van are the words "Shampooch Mobile Spa."

God Bless America

Post on Climate Change Politics

The issue unfortunately boils down to faith. The scientific method is founded in logic, and to accept conclusions from the scientific method you must be able to follow that logic. Problem is most of the public doesn't have the education to follow the line of scientific inquiry and rationale inherent in something as complex as our climate system. The climate is an intersection of physics, biology, and chemistry that is simply gigantic, and it takes years of study to really feel grounded in the field. Attempts to put the topic in layman's terms (like An Inconvenient Truth) are ultimately doomed to fail because they cannot replicate in two hours what climatologists spend years learning.

As a result, all the public can do is put its faith in science. Terms like peer review and broad consensus are thrown about as bludgeons to beat down the natural process of questioning undertaken by those who do not understand. Scientists are in a reluctant battle of belief - they know what the data says and understand the implications, but that knowledge and understanding cannot be simply imparted to the layman. They beg for the public to believe, and use their status as scientists as collateral in the bargain.

Problem is there are plenty of others who are also begging for the public to believe. Special interests, free-market politicians, folks wary of government intervention. These are the people who are most adept at winning arguments of faith. Scientists are trained to be logical, to avoid straw man arguments and ad hominem attacks, whereas non-scientists earn their keep by mastering those tactics. I don't see a way out of this problem that doesn't involve waiting until evidence is so inescapable that the time to act is long in the past. The best we can do is invest in education and hope that the public gradually becomes less susceptible to logical fallacies.

Posts on Immigration Reform

The following are a collection of posts in response to a woman who writes for Christian Informer or some such. In short, she thinks having to show proof of legal status isn't a big deal, so why all the fuss?

Debra - do you feel that the huge problem of illegal immigration is a greater evil than the unprecedented submission to governmental oversight that the Arizona law creates? If so, why? What specifically is the huge issue as you see it with illegal immigration, and why is it that giving the state the power to hold you for questioning because you've forgotten your proof of citizenship doesn't bother you so much?

===

I would posit that illegal immigration is not the problem it is often made out to be. This country thrives because of the influx of immigrants, both legal and illegal, over the centuries. We build intellectual and cultural capital because of our diversity and generational youth. I don't think you'll find anyone that's satisfied with immigration law as it stands, but the problem with the Arizona law (aside from the racial profiling for which it is in court) is that it does nothing to fix the way immigration is run in this country. It's purely about enforcement.

We need an easier way for people to come to this country legally. We need to make it easier for immigrants to get great educations and contribute to society. We need to pull in these immigrants and make them Americans - that is where the power of this country comes from, and that is the type of work we need our government to be doing.

Not to mention there could be nothing more Christian than sheltering the weak and fragile, as opposed to casting them back to the squalor from which they came.

===

Debra - Yes, we agree that they should come here legally. That's only a statement of the problem, though, not the solution. We could make a law prohibiting rain, but that's not going to stop water falling from the sky. We need to streamline the immigration process so that people can gain legal status (not even citizenship) more easily. Then we can devote fewer resources to detaining illegals and more resources toward tracking down real criminals - drug dealers and rapists and murderers.

Mountaineer87 - If business owners couldn't hire illegals, they'd be forced to pay minimum wage, which would severely inflate the cost of goods, especially agricultural goods. Doesn't seem like the best idea in a recession.

I get the sentiment that people hear the term "illegal immigrant" and picture either layabout welfare slugs or cheap labor that threatens American jobs, but the issue has more nuance than that. Chief among the nuance is that immigrants have shown throughout the years of this country to provide the engines for innovation and growth. Simply deporting millions of people is like cutting off your arm because you have an infection in your hand. The argument keeps getting framed by debaters in the media as either you cut off the arm or you deal with the pain of the infection. We need to come up with some penicillin. We need to incorporate these illegal immigrants so that we can reap the benefits of their contributions or the contributions of their American descendants.

===

This has been a great discussion, and I find myself truly happy for the first time about the threaded posting format that was introduced a month or so ago. It's obvious that most here aren't going to be dissuaded from their own particular views, but I don't think that we're all really as far apart as we act like we are.

Immigration is a complicated process. Since the native people to this country are essentially non-players (regardless of where your moral compass points with regards to the varying levels of culpability between explanations of brutal slaughter or some social natural selection), the history is bloated with examples of progress being made through social diversity. No race has claim to this land anymore, and that is what makes it great. My favorite example comes from the Current Wars between Thomas Edison and Nikolai Tesla. Edison, the American, stubbornly supported electrification through direct current, while Tesla, the immigrant, pioneered the use of alternating current. Edison desperately tried to use his power and influence as an American to stomp out the influence of the immigrant, and perhaps he would have if this were any other country. But the bounty of America is its utilization of the marketplace of ideas, and Tesla eventually established the far superior technology of alternating current that delivers the power to your house for the very computer monitor you're looking at right now.

It's never been rosy, though. Immigrants have always been hated, whether they be Italian or Irish or Mexican. If you know a bit more of Tesla's life you'll know that Edison did actually get the better of him in the end. There is a gross inequality to immigration law. Immigrants from affluent countries are able to sustain themselves through the long immigration process, and are able to hold jobs to maintain work visas and green cards. Immigrants that come to escape a corrupt country for a better life are not so fortunate. Certainly there are those who seek to fly below the radar and game the system, much as white collar criminals like Bernie Madoff or the folks at Enron game the system. There is nothing unique to immigrants in this; there are bad apples. But to truly solve this problem we need to find a way to embrace those who do come for a better life but lack the education or where with all to go through the convoluted process we demand of them. To solve this problem we need to spend two dollars on outreach and education for every dollar that goes towards enforcement and deportation. Perhaps it's naive of me to feel this way, but I see in immigration the presence of a raw material that we can turn into a great profit for our culture and our welfare. We just need to help them become American.

Thoughts on Labor Negotiations in the NFL

Am I wrong or is this lockout completely illegal? Since the union decertified, the owners are now just locking out a collection of unaffiliated workers for no good reason. There doesn't need to be a CBA if there's not a union, because it's just like any other industry. Of course, this also means that there's no salary cap or free agency restrictions because the owners of NFL franchises can't collude to create rules which hamper the free market of employment.

The lockout (again, as I understand it) is allowable solely based on the presumption that the decertification was a sham and will be recognized as such in court. And, assuming that's unlikely (not a reach considering that's how it went down last time), the owners will end up with a much worse deal than they were being offered by the players originally (or at the very least, players get much more of what they want than the owners were willing to give).

I feel like there must be something wrong with how I understand it, because the owners couldn't possibly be so dumb to push this to the courts. The players have all the cards - if the owners want to enjoy the privilege of owning in a monopolized industry AND have the players' employment restricted by rules to which every other owner must adhere, then they have to get the okay from their employees.