My mom and I were hot on the idea of getting an iPad to share on our trip to China. Last night we visited the Apple store in Albany to check out the iPad first hand.
The reasons we didn't buy the iPad last night are listed below in no particular order.
Surfing the web was okay, sometimes sluggish, but ultimately we ended up on websites that use Flash for slideshows, viewing content, etc. And that was a drag. Mac vs PC ads tout Mac's ability to do everything a PC can do only better and to interact well with "others" - things I crow about to my annoyed PC husband. I've come to expect that everything lovely comes with an Apple like a mic and camera, video recording, intuitive CD/DVD burning, etc. Unlike Dell, for instance, who didn't even bother to install sound on hubby's laptop because he didn't think to ask for it! And I always gloated over the fact that a Mac is just soooo much fun and gorgeous to look at but without Flash the fun was often roadblocked and I really felt deprived of content I wanted to view. For the first time it seemed Apple was holding out on me.
Meanwhile my mother (age 76) couldn't understand the meaning of blue cube events.
Photos - The photo adapter for uploading pics from your camera's SD card is not available until maybe the end of the month. I wanted to use it on the China trip but we are leaving next week. I can't believe it is not available with iPad's release after all that advertising. Just plain annoying.
iBooks - a limited selection right now as reported. No results for A Clock Work Orange. Not that I wanted it. Reading on the iPad was okay but really a library book is better on the eyes. And I suspect eInk technology may be easier on the eyes as well.
For my mom, who is disabled by a stroke and has lost use of one hand, holding the iPad and flipping a page is impossible unless the iPad is resting on a table or tray at an angle. A used mystery paperback (her preference) is 25 cents.
Touch Screen is so sensitive - it was okay for me. But my mom had trouble. I think she would eventually get the hang of a lighter touch but her pinky knuckle often touched down and then she was someplace she didn't want to go and didn't understand how she got there. That happened over and over again.
Typing - I was getting used to it. It has auto correct so for email missives it is okay. But for keeping a journal on the trip without a wireless keyboard? Hmmm. I would lose my train of thought having to type like that (though I might get used to it). I also suspect I would have to turn off the auto correct to input any PinYin into my journal entries and that could be trouble for the English parts.
Games - My Daughter liked the games well enough. But she was not impressed completely. She does have a Mac Book, iPod and the iPhone with its camera, GPS and calling ability. In some ways the iPhone and iPod Touch are easier to type on than the iPad.
Some glitchy things like the accessability option could drive older folks completely nuts. Try it and see.
Couldn't get the keyboard to come up sometimes when trying to reply to email on a web browser unless I switched to plain text and then I couldn't scroll up to top of the text.
YouTube and other site videos load upside down often times enough to keep you flipping the thing.
And according to one of the clerks, if you turn the iPad off it forgets where the wifi in your house is and you have to reset.
So I am luggin' my 5 pound Mac Book Pro to China which I fell back in love with after my trip to the Apple store. The thing does heat up to near explosive degrees of Fahrenheit but I can access seemingly everything.
Do I still want an iPad? Oh yeah, but I'll wait for the next generation.
[UPDATE] Day before leaving for China - picked up an iPod Touch because it does just about everything the iPAD would do, was way cheaper and fits in my purse. LOVE STARBUCKS in Xian and Shanghai where I could get free wifi without hassle and real coffee. My Chinese AccelaStudy App was great when I had to ask questions on the street. Just showed the character and played the sound for those trying to communicate with me.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Lobby Day for Single Payer Health Care May 27
Day of Action in Albany, NY - Wednesday, May 27th 2009
A lobby day at the State Capitol in support of single payer health care
Lobby to get New York State to pass legislation to establish a single payer program for New York State. Legislation (A2356 / S2370) is pending in both houses. Governor Paterson has been a long time supporter of single payer health care.
Work to pass a State Senate resolution in support of a federal single payer bill. The New York State Assembly passed a resolution last year.
There will be a noon time rally in west Capitol Park, part of a national week of action on single payer.
The day begins with a 9:30 AM briefing on single payer at Westminster Presbyterian Church, 85 Chestnut St (1/2 block from the Capitol).
Meetings with legislators from 11 to 12 and then from 1 to 4 PM.
Please RSVP if you plan to attend the state lobby day by contacting dunleamark@aol.com or calling 518 434-7371 xt 1#.
Please let us know who your state assemblymember and senator(s) are. Please let us know if you are able to offer a ride to others.
Sponsor: Single Payer New York, Capital District Alliance for Universal Health Care, PNHP-NY, Healthcare-NOW!
More information: www.singlepayernewyork.org
A lobby day at the State Capitol in support of single payer health care
Lobby to get New York State to pass legislation to establish a single payer program for New York State. Legislation (A2356 / S2370) is pending in both houses. Governor Paterson has been a long time supporter of single payer health care.
Work to pass a State Senate resolution in support of a federal single payer bill. The New York State Assembly passed a resolution last year.
There will be a noon time rally in west Capitol Park, part of a national week of action on single payer.
The day begins with a 9:30 AM briefing on single payer at Westminster Presbyterian Church, 85 Chestnut St (1/2 block from the Capitol).
Meetings with legislators from 11 to 12 and then from 1 to 4 PM.
Please RSVP if you plan to attend the state lobby day by contacting dunleamark@aol.com or calling 518 434-7371 xt 1#.
Please let us know who your state assemblymember and senator(s) are. Please let us know if you are able to offer a ride to others.
Sponsor: Single Payer New York, Capital District Alliance for Universal Health Care, PNHP-NY, Healthcare-NOW!
More information: www.singlepayernewyork.org
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Single Payer Health Care and HR676
I just came back from one of the White House Health Care Regional Summits in Burlington, Vermont with Art Richter yesterday - his daughter is amazing.
Dr. Debbie Richter practices in Montpelier, Vermont. She is a former President of Physicians for a National Health Plan PNHP. She has spoken extensively to both community and medical groups, is a frequent spokesperson in the print, TV, and radio media, and is active in coalition building on the need for universal access to health care. Dr. Richer likes to speak with business owners to show how much less Single Payer costs compared to our current health care system and proposed plans that include insurance companies. Single Payer is far more sustainable compared to the MassCare plan and Vermont's current healthcare plan. She wants Vermont to lead the nation in as example of Single Payer.
Although President Obama has said he will keep lobbyists out of his Administration - he has had closed door meetings on Health Care Reform with invited attendees like insurance company reps and pharma CEOs - PNHP fought to be invited in and finally were but were also kept away from the microphones - as reported by The Nation. PNHP is fighting to make sure they get into each regional summit.
It is time to rally and show support for Congressman Conyers and his work on HR 676:
March 29, 2009, Albany, NY
Town Hall Meeting with Rep. John Conyers, author of HR 676
Westminster Presbyterian Church
From 2:00-4:30pm
Congressman Conyers and Congressman Tonko will join local activists in one of 10 nationwide meetings sponsored by the Presbyterian Church
http://www.healthcare-now.org/action/events-calendar/
Dr. Debbie Richter practices in Montpelier, Vermont. She is a former President of Physicians for a National Health Plan PNHP. She has spoken extensively to both community and medical groups, is a frequent spokesperson in the print, TV, and radio media, and is active in coalition building on the need for universal access to health care. Dr. Richer likes to speak with business owners to show how much less Single Payer costs compared to our current health care system and proposed plans that include insurance companies. Single Payer is far more sustainable compared to the MassCare plan and Vermont's current healthcare plan. She wants Vermont to lead the nation in as example of Single Payer.
Although President Obama has said he will keep lobbyists out of his Administration - he has had closed door meetings on Health Care Reform with invited attendees like insurance company reps and pharma CEOs - PNHP fought to be invited in and finally were but were also kept away from the microphones - as reported by The Nation. PNHP is fighting to make sure they get into each regional summit.
It is time to rally and show support for Congressman Conyers and his work on HR 676:
March 29, 2009, Albany, NY
Town Hall Meeting with Rep. John Conyers, author of HR 676
Westminster Presbyterian Church
From 2:00-4:30pm
Congressman Conyers and Congressman Tonko will join local activists in one of 10 nationwide meetings sponsored by the Presbyterian Church
http://www.healthcare-now.org/action/events-calendar/
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
CREDO: 5 Ways to a Stronger Stimulus Package
I still think the best way to a strong economy is national health care withOUT insurance companies and their high premiums (see my post NOV 28). But since no one is asking me, CREDO has bulleted 5 points on their petition for a better stimulus package.
You can sign the petition here.
You can sign the petition here.
- Get rid of a $2 billion provision for "clean coal" plants. Instead, invest this money in green infrastructure and alternative energy development.
- Invest in infrastructure, not tax cuts. Don't reward businesses that got us into this mess with tax cuts that won't create new jobs in the future.
- Reinstate the Medicaid Family Planning State Option. Funding state healthcare programs for women will protect jobs of healthcare workers and make sure women living in or on the edge of poverty get the care they need.
- Include meaningful bankruptcy reform. Bankruptcy judges should regain the ability to restructure mortgages (that is, lower the amount owed and the interest rate, reflecting the lower value of the house) so that borrowers can stay in their homes.
- Don't give Verizon $1.6 billion in tax cuts without generating a single new job. Money originally earmarked to encourage companies to bring high speed internet to underserved low-income and rural communities has turned into a billion dollar giveaway to big telecom.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Obama’s speech – Who exactly are the non-believers?
For the most part Obama’s speech was excellent in forging a message of participation and stalwartness needed for the recovery of a morally and economically bankrupt era.
But please tell me he was reading an early draft of the inaugural speech. How was it that this passage was left in: “For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus — and non-believers.”
I found President Obama’s definition of our nation’s patchwork heritage problematic, taking particular umbrage with his use of the term “non-believers” as it puts our heritage in a purely religious context. In trying to bond and unite us I found this passage polarizing.
Obama's phrasing here portrays him as a Christian believer who asks tolerance of other religious viewpoints, while placating the fears of the Christian Right. He is bringing us together. Fine.
But it sounded like, “We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus — and those ones going straight to hell.”
Our country, is made up of more religions than the 4 mentioned and to say “non-believers” after such a list implies all other religious practice might not be up to snuff but that's just grammatical.
Still, for those who don’t subscribe to any brand of the top 4 (I thought the US had more Catholics than Hindus) it seems, as non-believers, we are somehow deficient.
Yes, I've read many are trumpeting “non-believers” as a phrase of inclusion but it's like including liberals at a GOP convention by calling them pinko commies. There is an inherent put-down lodged in the word non-believer as it implies that there is a proven belief with the non-believer active in his non-belief.
The term non-believer, promulgated by religious orders to keep their faithful in line, implies a Godless, amoral person —a heretic, a witch to be burned at the stake, to be tortured and cast out. Or someone who just has a mind of their own.
Well, I certainly don’t buy into the notion that a pope, a book, priests, clerics, or pastors are speaking the direct word of God. I find religion to be as twisted as a bloated bureaucratic government and as dogmatic as the Chinese Communist regime.
So, I must be a “non-believer.” But as a non-believer, I have faith in forces greater than our puny human minds and petty ambitions. As a non-believer, I believe in the greater good, in the equality of man. I put faith in justice and fair play as a road to peace. I believe in community, and family. And, I believe in the sanctity of life. So I don’t consider non-believers to be necessarily amoral, as I don’t find religious leaders to be necessarily moral or straight (I could list here many fallen Evangelical and Christian leaders).
Is the term secular citizens (or secularists) better than non-believers? Not sure. Secularism is defined by its exclusion of religious philosophy (as well as other philosophies). As a movement, Secularism asserts governance should be free of religious beliefs and that, I think, is one of the basic tenets of our own government so we might have religious freedom and choice as well as freedom of thought. So this term does suit me better though I reject any connotation of profane.
While Obama was trying to raise our consciousness with a higher spiritual calling he instead raised the specter of Joe McCarthy’s Un-American doctrine by suggesting some “otherness” dwelling among the God-fearing consumers of the top corporations of religious doctrine.
Too, bad. The new president could have just referred to us as your Average Joes.
But please tell me he was reading an early draft of the inaugural speech. How was it that this passage was left in: “For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus — and non-believers.”
I found President Obama’s definition of our nation’s patchwork heritage problematic, taking particular umbrage with his use of the term “non-believers” as it puts our heritage in a purely religious context. In trying to bond and unite us I found this passage polarizing.
Obama's phrasing here portrays him as a Christian believer who asks tolerance of other religious viewpoints, while placating the fears of the Christian Right. He is bringing us together. Fine.
But it sounded like, “We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus — and those ones going straight to hell.”
Our country, is made up of more religions than the 4 mentioned and to say “non-believers” after such a list implies all other religious practice might not be up to snuff but that's just grammatical.
Still, for those who don’t subscribe to any brand of the top 4 (I thought the US had more Catholics than Hindus) it seems, as non-believers, we are somehow deficient.
Yes, I've read many are trumpeting “non-believers” as a phrase of inclusion but it's like including liberals at a GOP convention by calling them pinko commies. There is an inherent put-down lodged in the word non-believer as it implies that there is a proven belief with the non-believer active in his non-belief.
The term non-believer, promulgated by religious orders to keep their faithful in line, implies a Godless, amoral person —a heretic, a witch to be burned at the stake, to be tortured and cast out. Or someone who just has a mind of their own.
Well, I certainly don’t buy into the notion that a pope, a book, priests, clerics, or pastors are speaking the direct word of God. I find religion to be as twisted as a bloated bureaucratic government and as dogmatic as the Chinese Communist regime.
So, I must be a “non-believer.” But as a non-believer, I have faith in forces greater than our puny human minds and petty ambitions. As a non-believer, I believe in the greater good, in the equality of man. I put faith in justice and fair play as a road to peace. I believe in community, and family. And, I believe in the sanctity of life. So I don’t consider non-believers to be necessarily amoral, as I don’t find religious leaders to be necessarily moral or straight (I could list here many fallen Evangelical and Christian leaders).
Is the term secular citizens (or secularists) better than non-believers? Not sure. Secularism is defined by its exclusion of religious philosophy (as well as other philosophies). As a movement, Secularism asserts governance should be free of religious beliefs and that, I think, is one of the basic tenets of our own government so we might have religious freedom and choice as well as freedom of thought. So this term does suit me better though I reject any connotation of profane.
While Obama was trying to raise our consciousness with a higher spiritual calling he instead raised the specter of Joe McCarthy’s Un-American doctrine by suggesting some “otherness” dwelling among the God-fearing consumers of the top corporations of religious doctrine.
Too, bad. The new president could have just referred to us as your Average Joes.
Friday, January 2, 2009
iPod Nano for the Wrist
Hey Apple, how about a Nano curved for my wrist? Like the one above. Then I can use it when jogging, trikking, or walking.
I like more versatility than a Shuffle. The Classic iPod is too heavy and thick for exercising. The new iPod Nano is not quite right either. Its stiff curved form doesn't bend to the anatomy. And I want the dial situated properly so I can easily switch playlists while I'm jogging.
BTW I love my Nano G3 but on my upper arm, while looking cool for passersby, doesn't help me when I decide I need a different album playing on the fly.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
