Password protection by Sentrylogin.com
Advertisement

<< Home


Sunday, June 24, 2007

I have an iPhone: SLOW Web access, too Heavy!

The iPhone: Too heavy, way too SLOW. Expand this section and read on for the dirt on my experience so far with iPhone



At first, people asked, Is it too slow? Is it too expensive? Too heavy? How fast and responsive is the Safari web browser, especially in non-WiFi situations?

I'm here to tell you.

The iPhone's Safari browser, using EDGE (meaning you're not in or not using a WiFi hotspot) is not as bad as was originally reported... that is, when it's working at all.

BUT so far, today, EDGE is totally down! You can't browse ANYWHERE on the iPhone. I called Apple and they confirmed that in the Los Angeles area today the EDGE system is being modified, so it is down. No idea when it will be back up again. (Hopefully, they're improving it like they did in the North East). It can't send or receive e-mail during this outage, either. I'm a little peeved, and getting more so the longer this stays this way. This is a Monday afternoon, after all.

The phone is wonderful otherwise, no complaints about anything other than its extreme weight. It is the heaviest phone I've ever owned, and it is isn't properly balanced. Slippery, too. I've dropped it twice already, fortunately just a foot onto the bed once and the other time two feet off of the couch onto the soft carpet, but still.

The keyboard is MADDENING but I'm getting better with it. There is a definite learning curve.

Critics noted that it uses GSM, (EDGE) an older wireless technology that is gradually being supplanted by so-called 3G networks that can transmit data much faster.

Says David Pogue, technology reviewer from the New York Times who tested the iPhone before anyone else for two weeks ending 6/27/2007: "The ... problem is the AT&T network. In a Consumer Reports study, AT&T’s signal ranked either last or second to last in 19 out of 20 major cities. My tests (of the iPhone) in five states bear this out. If Verizon’s slogan is, “Can you hear me now?” AT&T’s should be, “I’m losing you.”

Then there’s the Internet problem. When you’re in a Wi-Fi hot spot, going online is fast and satisfying.

But otherwise, you have to use AT&T’s ancient EDGE cellular network, which is excruciatingly slow. The New York Times’s home page takes 55 seconds to appear; Amazon.com, 100 seconds; Yahoo: two minutes. (!!!!) You almost ache for a dial-up modem.

These drawbacks may be deal-killers for some people."

Yes, David, for some people, it certainly may be a deal killer. And here in Simi Valley, southern California, everyone who has a cell phone knows that Verizon has the best, most consistent signal and that AT&T has the absolute worst. Apple really dropped the ball in choosing AT&T as the carrier along with its antiquated cellular web service.

See this excellent and entertaining video of David reviewing the iPhone: click here.

For all it is purported to do, some say the iPhone is clunky, particularly in comparison to some of its lighter, smaller iPod cousins. (There are actually shoes that way less than the iPhone's rather unimpressive 4.8 ounces). And, it's nearly half an inch thick!

Here are the Specs straight from the source, Apple:

Technical Specifications:

Screen size - 3.5 inches
Screen resolution - 320 by 480 at 160 ppi
Input method - Multi-touch
Operating system - OS X
Storage - 4GB or 8GB
GSM - Quad-band (MHz: 850, 900, 1800, 1900)
Wireless data - Wi-Fi (802.11b/g) + EDGE + Bluetooth 2.0
Camera - 2.0 megapixels
Battery - Up to 5 hours Talk / Video / Browsing Up to 16 hours Audio playback
Dimensions - 4.5 x 2.4 x 0.46 inches / 115 x 61 x 11.6mm
Weight - 4.8 ounces / 135 grams

The iPhone launched June 29, 2007 at Six PM.

Labels:

Click to Expand Section...

<< Home


Monday, June 18, 2007

Michael Moore is the Real Sicko

Michael Moore and people with ideas like his are the real Sickos. Here's why.







Michael Moore and people with ideas like his are the real Sickos. Here's why. Read my letter to a certain socialist agenda group who are actively promoting the movie:

Why would you want people to see this movie "Sicko?" Why are you supporting socialized medicine?

First of all, 4 out of 5 Americans are satisfied with the health care system, so it is really a non-issue (this will likely be the reason the movie flops, which in its 9th week of release it is already doing with less than a million tickets sold). Only 50 million Americans are "without" health insurance. There are 250 million Americans. That's 1 in 5 who are not voluntary participants of health insurance. That doesn't mean that all of those individuals need health insurance... surely some are financially independent, others have reasonable means (such as myself) to cover health expenses as they occur. So that leaves darn few.

Second, collectivized, totalitarian provision of goods and services by a centralized government which redistributes wealth based on "need" is itself the most sickening thing an American could ever support and you should be utterly ashamed of yourself for it. People are not born with any "right" to health care, nor any "right" to any other product of the human mind which depends upon the willing, voluntary cooperation of another human being.

This smacks of Marxist Communist Russia where such ideals originated.

The answer to your "problem" is this: get rid of the governmental over-regulation, the restrictive licensing, the state supported tort threat, the unionism, and all other legislative and regulatory phenomena which are essentially conferring a monopoly to those currently in the business. This will promote competition, competition drives quality up, prices down, and everyone wins. Monopolies discourage competition (indeed, sometimes deliberately destroy it), drive quality down, innovation down, prices up, and everyone… EVERYONE… loses. (By the way, that is the answer to ANY problem in the free market, not just health care, so re-read it. And learn it. Spread the word.)

Use reason and logic, for once in your life. And while you're at it, use them all the time, too.

Read the eloquent words of Mark Valenti who put it so succinctly:

About ten years ago, I believed in the seemingly lofty goal of "universal health care". Who wouldn't support that goal? Doesn't everyone have a "right" to health care?

I was just a kid then. It was easy to agree with a meaningless campaign promise such as "Affordable Health Care for All". It takes effort to actually research the topic and understand economic logic, history and facts.

Once I questioned the sound bites, I realized that government intervention in the market (e.g., Medicare, FDA, physician licensing, insurance regulations) is the reason for artificially high health care prices.

So-called Universal Healthcare amplifies all problems because it:

1) Destroys patient incentives to find the best possible prices for the best possible services/products available.

I have worked in the health care field in various capacities for the past ten years and I see a majority of patients who currently receive "free" (read: taxpayer-funded) healthcare continually seek care for the most minor afflictions. Why wouldn't they? It's "free" to them so they visit the doctor's office several times a month. "Free" prescriptions for over-the-counter medication such as Tylenol are very common. Patients who refuse to wait for an appointment make their way to the ER for things such as headaches. If you were ever an ER nurse, I know you can verify this.

The current U.S. mostly statist healthcare system also decreases incentives to "shop around" for people who are not receiving direct taxpayer-funded care. If you are paying a set amount per month and your copay is ten dollars per office visit no matter where you go, why bother to look for a better price? Government imposed wage controls during the 1940's carry a large part of the blame for this current state of affairs. Unable to offer competitive salaries, companies started to offer healthcare benefits as a way to lure prospective employees into jobs.

2) Destroys physician incentives to provide competitive care and destroys drug companies' incentives to provide new drugs and treatments. The "brain-drain."

With no incentive to provide quality care, physicians and nurses leave the government-monopolized area for better opportunities in a freer country. Shortages result. Drug companies are hindered by price controls and regulations and soon cease research and development of new medication. In the U.S., start-up drug companies cannot afford to run the FDA gauntlet, so the market is dominated by a few established corporations.

3) Steals from your wallet to pay for my health care (and vice versa).

Yes, you do have a right to health care, just as you have a right to food, shelter and property. However, you have no "right" to force others to provide these things for you - All "free" medical care is paid for through taxes stolen from other people.

I know of one seemingly healthy individual who went to his physician's office 51 times in 26 months. He receives "free" health care from the State, so his trips did not cost him a dime. Who pays for his medications? Who pays for the physicians', nurses' and office staff wages during his visits? If you work within the health care industry, I would bet you could recount similar stories. In my experience, this type of abuse is the rule, not the exception.

4) The quality of "free" health care will deteriorate and the average citizen will get sicker.

As the poor and middle-class wait in agony for simple procedures, those with resources can travel to other countries for treatment. But hey, your moral arrogance and justification of coercion makes you feel good, doesn't it?

5) Destroys your privacy.

Suddenly your problems are mine and mine are yours. If you are eating unhealthy foods or driving a motorcycle without a helmet, I have a direct interest in your business - you are going to see a doctor on my tax dollars. Your neighbors might support government bans on smoking, "unsafe" sex or other "risky" behaviors to reduce costs. Politicians will use the federal bureaucracy to force you and your family to comply with programs such as the "New Freedom Commission on Mental Health".

6) Destroys your liberty.

When you blindly support a system that gives politicians and bureaucrats the power to force others to follow a plan, those politicians and bureaucrats will receive their orders from those with the most money - and you can guarantee this will not be you, your friends or your family. The power of government will be used against you as you are forced to use medicines or accept treatments from well-connected health care companies.

A quick search shows that the pharmaceutical companies gave $29,370,351 to political campaigns in 2002. Who do you think has the ear of those elected politicians? You?

On the other hand, if government power is eliminated (e.g., abolish the FDA - whose restrictions benefit the most powerful companies by eliminating most competition), those same companies would have to use their funds and resources to sell their drugs to the most people in the least expensive, most reliable and safest way. They would need to outperform their competitors to get your money - otherwise they lose business.

Great Britain's National Health Service (NHS) was created on July 5, 1948. As with all government programs, bureaucrats underestimated initial cost projections. First-year operating costs of NHS were 52 million pounds higher than original estimates as Britons saturated the so-called free system.

Many decades of shortages, misery and suffering followed until 1989, when some market-based health care competition was reintroduced to the British citizens.

[Sheila added:]

Heck, why should government stop at Socialized Health Care? If we're going to be complete Totalitarians by which the government provides all our goods and services like the Soviet USSR and other communist nations did (and failed), why not government-made cookies, government-made movies, and EVERY OTHER thing we ever consume and pay for? WHY STOP AT HEALTH CARE? It's a Sicko who believes that government intervention in any service industry needs to be anything but decreased and completely eliminated.


Labels: ,

Click to Expand Section...