It's Christmas Eve, have you done all your holiday shopping? Looking to make one last online order?
How about yourself... Are you set with a beautiful new photo calendar for 2010?
Well... my good friend Gary (aka aka Anakin1814) has organized the 2010 "As Seen on YouTube" vloggerhood calendar with 15 photos by our online friends (including myself).
This has been a fun project to be a part of, and I'm thrilled with how the calendar has turned out. It's a fifteen month calendar (Jan 2010 - March 2011), and each picture is spectacular.
The best thing? All creator royalties will be donated to the Nature Conservancy. What are you waiting for? Order a few right now!
... Purchase the calendar today! (only $18.99)...
... Get more info on the project (including thumbnails of the 15 images)...
... Get more info on the Nature Conservancy...
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Wednesday, December 02, 2009
The Right Policy Too Late?
Watching the President last night one thing is certain; you could see that he knew he was making the unpopular decision, that he was set to anger those who'd voted for him, and fail to appease those who didn't. One conservative friend commented via twitter, "Have to wonder what the cadettes sitting in the stands thought of this weak man before them." I, too, was wondering what the cadettes thought of him, but not because he was weak. I think it took a tremendous amount of strength to go forward with that difficult decision in the face of overwhelming opposition. But strength of mind does not make you right.
Beyond announcing the 30,000 troop surge to "finish the job" in Afghanistan and be back in time for July 4th fireworks in 2011, President Obama also went through great pains to tell us that a) the delay in announcing the decision wasn't really a delay since the plan he was asked to consider doesn't go into effect until January, b) we are progressing in the plan to get out of Iraq, even if we haven't really noticed any difference yet, and c) Afghanistan is where we should have been putting our efforts in the first place, as it was from here that Osama bin Laden planned the 9/11 attacks.
I don't think anybody can seriously argue against 'c' - whether or not you believe Iraq was justified or just a distraction, bin Laden is the confessed ringleader behind 9/11, and he was certainly on the run in Afghanistan. And, on at least one occasion following 9/11, we had him in our sight and failed to capture or kill him.
But that was 2002 and this is 2009. What makes us realistically believe we have a better chance at getting bin Laden or neutralizing al qaeda today? What makes us realistically believe that more foreign soldiers on their soil is going to help de-radicalize the Afghan populace? And by what magic leap of faith do we believe that 30,000 is the magic number of troops to finish it all up in eighteen months?
As eloquent and powerful as the words he spoke were, these are the questions that were left unanswered. Many good things were said, and much that I agree with. But it all fell short of selling me on the surge. Yes, if either war was justified it was the one in Afghanistan. But has the opportunity for success there passed? Is the mision still relevant? And do the American people have the will to support it? I'm afraid the time has passed. The right idea, just a few years too late.
Looking back at my archives here, I found my review of the speech in which President Bush announced his "surge to the finish" in Iraq, back on January 11, 2007. What I wrote about the Iraqi surge that day was;
The one highlight last night was shortly after the speech when The Onion came out with the headline Obama Tells Nation He's Going Out For Cigarettes. In the Onion story, the President gets a paragraph or two into his speech and says,
Beyond announcing the 30,000 troop surge to "finish the job" in Afghanistan and be back in time for July 4th fireworks in 2011, President Obama also went through great pains to tell us that a) the delay in announcing the decision wasn't really a delay since the plan he was asked to consider doesn't go into effect until January, b) we are progressing in the plan to get out of Iraq, even if we haven't really noticed any difference yet, and c) Afghanistan is where we should have been putting our efforts in the first place, as it was from here that Osama bin Laden planned the 9/11 attacks.
I don't think anybody can seriously argue against 'c' - whether or not you believe Iraq was justified or just a distraction, bin Laden is the confessed ringleader behind 9/11, and he was certainly on the run in Afghanistan. And, on at least one occasion following 9/11, we had him in our sight and failed to capture or kill him.
But that was 2002 and this is 2009. What makes us realistically believe we have a better chance at getting bin Laden or neutralizing al qaeda today? What makes us realistically believe that more foreign soldiers on their soil is going to help de-radicalize the Afghan populace? And by what magic leap of faith do we believe that 30,000 is the magic number of troops to finish it all up in eighteen months?
As eloquent and powerful as the words he spoke were, these are the questions that were left unanswered. Many good things were said, and much that I agree with. But it all fell short of selling me on the surge. Yes, if either war was justified it was the one in Afghanistan. But has the opportunity for success there passed? Is the mision still relevant? And do the American people have the will to support it? I'm afraid the time has passed. The right idea, just a few years too late.
Looking back at my archives here, I found my review of the speech in which President Bush announced his "surge to the finish" in Iraq, back on January 11, 2007. What I wrote about the Iraqi surge that day was;
... it's not exactly the same failed strategy. It's more of the same failed strategy. It's the same, but different.Well, as they say, history repeats.
The one highlight last night was shortly after the speech when The Onion came out with the headline Obama Tells Nation He's Going Out For Cigarettes. In the Onion story, the President gets a paragraph or two into his speech and says,
"Anyway, I'm going to go get some smokes, but I'll…be right back," added Obama, his voice trembling slightly. "Don't wait up."We won't wait up.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Am I Wasting Your Time?
Today, my good friend Tom Guarriello, asked a rather innocent question on Twitter, "Is it just me or are all Facebook apps really, really annoying?" He then commented on some of the responses he received in a post called What('s) A Waste Of Time? on his True Talk blog.
I'll get to his first question in a second, but first, more about his blog post... After quoting some dialog from Hamlet in which the title character defines Denmark as a prison while Rosencrantz says that it's not that bad, Tom comes to the conclusion that just as one man's prison may be another's paradise, the same goes for whether or not Facebook apps are an annoying waste or not.
But here's the part I want to comment on... Following the Hamlet scene, Tom writes:
Why is activity done for "personal financial gain" automatically useful, while activity done "for the benefit of others" is questionable? I can think of several professions that I would define as a drain on society (anybody want to post a comment defending telemarketers?). And I would defend true philanthropy - doing for others without any expectation of return or recognition - to be the highest calling to which any of us could aspire.
And, really, just where the hell do I fit into this continuum? After all, I work in the charitable/philanthropic sector for personal financial gain. Which part of that equation is the waste of time?
Now, I'm sure Tom didn't mean to imply that crime was "not, de facto, a waste of time" but it is, after all, purely for personal gain and not for the benefit of others (unless you're Robin Hood). And, while I believe in education and (occasionally) try to get to the gym, I know that there are many people who consider both education and exercise to be major wastes of time (probably to their own detriment).
Meanwhile, how much scientific discovery would have been stifled had the discoverers remained in the lab because they felt guilty about wasting their time by going out "exploring"? Curiosity may have killed that cat, but it's also led to a greater understanding of the world around us.
The truth is, everything is a waste of time - including Facebook apps - to the person who has no interest in it and everything is worth pursuing if the person doing the pursuing gets one moment of pleasure from it - including Facebook apps.
It's just fine that some (most?) people think that everything I do is a waste of time, just as my opinion of how they spend their lives is completely irrelevant to them (or, at least, it should be).
I'm sure I had more to say on this topic, but my crops are ready to harvest in Farm Town...
I'll get to his first question in a second, but first, more about his blog post... After quoting some dialog from Hamlet in which the title character defines Denmark as a prison while Rosencrantz says that it's not that bad, Tom comes to the conclusion that just as one man's prison may be another's paradise, the same goes for whether or not Facebook apps are an annoying waste or not.
But here's the part I want to comment on... Following the Hamlet scene, Tom writes:
... Western culture has a pretty sturdy set of guidelines about activities that are not, de facto, a waste of time:
Activities in either of these categories (let's call them "productive") are safe from the charge of wasting time.
- Economic - anything leading to personal financial gain
- Education - anything leading to fulfilling requirements for a diploma, certificate or degree
- Exercise - physical activity for the sake of maintaining bodily fitness (this is a relatively recent addition to the Western canon of acceptable endeavors)
Time spent doing things that fall in other categories is more "questionable," i.e., if you do, it's likely that someone or other will think that you are being "unproductive"; wasting time (and, by "thinking make it so").As somebody who's spent his entire career pretty much in that final category, I'd like to suggest that the line between the two groups is not as clear cut as Tom might suggest. I'd say that even the three items in teh first group could be considered "questionable" by some.
- Entertainment - anything done for personal enjoyment/amusement
- Expression - any creative activity that is not directly tied to vocational/economic/educational/fitness purposes
- Exploration - anything done out of curiosity; i.e., doing things "for no good reason"
- Philanthropy - anything done for the benefit of others
Why is activity done for "personal financial gain" automatically useful, while activity done "for the benefit of others" is questionable? I can think of several professions that I would define as a drain on society (anybody want to post a comment defending telemarketers?). And I would defend true philanthropy - doing for others without any expectation of return or recognition - to be the highest calling to which any of us could aspire.
And, really, just where the hell do I fit into this continuum? After all, I work in the charitable/philanthropic sector for personal financial gain. Which part of that equation is the waste of time?
Now, I'm sure Tom didn't mean to imply that crime was "not, de facto, a waste of time" but it is, after all, purely for personal gain and not for the benefit of others (unless you're Robin Hood). And, while I believe in education and (occasionally) try to get to the gym, I know that there are many people who consider both education and exercise to be major wastes of time (probably to their own detriment).
Meanwhile, how much scientific discovery would have been stifled had the discoverers remained in the lab because they felt guilty about wasting their time by going out "exploring"? Curiosity may have killed that cat, but it's also led to a greater understanding of the world around us.
The truth is, everything is a waste of time - including Facebook apps - to the person who has no interest in it and everything is worth pursuing if the person doing the pursuing gets one moment of pleasure from it - including Facebook apps.
It's just fine that some (most?) people think that everything I do is a waste of time, just as my opinion of how they spend their lives is completely irrelevant to them (or, at least, it should be).
I'm sure I had more to say on this topic, but my crops are ready to harvest in Farm Town...
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Defending Sarah Palin
This isn't what you think it's going to be. No, I'm not going to bash those defending Sarah Palin's self-serving, ghost-written memoir. Nor am I going to comment on her book, or the controversy it's stirring up at all (beyond that first sentence). I'm actually going to defend Sarah Palin against an unfair attack myself. (Pause for the gasps from the readers).
The group American Right to Life (ARTL) has claimed that Palin secretly supports abortion rights based on her having appointed to the Alaska Supreme Court a judge who has served on the Board of Directors of Planned Parenthood. On their Prolife Profiles page on Palin, they have archived the press release about Judge Christen's appointment. The press release details many of Christen's qualifications, but makes no mention of her service to Planned Parenthood. But, what I did find very interesting, was the last sentence of the press release:
Learning that Palin may have actually, in some cases, put her duties as Governor ahead of her personal agenda is something knew and interesting to me. Good for her!
It should come as no surprise to any of my regular readers that I do not support ARTL's mission, but clearly these people are out of line and way overboard when they describe Judge Christen as "an abortionist" (she's not; she's a lawyer who served on a nonprofit Board), and just as wrong when they use guilt by association (and a rather tenuous association at that) to try to discredit Palin (and here's where I get in my digs; Palin does enough to discredit herself).
Okay. So don't let it be said that I'm a hypocrite of an independent who only sticks up for the liberals and leaves the conservatives out to hang when unfairly attacked. Now, excuse me while I go scrub my hands.
The group American Right to Life (ARTL) has claimed that Palin secretly supports abortion rights based on her having appointed to the Alaska Supreme Court a judge who has served on the Board of Directors of Planned Parenthood. On their Prolife Profiles page on Palin, they have archived the press release about Judge Christen's appointment. The press release details many of Christen's qualifications, but makes no mention of her service to Planned Parenthood. But, what I did find very interesting, was the last sentence of the press release:
Under current judicial selection procedures, the Alaska Judicial Council received applications from six Alaska attorneys, winnowed the list to two names, and forwarded them to the governor.So, only six people wanted the job, only two were qualified, and Governor Palin selected one of those two. Without knowing who the other candidate was, and what their "prolife profile" would say, how can ARTL crucify Palin for the selection she made?
Learning that Palin may have actually, in some cases, put her duties as Governor ahead of her personal agenda is something knew and interesting to me. Good for her!
It should come as no surprise to any of my regular readers that I do not support ARTL's mission, but clearly these people are out of line and way overboard when they describe Judge Christen as "an abortionist" (she's not; she's a lawyer who served on a nonprofit Board), and just as wrong when they use guilt by association (and a rather tenuous association at that) to try to discredit Palin (and here's where I get in my digs; Palin does enough to discredit herself).
Okay. So don't let it be said that I'm a hypocrite of an independent who only sticks up for the liberals and leaves the conservatives out to hang when unfairly attacked. Now, excuse me while I go scrub my hands.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Can California be Saved?
There are those who would place all the blame on Hiram Johnson. It was Johnson, as Governor, and the Progressives who brought the great reforms of the Initiative, Referendum, and Recall (along with direct election of US Senators) to California nearly 100 years ago to break the monopoly on power held by the State Legislature and the corporate interests who owned the individual members of that body.*
The legacy of a century of Initiatives and Referendums is a state Constitution with over 500 amendments (often conflicting with or negating each other) that is the world's third longest (eight times the length of the U.S. Constitution), a practice of budgeting through the ballot box that has left the Governor and Legislature very little authority in dealing with fiscal emergencies, and a state that is considered by many on both the right and the left as being virtually un-governable.
Far from being a tool for the people to self-govern when leaders fail, it has become accepted that to pass any statewide ballot measure requires the backing of the same large monied interests that the Progressives sought to silence. And yet, we still cling to the progressive reforms. While nearly all see the need for reform in how our state is governed, virtually nobody is suggesting an overhaul of the Initiative and Referendum process.
In fact, a year from now, in November 2010, we are likely to have at least half-a-dozen reform efforts using the Initiative process to cure us of the problems caused by abuse of the Initiative process. Can Alanis Morissette write a verse about that irony?
Yesterday I went to a lunch meeting of the American Leadership Forum, Silicon Valley, to hear about the history of some of these reform movements, previous efforts to save our state, and to discuss whether too many reform efforts on the same ballot will doom them all. The guest speaker was Don Benninghoven, a former Executive Director of the League of California Cities, and the vice-chair of the Constitutional Revision Commission (1996-98) appointed by Governor Pete Wilson.
That Commission actually did recommend some changes to the Initiative process, including adding a requirement that the Legislature review all submitted initiatives and have the opportunity to amend them before being submitted to the voters. This was suggested as a way of cutting down on the law suits that inevitably follow most initiatives by having them conform to certain standards of Constitutional review. They also recommended that rather than be set in stone and require another costly initiative to amend once an initiative is passed, that there be a set time frame (five years?) after which the Legislature could amend initiatives without putting it before the people. By the time their report was finalized, however, a new Republican majority had taken over the Legislature and they shelved the entire project.
But on to November of 2010... Several organizations have submitted Initiative language to the State, and will likely soon receive approval to start collecting signatures for ballot access. They include...
The League of California Cities will have their "Save our Cities... Again" Initiative. Basically, their aim is to protect local jurisdictions (the only level of government that most citizens still trust) from having their funds grabbed by the State each time the State is in trouble. The League has been successful with this type of Initiative before.
California Forward has their 2010 Reform Plan as well. This will likely be on the ballot in two (or three?) different measures, including such reforms as changing the vote needed to pass a state budget from 2/3 majority to simple majority, holding legislators personally responsible for failing to pass a budget on time, and protection of local government, similar to the League of California Cities effort.
And then there's the biggie: Repair California's call for a new State Constitutional Convention (Repair California was initiated by the Bay Area Council, but has grown to be a statewide coalition). Rather than work piecemeal around this problem or that problem and just add to the clutter of our unworkable governing document, they want to start fresh. Of course, that fresh start requires two Initiatives to set in motion: One to amend the current state Constitution to allow for citizens to call for a convention, and the second one to actually make that call.
Of course, this is the Initiative (or two) that has me the most fascinated and interested. It could be the greatest thing to happen to this state politically since 1911, or it could be total chaos. Or both. Either way, it could be a lot of fun and something I want to take a part in, either as an official delegate or just as an observer.
And, of course, even if all goes well, and they come up with the greatest state constitution of all time, it will still need to be approved by the people. After all that work, if it contains too many changes to current law, or anything even remotely controversial, it could fail miserably, leaving us right where we are now. It is for this reason that many of the participants in yesterday's meeting did not want to support Repair California's plan. But for me, even with all the potential pitfalls, I'm drawn to it and feel we have to give a try.
Soon the signature gathering will begin, and assuming all of the above qualify for the ballot, it will be up to the good people of this state (and many of the bad ones) to decide which way to go. Personally, I see no conflict between them. We can amend the budget process (CA Forward) and protect local government (League of CA Cities) today, and work on a new Constitution for tomorrow.
* While Johnson was a forward thinking and progressive leader on domestic issues for the first half of the 20th century, first as Governor then as US Senator, he was also an isolationist and xenophobe who supported the California Alien Land Act, prohibiting Asians from purchasing property, and was the only US Senator to vote against both the League of Nations and the United Nations.
The legacy of a century of Initiatives and Referendums is a state Constitution with over 500 amendments (often conflicting with or negating each other) that is the world's third longest (eight times the length of the U.S. Constitution), a practice of budgeting through the ballot box that has left the Governor and Legislature very little authority in dealing with fiscal emergencies, and a state that is considered by many on both the right and the left as being virtually un-governable.
Far from being a tool for the people to self-govern when leaders fail, it has become accepted that to pass any statewide ballot measure requires the backing of the same large monied interests that the Progressives sought to silence. And yet, we still cling to the progressive reforms. While nearly all see the need for reform in how our state is governed, virtually nobody is suggesting an overhaul of the Initiative and Referendum process.
In fact, a year from now, in November 2010, we are likely to have at least half-a-dozen reform efforts using the Initiative process to cure us of the problems caused by abuse of the Initiative process. Can Alanis Morissette write a verse about that irony?
Yesterday I went to a lunch meeting of the American Leadership Forum, Silicon Valley, to hear about the history of some of these reform movements, previous efforts to save our state, and to discuss whether too many reform efforts on the same ballot will doom them all. The guest speaker was Don Benninghoven, a former Executive Director of the League of California Cities, and the vice-chair of the Constitutional Revision Commission (1996-98) appointed by Governor Pete Wilson.
That Commission actually did recommend some changes to the Initiative process, including adding a requirement that the Legislature review all submitted initiatives and have the opportunity to amend them before being submitted to the voters. This was suggested as a way of cutting down on the law suits that inevitably follow most initiatives by having them conform to certain standards of Constitutional review. They also recommended that rather than be set in stone and require another costly initiative to amend once an initiative is passed, that there be a set time frame (five years?) after which the Legislature could amend initiatives without putting it before the people. By the time their report was finalized, however, a new Republican majority had taken over the Legislature and they shelved the entire project.
But on to November of 2010... Several organizations have submitted Initiative language to the State, and will likely soon receive approval to start collecting signatures for ballot access. They include...
The League of California Cities will have their "Save our Cities... Again" Initiative. Basically, their aim is to protect local jurisdictions (the only level of government that most citizens still trust) from having their funds grabbed by the State each time the State is in trouble. The League has been successful with this type of Initiative before.
California Forward has their 2010 Reform Plan as well. This will likely be on the ballot in two (or three?) different measures, including such reforms as changing the vote needed to pass a state budget from 2/3 majority to simple majority, holding legislators personally responsible for failing to pass a budget on time, and protection of local government, similar to the League of California Cities effort.
And then there's the biggie: Repair California's call for a new State Constitutional Convention (Repair California was initiated by the Bay Area Council, but has grown to be a statewide coalition). Rather than work piecemeal around this problem or that problem and just add to the clutter of our unworkable governing document, they want to start fresh. Of course, that fresh start requires two Initiatives to set in motion: One to amend the current state Constitution to allow for citizens to call for a convention, and the second one to actually make that call.
Of course, this is the Initiative (or two) that has me the most fascinated and interested. It could be the greatest thing to happen to this state politically since 1911, or it could be total chaos. Or both. Either way, it could be a lot of fun and something I want to take a part in, either as an official delegate or just as an observer.
And, of course, even if all goes well, and they come up with the greatest state constitution of all time, it will still need to be approved by the people. After all that work, if it contains too many changes to current law, or anything even remotely controversial, it could fail miserably, leaving us right where we are now. It is for this reason that many of the participants in yesterday's meeting did not want to support Repair California's plan. But for me, even with all the potential pitfalls, I'm drawn to it and feel we have to give a try.
Soon the signature gathering will begin, and assuming all of the above qualify for the ballot, it will be up to the good people of this state (and many of the bad ones) to decide which way to go. Personally, I see no conflict between them. We can amend the budget process (CA Forward) and protect local government (League of CA Cities) today, and work on a new Constitution for tomorrow.
* While Johnson was a forward thinking and progressive leader on domestic issues for the first half of the 20th century, first as Governor then as US Senator, he was also an isolationist and xenophobe who supported the California Alien Land Act, prohibiting Asians from purchasing property, and was the only US Senator to vote against both the League of Nations and the United Nations.
Monday, October 05, 2009
Starbucks VIA Ready Brew - Thanks, but no thanks
Dear Starbucks,
Thank you very much for the free cup of coffee this morning, and the opportunity to taste test your new VIA Ready Brew instant coffee. While I didn't care for the VIA (more on that in a minute), your staff was helpful and nice, and I enjoyed the cup of real coffee.
First, a bit of background on what type of coffee drinker I am. I'm not a daily, gotta-have-it kind of guy. It takes an effort sometimes, but I try to keep it down to no more than a couple of times a week. I'd prefer to have an occasional cup of really good coffee than to be constantly swilling bad coffee. When I drink it, I like it dark and strong - same as I like my whiskey or my beer.
I have no patience for Miller Lite, and will pass on beer if that's all that's offered (Guinness, please!). Same with coffee; if Denny's Swill is all that's available, I'll have a Diet Coke, thank you. And, frankly, when it comes to the chains, I usually prefer Peet's over Starbucks, and when there's a locally owned and fresh roasted coffee shop around, I'll take that over any chain.
So, back to the VIA taste test... Your barista prepared the two cups for me, one of the VIA Ready Brew and one of your Pikes Peek and set them out for me. On sight alone, I could not tell which was which, and I was hopeful. Then I sniffed them.
One smelled like fresh coffee should, and warmed me right up. The other was, well, kind of rancid smelling. On second sniff I identified it as cleaning chemicals following a sewage spill. That was enough to identify it as the instant coffee, but in the interest of science I went forward with the taste test.
The taste of the one I'd identified as the instant was not as bad as the smell, but certainly not as satisfying as the taste of the real coffee. The instant was thin and weak, and lacking in any body. The Pikes Peak was quite satisfying.
The barista confirmed my suspicion of which was the Pikes Peak and which was the VIA Ready Brew.
I suppose if somebody is already drinking instant coffee, or doesn't care about flavor and only wants a hot drink with a caffeine jolt, it might be a good product if drunk from a lidded cup (to hide the odor). But it isn't for serious coffee drinkers, and should probably be kept out of serious coffee stores.
So, sorry about the failed product launch, but thanks again for the free cup of coffee.
Best,
- Ken
Thank you very much for the free cup of coffee this morning, and the opportunity to taste test your new VIA Ready Brew instant coffee. While I didn't care for the VIA (more on that in a minute), your staff was helpful and nice, and I enjoyed the cup of real coffee.
First, a bit of background on what type of coffee drinker I am. I'm not a daily, gotta-have-it kind of guy. It takes an effort sometimes, but I try to keep it down to no more than a couple of times a week. I'd prefer to have an occasional cup of really good coffee than to be constantly swilling bad coffee. When I drink it, I like it dark and strong - same as I like my whiskey or my beer.
I have no patience for Miller Lite, and will pass on beer if that's all that's offered (Guinness, please!). Same with coffee; if Denny's Swill is all that's available, I'll have a Diet Coke, thank you. And, frankly, when it comes to the chains, I usually prefer Peet's over Starbucks, and when there's a locally owned and fresh roasted coffee shop around, I'll take that over any chain.
So, back to the VIA taste test... Your barista prepared the two cups for me, one of the VIA Ready Brew and one of your Pikes Peek and set them out for me. On sight alone, I could not tell which was which, and I was hopeful. Then I sniffed them.
One smelled like fresh coffee should, and warmed me right up. The other was, well, kind of rancid smelling. On second sniff I identified it as cleaning chemicals following a sewage spill. That was enough to identify it as the instant coffee, but in the interest of science I went forward with the taste test.
The taste of the one I'd identified as the instant was not as bad as the smell, but certainly not as satisfying as the taste of the real coffee. The instant was thin and weak, and lacking in any body. The Pikes Peak was quite satisfying.
The barista confirmed my suspicion of which was the Pikes Peak and which was the VIA Ready Brew.
I suppose if somebody is already drinking instant coffee, or doesn't care about flavor and only wants a hot drink with a caffeine jolt, it might be a good product if drunk from a lidded cup (to hide the odor). But it isn't for serious coffee drinkers, and should probably be kept out of serious coffee stores.
So, sorry about the failed product launch, but thanks again for the free cup of coffee.
Best,
- Ken
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Another Annoying iPhone User is Born
Here's how it went: For many years I was a Sprint customer for my cell phones. I was never thrilled with Sprint, but the service usually seemed decent enough. I was also pretty sure I only wanted a phone to be a phone, and not to be a camera and an organizer and a game unit.
But, as time went on, I became more and more annoyed by Sprint's problems. Large areas where they claim to have service where there's no signal at all, and calls that I never receive until I get the notification that somebody left me a voice mail (sometimes hours later). I also got used to the idea that having several uses to a single gadget could be a benefit. But I still wasn't convinced that I wanted to go with AT&T, the only "legal" carrier for the iPhone.
So I decided to seriously study which cell services were the best. I asked everybody I work with. I posted the question on Twitter and Facebook. I also checked articles on CNet and elsewhere for reviews of the services from the "professionals." I only found one other person who still used (and liked) Sprint. The AT&T and Verizon supporters were pretty much split, with Verizon coming out slightly ahead in the reviews.
AT&T (and I believe the others as well) will allow you to cancel an account within 30 days without penalty and return a phone for a refund, less a 10% restocking fee. I figured that fee would be worth it to take the iPhone for test drive and see if AT&T service would suffice. If it failed, I could always go to Verizon. So I picked up an iPhone a little over a week ago.
I tested the phone from the Santa Cruz pier, to my home in the mountains, to Los Gatos and Sunnyvale, and up to the Stanford Mall in Palo Alto. The only place I had no signal was in the dead center of the Ikea store (but it worked closer to the entrance). I can't say that AT&T is vastly superior to Sprint, but it's certainly no worse.
Beyond finding the service acceptable, I've been loving the device itself. I love that the calendar and address book on my Mac automatically syncs with the calendar and address book on the iPhone using the MobileMe service. I love having my email with me, wherever I am. I love the camera - far better than any other in-phone camera I've seen. And I love the apps (checking movie times while out and about, posting to Twitter whenever I like, and, yes, the games).
And so, this last Friday, I returned to the AT&T store and had them re-assign my Sprint number to the iPhone, picked up a new phone for the wife, and canceled our Sprint account. Like there was any possible way I was going to return the iPhone once I had it in my hands.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
