I made a post way back on December 11, 2007…

Is the iPhone just a thin client?
by Counsel @ 11:24 am. Filed under Main Page

A long time ago (in the tech world), a move was made to establish a thin client as everyone’s method to interact with the Internet and with computing in general.

A “thin client” is a computer terminal that does not do much computing on its own. Rather, the “thin client” (TC) sends data to a server that runs software and calculations and simply sends back data to be displayed on the TC.

At that time, the “last leg”–that internet connection between the home or office and the “server” or Internet–was limited in speed and “up time.” Anyone else remember 300 baud modems? The limited speed and “up time” severely limited the idea of the “thin client.”

Fast Forward

The TC is back with a vengeance. “Let me explain. No, there is too much. Let me sum up…”

The iPhone (1st Gen, ed.) is, basically, a thin client cell phone. Before everyone jumps on me for saying so, I admit that the iPhone does appear (I don’t own one) to have several applications stored and run from the iPhone itself (calculator, calendar, camera, etc).

Most of the apps I have seen, and there are a lot of them, are run on a server somewhere that the iPhone accesses on the Internet via either a cellular connection or a wi-fi connection. For some interesting ideas and “proof of concept” sites, see the following:

• iPhone App to control Pro Tools LE;

&

• Cool Hunting’s List of useful Apps.

or sites like the following (other “app” sites now omitted, Ed.)

What is wrong with this?

Now that “up time” is around 95 - 99 percent and the speed of the connection is much better (I hear it runs “fast enough” without 3G), the idea of the TC may be here. All of the “faithful” seem to state that they love their iPhone and its capabilities (even though not much software running/computing is done on the actual phone).

So nothing may be wrong with this concept. Certainly, it is working for Apple, the iPhone, and those who love the iPhone.

However, I often travel outside of GSM coverage as part of my job. GSM coverage does not have 100% saturation across the United States of America, and my job requires me to be in some of those “dead spots.”

How useful would the iPhone be at that point? I am asking the “faithful” here to be honest and provide us with accurate data.

I assume the media capabilities of the iPhone work without a cellular/Internet connection.

For instance, my Treo 650 can still bluetooth to the GPS device and let me see my position via maps stored on my device. The apps on my Treo 650 work without any cellular service. So while both of us would be without cellular service, we could both watch movies (you an a nicer screen) and listen to music. But I think, and I hope you will correct me if I am wrong, that I could be much more productive and application rich with my Treo 650 than with an iPhone.

I love the idea of the iPhone, but I want an iPhone that is a smartphone, a “thick client” rather than a “thin client.” I don’t want to be limited by what I can use or where I can use it.

What say you?

Counsel

An opportunity?

I see Apple looking forward to a TC iTerminal. Of course, it will have a much better name. While iTCH won’t work either, many would scratch at the chance… (yes, I had to go there…). However, iTCH might just work! Think of the marketing. “Have an iTCH? Scratch it!” The “Scratch it”, of course, refers to the touchscreen that you would “scratch.” Now the “faithful” can say, “You ’scratch’ anything interesting today?” I envision a tablet Mac running OS/X with a keyboard on the screen (like the iPhone). Now, if Apple would just make this as a “thick client,” with the full OS/X and not as a thin client, I’d buy…

Apple made the new iPhone 4…

Like Plants v. Zombies (great PRIOR to the iDevice release…), it may do what my Treo 650 could but with a bigger and better display.

The iPad could have been the tablet Mac, that I called the iTCH. Just think how successful Apple could be with that marketing and with a tool the real “geeks” could love… An OS/X-running tablet… Would you scratch that?

An article on TechCrunch, of all places, discusses segregation…

The author states

A quick look at my browser history shows that in the past 24 hours I’ve visited BBC News Online, the New York Times and the Guardian. Liberal news organisations all. But in that same time period, I’ve also checked in to the Murdoch-owned Sun newspaper, the Drudge Report and even Fox News (several times). According to the study, then, I’m an open minded person with a balanced news diet. But of course I’m nothing of the sort. In reality, my reasons for visiting FoxNews.com are the same as those of most of my cheese-eating, US-hating, Osama-hugging, socialist liberal friends – I’m checking in on the enemy, hoping to find something outrageous to back up my pre-existing biases against the American right. And before any Proud Hannity-waving Patriots reading this get too outraged by that confession, admit it: you visit the Guardian and the New York Times for precisely the same, if polar opposite, reasons.

Ah… No it isn’t.

What you say about your activity and browsing history says something about you and not about anyone else. You see, you aggregate everyone in with you because you are ashamed of your behaviour.

Fine, but don’t assume you are no worse than anyone else. You might be better than some too…

However, you are generalizing, and generalizing causes many problems…

There is ONE race.

The Human Race.

We are not cats and dogs that can not breed. Biologically, there may be differences between different people from different places, but the skin color is not the dividing factor. The skin color is similar to wider hips, different teeth structure, and other anatomical differences.

You see, we are what has evolved through our ancestors. Whatever gene may have given them an adaptive advantage is displayed in us today. It could be an adaptive disadvantage but one that has survived! Color may be one of those, but color is then just like other adaptive advantages depending on when/where our ancestors developed.

Don’t go jump on “black” was here first, so “white” is more advanced!

Hogwash. Meat-eating animals are said, by experts, to have been here before plant eaters. Does that make vegetarians more “advanced?” No, it means that it took time for evolution to allow for the development of the 7 stomachs or other advantage that allows animals to adequately use vegetative matter as a food source… Alternatively, it could mean that it took a while for eating vegetables to be an advantage over eating meat…

Think Critically rather than just assume…

What I think

If you are “white,” go visit Disparaging Terms (no longer active, my apologies–this site was run by Darrell and was an interesting read regarding said terms). Go visit Afrospear. It is another nice site about customs and people you might not be aware of but who are, contrary to what you might have ‘heard,’ exactly like you (just close your eyes and think about what they are going through).

Go visit different sites to LEARN how you have been brainwashed and how you have assumed certain truths even though you have no idea whether what you have been told is true…

Read “Public Opinion” by Walter Lippmann.

Think Critically.

How can you be so ignorant to think a person’s skin color makes them better or worse than another person with another skin color?

Where do you draw the line?

What is an ethnic group? I don’t like the term “race” because I think we are one race-human. What distinguishes us? If a white person marries a black person and has a kid who marries the child of a Japanese person and a Mexican, what is their child’s race? Assuming it is “black” because there is some black in there is just as stupid as labeling them white.

What we need to do…

We need to look at our similarities rather than our differences. We are human.

Looking out for “our own”-whether the “Mexican” hotel workers described in the post on TechCrunch or other “groups-means we are focusing on one part of who we are at the expense of the whole. We will NEVER get to view us as similar if we focus on the differences.

My Solution

One law to guarantee fairness for all. No special treatment for any group–we all have the same protection under the law.

We can’t correct past errors by giving people special treatment or other value. Rather, we have to erase the incorrect action, the cause of the past bad action–the discrimination.

Realistically, we can’t give the USA back to the Souix and other tribes. We can’t track or pay anyone for all past transgressions. What we can do is guarantee, to the best of our ability, that everyone is entitled to the same treatment under the law.

If we don’t attempt to guarantee equal treatment to all, aren’t we focusing special attention on some group? If we focus ‘our’ attention on ‘our group,’ aren’t we guilty of the same behavior that caused ‘us’ the injustice, the discrimination, in the first place? We would be, in effect, putting ‘ourselves’ first ahead of ‘others.’ Isn’t that what we are trying to avoid?

What say you?

There are no pictures of breasts or any other NSFW item here. If you were just looking for that “item,” you can now leave. However, please stay and read the post if you are interested in how you think…

A woman, Jen McCreight, has posted a picture of herself showing some cleavage to oppose a statement made by a male Islamic Cleric. The news post states

“Many women who do not dress modestly… lead young men astray, corrupting their chastity and spread adultery in society, which (consequently) increases earthquakes,” Hojatoleslam Kazem Sedighi was quoted last week as saying by Iranian media.

Comedic Insertion

Yes.. Those ARE the two I was looking for…

Sorry, couldn’t help it, there was some “force” affecting me when I made that statement…

If you still don’t get it, well… I can’t help, and I apologize for the use of said language above…

Back to the Story

I am always surprised when a person, religious or not, makes a statement about women and the effects women have on men - different from how women affect men (just to be clear).

Humans have wanted to separate themselves and their “compatriots” into cliques for a very long time. Such separations are to make “us” feel “better” than “them.” It doesn’t matter who “us” and “them” are or whether or not anyone actually is better, but the breakdown of humans into sub-groups continues today.

A woman wears a “skimpy” outfit, and people can imagine what that looks like… Often they are imagining a similar outfit, and they ought to be asking themselves why they have that image associated with that word or phrase.

People think of a “successful man” and often think of a man in a suit and sporting a tie. People think of a “librarian” and an image comes to mind. Why?

Each society has certain similar belief patters, often from religious or social customs. Fashions change because the “new” is “cool” and worn by “that guy” or “that girl” rather than the new “fashion” offering some benefit to the user over the “old” fashion.

We have beliefs that we have due to our parents, our friends, our cliques, our environment, our religion, our society, marketing forces, and other issues we have to deal with as humans. Often, we get “beliefs” because our parents had those beliefs–many times, we haven’t thought why we think that way, we just do…

It is time to start realizing that thinking a girl in a mini-skirt, with thigh-high hose, knee-high boots, and too-tight spaghetti-strap shirt is “loose” or “morally lascivious person” may be wrong. What you are thinking says something about you rather than the person you are looking at while you think those thoughts. You should ask yourself why you have those thoughts and whether those thoughts are generalizations, outright lies, or other baggage that has kept you “prisoner” to your raising (sometimes it is like brainwashing).

Imagine someone coming up to you and yelling, “You are are a stupid (insert your insult here)!” Does the statement, in any way, define you, the person at whom the insult is directed? No. The statement being made says something about the speaker.

Back to Nature

A lion hunts to feed itself and, perhaps, the other lions. The lion does not go out looking for a “hot” meal… (sorry, I’ll try to resist…). If a lion kills a lamb, we don’t blame the lamb for being attractive, for being chased, or for being eaten (sorry, I’m not really trying…). Rather, the lion made a choice on what to kill. The lion may like the taste of lamb, but any lamb would work. The lamb killed was likely sick, injured, or old and not the voluptuous, athletic animal which is better able to evade the lion’s attack.

My Thoughts

Don’t blame the wolf in the sheep’s clothes. The wolf is a wolf and will hunt sheep. It is irrelevant that the religions of the world have problems with the wolf who dresses in a sheep’s clothing (yep, went there again).

Humans will think in sexual terms. We are, after all, animals. We can procreate, or breed as a friend of mine likes to say. Sexual activity feels good because it helps guarantee the continuation of the species.

If you are religious, you have to wonder why God made it feel so good–he could have made it feeling-free. Since it does feel good, you have to admit that God created sexual activity that way for a reason. While it may be to procreate, God may have wanted animals to have a way to get rid of stress. I don’t presume to know all of the reasons, but I can tell you evolution will favor those species that get pleasure from sexual activity. As a matter of fact, I will state that if a certain group of humans got MORE pleasure form sex than others, those populations would tend to grow faster than the others… How is that for behavioral biology? I guess most everyone can grasp that concept…

Summary

Don’t blame women for a man’s activity. Rather, blame the man for not being able to control his emotions and desires. The woman had no way of forcing the man to do anything. Rather, the man chose to act.

This is like arresting prostitutes to stop the desire some men have for sexual activity… It just isn’t going to work folks.

Perhaps the religious community should look to the force for help. If they find the force, they could once again get men to state…

Those aren’t the droids we are looking for…

LOTRO is Lord of The Rings On-line, a Massively Multi-Player Role-Playing Game (MMRPG) set in the Tolkien Universe with stories and play based on the works of J.R.R. Tolkien.

The game lets you play several races (Man, Elf, Dwarf, and Hobbit) and play several classes (Guardian, Champion, Warden, Hunter, Lore-Master (LM), Burglar, Rune-Keeper (RK), Minstrel, and Captain). Each class can use different types of armor (e.g., LMs and RKs can ony use light armor; Minstrel, Hunter, Wardens, and Burglars can use Medium armor; and Captains, Guardians, and Champions can use Heavy Armor). If you can use Heavy Armor, you can use Medium and Light armor as well, although they will not provide you with the same defense (they provide less).

When you join a fellowship (a group of players trying to accomplish a quest or a goal), you likely have a mixed group of races and classes–one or two front-liners, one or two healers, and one or two ranged attackers.

When you defeat an enemy, it is possible to allow everyone to “roll” on the resulting loot (treasure dropped by enemies or stored in chests).

The question a good player asks is “Do I need that?”

Most players don’t ask that….they just hit “roll”…

Lets say your fellowship is comprised of:

• Guardian, level 64;
• Champion, level 63;
• Captain, level 61;
• Hunter, level 60;
• Rune Keeper, level 58; and
• Lore Master, level 58.

There is NO reason for the Guardian or Hunter to roll an light armor shoes that can be used by those of level 58 and up. You see, the Guardian and Hunter will want Heavy and Medium armor shoes, respectively. Also, the higher-level characters likely have better armor than that which has dropped anyway–meaning the lvl 60 Hunter likely already has shoes that provide better armor and other benefits than those provided by the level 58 shoes that are available…

If they roll on them when the Rune Keeper and Lore Master can use them now, and not use all the medium and heavy armor that may fall, they are being selfish and greedy–in my opinion.

I don’t know how else to describe it.

Similarly, the RK and LM have no reason to roll an any medium or heavy armor, especially if it is “Bind on Acquire” (that means that item is bound to the character that wins the item and can not be used by other characters).

If you really need that 10 silver pieces, at least offer to not roll for 10 silver pieces… There is no need to take something you are not going to use and simply sell to the merchant for 10 silver when another member of your group CAN and WOULD use the items on their person…

That is simply the right thing to do …

What say you?

Australia has banned, yes…banned, small-breasted women from appearing topless and in pornography because, as stated in the Inquisitr…

The ban (RC) on small breasted women in adult publications has been made by the Australian Classification Board allegedly on the grounds that such images could be construed as child pornography, even where those publications comply with American law and keep certification that performers are over 18.

Wow… Australian governmental officials try to make women realize what “real” woman look like (those without plastic surgery or those suffering from Anorexia) while baring “small-breasted” women because they look “young” due to their breast size…

Specifically, Think about the Children states…

The National Classification Code dictates that anything that describes or depicts a person who is, or appears to be, a child under 18 (whether the person is engaged in sexual activity or not) in a way that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult is Refused Classification.

Again, wow…

Ignorance and paranoia abound. Do people, or parlimentarians, stick their head in the sand and hope to save the world by trying to get everyone else to stick their head in the sand too?

Simply amazing…

I have mentioned before that Apple uses the iPad, iPod, and iPhone to further their profits. Not so surprising since Apple is a corporation out to make money.

However, Apple is acting in a manner that makes Apple look good in the public’s eye while making third-party developers look “bad.”

“Let me explain… No, there is too much, let me sum up…”

According to MacWorld

Marco Arment, developer of the popular Instapaper apps, points out in a post on his blog that iBooks makes use of a significant number of undocumented functions, and that a third-party developer’s inability to do the same makes “all third-party reading-related apps second-class citizens.” iBooks’s ability to let you adjust the brightness of the screen inside the app—without having to jump to the iPad’s Settings application—is an example of functionality not available to third-party programmers.

Two potential problems arise from this disparity: first, as Arment points out, Apple’s own apps create expectations that diminish the production value of third-party software. Since normal users are not well-acquainted with the subtleties of programming, it’s difficult to explain that an app’s inability to match the functionality provided by its Apple’s counterparts is not due to a lack of ability or interest on the developer’s part, but, rather, to the legalities of participating in the App Store. One could also argue that private frameworks give Apple an unfair advantage, especially as its interests expand from the core device functionality into other areas—as with the recent introduction of iBooks.

Most non-tech people say so what? I get what I want, and the third party developers can do other things…

Technically inclined folk may disagree… Why should I, a developer, develop for a device if the Company whose device I am developing for is making my apps appear inferior to their own–not because I do not code as well but because I am prevented from using their function calls if I want them to approve my app…?

If Apple continues, those developers may leave Apple on principle. Most may stay for the cash, but I hope everyone, techy and average citizen, realizes that Apple isn’t caring so much for your desires as Apple is caring for Apple. Sounds like insurance companies, Wall-street types, and politicians–all groups I want to distance myself from at this point in my life.

It is so bad, I bet lawyer jokes are getting a backseat to Apple jokes.

About Lawyers…

I saw a post on MacWorld by one NeoSurge…

I also hear a lot of people whining about this, and this article just makes the circle of whining increase. People that are not engineers, and not informed read this article and spite Apple without fully understanding what Apple is providing.

Apple is the provider, they are providing a stable, reliable environment for applications to thrive on, and a platform that simplifies and facilitates developer to end user sales. As mentioned briefly in this article and by the commenter above, dreyfus, private frameworks are a necessity, the only way to test them is give them some use.

Apple does this by publishing their own applications using these private frameworks.

The bottom line is that Apple wants to (try) to keep the experience for developers and end-users the same, which is a good, clean, reliable experience with all the applications, with the SDK, and guaranteeing forward compatibility. The only way they can do that, is the path they have chosen.

Let me put this in a way that makes more sense to more people… why in this article are you not complaining about Apple’s “Phone” application using private frameworks? Or their Settings app? Well, you might say that it’s because those aren’t on the “appstore” and you would be right, but the bottom line is that Apple is the provider, they need to provide a high quality of service in their platform, their OS, their SDK, their Applications, and to end users. Use an Android for a month and you’ll appreciate that much more about what Apple has done.

Not surprising, I disagree…

I disagree both about the suggestion that “educated” and “intelligent” people already agree with Apple’s practice and about there not being any logic or validity to the comments being made by some, even if the few.

Lets start with Logic… Or the lack of logic…

The suggested argument is that “Apple wants to (try) to keep the experience for developers and end-users the same…..”

Why does that prevent the use of private function calls, private frameworks, or making those private functions/frameworks public? Nobody is arguing that those “non-public” functions/frameworks are unreliable or not capable of being understood by developers… Remember, Apple still has to approve the app, and Apple could deny approval for apps that did not function or that were “confusing.”

There are plenty of applications available for computer OSes that allow users to control settings without using the OS-providers apps while using their underlying programming (altering settings without opening the OS control panel in Windows for example…). This is done in OS/X as well.

People are complaining about Apple not allowing others to use those “private functions/frameworks” that could allow another dialer. Again, if Apple is approving everything, they would control whether the replacement application for the dialer was functional… Rather, Apple wants a unified appearance at the expense of the developer (and some of us technically-inclined and otherwise intelligent users/programmers).

Why the money-chasing lawyers care…

Can Apple act in this way? Sure–not much prevents a firm from tying software to a device at the expense of third-party apps-except … (United States v. Microsoft on Wikipedia; Findlaw Analysis; Law Article; US Court of Appeals Case; and diagram used to illustrate issues) [emphasis added by me...]

United States v. Microsoft was a set of consolidated civil actions filed against Microsoft Corporation pursuant to the Sherman Antitrust Act on May 18, 1998 by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) and 20 U.S. states. Joel I. Klein was the lead prosecutor. The plaintiffs alleged that Microsoft abused monopoly power on Intel-based personal computers in its handling of operating system sales and web browser sales. The issue central to the case was whether Microsoft was allowed to bundle its flagship Internet Explorer (IE) web browser software with its Microsoft Windows operating system. Bundling them together is alleged to have been responsible for Microsoft’s victory in the browser wars as every Windows user had a copy of Internet Explorer. It was further alleged that this unfairly restricted the market for competing web browsers (such as Netscape Navigator or Opera) that were slow to download over a modem or had to be purchased at a store. Underlying these disputes were questions over whether Microsoft altered or manipulated its application programming interfaces (APIs) to favor Internet Explorer over third party web browsers, Microsoft’s conduct in forming restrictive licensing agreements with original equipment manufacturer (OEMs), and Microsoft’s intent in its course of conduct.

According to the posts, it doesn’t appear as if Apple manipulated APIs to favor its software… Smart attorneys find loopholes. People commenting on the issue appear to state that Apple simply did not give developers access to “private frameworks.” The technicality makes no difference to some, but it may make a difference to lawyers.

Summary

I am not making any legal allegations against Apple or their practices, but I, personally, don’t like or approve of their practice. Your mileage, and opinion, may differ. I accept “many” folk will love what Apple does and suggest that they like what Apple does–I don’t mind that actually. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

However, saying people who disagree with Apple (or the majority of the population even–as in politics) over a ’subjective’ issue are “wrong” or “not educated” (or smart) does confound the intellect …

What say you?

Apple has released the iPad. If you actually don’t know or aren’t sick of all the posts, you are in the minority…

What are the problems with the iPad?

1. Charging from power plug-in is the only efficient way;
2. Fragile-not as tough as the iPod or iPhone;
3. Apps are more expensive;
4. No Flash;
5. Not open–not open-source software, but open to put your own stuff on there…;
6. why go on?

Flash isn’t necessary! Or so I hear. Many say that HTML5 will solve the streaming video / Flash debate.

No it won’t

You see, Adobe’s strength is that it understands that the output we view may be affected by different monitors, printers, etc… Adobe’s products make all that irrelevant. PDF documents look the same across platforms (OS/X, Windows, Linux, …) and software (Office, OpenOffice, Wordperfect, …).

Flash isn’t just streaming video–although many think it is limited to that function. Flash provides many other benefits like not having to worry if you have the right codec for the video or audio. What codec you ask?

Right… You see, Flash takes care of all of that for you. The user has Flash and does not have to worry if the video was encoded with H264, mpeg, mov, avi, …. The end user does not have to worry about codecs, resolutions, other software, etc. It is a complete platform for the delivery of ’stuff.’

If you think Flash = streaming video, please go here and read…

It is more complex than that…

Do you program at all?

If you program a little, you may want to put some of your programs on your mobile device. However, you would have to submit your program to Apple for their verification/approval if you want to put it on your iPhone/iPad/iPod. Why? To control the user experience?

Sure. For the non-tech / average USA citizen, that is fine. Why not allow those of us “with the know,” to do more? You see, I will not submit my stuff for Apple to approve or reject. Why should I? I would have to pay to have it approved when I only want to use it myself? What if I don’t want it released?

It is MY device, isn’t it? To me, this is like Apple telling me they have to approve those I add to my contact list. I understand that MOST users don’t feel the same way, but it is an issue for me.

Summary

Don’t let Apple ouster Flash to put in H264–that it controls. Why is one better than the other? Flash does a little more than just encode video-streaming or otherwise.

Look past the shiny lights and tech. Like people, tech shouldn’t be judged by popularity or exterior appearances.

Or are you that shallow?

According to the news, “Two police officers who had pulled over a suspicious vehicle were shot and wounded by the driver, and the suspect was killed when the officers returned fire, Baltimore police said Sunday.”

Police Commissioner Frederick H. Bealefeld III stated

the officers who were shot and other officers who have been working to get guns off the street and make the city safer. He has directed officers to target enforcement efforts toward “bad guys with guns” in the city long plagued by violence.

Nowhere in the article is it stated whether the gun was registered to the owner/wielder or whether this was an illegal gun in the hand of a criminal. If it was an illegal gun, where did the gun come from?

Many seem to come from police sales…

Funny that…

Engadget is reporting that JooJoo is well…

Actually, Engadget stated

Engadget has since altered their language to say that such bank transfers are common in Europe but still “rare” in the United States.

Either way, you give that information to anyone you give a check to in the United States of America. On each check is your name, your bank, your account number, and the bank’s routing number…

If you would give a check to any John, Dick, or Harry, you are blabbering if you are stating a company (or anyone for that matter) is “shady” because they ask for that information–especially if it is a company that you ordered a product from and that company is trying to wire you money for a refund.

What say you?

Time has a posting that talks about finger-pointing and the intelligence of dogs…

Understanding a pointed finger may seem easy, but consider this: while humans and canines can do it naturally, no other known species in the animal kingdom can. Consider too all the mental work that goes into figuring out what a pointed finger means: paying close attention to a person, recognizing that a gesture reflects a thought, that another animal can even have a thought.

Are they serious? “Consider all th emental work that goes into figuring out what a pointed finger means…”

As children we don’t know what the finger means either. What we do is learn to follow it after it is always pointing… We learn that where the finger was pointing is what our parents were trying to get us to look/go/etc.

I doubt a dog “just gets it” the first time a person points. Rather, there is a learning curve–just as there is with “sit” or “back.”

Yes, my dog walks back from whence he came when I say “back.”

To save time and be efficient, I have trained my dog to defecate… As funny and strange as it may seem, my dog knows to do his business when I say “mierda.”

I have trained two dogs this way, and it is much more efficient for me (and, perhaps, the dog) for him to know that he needs to go “do his business.” No 1hour walks while he sniffs every smell in the neighborhood, and no wondering where he will “dump.”

Oh, I didn’t mention that did I? I trained my last dog to only defecate in a flowerbed (on pine straw actually). My new dog only does his business on the back right side of my yard where no kids play–that is “dog defecation” territory.

I am thinking I should have trained him to stick to the flowerbeds along the back property line… Fertilize and off the grass.

I’ll know better next time…

However, I think finger pointing IS understood by other animals. Gorillas can communicate using sign language, and I bet we could teach them to “follow the finger.”

However, gorillas might actually already be pointing…

Of course, dogs have been bred to understand us since those that don’t might not have been one of those that survived for being the “fittest.”

People seem fascinated by the news that 40% of all tweets are “a waste of time” (here, here, here, and here for starters). I am surprised it was only 40%…

Don’t get me wrong, I am sure you can learn stuff on Twitter. I am equally sure that you can learn the same amount, and more, from other sources…

Tweets are the miniscule “cliff-notes” of thoughts–some quite worthless. Even if valuable information is contained in the tweet, don’t you think that information is available on the poster’s web-site’s RSS feed in much more detail?

CNET has a blog written by Chris Matyszczyk called Technically Incorrect. Recently, he posted

You check who they are and think to yourself: “I wonder what the life of an Australian fisherman who is deeply into the NBA might be like”. So you follow him and, in a way that is no more than staring at a painting at a gallery, you begin to discover.

Ah… Not if what he posts is “Eating a sandwich…”

What I am saying is that studying scat does provide useful information, but do I really want to go wade into all of that shit to find a “nugget?”

Not me…

Those who are on Twitter and who love twitter are doing what is “right” for them and their opinions differ, significantly I am sure, from mine. Diversity is good for the world–and for Twitter.

Lots of sites have “talked” about how a for-profit system is a disaster…

I have someone who has submitted to me information and enough proof to justify me posting this…

Mr. Happy has private health insurance through Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina.  He has a chronic disease (diabetes), has had a son born three months premature, and has had his wife undergo surgery.  He has been to the emergency room over 12 times in the past 7 years, and he is…..

Happy with his health care coverage.

He is not broke or in bankruptcy.  Perhaps it is BCBS’s plan that he participates in is so much better than those plans everyone else participates in, but should we, the people, demand that he get the same care we do–perhaps his employer is willing to accept those costs.

You want my suggestion?

Ask your congress person why they don’t propose to cover every USA citizen with the same health plan offered to USA federal employees–you know, the health care options the congress members get to choose to cover their health care needs.

Congress could just as easily pass a new law giving every USA citizen the same health care they enjoy…

Remember, Congress will keep their current plan and not be required to participate in the new proposed health care system.

Why don’t they provide everyone with what they provide themselves? Oh, you don’t know what options they have? See the governments web-site…

I dare you to call and ask…

The Swanee flows like a cantor,
through sound and channel, percolating.
Written by Foster and fostered by Winter,
the Suwanee flows, echoing…

Words form, are written, and then spoken at Sewanee,
streaming through journals and reviews.
My mother is attending to speak to thee,
To you who should bow, low, in the pews…

Go get them Mom!

Technology has affected how we all approach relationships and our interactions with those we love…

Will technology remove barriers between people or create new barriers similar to those proposed in Demolition Man, the 1993 movie with Sylvester Stallone and Sandr Bullock?

Remember that scene?

A new video short has a funny take on technology and sex

Lets hope that humor survives…

I love British humor, and I know this is not “British”…  However, it is still funny and a wonderful way to advertise…

If you have a complaint, check to see if your sense of humor is still around