+ I fly a lot and can't help noticing certain changes and trends in the experience, including the little speeches given by flight attendants. For one thing, I've noticed they have started to say when you can use your device is "airplane mode." As far as I know, only the iPhone has something called "airplane mode," so I take this as another index of the product's popularity.
+ (I love my iPhone, by the way, by I have no idea exactly what gets turned off in airplane mode. Apple doesn't explain it, but that's because the folks at Apple are so convinced that their products are easy to use that they never explain anything. They are easy, of course, but a few hints on some points would be nice.)
+ I still don't understand why my iPhone has to actually be off during take-off and landing. What I like to do is crosswords - they are not sending or receiving radio waves. Can it be that filling out a crossword cause interference with air traffic control? Somehow I doubt it.
+ Lately I've noticed another warning - you are not supposed to leave your cell phone, PDA or Other Electronic Device loose on the seat next to you! I'm guessing this has nothing to do with radio interference but with the danger of small object flying through the air and hitting people in the head. So be it, but then where is the proscription against untethered tomes by Stephanie Meyer or Peter Drucker? Surely, a flying 500-page book can do more damage than a PDA!
+ Ah the mysteries of modern life. Perhaps someday all will be revealed.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Friday, October 31, 2008
What happened with the TV
In the end, I gave up trying to select a TV through research. The are so many models on the market, and so many features to compare - I just selected Sony as a reliable brand and picked out a model whose physical design I liked.
Then, as I was ordering it through a mail order place, the agent told me that was last year's model, and this year's had better specs, so I bought that one instead.
I'm happy with picture quality, but this new one came with a goofy physical design element - a little strip of clear plastic at the bottom, which offers a splendid view of nothing more appealing than the cables running out the back! In addition I wish it had a few more "wide" picture formats, like the Philips sets I used to work on. Also, it seems to take 5-6 seconds to tune from one HD channel to the next. But aside from those complaints, it's fine!
Then, as I was ordering it through a mail order place, the agent told me that was last year's model, and this year's had better specs, so I bought that one instead.
I'm happy with picture quality, but this new one came with a goofy physical design element - a little strip of clear plastic at the bottom, which offers a splendid view of nothing more appealing than the cables running out the back! In addition I wish it had a few more "wide" picture formats, like the Philips sets I used to work on. Also, it seems to take 5-6 seconds to tune from one HD channel to the next. But aside from those complaints, it's fine!
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Buying a TV
How does anyone buy anything these days? Thanks to the internet, anyone contemplating a major purchase might justifiably sink into terrified inaction for months on end. That was where I stood on the TV question until recently forced into action.
After my son's "ex" demanded her TV back, and I gave him mine, I finally got around to shopping for a new flat TV, which I've been desultorily researching for 2-3 years! I quickly realized that, to make an informed decision, you would need to spend several hours a day for several months to get up to speed -- and by then most of what you learned would be obsolete. With an empty spot where my TV used to be, I couldn't wait that long, so I resolved to get this done!
First, I decided the technology: I opted for LCD over Plasma, because LCDs are more lightweight and energy-efficient, and the deeper blacks and wider angle of view offered by Plasma didn't mean that much to me.
I figured the next thing was to choose a size. The advice columns say most buyers wish they bought something bigger, so after thinking 40-42 inches would be fine, I expanded to 46 inches. But even then, there must be hundreds of models to choose from! If you start from "Consumer Reports," you get good advice, but they cover only 15-20 models. Other comparison sites cover more, but how can you trust any old enthusiast who says "This is a great TV" when you have no way of vetting their knowledge, judgment, or honesty!
Head swimming, I decided to let others narrow the field for me, so I re-joined a discount membership retailer and had a look at what they had to offer. Even side by side, it was hard to tell which TVs were really better, and whether they had all been set up comparably. In the end, I decided that I just didn't want devote my life to the problem, so I went with Sony, on the theory that if they are consistently more expensive, they must be better. (I know, it's a dumb argument that plays into the hands of the market leader, but Sony owners are satisfied, and I reckon at worst I'm overpaying, but at least I'll a decent product.)
Having settled on a model, I went back online to check prices. Not surprisingly, I found some better prices, or so I thought. First, I decided I could go a little over my initial budget, say $300 over. Then, I thought, buying mail-order, maybe I can avoid sales tax, though it's a trade-off with shipping. OK, here's a place, they list a shipping charge but no tax. I go with them, adding $150 in shipping, but wait, it turns out they charge sales, too, so another $150. Then, it turns out I have to "confirm" my order by phone, which is really where they try to get you buy more stuff! It turns out I just ordered last year's model, but this year's model is so much better, and only $150 more! Well, who could say "no" to that! And don't forget those HDMI cables...
Needless to say, the budget is distant memory. I'll report on what happens when the beast gets delivered.
After my son's "ex" demanded her TV back, and I gave him mine, I finally got around to shopping for a new flat TV, which I've been desultorily researching for 2-3 years! I quickly realized that, to make an informed decision, you would need to spend several hours a day for several months to get up to speed -- and by then most of what you learned would be obsolete. With an empty spot where my TV used to be, I couldn't wait that long, so I resolved to get this done!
First, I decided the technology: I opted for LCD over Plasma, because LCDs are more lightweight and energy-efficient, and the deeper blacks and wider angle of view offered by Plasma didn't mean that much to me.
I figured the next thing was to choose a size. The advice columns say most buyers wish they bought something bigger, so after thinking 40-42 inches would be fine, I expanded to 46 inches. But even then, there must be hundreds of models to choose from! If you start from "Consumer Reports," you get good advice, but they cover only 15-20 models. Other comparison sites cover more, but how can you trust any old enthusiast who says "This is a great TV" when you have no way of vetting their knowledge, judgment, or honesty!
Head swimming, I decided to let others narrow the field for me, so I re-joined a discount membership retailer and had a look at what they had to offer. Even side by side, it was hard to tell which TVs were really better, and whether they had all been set up comparably. In the end, I decided that I just didn't want devote my life to the problem, so I went with Sony, on the theory that if they are consistently more expensive, they must be better. (I know, it's a dumb argument that plays into the hands of the market leader, but Sony owners are satisfied, and I reckon at worst I'm overpaying, but at least I'll a decent product.)
Having settled on a model, I went back online to check prices. Not surprisingly, I found some better prices, or so I thought. First, I decided I could go a little over my initial budget, say $300 over. Then, I thought, buying mail-order, maybe I can avoid sales tax, though it's a trade-off with shipping. OK, here's a place, they list a shipping charge but no tax. I go with them, adding $150 in shipping, but wait, it turns out they charge sales, too, so another $150. Then, it turns out I have to "confirm" my order by phone, which is really where they try to get you buy more stuff! It turns out I just ordered last year's model, but this year's model is so much better, and only $150 more! Well, who could say "no" to that! And don't forget those HDMI cables...
Needless to say, the budget is distant memory. I'll report on what happens when the beast gets delivered.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Catching Up with Belgian Banking in the 90s
My bank recently sent the following breathless announcement:
"Great News! Effective May 2008, we're enhancing Online Bill Payment to offer you faster payments. In most cases, you'll be able to pay your bills in as little as 24 hours."
Well, gee, that was fast. I've been using online banking for about 10 years, and in all that time, the bank insisted on taking 5 business days between my placing an order and their being ready to deliver money to the payee -- just like the old days of the "float" in paper-based checking accounts. Even after the laws required faster processing of actual checks, electronic payments preserved this quaint custom of the 5-day wait!
I always found this frustrating, because back in 1993-94 when I lived in Belgium, it was possible to send instant electronic payments not only to big businesses but to corner shops, friends, and scout den leaders, anyone! -- and the transfer was overnight! Like most Americans, I assumed we had the most advanced of everything, but the silly little country of Belgium was miles ahead! (Thanks to this system, we went from writing 50-60 checks a month to maybe 5 or 6!)
Meanwhile, back in this country, it seems now we are finally able to make electronic payments that actually reflect the technology behind them! Why did it take so long? Presumably because the banks could get away with it -- I wonder who was using that money from the time it left our accounts to the time it reached its destination 5 days later. I'm sure the change from my bank reflects more consumer-friendly practices of upstart customer-centric banks, and the old guard has finally decided to fall in line.
But not without a little self-congratulation: "It's just another way [bank] is working to make banking better for our valued customers." Gee, thanks!
"Great News! Effective May 2008, we're enhancing Online Bill Payment to offer you faster payments. In most cases, you'll be able to pay your bills in as little as 24 hours."
Well, gee, that was fast. I've been using online banking for about 10 years, and in all that time, the bank insisted on taking 5 business days between my placing an order and their being ready to deliver money to the payee -- just like the old days of the "float" in paper-based checking accounts. Even after the laws required faster processing of actual checks, electronic payments preserved this quaint custom of the 5-day wait!
I always found this frustrating, because back in 1993-94 when I lived in Belgium, it was possible to send instant electronic payments not only to big businesses but to corner shops, friends, and scout den leaders, anyone! -- and the transfer was overnight! Like most Americans, I assumed we had the most advanced of everything, but the silly little country of Belgium was miles ahead! (Thanks to this system, we went from writing 50-60 checks a month to maybe 5 or 6!)
Meanwhile, back in this country, it seems now we are finally able to make electronic payments that actually reflect the technology behind them! Why did it take so long? Presumably because the banks could get away with it -- I wonder who was using that money from the time it left our accounts to the time it reached its destination 5 days later. I'm sure the change from my bank reflects more consumer-friendly practices of upstart customer-centric banks, and the old guard has finally decided to fall in line.
But not without a little self-congratulation: "It's just another way [bank] is working to make banking better for our valued customers." Gee, thanks!
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Things To Do While Not Doing Your Taxes
- Dust and vacuum
- File away all papers
- Print new labels for all your existing file folders
- Replace the shelf paper in all your kitchen shelves
- Change the oil in your car
- Rearrange your closets
- Transfer all your CDs to your ipod,and toss the CDs
- Scan all your proposals, reports, storyboards, etc from all past projects
- Cut up last year's Christmas cards, and make a collage!
- Read that [DVR/VCR/TV/phone/camera] manual at last
- Alphabetize your library
- Alphabetize your CDs (Oops, never mind, we tossed those)
- Pack up some clothes and shoes for the Goodwill
- Rearrange all the accounting categories in Quicken
- Delete all that pre-installed crap on your computer
- Do the laundry
- Write a few long-lost friends
- Start your memoirs
- Digitize all your old family photos
- Reorganize all the photos on your computer
- Try a new operating system!
- Change cell phone carriers (that will take a few weeks)
- Update your family pictures in their frames
- Make some lists!
- File away all papers
- Print new labels for all your existing file folders
- Replace the shelf paper in all your kitchen shelves
- Change the oil in your car
- Rearrange your closets
- Transfer all your CDs to your ipod,and toss the CDs
- Scan all your proposals, reports, storyboards, etc from all past projects
- Cut up last year's Christmas cards, and make a collage!
- Read that [DVR/VCR/TV/phone/camera] manual at last
- Alphabetize your library
- Alphabetize your CDs (Oops, never mind, we tossed those)
- Pack up some clothes and shoes for the Goodwill
- Rearrange all the accounting categories in Quicken
- Delete all that pre-installed crap on your computer
- Do the laundry
- Write a few long-lost friends
- Start your memoirs
- Digitize all your old family photos
- Reorganize all the photos on your computer
- Try a new operating system!
- Change cell phone carriers (that will take a few weeks)
- Update your family pictures in their frames
- Make some lists!
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Architects and Real People
Has it ever struck you that architects continually design features into buildings that people who use their buildings continually ignore? For example:
- Architects continue to make men's and women's bathrooms the same size. It makes for a nice symmetry in plan, but women take longer, so you always find long lines of women outside their bathroom, while men zip in and out. This has been going on for a long time! Come on, architects, wake up!
- Architects always seem to think their interior spaces will remain as immaculate as they are on the day the last coat of paint is applied. But virtually every interior space occupied by humans -- especially office and work spaces -- are covered with pieces of paper, affixed to painted walls with tacks or tape. Why don't architects design shared spaces with some kind of surface treatment designed to accept attached documents?
- Architects generally put double doors as the main entrance to any public space. But have you noticed how often the occupants of that space open only one door and leave the other on locked? OK, I would have to fault the users in this case, but why do they do that? Do they think they are saving "wear and tear" on the bolted door? Do they enjoy watching people yank at one door, feel the frustration, and then open the other one? If people are going to behave like this, maybe there is some design approach that would make this practice seem normal or expected.
Anyone else out there have any architectural pet peeves?
- Architects continue to make men's and women's bathrooms the same size. It makes for a nice symmetry in plan, but women take longer, so you always find long lines of women outside their bathroom, while men zip in and out. This has been going on for a long time! Come on, architects, wake up!
- Architects always seem to think their interior spaces will remain as immaculate as they are on the day the last coat of paint is applied. But virtually every interior space occupied by humans -- especially office and work spaces -- are covered with pieces of paper, affixed to painted walls with tacks or tape. Why don't architects design shared spaces with some kind of surface treatment designed to accept attached documents?
- Architects generally put double doors as the main entrance to any public space. But have you noticed how often the occupants of that space open only one door and leave the other on locked? OK, I would have to fault the users in this case, but why do they do that? Do they think they are saving "wear and tear" on the bolted door? Do they enjoy watching people yank at one door, feel the frustration, and then open the other one? If people are going to behave like this, maybe there is some design approach that would make this practice seem normal or expected.
Anyone else out there have any architectural pet peeves?
Thursday, February 7, 2008
On-Line Dating
Recently I've been trying on-line dating. I must admit I've had some some limited success, if that's what you call it when you find someone worth going out with several times now, albeit after slogging through dozens and dozens of utterly hopeless candidates.
I've used only two services, and I haven't surveyed them all enough to either plug or pan these two in particular, but I've noticed a couple of things that seem to apply to all on-line dating services.
First, it's really hard for anyone to sound original in a self-description. When asked what's most important in life, guess what? Health, family and friends loom large for pretty much 100% of the populace! And it seems that every last person in the world is looking for a mate with a good sense of humor! Favorite activities invariably include "a quiet evening at home." If these are all the things we're looking for, we should all be able to find a mate just by standing outside the supermarket and waiting for someone to walk by without a wedding ring!
In one area, however, people exhibit quite a range of taste and competence - namely in posting photographs of themselves. I am amazed by how many people post really awful photos of themselves -- awful in a technical sense: too dark, washed out, with the figure so small you can barely make out the subject. Come on, people, surely you have an image that shows your face in adequate light in reasonal isolation - how about that passport photo! (I finally understand why the passport office is so particular in their photo specifications.)
The other popular practice that mystifies me is when people post photos of themseleves with others in the picture. If it's another person of the same gender, which one is you? Even worse, what's the deal with the picture of you snuggling up to your "ex" when you are presumably looking for a new mate? Are we supposed to compare ourselves to the ex and make sure that we match some physical quality or wear the same hat? Or should we assume you're looking for someone completely different?
Still, even a bad photo is better than none at all. With no image posted, the prospective dater can only assume the worst!
I've used only two services, and I haven't surveyed them all enough to either plug or pan these two in particular, but I've noticed a couple of things that seem to apply to all on-line dating services.
First, it's really hard for anyone to sound original in a self-description. When asked what's most important in life, guess what? Health, family and friends loom large for pretty much 100% of the populace! And it seems that every last person in the world is looking for a mate with a good sense of humor! Favorite activities invariably include "a quiet evening at home." If these are all the things we're looking for, we should all be able to find a mate just by standing outside the supermarket and waiting for someone to walk by without a wedding ring!
In one area, however, people exhibit quite a range of taste and competence - namely in posting photographs of themselves. I am amazed by how many people post really awful photos of themselves -- awful in a technical sense: too dark, washed out, with the figure so small you can barely make out the subject. Come on, people, surely you have an image that shows your face in adequate light in reasonal isolation - how about that passport photo! (I finally understand why the passport office is so particular in their photo specifications.)
The other popular practice that mystifies me is when people post photos of themseleves with others in the picture. If it's another person of the same gender, which one is you? Even worse, what's the deal with the picture of you snuggling up to your "ex" when you are presumably looking for a new mate? Are we supposed to compare ourselves to the ex and make sure that we match some physical quality or wear the same hat? Or should we assume you're looking for someone completely different?
Still, even a bad photo is better than none at all. With no image posted, the prospective dater can only assume the worst!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
