Shuffle Mark 2
It’s actually a rather nice looking little thing that is far different from what came before (in the form of the previous version, of which I have two). It’s now brushed grey metal and forms itself into a clip. The clip, in turn, is based ‘round the place where the headphones go. No longer is there a danger of sliding the device from ordered play to shuffle either, as the button is far smaller. There is an off and on switch on the other side of the device. The buttons on the front have not changed much and allow volume control, track selection, and play. It’s a triumph of Apple design.
Or is it? Well, not really, quite frankly. The shape does not lend itself as well to sliding down one’s out trouser pocket so it does not move around. The clip is, frankly, useless if you wish to make any attempt to hide the device from thieves. It does not fit nicely in one’s pockets nor in the pen pocket of a blazer. It’s rather thicker than the older version as well. And there is the blasted dock it now requires to charge the device or update it. Instead of being able to charge it in any USB outlet on any machine one comes across, you need to have this silly little dock with you. It also means you cannot transfer small files between computers as if the device were a normal USB mini-drive with volume controls.
I believe, as do several other men I have encountered, this new iPod shuffle is aimed squarely at the female market rather than the male. It’s cute and cuddly, with a bit of style for good measure. It does not serve the same purpose as the previous version, which was absolutely perfect. I think it’s a case of someone clever at Apple over-engineering it because he or she can. I have to admit to being rather disappointed, my screen name engraved in tiny lettering on it notwithstanding.
New Apple iPod shuffle – 1GB Silver
IATF RFC continues
The discussion on TCS continues about the relationship between libertarians and Conservatives. There have been some suggestions that libertarians turn their allegiance to the Democrats away from the Republicans. I think this is a bad idea because of one main issue, which could be wrapped up in the smaller government argument, but I believe needs to be stressed. There are many in the Democrats who believe that high taxes are morally right as it is an obligation of the wealthy to pay more. This finds itself in many forms whether its support for the death tax or attempting as often as possible to get the rich to pay twice (at least) on their earnings.
To a libertarian, who basically thinks any tax is a necessary evil at best, this is a complete anathema to them. Republicans, for their many sins, are not as keen to raise taxes. Republicans are more likely than not to have tax cuts under their administration, granted many times they are targeted, and thus closer in ideals to libertarians. Republicans are far more likely to be willing to listen to and in fact believe in flat tax. It is, in fact, the Republicans left that is against tax cuts and flat tax not its right.
On this issue of the ultimate in economics that is tax there is no question that libertarians must side, work with and attempt to influence Republicans.
1 commentEngagement ring?
Its valentines day a week from today and there are probably some of you who are itching about Engagement Rings if you are the cliche type to pop the question on that particular day. Well there is a site that will help you find the perfect one for your budget and needs. Go have a look and get the right ring for your beloved. You only get one shot there lads so make it a good un.
Code Erreur
I was reading up on the now-finalized purchase of Boeing C-17 heavy airlift by the government. I see that the USAF is allowing us to cut in on their current order. That’s most gracious on its part. Or maybe it’s getting a bit fed up with schlepping our tanks ‘n’ stuff around.
Not everyone was thrilled by the news. One man took time from his busy schedule of marching for Hezbollah to denounce it:
“We believe you can lease the aircraft you need for this role,” said Denis Coderre, the Liberal Partys defense critic. “It doesnt make financial sense to purchase these planes.”
Aside from the fact that Coderre is a blithering idiot, there are plenty of good reasons to buy the planes, as enumerated in this Globe and Mail comment thread on the same story (to my surprise, it was about 70% in favor).
I’d completely forgotten about it, but this commenter reminded me of one of the perils of depending on outside assistance:
in one example in the late 1990s we used a foreign owned and registered cargo ship to return sensitive communications and other military equipment to canada from a mission abroad. a contract dispute arose between the canadian government and the owner of the ship while the ship was at sea. the owner ordered the captain to stay at sea and to not sail into montreal harbour and to not deliver his cargo until the dispute was resolved. needless to say, a navy ship went out and had to escort the freighter back into canadian waters (after we boarded it and took control of it). i worked in the ops centre and witnessed this whole fiasco unfold.
It actually happened in August of 2000; as I recall, commandos (either JTF-2 or a specialized Navy team) had to rappel down from helicopters to seize the ship. Most likely the prospect of having our decrepit Sea King choppers hovering overhead so terrified the crew that they offered no resistance.
More on the incident here.
Comments are off for this post
