Los Gatos, CA - On Thursday, just in time for the holidays, Apple, Inc. announced 10 different sized iPads of varying costs.
The iPad Enormous is the largest, coming in at just over 26 pounds with a 39" screen. "We realize the Enormous will only be suitable for a select few individuals, but Apple wants to put an iPad in everyone's hands, not just those who wear average-sized gloves," said Apple spokesman Todd Sellers.
When pressed that the Enormous is too big for any humans, Sellers replied, "Then people can use it as a table, I guess." At $3,600, it's the most expensive Apple product with almost no viable use.
The smallest announced Thursday was the iPad Invisible. "It's so small, we can't even see it!" Sellers gleefully tweeted. At a cost of only $4.95, it's the cheapest product Apple has ever put on the market. Customer Amy Miller exclaimed, "It kinda feels like you're walking out of the store with just an empty bag! I love it!"
One device, the iPad Fone is exactly the same size as the iPhone 5. The differences between the iPhone 5 and the iPad Fone are "legion" according to Chief Technology Coordinator, Victor Schleman. "In addition to not having any telephonic functioning, it also has no 3G capability, so completely ignoring your friends in public is much more difficult than with the iPhone 5. It makes a perfect gift for men with girlfriends who have a need to be 'talked to.'" When asked about the major differences between the iPad Fone and iPod Touch, Schleman pretended to get a call on his iPad Fone, and blew us off.
So no matter how large or small your budget or your fingers, there's something available for everyone on your list with whom you desire an ever-deteriorating relationship.
Thursday, October 25, 2012
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
With the Right Olympic Committee, I Could Be an Olympian!
It must be incredibly exciting for children to meet an Olympic gold medalist! Then just as disappointing to learn it was earned playing badminton.
There are far too many Olympic Events. The Original Olympic Games, you know the one where the dudes just ran and ran and ran until they died, I mean, that was awesome!
If they can shrink down tennis into table tennis and make it into an Olympic sport, then why not shrink down soccer and make fooseball an Olympic sport? I'd be the fattest Olympian in history, that's why.
I say they put a tuna in the pool next to Michael Phelps. You're fast for a human, but you suck as a fish.
Really, what do the animals think of the Olympics? I mean, we're smart and stuff, but compared to the animals, our skills are quite pathetic.
Speaking of animals, how did Equestrians become Olympic athletes? I propose a rule: If any creature is more tired than you are immediately after you win your gold medal, it shouldn't count. Just look at the name: Equestrian means one who rides a horse. RIDES a horse. Am I the only one offended by this? This is one step up from one who rides in their friend's car.
The horse that just won you that Gold medal, what does he get? An extra alfalfa pellet? Nice.
Handball is now an Olympic sport; do they allow rainbows, typewriters, and watermelons? If so, I now have two chances to win an event, assuming riding-in-your-friend's-car is slated for 2016.
Beach Volleyball. Really? If there was ever a valid slippery slope argument, it should begin with "If we allow Beach Volleyball then we'll have to allow..." I know it's been around awhile, so we're used to it being an actual sport, but please...we're changing the ground, taking away their clothes, and now it's totally different. No, no, no...it's not volleyball, it's Beach Volleyball. Totally different. There's saaaaand.
Why are there so many events that are the same, with just one tiny change? Take swimming, for example, 50 meter breast stroke and 50 meter butterfly stroke. The Swimming Lobbyists really pulled one over the Committee's eyes 50 years ago, and never looked back. No, see, he's only got his head out of the water 6 inches, not 4.5 inches. We need another medal for this! In comparison, Running Lobbyists are really quite bad. If runners hired the Swimming Lobbyists, we'd have all types of running. The Single Shoe Marathon, The Tiptoe Sprint, Backwards Running Using a Mirror. Running on Your Hands!
The more Olympics coverage I see, the more I realize, I'm just like these guys. They're super good at one thing, just like me. The only difference is, the Olympic Committee hasn't made Making-Songs-from-Fart-Noises-with-Your-Hands an Olympic event yet. But when they do, I will proudly wear that gold! At least until the kids start asking about it...
There are far too many Olympic Events. The Original Olympic Games, you know the one where the dudes just ran and ran and ran until they died, I mean, that was awesome!
If they can shrink down tennis into table tennis and make it into an Olympic sport, then why not shrink down soccer and make fooseball an Olympic sport? I'd be the fattest Olympian in history, that's why.
I say they put a tuna in the pool next to Michael Phelps. You're fast for a human, but you suck as a fish.
Really, what do the animals think of the Olympics? I mean, we're smart and stuff, but compared to the animals, our skills are quite pathetic.
Speaking of animals, how did Equestrians become Olympic athletes? I propose a rule: If any creature is more tired than you are immediately after you win your gold medal, it shouldn't count. Just look at the name: Equestrian means one who rides a horse. RIDES a horse. Am I the only one offended by this? This is one step up from one who rides in their friend's car.
The horse that just won you that Gold medal, what does he get? An extra alfalfa pellet? Nice.
Handball is now an Olympic sport; do they allow rainbows, typewriters, and watermelons? If so, I now have two chances to win an event, assuming riding-in-your-friend's-car is slated for 2016.
Beach Volleyball. Really? If there was ever a valid slippery slope argument, it should begin with "If we allow Beach Volleyball then we'll have to allow..." I know it's been around awhile, so we're used to it being an actual sport, but please...we're changing the ground, taking away their clothes, and now it's totally different. No, no, no...it's not volleyball, it's Beach Volleyball. Totally different. There's saaaaand.
Why are there so many events that are the same, with just one tiny change? Take swimming, for example, 50 meter breast stroke and 50 meter butterfly stroke. The Swimming Lobbyists really pulled one over the Committee's eyes 50 years ago, and never looked back. No, see, he's only got his head out of the water 6 inches, not 4.5 inches. We need another medal for this! In comparison, Running Lobbyists are really quite bad. If runners hired the Swimming Lobbyists, we'd have all types of running. The Single Shoe Marathon, The Tiptoe Sprint, Backwards Running Using a Mirror. Running on Your Hands!
The more Olympics coverage I see, the more I realize, I'm just like these guys. They're super good at one thing, just like me. The only difference is, the Olympic Committee hasn't made Making-Songs-from-Fart-Noises-with-Your-Hands an Olympic event yet. But when they do, I will proudly wear that gold! At least until the kids start asking about it...
Friday, April 6, 2012
Try Harder, Pansy
I am a terrible runner. I wheeze, I pant, I struggle, my body hurts like crazy, my heart feels like it's going to explode, and my lungs are close to catching on fire. People in the Army, the Runners, look at me and say, "Hey Jody, try harder." Okay. But before you cast that stone at me, take off those glasses, Four Eyes.
What's that? No correlation between running and poor eyesight? I beg to differ.
I understand what worsening vision means. In high school my vision was 20-10, then a few years ago it dropped to 20-15. This year my eyes were worse than ever before, 20-20.
Now I have to look at myself in the mirror in the morning, every morning, knowing that I only have 20-20 vision. It is no longer better than perfect. My eagle-eye vision is gone; I will never see things multiplied like I used to. I am like everyone else (after corrective lenses). How pathetic is my life? I know.
You people who wear glasses are simply not trying hard enough. If I was lazy like you, my vision would be blurry. You see, it takes effort to see things clearly. The muscles contract in about 1/100th of a second. If I didn't do that, I would see as badly as you do. But you see, I actually try to see things clearly.
I don't want to rely on some "doctor" to see every day. That's why I make a concerted effort to see.
So, if you have perfect vision, go ahead and criticize my running. Otherwise, you would do well to remember the famous phrase, "People who wear glasses shouldn't throw stones."
What's that? No correlation between running and poor eyesight? I beg to differ.
I understand what worsening vision means. In high school my vision was 20-10, then a few years ago it dropped to 20-15. This year my eyes were worse than ever before, 20-20.
Now I have to look at myself in the mirror in the morning, every morning, knowing that I only have 20-20 vision. It is no longer better than perfect. My eagle-eye vision is gone; I will never see things multiplied like I used to. I am like everyone else (after corrective lenses). How pathetic is my life? I know.
You people who wear glasses are simply not trying hard enough. If I was lazy like you, my vision would be blurry. You see, it takes effort to see things clearly. The muscles contract in about 1/100th of a second. If I didn't do that, I would see as badly as you do. But you see, I actually try to see things clearly.
I don't want to rely on some "doctor" to see every day. That's why I make a concerted effort to see.
So, if you have perfect vision, go ahead and criticize my running. Otherwise, you would do well to remember the famous phrase, "People who wear glasses shouldn't throw stones."
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Santa and Jesus: Buddies In Our House
(This is a response to a Facebook thread denouncing Christian parents for allowing children to believe in Santa, and hoping their kids would ruin it for others.)
My wife woke up every Christmas morning to Santa's bootprints on the carpet.
I had two older brothers, so my belief didn't last very long.
But after I no longer believed, my dad lost his job, and we hardly had enough money to eat, let alone buy presents. My parents were honest with us; they told us there was no money for presents. But that Christmas Eve, we came home from church and there were all kinds of presents at the house. I knew no one had a key, and it was incredible to believe that Santa had been there. Later on, I found out it was my uncle, but a little boy who was expecting to get nothing had a wonderful Christmas because of that. And I truly believed that Santa had been there.
First of all, I agree that you should never directly lie to your children about Santa. Fair enough. We will never lie about it. But we are going to dance around it as long as we can!
And here's why. Children are innocent, especially nowadays, for such a short time. What's wrong with having something fun and exciting to look forward to at Christmas? Why should we take that away?
Childhood should be celebrated and savored, not cut short, and that's what is happening when parents relish telling their children the truth about Santa. You are taking away a piece of childhood.
Do we really tell our kids THE WHOLE TRUTH about everything in life the second they can understand it? NO. And it would be morally wrong to do so. Imagine this, "Hey 3 year-old, that's not really Mickey Mouse standing over there signing autographs. It's actually a small human adult dressed in a costume. In fact, it's probably a girl. And she may not even like children, but she's getting paid for it, so she does it. And at nights she works as a waitress in a bar and serves alcohol to men who want to forget that their wife left them because he worked too much. Plus, Mickey's not real. He's just a pawn in the Disney Corporation's scheme to take money from the pockets of hard working Americans."
I've also heard the argument that if you allow your children to believe that Santa is real, and you also tell them that Jesus is Lord, then when they find out Santa isn't real, they may stop believing in Jesus. There's a huge difference here, and I'll try to make it as plain as I can. If Jesus is as real to you as Santa is, then your kids won't have a chance anyway. Belief in Santa is blind. One man with flying reindeer delivers thousands of tons of presents, at midnight, to 24 different time zones, to hundreds of millions of children; he keeps a list of good and bad kids, and doesn't die from a heart attack after eating 700 million cookies a year? Come on, the only reason kids believe in Santa is because parents allow their kids to believe.
On the other hand, Faith in the Christian God is well-grounded. It is the best explanation of life and the world we know. Christian parents can attest to a subjective experience with Christ, but they also have studied the world, thought about the nature of things, and have concluded that the best explanation is this: Jesus of Nazareth, born in a manger, walked as a man, died, and was resurrected on the third day. There are over twenty thousand documents showing that the Bible we read is true and accurate (compared to 9 documents for something like Homer's Odyssey). Even the staunchest of Christianity's critics like Richard Dawkins admit that because of the incredible odds of sustaining life as we know it, that the world gives the appearance of Intelligent Design. There is the moral argument for God. There is the Cosmological Argument. There is no other explanation of even Christianity's existence today that makes sense EXCEPT that Jesus was physically raised from the dead and convinced his disciples that he was, in fact, alive again!
So parents, fear not. Allowing your kids to believe in Santa won't ruin them for life. Let them use their imagination and believe.
At age-appropriate times, when children are honestly seeking, and you can't avoid it anymore, then you have to tell them. But don't enjoy it. And certainly don't let your kids ruin it for others.
So, if you want to cut short your kid's childhood, go for it, but don't blame Jesus, and don't tell my kids! I'll be having fun making ashy boot prints on the carpet.
My wife woke up every Christmas morning to Santa's bootprints on the carpet.
I had two older brothers, so my belief didn't last very long.
But after I no longer believed, my dad lost his job, and we hardly had enough money to eat, let alone buy presents. My parents were honest with us; they told us there was no money for presents. But that Christmas Eve, we came home from church and there were all kinds of presents at the house. I knew no one had a key, and it was incredible to believe that Santa had been there. Later on, I found out it was my uncle, but a little boy who was expecting to get nothing had a wonderful Christmas because of that. And I truly believed that Santa had been there.
First of all, I agree that you should never directly lie to your children about Santa. Fair enough. We will never lie about it. But we are going to dance around it as long as we can!
And here's why. Children are innocent, especially nowadays, for such a short time. What's wrong with having something fun and exciting to look forward to at Christmas? Why should we take that away?
Childhood should be celebrated and savored, not cut short, and that's what is happening when parents relish telling their children the truth about Santa. You are taking away a piece of childhood.
Do we really tell our kids THE WHOLE TRUTH about everything in life the second they can understand it? NO. And it would be morally wrong to do so. Imagine this, "Hey 3 year-old, that's not really Mickey Mouse standing over there signing autographs. It's actually a small human adult dressed in a costume. In fact, it's probably a girl. And she may not even like children, but she's getting paid for it, so she does it. And at nights she works as a waitress in a bar and serves alcohol to men who want to forget that their wife left them because he worked too much. Plus, Mickey's not real. He's just a pawn in the Disney Corporation's scheme to take money from the pockets of hard working Americans."
I've also heard the argument that if you allow your children to believe that Santa is real, and you also tell them that Jesus is Lord, then when they find out Santa isn't real, they may stop believing in Jesus. There's a huge difference here, and I'll try to make it as plain as I can. If Jesus is as real to you as Santa is, then your kids won't have a chance anyway. Belief in Santa is blind. One man with flying reindeer delivers thousands of tons of presents, at midnight, to 24 different time zones, to hundreds of millions of children; he keeps a list of good and bad kids, and doesn't die from a heart attack after eating 700 million cookies a year? Come on, the only reason kids believe in Santa is because parents allow their kids to believe.
On the other hand, Faith in the Christian God is well-grounded. It is the best explanation of life and the world we know. Christian parents can attest to a subjective experience with Christ, but they also have studied the world, thought about the nature of things, and have concluded that the best explanation is this: Jesus of Nazareth, born in a manger, walked as a man, died, and was resurrected on the third day. There are over twenty thousand documents showing that the Bible we read is true and accurate (compared to 9 documents for something like Homer's Odyssey). Even the staunchest of Christianity's critics like Richard Dawkins admit that because of the incredible odds of sustaining life as we know it, that the world gives the appearance of Intelligent Design. There is the moral argument for God. There is the Cosmological Argument. There is no other explanation of even Christianity's existence today that makes sense EXCEPT that Jesus was physically raised from the dead and convinced his disciples that he was, in fact, alive again!
So parents, fear not. Allowing your kids to believe in Santa won't ruin them for life. Let them use their imagination and believe.
At age-appropriate times, when children are honestly seeking, and you can't avoid it anymore, then you have to tell them. But don't enjoy it. And certainly don't let your kids ruin it for others.
So, if you want to cut short your kid's childhood, go for it, but don't blame Jesus, and don't tell my kids! I'll be having fun making ashy boot prints on the carpet.
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Gas Stations: Crime Stoppers
Thieves, consider yourselves on notice!
Gas stations are tough on crime.
That's why you have to input your zip code after you swipe your card while paying at the pump. I suppose if you go inside and purchase gas, then you don't have to input your zip code. You just have to make an unintelligible mark on that 3 inch screen.
Gas stations are tough on crime as long as you are paying at the pump.
Of course, when you live somewhere that is 40 miles from any other gas station, and 100% of people pumping gas share a zip code, that makes guessing the zip code a pretty easy proposition. In this situation, the thief will find himself without gas only if he can't remember his own zip code.
Gas stations are tough on crime as long as you are paying at the pump and don't live in the middle of nowhere.
Then again, some gas stations have instituted a new security policy to replace the zip code policy. This is my favorite. After you have swiped the card, you must then type in the last four digits of the card you swiped three seconds earlier. I can imagine one scenario in which this brilliant measure could do some good. Thief steals card. Thief swipes the card to pay at the pump then IMMEDIATELY throws the card as far as he can into the air; a gust of wind catches the card and blows it out of sight. Ah ha! Foiled!
Gas stations are tough on crime as long as you are paying at the pump, don't live in the middle of nowhere, and hang on to the card for at least 4 seconds after swiping the card.
Thieves, maybe you should steal a bike instead of a credit card. Then you'll be able to sleep at night, and not lie in bed wondering where your next tank of gas will come from.
Gas stations are tough on crime.
That's why you have to input your zip code after you swipe your card while paying at the pump. I suppose if you go inside and purchase gas, then you don't have to input your zip code. You just have to make an unintelligible mark on that 3 inch screen.
Gas stations are tough on crime as long as you are paying at the pump.
Of course, when you live somewhere that is 40 miles from any other gas station, and 100% of people pumping gas share a zip code, that makes guessing the zip code a pretty easy proposition. In this situation, the thief will find himself without gas only if he can't remember his own zip code.
Gas stations are tough on crime as long as you are paying at the pump and don't live in the middle of nowhere.
Then again, some gas stations have instituted a new security policy to replace the zip code policy. This is my favorite. After you have swiped the card, you must then type in the last four digits of the card you swiped three seconds earlier. I can imagine one scenario in which this brilliant measure could do some good. Thief steals card. Thief swipes the card to pay at the pump then IMMEDIATELY throws the card as far as he can into the air; a gust of wind catches the card and blows it out of sight. Ah ha! Foiled!
Gas stations are tough on crime as long as you are paying at the pump, don't live in the middle of nowhere, and hang on to the card for at least 4 seconds after swiping the card.
Thieves, maybe you should steal a bike instead of a credit card. Then you'll be able to sleep at night, and not lie in bed wondering where your next tank of gas will come from.
Monday, November 14, 2011
"Spoiler Alert!"
(Editorial Note: I'm not actually Alerting or Spoiling here. So read on!)
"Spoiler Alert! The Land of Oz was just Dorothy's dream!"
I appreciate the effort here, but it hasn't done anyone a bit of good. By the time the mind has processed the words Spoiler Alert, the Spoil has already happened. The practice, as I've seen it, must be refined.
I'm here to help.
Picture a Corvette driving down the highway at 70 mph. If you decide to jump in front of it, you better get out in front of it a little bit if you expect it to stop. Same goes with reading. Even the sharpest minds will take one or two seconds to process the words Spoiler Alert. Therefore, the Spoiler must be, at a minimum, 2 seconds after the Alert in order to do some good. Otherwise no Alert has happened. Just the Spoiling. And that's what we're trying to avoid.
You also must think of your audience when deciding the proper distance to place the Spoiler from the Alert. Let's say your audience is mainly made up of men who only read the sports page and TV Guide. These guys aren't likely to read like the Corvette speeding down the highway. Picture, instead, a guy pushing a wheelbarrow carrying 200 apples down a dirt road. Just because he travels slowly, it doesn't mean the man will be more apt to slow down for warnings. He's concentrating on not dropping the apples all over the ground. So, even for the slower, clumsier reader, it will take some time for the Alert to kick in. Thus, if you have inside knowledge of who won the Heisman, maybe think about placing the Alert a good 4 or 5 sentences before the Spoiling.
Finally, your human readers are weak-minded. We want to spoil surprises. Remember that the reader doesn't know whether it's a super awesome surprise (like Who is Keyser Soze) or a not-so-great surprise. Give us a little more warning than just Spoiler Alert. Spend a paragraph explaining why we might not want to spoil this. You have some neat information, there. If it's worth the trouble of you writing about it, maybe you shouldn't ruin it for the rest of us weak-minded fools by not being the Spoiler in the first place.
My apologies if I just ruined the surprised because you haven't seen the classic 1939 film referenced above. Spoiler Alert. I'm not talking about Gone with the Wind.
"Spoiler Alert! The Land of Oz was just Dorothy's dream!"
I appreciate the effort here, but it hasn't done anyone a bit of good. By the time the mind has processed the words Spoiler Alert, the Spoil has already happened. The practice, as I've seen it, must be refined.
I'm here to help.
Picture a Corvette driving down the highway at 70 mph. If you decide to jump in front of it, you better get out in front of it a little bit if you expect it to stop. Same goes with reading. Even the sharpest minds will take one or two seconds to process the words Spoiler Alert. Therefore, the Spoiler must be, at a minimum, 2 seconds after the Alert in order to do some good. Otherwise no Alert has happened. Just the Spoiling. And that's what we're trying to avoid.
You also must think of your audience when deciding the proper distance to place the Spoiler from the Alert. Let's say your audience is mainly made up of men who only read the sports page and TV Guide. These guys aren't likely to read like the Corvette speeding down the highway. Picture, instead, a guy pushing a wheelbarrow carrying 200 apples down a dirt road. Just because he travels slowly, it doesn't mean the man will be more apt to slow down for warnings. He's concentrating on not dropping the apples all over the ground. So, even for the slower, clumsier reader, it will take some time for the Alert to kick in. Thus, if you have inside knowledge of who won the Heisman, maybe think about placing the Alert a good 4 or 5 sentences before the Spoiling.
Finally, your human readers are weak-minded. We want to spoil surprises. Remember that the reader doesn't know whether it's a super awesome surprise (like Who is Keyser Soze) or a not-so-great surprise. Give us a little more warning than just Spoiler Alert. Spend a paragraph explaining why we might not want to spoil this. You have some neat information, there. If it's worth the trouble of you writing about it, maybe you shouldn't ruin it for the rest of us weak-minded fools by not being the Spoiler in the first place.
My apologies if I just ruined the surprised because you haven't seen the classic 1939 film referenced above. Spoiler Alert. I'm not talking about Gone with the Wind.
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
Lunch at the Olive Garden
Olive Garden? That's so. . . college student. I know, I know.
In San Antonio, we were all about going to Non-Chain Restaurants. For good reason. They had AWESOME places to eat. Well, now that we're in the middle of nowhere, that is no longer an option, hence the title of this post.
Oh yeah, and we had a $25 gift card. And a coupon.
First thing is, wow, it's expensive. We went on a Sunday, so even at lunchtime, they gave us the dinner menu.
Second, they are ALL about pushing wine at you. Notice the next time someone makes you go there. There are wine glasses on the table, wine bottles on the table, grape leaves around the restaurant, and NOW they want to give you a sample wine. Jeesh! Leave me alone already. I'd like to sample the Dr. Pepper please, and if it's a bad combination of carbonation to syrup, then I'll order Iced Tea, thankyouverymuch.
Alison and I each ordered a meal, and the plan was to each eat half, and then switch. Well, when you have a skinny wife, this is never good. She ends up eating 1/4 of each meal, and I end up eating almost 2 whole portions. Thanks mom and dad for the finish-everything-on-your-plate rule. I still have trouble leaving food, even on other people's plates. After all, it's wasteful (and delicious!).
The citrus chicken turned out to be very tasty, but the pasta primodora was just okay. Will we go back? With a coupon and a gift card? Sure. We might even find a lowly college student to take with us. If they'll go...
In San Antonio, we were all about going to Non-Chain Restaurants. For good reason. They had AWESOME places to eat. Well, now that we're in the middle of nowhere, that is no longer an option, hence the title of this post.
Oh yeah, and we had a $25 gift card. And a coupon.
First thing is, wow, it's expensive. We went on a Sunday, so even at lunchtime, they gave us the dinner menu.
Second, they are ALL about pushing wine at you. Notice the next time someone makes you go there. There are wine glasses on the table, wine bottles on the table, grape leaves around the restaurant, and NOW they want to give you a sample wine. Jeesh! Leave me alone already. I'd like to sample the Dr. Pepper please, and if it's a bad combination of carbonation to syrup, then I'll order Iced Tea, thankyouverymuch.
Alison and I each ordered a meal, and the plan was to each eat half, and then switch. Well, when you have a skinny wife, this is never good. She ends up eating 1/4 of each meal, and I end up eating almost 2 whole portions. Thanks mom and dad for the finish-everything-on-your-plate rule. I still have trouble leaving food, even on other people's plates. After all, it's wasteful (and delicious!).
The citrus chicken turned out to be very tasty, but the pasta primodora was just okay. Will we go back? With a coupon and a gift card? Sure. We might even find a lowly college student to take with us. If they'll go...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)