I have been looking for an MP3 player ever since my iPod shuffle died. The shuffle was a gift I received at work and I used it while working out at the gym. I listen to podcasts mainly and the shuffle was ideal for that kind of use. A month ago, it just died on me while I was working out. Researching on the web, I found out numerous folks have had a similar experience; Apple replaces shuffles within the warranty period, no questions asked; if you are outside your warranty period, then repairs cost as much as a brand new shuffle; mine was beyond the warranty period and repairing it just didn't make sense.
So I began by looking for a new MP3 player by checking the reviews on CNET. My requirements were pretty simple; I wanted something that had a display, which would make it easier to skip to a particular podcast; doing this on a shuffle - which lacked a display - had been a frustrating experience. I wanted something that was as easy to use as an iPod, especially when it came to syncing podcasts; iTunes does a fabulous job of subscribing and syncing to podcasts and I wanted the same ease of use. I also thought that the FM radio and recording capabilities were handy features and would allow me to listen to my favorite radio shows or even record them for later listening.
I narrowed down my search to the MP3 players by Creative and Sandisk and I was very close to buying a Creative Zen Micro Photo. Fortunately a friend bought a Creative Zen Nano recently and I asked him how he liked it. My friend, like me, uses his MP3 player to listen to podcasts and his shuffle like mine had died while working out at the gym.
I sat with him recently to find out what the user experience was with his Creative Zen Nano. Just listening to him explain the whole process of syncing podcasts was confusing. There were so many steps involved that he found it exasperating. Both of us had been spoiled by the ease with which iTunes synced podcasts, that we found Creative's cumbersome process frustrating. I came away thinking that the Creative MP3 player was not for me.
Later on the web, I read many folks say that iTunes is the best out there when it comes to subscribing and syncing. Though I like the FM radio and recording feature of the non-iPod MP3 players, given my usage pattern, I think an iPod is still the best MP3 player for me.
I think I'll end up buying the iPod nano. If you believe rumors, then Apple will update the nano either in Sept. or Nov. and I am going to hold off buying until then. Hopefully they will drop the price as well.
Sunday, August 06, 2006
Thursday, August 03, 2006
Brainwashed? Part two
Now to the situation in Israel.
My first reaction is that Israel has every right to defend itself against acts of unprovoked aggression. Hezbollah entered Northern Israel unprovoked; they killed eight soldier and captured two; if that is not an act of aggression, I don't know what is.
Part of Hezbollahs strategy - spurred obviously by Iran and Syria, its main underwriters - was to test the relatively new Prime Minister of Israel. Olmert ran, after his mentor Ariel Sharon was incapacitated by a stroke, and was elected four months ago. Unlike previous Prime Ministers, Olmert, lacks the military credentials of his predecessors, and it is my view that Hezbollah wanted to test his resolve by launching the attack.
I therefore cannot understand how people can be critical of a nation that elects to defend itself. What would France do if they were attacked with no provocation? Would they sit by quietly and believe they were deserving of it?
I can understand, however, criticism about the severity and the extent to which Israel has retaliated. The images from Qana, where a building housing children was bombed, resulting in deaths hurts Israel.
It is clear today, that Israel miscalculated the severity with which they chose to respond. The scary thing is that after almost three weeks, Hezbollah looks far from defeated. Israel has repeatedly blasted their communication infrastructure - or so they think - but Hezbollah TV is still up and running. If Israel calls a ceasefire, Hezbollah will be seen as the clear victor throughout the Middle East.
But I wish people critical of Israel, look at who started this war and apportion blame appropriately.
I really believe that radical Islam is a grave threat to world peace. I am not advocating war as an antidote; instead, it has to be a war of ideas and values. Tony Blair made a far more convincing and eloquent appeal than I can ever hope to make on this subject recently.
I am often told, that when I mention radical Islam, I am clubbing all Muslims together and that is wrong, because the majority are law-abiding, peace-loving citizens. I have Muslim friends too, but that is besides the point. I think the problem throughout the Muslim world is that there isn't a core group of vocal activists who actively oppose the thoughts and ideas unfurled by their radical Muslim counterparts. If there is one, it is muted. Religious leaders on the other hand have unfettered freedom to disperse their ideas without challenge or debate. And the ideas they espouse are in direct opposition with much of what we in the West consider civilized. I think that is the central problem; the challenge that will confront us in the future.
My first reaction is that Israel has every right to defend itself against acts of unprovoked aggression. Hezbollah entered Northern Israel unprovoked; they killed eight soldier and captured two; if that is not an act of aggression, I don't know what is.
Part of Hezbollahs strategy - spurred obviously by Iran and Syria, its main underwriters - was to test the relatively new Prime Minister of Israel. Olmert ran, after his mentor Ariel Sharon was incapacitated by a stroke, and was elected four months ago. Unlike previous Prime Ministers, Olmert, lacks the military credentials of his predecessors, and it is my view that Hezbollah wanted to test his resolve by launching the attack.
I therefore cannot understand how people can be critical of a nation that elects to defend itself. What would France do if they were attacked with no provocation? Would they sit by quietly and believe they were deserving of it?
I can understand, however, criticism about the severity and the extent to which Israel has retaliated. The images from Qana, where a building housing children was bombed, resulting in deaths hurts Israel.
It is clear today, that Israel miscalculated the severity with which they chose to respond. The scary thing is that after almost three weeks, Hezbollah looks far from defeated. Israel has repeatedly blasted their communication infrastructure - or so they think - but Hezbollah TV is still up and running. If Israel calls a ceasefire, Hezbollah will be seen as the clear victor throughout the Middle East.
But I wish people critical of Israel, look at who started this war and apportion blame appropriately.
I really believe that radical Islam is a grave threat to world peace. I am not advocating war as an antidote; instead, it has to be a war of ideas and values. Tony Blair made a far more convincing and eloquent appeal than I can ever hope to make on this subject recently.
I am often told, that when I mention radical Islam, I am clubbing all Muslims together and that is wrong, because the majority are law-abiding, peace-loving citizens. I have Muslim friends too, but that is besides the point. I think the problem throughout the Muslim world is that there isn't a core group of vocal activists who actively oppose the thoughts and ideas unfurled by their radical Muslim counterparts. If there is one, it is muted. Religious leaders on the other hand have unfettered freedom to disperse their ideas without challenge or debate. And the ideas they espouse are in direct opposition with much of what we in the West consider civilized. I think that is the central problem; the challenge that will confront us in the future.
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
Brainwashed?
We met a friend who has a French girlfriend at a party last week. Soon, the conversation turned to the situation in Lebanon and Israel, and this girl had pretty strong opinions.
"I watch CNN and I think all of you are brain washed", she said gathering steam. "Your government doesn't tell you the truth and neither does your media", she added.
I consider myself an independent, and when someone makes such extreme statements, I tend to reflexively balk.
Here are my thoughts on the war.
First off, I have real problems with the way this adminstration has conducted itself recently. Bush lacks the skill to make a coherent argument and it is often irritating listening to him struggle to put a sentence together. The obdurate Cheney continues to insist we are winning in Iraq, even though the situation on the ground in Iraq belies it. Tell the truth, buddy! In my eyes, he has no credibility. Donald Rumsfeld issues statements that are an embarrasment and a joke; there are times when someone has outlived his or her usefulness and I think that is the case with him. I shudder to think that a nations future rests in the hands of a bunch of jokers.
That said, I must admit, that when the Bush adminstration made the case for the war in 2003, I hemmed and hawed, before I eventually ended up supporting it. Colin Powell's presentation to the United Nations clinched it for me. I didn't believe their spin that it would be a quick war - wars are never quick, and it would have been foolish to believe a war in that complex region of the world would be quick; i believed instead that it would take at least 10 years or more for us to see the results. I believed, however, their intelligence vis-a-vis the WMD's. I believed that Saddam was a bad guy, who had every intention of hurting the U.S. and it allies, sooner or later, and that it was better to get rid of him and give the Iraqi people the chance to start afresh. I also believed that the Iraqi people would be grateful, and once the dictator had fallen, would embrace democracy.
I hadn't bargained for the embarrasing intelligence collapse that failed to turn up WMD's. I think, had the intelligence proven right, the American people and indeed the rest of the world would have come to accept this war, for what it was first advertised to be. The Shia-Sunni split and the danger that democracy posed in weakening one sect or the other and the fierce battles this would engender was something I had not anticipated. One of democracy's virtues is equal representation, and the resentment this would cause in a society where one sect has historically dominated the other is something I had not anticipated either.
In hindsight, this was an ill-advised adventure. The WMD fiasco bummed me out; moreover the frequent mis-steps (by their own admission) of a bungling adminstration over the course of three years has left me with little hope that things will improve. The same players continue to be influential today, and without drastic change, I see no reason for hope.
On a gloomy afternoon, in a reflective mood, I am sure that Bush himself has his doubts; but admitting as much would be admitting defeat. Moreover, it would be an admission that the brave U.S. soldiers - all 3000 and counting - who have perished in this war, died for nothing. I don't expect this adminstration to ever admit that this war is a failure, today, tomorrow or ever.
Brainwashed? I don't think so.
"I watch CNN and I think all of you are brain washed", she said gathering steam. "Your government doesn't tell you the truth and neither does your media", she added.
I consider myself an independent, and when someone makes such extreme statements, I tend to reflexively balk.
Here are my thoughts on the war.
First off, I have real problems with the way this adminstration has conducted itself recently. Bush lacks the skill to make a coherent argument and it is often irritating listening to him struggle to put a sentence together. The obdurate Cheney continues to insist we are winning in Iraq, even though the situation on the ground in Iraq belies it. Tell the truth, buddy! In my eyes, he has no credibility. Donald Rumsfeld issues statements that are an embarrasment and a joke; there are times when someone has outlived his or her usefulness and I think that is the case with him. I shudder to think that a nations future rests in the hands of a bunch of jokers.
That said, I must admit, that when the Bush adminstration made the case for the war in 2003, I hemmed and hawed, before I eventually ended up supporting it. Colin Powell's presentation to the United Nations clinched it for me. I didn't believe their spin that it would be a quick war - wars are never quick, and it would have been foolish to believe a war in that complex region of the world would be quick; i believed instead that it would take at least 10 years or more for us to see the results. I believed, however, their intelligence vis-a-vis the WMD's. I believed that Saddam was a bad guy, who had every intention of hurting the U.S. and it allies, sooner or later, and that it was better to get rid of him and give the Iraqi people the chance to start afresh. I also believed that the Iraqi people would be grateful, and once the dictator had fallen, would embrace democracy.
I hadn't bargained for the embarrasing intelligence collapse that failed to turn up WMD's. I think, had the intelligence proven right, the American people and indeed the rest of the world would have come to accept this war, for what it was first advertised to be. The Shia-Sunni split and the danger that democracy posed in weakening one sect or the other and the fierce battles this would engender was something I had not anticipated. One of democracy's virtues is equal representation, and the resentment this would cause in a society where one sect has historically dominated the other is something I had not anticipated either.
In hindsight, this was an ill-advised adventure. The WMD fiasco bummed me out; moreover the frequent mis-steps (by their own admission) of a bungling adminstration over the course of three years has left me with little hope that things will improve. The same players continue to be influential today, and without drastic change, I see no reason for hope.
On a gloomy afternoon, in a reflective mood, I am sure that Bush himself has his doubts; but admitting as much would be admitting defeat. Moreover, it would be an admission that the brave U.S. soldiers - all 3000 and counting - who have perished in this war, died for nothing. I don't expect this adminstration to ever admit that this war is a failure, today, tomorrow or ever.
Brainwashed? I don't think so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)