I finally purchased and installed a copy of Windows 7 on my desktop computer. But the whole process was not a very pleasant one. It started at Best Buy about three weeks ago when I saw a Windows 7 Family Pack box on the shelf. I have a desktop and two laptops in my house and the three-license family pack seemed like a good bargain. Unfortunately, the store was out. The box was for display only.
So a week or so later I checked online and it said the store in my area had the family packs back in stock. I thought that’s fine, I’ll just go down Saturday and pick one up when I have time. So I went back over the weekend, picked up the display box, and waited for 15 minutes in line. When I got to the counter, the lady said they had sold out that morning. So why didn’t they remove all the display boxes from the shelf?
Anyway, I trudged back home and started an Internet search to see if I could find a copy in my area. The Best Buy site didn’t even list them anymore. I saw that another e-store had them in stock for $143 so I placed my order. About three days later I got an email stating that they were also out of stock and they had no idea when they would be getting any more in.
I looked on Microsoft’s Web site and finally found a page that said the offer had ended. Ended? I didn’t realize it was a special offer. I thought Microsoft had finally come to its senses and started offering what Apple does with its operating system: A multi-user license at a discount price. I should have known better I guess.
Even on eBay, the cheapest I could find the family pack was about $225 and I was not going to spend that much. I wanted Windows 7, but if it meant settling for just a copy for my desktop, that’s the way it would have to be. So I found a new one on eBay for $84 and I ordered it.
A few days later it came in the mail. I installed it that evening. It took more than two hours for it to install. But first I had to uninstall several game programs from my HP games collection. They were interfering with the install. I didn’t mind; I don’t play games on the computer anyway.
After it installed, it wanted me to configure some options, which was difficult because my wireless mouse didn’t work. The wireless keyboard worked fine, but not the mouse. I rebooted after the options were finally entered and the mouse still didn’t work for a second or two, then it started. I was relieved.
But Windows 7 so far hasn’t been the panacea I had hoped for. I was having problems with Vista. I use the Media Share feature so I can listen to music on my AT&T U-verse television in my bedroom and I also use it to look at photos from my computer on the widescreen TV. But the photo function always caused an error message on the TV and the music would stop every so often to buffer itself.
But at least it was working somewhat. I spent two days on the phone with Microsoft technical support a few months ago. I couldn’t get it to work at all. The technician finally uploaded a patch to my registry that worked, but according to Windows Media Player 11, there was still an error somewhere.
I thought Windows 7 might fix it. But, even though I no longer get error messages when viewing photos, the pictures show up very tiny on the TV screen. If it isn’t one thing, it’s another. And the music still has to pause to buffer, so that wasn’t fixed at all.
I will have to get used to the new taskbar layout. I guess it is ok. I did have to take the time to re-pin all my favorite programs to the start menu. And Windows Media Player isn’t exactly intuitive when you have to configure it to do anything other than play a music file, but the old version wasn’t any better.
The main problem with Windows, any Windows, is that it has not reached the level of user friendliness that makes it workable for everybody. I have been using computers at home for more than 30 years. I started with the TRS-80. So I know a little about computers and software. If I were computer illiterate or a novice, I might never have been able to configure Media Share to work on Windows 7 at all. My U-verse unit wouldn’t recognize the computer as being online until I decided to eliminate my connection to a Home Group, which I didn’t need anyway because it apparently allows easier media connections among all your computers that use Windows 7. And since I was too late to buy a family pack, only one of my computers got the upgrade.
Windows 7 might be better than Vista. I’ll find out soon enough. But Microsoft still seems to be a long way from a truly “plug-n-play” operating system. It would be nice if they could figure out how to build an operating system that could automatically recognize any problem and fix it without any user intervention. You could plug in any device and it would automatically find the right driver, and if none existed, it would somehow work anyway using some currently-mythological universal driver that could make anything run even if not optimally. The best operating system is one that you could talk to in regular English and it would understand what you wanted it to do. But, alas, that kind of operating system is probably decades away.
Saturday, December 05, 2009
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Bible Writing 101 for the Almighty
When Galileo pointed his newly-improved telescope to the skies 400 years ago, he saw things he wasn’t supposed to see. He saw that the sun has blemishes; today we call them sunspots. He saw that the moon’s face was pockmarked. And, most importantly, he noticed that the planet Jupiter had little moons orbiting it with regular periods.
He wasn’t supposed to notice these things because, according to the Catholic Church, the earth was at the center of the universe and everything circled it. And, although the earth was imperfect due to the influence of humans, heavenly bodies were in the domain of God and were supposed to be perfect, not pockmarked and spotted.
So when Galileo started to make his observations public, the powers that be in the church hierarchy promptly called him to task. They demanded that he recant his heresy or be duly punished for it. He did recant, but he was still placed under house arrest for the rest of his life and forbidden to publish any more of this blasphemous claims.
In 1994, the Catholic Church basically said, “Oops, our bad.” I’m paraphrasing of course. But they did offer an official apology to the long-dead scientist.
It wasn’t that the church leaders of his day didn’t believe Galileo’s claims. He could prove it to them. They just had to look through the telescope themselves. They were smart enough to know that he was probably correct. They just didn’t want the word to get out to their flock; else the church would have had to admit being wrong for all those hundreds of years. That is something they could not do.
Today, though, the Catholics hold a much more open-minded view of science. In fact, just recently, the church sponsored a five-day conference on the possible existence of alien life forms in the universe and what the implications of the existence of such life would have for church doctrine. Or, perhaps, they just wanted to confer about how to make any aliens feel guilty.
The Vatican has its own astronomical observatory manned by an actual scientist. The pope has declared that the theory of evolution is a valid scientific principle and that only the soul was created by God.
That view has biblical backing. In John 4:24, Jesus said, "God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth." So if God created us in his image, he is talking about our spirit, our soul, our essence, not our bodies. Human souls, if they exist at all, might not have evolved; it's outside the realm of science to say so. Our bodies, however, did evolve. That fact is as certain as gravity.
Now compare the Catholic open-mindedness with respect to science to the tightly-closed-and-shackled minds of protestant evangelicals regarding the same subject. They believe, as the Catholic Church did prior to Galileo, that the earth is no more than about 7,000 years old and it was created in the span of six 24-hour days by God. No amount of scientific evidence to the contrary can shake their ill-founded belief.
In fact, there are members of the fundamentalist pack who make it their life’s work to dig up so-called competing “evidence,” which they claim supports their young-earth worldview. They, of course, disregard the vast majority of the evidence that goes against their claims, and they tweak the rest of it so that it seems to fit perfectly with their contentions.
But with regard to other matters of daily interest, the conservative churches don’t seem to mind if a couple uses birth control, as long as they are married of course. The pill is fine; condoms are fine. Abortion isn’t, but even some moderately conservative Christians are willing to allow abortion under some circumstances.
Not the Catholics, though. As the cast of Monty Python in The Meaning of Life put it, “Every sperm is sacred,” at least to the Catholic hierarchy. There can be no birth control, not even condoms, and absolutely, positively no abortions for any reason.
It’s funny how both these branches of the same religion, Christianity, can be so far apart in their beliefs on social issues. Why are Catholic leaders so accepting of science, even the science that once seemed to contradict their bible, and yet so backward when it comes to something as simple and harmless as the use of condoms?
On the other hand, why are conservative protestants so uptight about evolution even in the face of overwhelming supporting evidence, yet they have no problem with killing off vast quantities of sperm for the purposes of preventing conception?
Of course, the most reprehensible denomination would be one that combines the reluctance of Catholics to condone birth control with the inane anti-scientific stance of the protestant right. I’m sure such a denomination exists.
On the other hand, there also exist denominations that blend the Catholic’s acceptance of evolution with the typical protestant approval of birth control. In fact, most mainstream protestant denominations fall into this category, including Lutherans, Episcopalians, Methodists, and Disciples of Christ, to name a few.
My question is this: If all Christian denominations base their doctrines on the bible, which all claim to, and if the bible is supposed to be the infallible word of God, which many claim it is, then how can so many of them hold opposite beliefs on the same social issue?
Is the bible, the word of God, not clear enough? Oh wait, I guess it isn’t. So, a word of advice to the Almighty: If you decide to write another bible, write it yourself and make it lucid and timeless. Otherwise, you know that we humans are just going to screw it up again.
Now why would a perfect, omniscient being need to be told this?
He wasn’t supposed to notice these things because, according to the Catholic Church, the earth was at the center of the universe and everything circled it. And, although the earth was imperfect due to the influence of humans, heavenly bodies were in the domain of God and were supposed to be perfect, not pockmarked and spotted.
So when Galileo started to make his observations public, the powers that be in the church hierarchy promptly called him to task. They demanded that he recant his heresy or be duly punished for it. He did recant, but he was still placed under house arrest for the rest of his life and forbidden to publish any more of this blasphemous claims.
In 1994, the Catholic Church basically said, “Oops, our bad.” I’m paraphrasing of course. But they did offer an official apology to the long-dead scientist.
It wasn’t that the church leaders of his day didn’t believe Galileo’s claims. He could prove it to them. They just had to look through the telescope themselves. They were smart enough to know that he was probably correct. They just didn’t want the word to get out to their flock; else the church would have had to admit being wrong for all those hundreds of years. That is something they could not do.
Today, though, the Catholics hold a much more open-minded view of science. In fact, just recently, the church sponsored a five-day conference on the possible existence of alien life forms in the universe and what the implications of the existence of such life would have for church doctrine. Or, perhaps, they just wanted to confer about how to make any aliens feel guilty.
The Vatican has its own astronomical observatory manned by an actual scientist. The pope has declared that the theory of evolution is a valid scientific principle and that only the soul was created by God.
That view has biblical backing. In John 4:24, Jesus said, "God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth." So if God created us in his image, he is talking about our spirit, our soul, our essence, not our bodies. Human souls, if they exist at all, might not have evolved; it's outside the realm of science to say so. Our bodies, however, did evolve. That fact is as certain as gravity.
Now compare the Catholic open-mindedness with respect to science to the tightly-closed-and-shackled minds of protestant evangelicals regarding the same subject. They believe, as the Catholic Church did prior to Galileo, that the earth is no more than about 7,000 years old and it was created in the span of six 24-hour days by God. No amount of scientific evidence to the contrary can shake their ill-founded belief.
In fact, there are members of the fundamentalist pack who make it their life’s work to dig up so-called competing “evidence,” which they claim supports their young-earth worldview. They, of course, disregard the vast majority of the evidence that goes against their claims, and they tweak the rest of it so that it seems to fit perfectly with their contentions.
But with regard to other matters of daily interest, the conservative churches don’t seem to mind if a couple uses birth control, as long as they are married of course. The pill is fine; condoms are fine. Abortion isn’t, but even some moderately conservative Christians are willing to allow abortion under some circumstances.
Not the Catholics, though. As the cast of Monty Python in The Meaning of Life put it, “Every sperm is sacred,” at least to the Catholic hierarchy. There can be no birth control, not even condoms, and absolutely, positively no abortions for any reason.
It’s funny how both these branches of the same religion, Christianity, can be so far apart in their beliefs on social issues. Why are Catholic leaders so accepting of science, even the science that once seemed to contradict their bible, and yet so backward when it comes to something as simple and harmless as the use of condoms?
On the other hand, why are conservative protestants so uptight about evolution even in the face of overwhelming supporting evidence, yet they have no problem with killing off vast quantities of sperm for the purposes of preventing conception?
Of course, the most reprehensible denomination would be one that combines the reluctance of Catholics to condone birth control with the inane anti-scientific stance of the protestant right. I’m sure such a denomination exists.
On the other hand, there also exist denominations that blend the Catholic’s acceptance of evolution with the typical protestant approval of birth control. In fact, most mainstream protestant denominations fall into this category, including Lutherans, Episcopalians, Methodists, and Disciples of Christ, to name a few.
My question is this: If all Christian denominations base their doctrines on the bible, which all claim to, and if the bible is supposed to be the infallible word of God, which many claim it is, then how can so many of them hold opposite beliefs on the same social issue?
Is the bible, the word of God, not clear enough? Oh wait, I guess it isn’t. So, a word of advice to the Almighty: If you decide to write another bible, write it yourself and make it lucid and timeless. Otherwise, you know that we humans are just going to screw it up again.
Now why would a perfect, omniscient being need to be told this?
Monday, November 09, 2009
H1N1 Causes Undue Alarm in Parents
by Shana Wilson
(This week's entry is by guest blogger Shana Wilson, who happens to share my opinion regarding the H1N1 pandemic and how the media may be responsible for bringing undue alarm to parents.)
The spread of the influenza virus, H1N1, also commonly known as the swine flu, has struck panic in many parents. Add into the equation that it is becoming increasingly difficult to get vaccinated, the panic level rises significantly. It's a simple case study of supply and demand. Alarmed parents demand vaccinations; therefore, there are vaccination shortages. It's a vicious cycle.
What if there were no reason to be alarmed? Take into account that the H1N1 virus is the latest in a series of winter illnesses that have recently spooked parents, such as SARS, the Bird Flu, and the West Nile Virus. This isn't to say that these illnesses aren't to be taken seriously, but only to put H1N1 in perspective. There will always be new diseases; panicking isn't the way to handle them.
Many experts argue that vaccinations aren't the way to handle childhood illnesses either. This would certainly help the H1N1 vaccination shortage for those parents who still want their child vaccinated. Author and pediatrician Dr. Jay Gordon suggests these tips in keeping your child healthy during the winter months: make sure your child is getting a good night's sleep, make sure they wash their hands often, avoid too much dairy, refined sugar, and fried foods (which lower your child's immune system), support your child's immune system with herbs, fruits, and vegetables, and finally, don't panic if your child does get sick! Fevers are the best way for the body's immune system to become stronger.
Indiana has reported 317 cases of H1N1, resulting in 19 deaths. What's important to keep in mind is that these statistics are misleading. According to the New England Journal of Medicine, 50 percent of H1N1 cases that become serious result from a pre-existing condition. This study included 500 children. According to the CDC, 75-80 percent of the children who died of H1N1 had underlying conditions.
This winter poses no greater threat than most others. Protect your family as best as possible and remember not to panic. Everything seems scarier without perspective.
(This week's entry is by guest blogger Shana Wilson, who happens to share my opinion regarding the H1N1 pandemic and how the media may be responsible for bringing undue alarm to parents.)
The spread of the influenza virus, H1N1, also commonly known as the swine flu, has struck panic in many parents. Add into the equation that it is becoming increasingly difficult to get vaccinated, the panic level rises significantly. It's a simple case study of supply and demand. Alarmed parents demand vaccinations; therefore, there are vaccination shortages. It's a vicious cycle.
What if there were no reason to be alarmed? Take into account that the H1N1 virus is the latest in a series of winter illnesses that have recently spooked parents, such as SARS, the Bird Flu, and the West Nile Virus. This isn't to say that these illnesses aren't to be taken seriously, but only to put H1N1 in perspective. There will always be new diseases; panicking isn't the way to handle them.
Many experts argue that vaccinations aren't the way to handle childhood illnesses either. This would certainly help the H1N1 vaccination shortage for those parents who still want their child vaccinated. Author and pediatrician Dr. Jay Gordon suggests these tips in keeping your child healthy during the winter months: make sure your child is getting a good night's sleep, make sure they wash their hands often, avoid too much dairy, refined sugar, and fried foods (which lower your child's immune system), support your child's immune system with herbs, fruits, and vegetables, and finally, don't panic if your child does get sick! Fevers are the best way for the body's immune system to become stronger.
Indiana has reported 317 cases of H1N1, resulting in 19 deaths. What's important to keep in mind is that these statistics are misleading. According to the New England Journal of Medicine, 50 percent of H1N1 cases that become serious result from a pre-existing condition. This study included 500 children. According to the CDC, 75-80 percent of the children who died of H1N1 had underlying conditions.
This winter poses no greater threat than most others. Protect your family as best as possible and remember not to panic. Everything seems scarier without perspective.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)