There are losers, but no winners

Comments Off

It’s been interesting watching the Conservatives seemingly trying exceptionally hard to run themselves into the ground. There have been too many negative news cycles for them lately, which although each is arguably relatively small by themselves, have added up to a constant barrage.

Interestingly, this hasn’t seemed to add up to a large groundswell of support for any of the opposition parties yet, meaning these are non-issues or people don’t like the alternatives.

Personally, I think Iggy would make a decent PM, but he hasn’t been inspiring at all. That shouldn’t be seen as a big knock against him though; when’s the last time you can think of a PM that’s been inspiring?

But, that still leaves people like me uncertain how to vote. Conservatives and NDP would be out for me, but … ?

Good rant: if you ignore climate science, why not all science?


I agree with his sentiment, from Friday rant — heat exhaustion edition:

“We are apparently going to let the debate on the science run until hell freezes over. If you can’t accept the conclusions of 98 percent of the scientists whose FIELD IT IS, then why even bother with science? If that high a percentage of field of study is to be discounted ENTIRELY, then we are in deep trouble, which, of course, we are.”

It’s frustrating that there’s absolutely no reasonable ground remaining for the deniers to stand on, yet everyone wants to appear “fair” so they still get their equal time and can basically block any progress on the issue.  Real journalism isn’t giving equal air time to two sides of a debate where one side was factually proven wrong many years ago, unless the story is “how bad do you feel now that you’ve been proven wrong and are seen by many as being insane for continuing to push your bad ideas?”

Maybe it’s time for a fence along the US/Canadian border!

Comments Off

Forget illegal immigrants: Heavy weaponry seized at border. Let’s keep out the guns! But, we’ll keep a fast-access lane for any transport of Southern BBQ or TexMex.

Why does everyone think there should be only one brand of smartphone?


Following on the smartphone theme of my last post, Poor BlackBerry…, here’s something that’s always confused me: people claiming every new device needs to be the “iPhone killer” or comparing sales numbers between iPhone, Android and BlackBerry.

For example: Android Overtakes iOS in Sales, but That’s not the Whole Story:

“The truth is, it’s not all gloom and doom for the iPhone, despite what some may say. As we pointed out in a previous report, iOS is only available on one phone and one carrier, AT&T. Meanwhile, Android-powered phones are available across many more carriers and devices, something along the lines of 20 different phones throughout four carriers. We likened it to a new battle between Mac and PC, in which the Microsoft has a higher market share, but that’s mainly because of their availability, while Mac OS is built for Apple computers.”

Doom and Gloom?  Why would anyone expect Android wouldn’t eventually overtake (and far exceed) the iPhone in sales given the number of devices and carriers?  I’m an iPhone user who keeps a hopeful eye on Android, yet I don’t want either one to gain a monopoly on the space.  Look at how much innovation we’re seeing thanks to the competition.

And lastly, I’d have to say RIMs announcement today of the Torch was underwhelming.  The hardware looks nice (albeit with a slow processor) but RIM will lag until their OS jumps out of the early 90′s.  But, were I in a company that forced me to use a BB, I’d be drooling over the Torch.