No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Related posts:

1. Glenn Beck, Where’s My Sandwich? Saw this on Huffington Post the other day: I don’t...
2. Glenn Beck’s Melodrama Someone finally put in words exactly how I feel about...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

“Now because they think Washington knows best, they are singling Texas out and are threatening to withhold $800 million in our federal tax dollars unless I violate the Texas Constitution and commit Texas to funding obligations without the consent of future legislatures”

Now this one:

“Consider recent events. Because they think Washington knows best, the EPA unilaterally declared more than 120 state air permits void at Texas plants, despite the fact the program has existed under both a Democrat and Republican President, and most importantly, has contributed to a decrease in air emissions.”

The writer claims they are from a public letter written by Rick Perry. Oddly enough, these quotes are not on one single webpage. Google has absolutely zero results for these quotes. So, my question is this: If it’s a public letter, why isn’t any of these quotes listed on a single website? Where the hell did these quotes come from?

Which brings me to a broader point: What the hell is going on?

I was talking with some friends this weekend and, during our discussion, we talked a bit about how there is so much misinformation being thrown around these days. While both sides of the fence are guilty (both liberal/progressives and conservatives) the majority of it seems to come from conservatives, or what many of us call neo-conservatives. It’s as if people have become completely ignorant of the facts, that it’s completely ok to express your opinion without having any real facts to back it up, and that it’s somehow ok to believe in stuff that is basically made up.

What’s dangerous about this is that it means that there are people who believe in what a particular person says simply because they think they can trust their word. All one has to do is write a blog post or a mass email that includes certain key words and mention a particularly famous person as the source for the content and you’ve got something that a good mass of people can believe it. It’s how so many have managed to make others believe that Obama is a Muslim and that he wasn’t born in this country.

It doesn’t stop there either. We’ve got plenty of folks in the media that are doing the exact same thing. This usually comes from personalities who are not news reporters and rarely if ever research the facts before opening their mouth. You know who I’m talking about!  Need I say more?

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Related posts:

1. Microsoft’s ‘PC versus Mac’ site is full of shit As reported by Electronista and a few other sites, Microsoft...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Before I go into a blow by blow review of their site, let me just add that I’m not your run of the mill Apple fanboy. Yes, I do love Apple’s products but I was a Microsoft fanboy long before I took any of Apple’s products seriously. In fact, I learned everything I could know about every Microsoft OS since Windows 95 came out. I lived and breathed Microsoft and swore by their products…that is, until Vista came out. Since then, I quit my job as an IT Supervisor, bought my first Mac, became a web developer, and haven’t looked back since. With that in mind, let’s move onto talking about Microsoft’s ‘PC vs. Mac’ site…

Having Fun

Apparently, Macs just aren’t fun. You can’t play Blu-ray movies. You can’t watch or record TV content like a DVR. And there just aren’t really any games available for the Mac…well, none that are popular! That’s what Microsoft wants you believe…which is far from the truth.

Ok, ok, I’ll admit…they did get one thing right. Yes, it’s true, you can’t play Blu-ray movies on your Mac. Question is though: how many people really need this? If you’re someone who’s always on the go and likes to play movies on their laptop, that I can sort of understand. If that’s the case then one workaround would be to purchase an external Blu-ray drive and rip your movies to your hard drive. That way you don’t have to carry around a bunch of Blu-ray discs with you. Other than that, I just don’t see the point.

As for not being able to hook a Mac to a TV, that’s false. The new Mac mini has a built-in HDMI port, making it easy as hell to hook it up to a TV with a HDMI input.

Granted, there isn’t any built-in support for DVR capabilities in Macs but there are plenty of solutions out there for that. Besides, most people already use the DVR’s provided by their cable providers, which makes having DVR capabilities on your PC a moot point.

Gaming on the Mac has started booming just in the last year. Valve has rolled out support for Steam on the Mac with an impressive list of games available including Half-Life 2, Eve Online, Portal, and more. Also, one of the most popular MMOG’s is available for the Mac: World of Warcraft. Take a look at Apple’s Games site and you’ll see there’s plenty of other popular games to choose from. So to say there are no popular games available is ridiculous. Granted, none of the DirectX only games are available but, then again, if you really wanted to play a DirectX game then all you would need to do is install a copy of Windows via BootCamp and you’re good to go.

Simplicity

According to Microsoft, Macs take time to learn and, as they put it, “the computer that’s easiest to use is typically the one you already know how to use“. In other words, continue to use the same ole’ thing you’ve been using and don’t try anything new. Basically, Microsoft is using a typical FUD tactic of scaring customers into believing that switching to a Mac is difficult and that learning how to use Macs is as equally difficult. They’re not.

Sure, there are a few things here and there that work differently on a Mac than they do on a PC but not so crazily different that you can’t figure it out. If there’s one thing Apple is known for it’s for designing well thought-out, user friendly interfaces.

No, the mouse doesn’t work differently on a Mac. It works exactly the same as it does on a PC. However, newer Apple mouses like the Magic Mouse can do more, like gestures and multi-touch scrolling. Can your PC mouse do that?

Shortcuts don’t work the same on a Mac because, um, there’s no such thing as “shortcuts” on a Mac. No need for them really when you have the flexibility and functionality that’s provided by the Dock.

Microsoft claims that Windows 7 has features that Macs don’t have. Well, the same could be said about Windows 7. For instance, Windows 7 doesn’t have Stacks, which gives you direct access to files and folders in a variety of ways. Nor does Windows 7 have a highly user-friendly backup program that’s the equivalent to Time Machine.

As for the lack of a feature like Snap, there are plenty of solutions available for the Mac that not only provide the same features as Snap but provide even more functionality. A program called Cinch comes to mind but I prefer to use it’s bigger brother, SizeUp. Both provide features that are very, very similar to Snap but give you much, much more control over how it works.

Microsoft also claims that, unlike the Mac OS, Windows 7 supports Touch and thus allows you to browse online newspapers, flick through photo albums, and shuffle files and folders—using nothing but your fingers. Great, but where are these Touch-compatible PC’s? Last I heard, the HP Slate was one of the few being developed but HP decided to pull the plug and not release it with Windows 7. It’s great that Windows 7 supports this kind of functionality but, really, how can Microsoft tout a feature that hasn’t even been proven yet? Makes no sense.

Working Hard

Considering the sheer high number of college freshmen entering school with Macs, I find it amusing that Microsoft can make the claim that Macs don’t work as well at work or at school. Just because Windows is still the majority doesn’t mean that Mac’s can’t play nice with them. It’s a ridiculous notion.

While its true that if you use Apple’s iWork suite you may have issues opening certain Word or Excel documents, there are always workarounds. I rarely have issues opening up most Word and Excel documents with Pages and Numbers respectively. The only times I run into trouble is if the original document uses some sort of funky formatting, uses fonts I don’t have, or Excel macros that don’t exist in Numbers. But here’s the funny thing…if it’s really that important to you, you can always get Microsoft Office for the Mac. Seriously.

Yes, it’s true, with all new MacBooks you have to buy a separate hardware dongle to hook it up to a standard VGA projector. This is nothing new and isn’t a big deal at all. One of the primary reasons Apple choose not to include a VGA output is because VGA is an outdated standard. Consider the fact that most monitors support DVI and you’ll quickly realize that the omission of a VGA port is a bogus thing to complain about. Apple’s Mini DisplayPort technology allows for easy conversion to DVI, VGA, and even HDMI with just a simple dongle. Why is this such a big deal?  It’s not.

As for encrypting an entire hard drive, what’s the point in that? Exactly why would you want to encrypt not only your personal files but the whole operating system as well? That makes absolutely no sense. One of the reasons why I think Apple chose to allow encryption of just the home folder is for performance reasons. Can you imagine what kind of performance hit your system will take if it constantly has to decrypt anything and everything on your hard drive? Drive encryption is a rather dangerous thing to play with as it is. Why run the risk of really screwing something up by encrypting everything? Best to keep it focused on just the stuff that matters.

Sharing

When I read the phrase “Macs don’t like to share” I laughed almost immediately. No, it’s not hard to share your files, photos, music, movies, and printers on a Mac. In fact, I would almost bet that it’s easier on a Mac. No, there’s isn’t some sort of automated “wizard” with a funny name that does it for you but it’s incredibly easy to do regardless. With just a quick visit to my System Preferences I can share out a folder, a printer, a CD or DVD, my screen, and more. Beyond that, iTunes gives you even more capabilities of sharing your media (music, movies, photos, etc.) using its Home Sharing feature. So to say that sharing stuff between other Mac and Windows users is more difficult on a Mac than Windows is complete bullshit. Different, sure, but difficult? I think not.

Compatibility

Oh noes! Macs might not like your PC stuff!

Ok, so PCs still outnumber Macs.  So what? Still doesn’t change the fact that most file types that people use on a daily basis are ubiquitous on just about all computer operating systems. So unless you’re using programs that are only available to Windows and use a highly proprietary file type, chances are that just about every file you have can be opened on a Mac with little or no issues.

Like I mentioned above, in most cases you can open a Microsoft Office document in iWork. Yes, there are some compatibility cases but if that’s a major concern for you then you can always purchase a copy of Microsoft Office for the Mac (something that Microsoft failed to mention).

As for repurchasing and relearning Mac versions of a certain program, that’s just a sheer fact of switching to any platform. Most of the programs you already know are available for the Mac. If not, more often than not you’ll find a similar program that’s just as easy if not easier to use than the PC equivalent.

Yes, you will have to sit down and learn what’s different on a Mac and how each program works different. But, let’s be honest, the same applies to different programs on Windows up to and including Windows itself. Folks who are just now switching from Windows XP to Windows 7 will have to spend time learning what’s new and how to use it. Folks switching from Office 2003 to Office 2007 or 2010 will have to learn how to use the new Office ribbon interface. These examples aren’t all that different from the experience of switching from Windows to Mac.

Choice

I’m kind of on the fence about this. To say that Macs don’t let you choose is a bit of a loaded statement. On one hand, yes, it’s true that you don’t really have much choice in terms of what color your Mac is or whether it has a Blu-ray drive, TV tuner, Memory Stick reader, or 3G wireless built-in. But on the other hand, why would you want a bunch of stuff on your Mac that you likely won’t even use? Why would you want the added expense of features that don’t accurately reflect how you will be using your Mac?

Apple chooses to take a minimalist approach and embrace certain standards by including only features they believe that most users will use. The end result allows them to concentrate on hardware that is of the highest quality and allows for the highest degree of system stability. Why include a TV tuner and run the risk of affecting system stability if not many users will use it?

In my experience, one of the downsides of the PC market is that manufacturers have a tendency to concentrate more on features than on the integrity of the hardware. End result is that its hard to find a PC with a minimal number of features these days. Just about every PC is loaded with a glutenous amount of hardware features many of which will never be used. By comparison, virtually ever feature on a Mac is used and no real estate is wasted for the hardware.

Just about every missing feature you might want is available at an affordable price for the Mac: Blu-ray drives, TV tuners, Memory Stick readers, 3G wireless, multi-format card readers, touch interfaces, mobile broadband. They’re all available. More often than not, you’ll find that there is more than one solution thus giving you more options to choose the one that fits your needs the best. To me, that’s a whole lot better than getting something “built-in” that may or may not suit your needs.

As for being able to play your videos and music stored on your home computer, I’m not exactly sure what the hell Microsoft is talking about here. If Microsoft is referring to MobileMe then, yes, it does cost $99 a year. But what Microsoft doesn’t tell you is that MobileMe does a lot more than just giving you the ability to play videos and music stored on your computer. MobileMe allows you to keep your mail, calendar, and contacts synced online and between MobileMe compatible devices like the iPhone and iPad. It also allows you to share multiple photo galleries as well as synchronize files with iDisk. But if you don’t want to spend $99 to do all of this, there are plenty of other solutions, a lot of which don’t cost a dime.

Over the course of the past few years, it seems that Microsoft is on a crash course towards losing a good chunk of their market share to Apple. As such, it seems that Microsoft is content to spend more money on bad PR rather than spending it on the thing that matters most: creating great software. I believe that much of Microsoft’s problems started when Microsoft was developing Windows Vista. They took their eye off the ball and spent way too much time developing an operating system that caused a huge PR problem for them. As far as competition is concerned, I feel like they’re a good two or three years behind where they need to be. Apple is not only dominating the desktop but is eating Microsoft for lunch when it comes to portable audio/video players, smart phones, and tablet computing devices, all devices that require tight integration with desktop/laptop computers.

It’s one thing to claim that your products are so much more superior to your competition, it’s another to actually develop it and make them reality. Right now, Microsoft is in la-la land. Windows 7 may be their best operating system to date, but in a world where so many people want smart phones and tablet devices, it’s hard to see exactly where Microsoft and Windows 7 fits in with all that. As such, this whole PC versus Mac debate Microsoft is having with themselves is bullshit.

Related posts:

1. Why Support For Your Computer Matters Just read an interesting post on TheAppleBlog[1] about two different...
2. What I hate about people who hate working on Mac A co-worker/associate recently posted a blog post entitled What I...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Now, before I go any further, let me just say that I am not a stranger to PC’s. In fact, before switching to Mac’s, I was a longtime PC user who worked within the IT industry as an IT Supervisor for nearly 6 years. I’ve used every single version of Windows since Windows 95 first came out. I’ve setup numerous Windows servers and have a lot of experience supporting multiple Windows workstations for small businesses up to 100 employees. Yes, I do know quite a bit about Windows.

Windows has plenty of strengths and weaknesses, as does the Mac OS. I understand that some people will simply prefer Windows over the Mac OS, and that’s just fine. However, if you’re going to complain about why one OS sucks more over the other, be prepared to backup your arguments.

Let’s take a look at some of the arguments presented by Ken, the writer of the blog post. It’s a short post; too short in my opinion to make any legit complaint.

1. the size in KB is really messy. It’s showing me 2KB for dozens of file but when uploading on ftp the real size varies quite largely.

Err…I’m not sure how this is a legitimate complaint. I mean, I use the Finder everyday and don’t have a problem at all with how it reports the size of really small files. You have to look at it from Apple’s point of view. They designed the Finder to be very, very simple; something that the average user could understand. Most people only care about the approximate size. Thus, they probably opted to have the file sizes of files smaller than 1KB or 2KB rounded up. How often does any user really need to know the actual size of a file less than 2KB? It’s a small freakin’ file! Who cares?

Now, if you really care about the reporting of accurate file sizes, you might look into a Finder alternative like Path Finder. The beauty part about the Mac is that there’s an app, utility, or script that solves just about every gripe you could have about the OS. Not every gripe can be fixed…but a lot of them can.

2. the active window doesn’t have a specific color, everything is gray, hard to make a distinction between the active window and others, especially when you have opened a couple.

Funny…I could say the same thing about Windows 7 (and Vista before it):

The two windows look almost identical except for the difference in the minimize, maximize, and close buttons in the top-right corner of each window…which is, ironically,exactly how the Mac does it!

Now, here’s the thing that has always annoyed me about Windows Vista and still with Window 7…Aero! Looking at the screenshot above, you’ll notice that all the windows and even the taskbar is semi-transparent with the wallpaper showing through. This to me is highly distracting. Granted, you can turn it off but I still wonder why Microsoft concentrated so much on eye candy rather than concentrating on improving the design of the windows themselves. For instance, take a look at the following window:

Now, compare this window with a typical Mac window:

The Mac window is much sleeker, more refined with less chrome; whereas the Windows window has more chrome, especially at the top, and feels more busy. Sure, the Mac window has a lot of grey…but after staring at your computer screen for hours, viewing a bunch of sleeker grey windows is much easier on the eyes than a bunch of semi-transparent busy windows in my opinion.

3. the resizing of the window is possible from only one point which is the right – bottom corner. Regularly I am working on my 24′ LCD with two windows opened (left plus right) all the time, Dreamweaver and Firefox usually. Just imagine how is to align everyday these windows to occupy the maximum space of my desktop.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. We all know this is different than Windows and, yes, we know a lot of people don’t like it. But after you spend months using a Mac you get used to it. To get around this gripe, I use a simple little app called SizeUp. It basically allows me to maximize a window to full screen, fill just half the screen, and even a quarter screen with just a simple keyboard shortcut. The result is that I can align one or more windows very quickly without fussing about with resizing a bunch of windows.

4. there is no cut file (CTRL+X) in MacOS which is a shame, such a shortcut should be cross operating systems without any doubt as it is one of the most used keyboard commands on a computer. To do the job done on a Mac you have to either open two windows and drag and drop which is actually the easy way or to drag the file on the desktop and then to drag it again where you want to move it! Grrrr!

Yeah, that’s another little thing that some people have a problem with. Many have asked why Apple has failed to offer this feature in the Finder. Honestly, I don’t know exactly what Apple’s full explanation is but it’s clear that they did it as a matter of some kind of design principle. Maybe offering just one way (copy) instead of two ways (copy and cut) to move a file and/or folder was better to them when it came to more novice users. Who knows. Personally, I complained about it for a while when I first got a Mac but now I don’t really complain about it much. You learn to live without it. But if you must have it, use Path Finder.

5. Apple Mighty Mouse is a piece of crap, the scroll ball is not working at all and for the regular scroll on web I have to click or to move the browser vertical slider. Awful!

Now, here is an issue that has absolutely nothing to do with the decision to use a Mac or not use a Mac. There are plenty of other mouses to choose from other than the Apple Mighty Mouse. If you don’t like the damn mouse then just go get another one. I personally use a Logitech mouse and keyboard on my Mac. Why, oh, why anyone would choose to not use a Mac just because of a shitty mouse is beyond me. Next gripe!

6. The computer speed is not that good as you might read on Mac reviews. Until you will use a Mac at its full performance parameters, at what point, I guess a Mac will beat a PC, it’s hard to believe that using a Mac instead a PC will make any difference.

To make a comparison at a bigger scale is like using two cars, a regular car and a Mustang – the Mustang will really make a good score on a speed track but on a regular street, both will ride with the same speed.

Like I said, a Mac probably will make a (big) difference if you are a video gamer programmer and need a super-duper computer or working in other fields which required a lot of power. For the daily – regularly use I strongly believe a PC is the best fit.

Err…right. I have way too many questions about this gripe but I’ll try and touch on the obvious ones.

First, what Mac are you using? There’s a big difference between a Mac mini, an iMac, and a Macbook Pro when it comes to performance. The same applies to PC’s: there’s a big difference between a cheap ass $500 desktop PC and a $2000 Sony laptop, wouldn’t you say? No pun intended but I think you’re trying to compare apples with oranges. I would need to know what Mac you’re using and what the specs are before I can legitimize your gripe.

Second, if you’re a video game programmer, you’ll likely be using a PC anyways…that is, unless you’re programming for games on the Mac. What you should have said is that if you’re a video editor, a graphics designer, or a 3-D animator, a Mac will likely be a good fit for you. If all you’re doing is checking email, surfing the web, and writing the occasional document or spreadsheet then any computer will do. It’s a matter of personal preference at that point. But to say that a Mac isn’t good for everyday use is ridiculous. Again, it’s all about what you prefer.

It’s a shame that the writer of the blog post didn’t write a more lengthy explanation of his gripes. If he did his point of view would have been much clearer. My point of this blog post is to illustrate the importance of looking at things from different angles. You can’t just simply say “I hate this!” and expect people to take you at your word. You have to provide constructive criticism with examples. Doing so allows for a much more educated debate. Don’t you think?  :)

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

CoulterCare is described as a “one-page bill creating a free market in health insurance” with an emphasis on the words “free market”. Ann claims that “nearly every problem with health care in this country…would be solved by my plan“.

Here’s her plan…

1. Congress will amend the McCarran-Ferguson Act to allow interstate competition in health insurance.

This is probably one of the only things I agree with that CoulterCare mandates. However, I do not agree that it will provide the level of competition that Ann thinks it will. Granted, it would allow for a greater degree of competition but, let’s face it, these are insurance companies we’re talking about. What will likely happen is that many insurance companies will merge together thus causing a flux of less competition rather than more. States that had only one or two insurance companies present would continue to have just one or two due to the fact that a lot of companies simply don’t want to try and compete.

More so, if an insurance company has already merged with companies that have a presence in that state then you won’t see new insurance companies move into those state. We saw this happen with banks and financial institutions back in the 1990’s. Once banks and financial institutions were given the right to compete more through mergers and acquisitions, a slew of mergers happened almost immediately. One would think that this would mean more competition within the banking and financial sector. However, many purported that this allowed for banks and financial institutions to get too big and thus create less competition and more problems.

If we allow the same sort of behavior with health insurance companies then it’s possible that what happened to the financial sector could happen in the health insurance industry: a full-on collapse of the system. Only way to protect against that is some common sense regulations and rules. Granted, it’s a good idea to allow for interstate commerce within the health insurance industry. But to simply tear down the fences and let them roam free isn’t a good solution. We still have to have some gates to keep from floods happening.

2. The exclusive regulator of insurance companies will be the state where the company’s home office is.

According to CoulterCare, “every insurance company in the country would incorporate in the state with the fewest government mandates, just as most corporations are based in Delaware today“. This would open up a big ole’ can of worms. Ann claims that having such a provision would keep insurance companies from having to follow idiotic state mandates that require all insurance plans to cover bogus things. That may sound great and all, but it also goes against the Conservative principle of allowing the states to decide on these kinds of issues.

For instance, let’s pretend that I live in a state where abortions are legal specifically in cases where the mother’s and/or child’s life is in danger. Pretend that my wife is six-months in and the doctor has given us the bad news and recommends that we abort the child immediately, else we run the risk of my wife and the child of dying due to complications. Now pretend that CoulterCare is in full effect and, since our insurance company is based in a state where abortions are not covered and aren’t legal, our insurance company has told us that they will not cover it. Thanks to CoulterCare, we’re stuck with a bill for thousands and thousands of dollars for something that was totally beyond our control. Not good.

Again, just like with interstate commerce, common sense rules and regulations can be put in place to ensure that insurance policies aren’t covering bogus things. Goofy state-based regulations need to apply. Let the states decide.

3. Prohibit the federal government from regulating insurance companies, except for normal laws and regulations that apply to all companies.

Freed from onerous state and federal mandates turning insurance companies into public utilities, insurers would be allowed to offer a whole smorgasbord of insurance plans, finally giving consumers a choice.

This sounds great, doesn’t it; until you realize that, other than the interstate commerce regulations, insurance companies haven’t really been regulated much by the federal government. Right now, consumers don’t have much choice.

Consumers don’t have a choice on what doctor they can go to. If the doctor you’ve been using for the past ten years isn’t a preferred doctor and in-network according to your insurance company then you will likely not get coverage or receive only a small percentage of coverage.

Consumers as well as doctors and hospitals don’t have the final say-so on what doctor visits, tests, procedures, medications, operations, and such get covered. Only the insurance company has the final word. While you may try to appeal their decision, good luck getting them to pay for it in the end.

Consumers have no say-so as to how much total coverage is provided by their insurance company. An insurance company can stipulate that you’ve maxed out your coverage at any time and refuse to pay any additional medical bills. You could be sitting in the hospital dying and in need of a life-saving procedure, but if your insurance company refuses to pay…good luck!

All of this has nothing to do with government intervention or regulations. It’s all behaviors from the insurance companies in an attempt to maximize profits and make share holders happy. Without some common sense rules and regulations from our government, insurance companies will continue with these behaviors and thus giving consumers less choice instead of more. When consumers aren’t in control over their healthcare, how can one claim that they have choice? That doesn’t make any sense.

CoulterCare claims that “in a free market, the government wouldn’t need to prohibit insurance companies from excluding ‘pre-existing conditions’“. It seems that CoulterCare is mixing the idea of ‘pre-existing condition’ with ‘charity’. That is not what we’re talking about here. Consider this…

I, myself, have a disease with no cure that every health insurance company would see as a ‘pre-existing condition’. If my wife were to loose her job, we would likely end up losing our insurance unless we take over the payments for our insurance plan. If we were to drop the insurance plan and go with another insurance company there is absolutely no guarantee that the new insurance company will cover my ‘pre-existing condition’ right away. As such, I would be forced to have to pay the full price for all my doctor’s visits, all tests, and all prescription. That adds up to a whole lot of money.

Prior to my wife getting a new job, I was without insurance between six months to a year. In that time, we’ve had to minimize doctor’s visits, find alternative medications that cost much less (not to mention less effective than the ones my doctor recommended!), and pay out our doctor’s bills over time. It put a serious dent in our finances and put a serious strain on my ability to maintain good health and get access to the preventative care I needed to avoid the possibility of landing in an emergency room.

Would CoulterCare consider me ‘charity’ case? I suppose so. All I wanted was to be able to pay a reasonable rate for a healthcare insurance policy so that I could get the preventative care I needed at a price I could afford. If CoulterCare were policy then insurance companies would continue with the same practices and thus would force me out of their pool since I would be considered a ‘high-risk’ customer.

Ann doesn’t get it. Ideology can’t fix the healthcare system. You can’t apply political ideology on how corporations run. Corporations don’t care about Conservative principles and ideals; they care about growth and profits for their shareholders. Thus CoulterCare would only help corporations find new ways to maximize profits and wouldn’t solve anything; rather it would make it worse.

I’m not anti-corporation; rather I’m a firm believer in free markets and capitalism. But there is a difference between creating a health profit and profiteering. In order to avoid abuse, you have to create a common sense framework of rules and regulations that everyone can follow. The current healthcare bill, while imperfect, at least takes some steps to creating that framework. CoulterCare does nothing to promote that framework.

Free markets are never ‘free’. Nothing is ever ‘free’. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. No one is entitled to a ‘free lunch’. Thus free markets can never be maintained and will never be sustainable without a framework of common sense rules and regulations. Sustainability and innovation are the keys to maintaining an open free market; an idea that Ann Coulter and other Conservatives are not talking about. They just don’t get it.

1. Health Care, Fiddle Sticks, and Ann Coulter: Part One, Part Two, Part Three, and Part Four

Related posts:

1. Health Care, Fiddle Sticks, and Ann Coulter (Part Two) Continuing on in an ongoing series based on an ongoing...
2. Health Care, Fiddle Sticks, and Ann Coulter (Part One) Before I go off into a rant, let me first...
3. US Senior Citizen Speaks Out on Healthcare Bill Yesterday, I received an email about a 68 year old...
4. Health Care, Fiddle Sticks, and Ann Coulter (Part Three) As stated in part one and part two, this is...
5. Health Care, Fiddle Sticks, and Ann Coulter (Part Four) I know, I know…I’m so damn far behind on this...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Back when I worked at Best Buy, we were encouraged to offer customers computer optimizations. By encouraged I mean we were forced shove computer optimizations down the throats of all customers buying computers. We were told to tell the customer just about anything to get them to buy them: “Your computer will get a virus if you don’t!” or “Your computer won’t run as fast without the optimization!” or even better “The latest updates will take you hours to download and install! We can do it in just minutes!” All of these are a bit of a stretch. Most customers would respond with, “So, you’re telling me that this brand new computer I’m buying isn’t nearly as fast as it should be and won’t work right out of the box?” Yes, Mr. Customer, that’s exactly what Best Buy is trying to tell you.

For a brief time, that was actually true…but that was when a nasty virus was running rampant and caused some Windows XP to get it without doing anything other than get online. For a while we were able to apply the security patches and run a computer optimization on just about every computer in the store prior to purchase and then charge the customer for the optimization. Just like Betty in The Consumerist story, we were selling computers with the optimization already done. Customers didn’t have a choice. The reality was that the customer was getting a pretty good deal. The Windows XP service pack that fixed the issue was over 200 megabytes which, for most people, would take about an hour or more to download. Since we already downloaded it, all we had to do was install it and optimize the computer a bit. Instant $30 for just a bit of work. Problem is that this only lasted for a few weeks. We couldn’t use that as an excuse once most computers were being shipped with the appropriate security patches already pre-installed.

So, if security issues and large patches aren’t an issue then why would a computer optimization be a good deal? And why should any customer be forced to pay for one if they didn’t ask for it? My take is that value is in the eye of the beholder. If your going to pay $40 for something it should have some kind of value attached to it.

When I was doing computer optimizations, I would make sure that the customer got their money’s worth. I built an automated routine that would install not only the latest patches onto the computer but also a few other bits that would help keep the computer clean. I would also optimize the computer so that certain pre-installed programs don’t run automatically. This varied from model to model. Some models had a lot of crap starting up when you fired up the computer which really slowed things down. Some didn’t have much at all. So if it’s just patches then you’re not really getting your money’s worth. It’s stuff that you can do yourself by just getting online and autoupdating the computer. There were other little optimizations here and there that we did but nothing earth shattering that would boost a computer’s performance by 200%. That would be ridiculous. That alone is what makes computer optimizations a complete rip-off.

As for antivirus software installs, I honestly believe we ripped off customers. I mean, why would you pay an extra $30 just to have someone install software that you can install yourself? I understand that there are people who don’t know much about computers and would rather pay someone to do all that stuff for them. If you’re one of those people then, to be honest, you’re a sucker. Seriously, instead of paying someone, learn to do this stuff yourself. It’s not that hard. Otherwise, you’ll continue throwing money away for no other reason other than you’re lazy.

Is up-to-date antivirus software a good thing to consider when you get a new computer? Absolutely. In fact, I believe every computer salesman should let customers know about their options and educate customers when they buy a new computer. If you’re buying a Mac then antivirus software is less of a problem. But on a new Windows machine? Yes, you might want to consider some antivirus software. While the software pre-installed on the computer might work, usually it’s on a trial basis of about three months or so. Rather than forget to update your software three months later, you might want to consider just buying a good antivirus program that gives you a full year of updates. Otherwise, you put yourself at risk of getting virus or malware infections, which is never fun to contend with.

Bottom line is that laziness is why Best Buy is able to extort so many people into getting optimizations. The average computer buyer really doesn’t know much about computers, so when a Best Buy staff member tells them all the nasty things that can happen if they don’t get the optimization then they feel stupid and end up giving in simply because they don’t know enough to say no!

So, what can you do to protect yourself? Simple. Learn something about the computer you’re using and/or buying! Learn to do stuff yourself rather than relying on other people to do it for you! I don’t care how you do it: read a book, go to a class, get someone to teach you. Whatever method you need to learn how to use and maintain a computer, do it!

UPDATE:

Here a video from Consumer Reports about Best Buy computer optimizations:

1. Best Buy Optimization Is A Big Stupid Annoying Waste Of Money

Related posts:

1. Why Support For Your Computer Matters Just read an interesting post on TheAppleBlog[1] about two different...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

So, what did I find this week? Let’s look at CD’s first:

This is the really odd ones that don’t make any sense. You’d think that the new releases would be subject to some discrepancies, right? Nope! In fact, the discrepancies center around the Holiday Music Favorites. Want that new Josh Groban Christmas album? You might wanna buy it online and save yourself $2:

And here’s an even odder one. See that album just above the Josh Groban one? A Very Special Christmas Vol.7 for just $7.99? For once I found an item that is actually cheaper to buy in the store than online. How messed up is that?

Now let’s move to the first of the movie discrepancies. There’s a couple here that stick out:

Again, same as last week…err…why is the Inglorious Basterds Blu-ray version being sold for $5 less online? Is this a special “online only” deal? If so, why don’t they say so?

And, yes, while the above pick says “pre-order” I just checked the site again and it’s still listed at the same price. Oddly enough, the two-disc DVD isn’t in the ad but I bet you money that it’s still gonna be a $1 cheaper on the site ($21.99 online versus $22.99 in-store).

Is there something going on with the Blu-ray new releases? Why is The Hangover listed for $4 cheaper?

On this last movie page, none of these really stick out…except one. Can you guess which one is gonna be a $1 less?

Yep…Robot Chicken! The one damn DVD I would buy this week and I still have to price check it online! Damn you Best Buy!

Is it me or does it seem like all these price discrepancies revolve around new release movies that they know they can move fast and make a few extra bucks on without many people noticing? I think there’s a pattern forming. Guess we’ll know when I look at next week’s ads.

Related posts:

1. Best Buy and the Half-ass Price Match I don’t buy a whole lot of movies and music...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.