Month: April 2010
Comparing Smartphones
I think this is a pretty good, and fair comparison. I have familiarity with having supported and used all of these platforms except for the Palm Pre. Surprisingly, the iPhone integrates the best with a Microsoft Exchange environment, with the Android OS being a close second. Blackberrys are generally the business standard, and they are bloody awful as far as I’m concerned. Popular Mechanics misses what to me is the biggest drawback of the iPhone, is that it’s only available on AT&T, who’s network is just atrocious.
I’ve been a Smartphone user back since the days of the early Treo’s, and was a Palm Pilot user before that. Back then, Palms used Graffiti, which completely screwed up your brain when it came to handwriting. But it was more reliable than the Newton’s handwriting recognition, which actually wasn’t too bad for what it was trying to do. The Newton was too big to carry around, however, which was its main drawback.
Palm was the real innovator in the handheld computer category early on, and I liked the Treo better than the early Blackberries, but the Blackberries quickly got better. No one really got the Smartphone genre right until Apple did with the iPhone. As much I like Bitter’s Android, and as much as an improvement as Windows Phone 7 will probably be, most of the user interface ideas had their genesis in the iPhone. Apple’s always been the big innovator in technology when it comes to designing user interfaces and devices, but stage two of that has traditionally involved everyone else copying their ideas and crushing them with cheaper products. In this market, Apple’s not necessarily going to get crushed on price, but they could be crushed on the “price” of being tied to AT&T and the restricted nature of their App Store.
One Editorial Against CA Open Carry Ban
From the Redding Record Searchlight.
That said, so far the dangers of the “open carry†crowd exist only in their opponents’ imagination. The protests — while ill-mannered and intimidating to many — have peacefully made a political statement, and Saldana’s reaction only proves their point that the 2nd Amendment is under siege.
It’s also an all-too-typical example of legislating by headline. Saldana’s bill, AB 1934, is not a well-considered law to a address pressing public safety problem, but a knee-jerk response to a few news stories and the surrounding hullabulloo.
At least someone in the media is speaking out against the silliness of this bill.
Cracking Down on Air Guns
In the UK. Â I agree they aren’t toys, but I used to run around with air guns when I was a kid, and never managed to shoot anybody, destroy property, or get accidentally shot by police.
I’m sympathetic to the notion that you don’t want a bunch of miscreant teenagers running around destroying property with air guns, but from reading the article you’d think they were talking about drugs or something.
Goldwater Institute Didn’t Research
Great Satan Inc does an excellent take down of Goldwater Institute’s complaint about tax dollars being spent on public ranges. Â They go into great detail as to how the Pittman-Robertson tax works, and how the funds are allocated. It’s pretty clear, as Kevin’s post suggests, that the conservative think thank didn’t think too much about this one.
Arizona has done a great job of managing its Pittman-Robertson funds compared to other states, and they have done it for the benefit of both shooters and hunters, which is to be commended. This is an issue Michael Bane has been talking about lately, and I think Michael’s idea has merit. But there’s a significant problem in other states that haven’t managed their PR funds well, and haven’t managed their fish and wildlife funds well. Pittman-Robertson money isn’t free to the states. It’s a matching program, and there are going to be some states that just don’t have the money to put up to get the matching federal funds. But this certainly isn’t all states, and there coud even be possibilities for restructuring how PR funds are allocated to the states that didn’t exist in 1937 when Congress originally passed it.
Fundraising On Gun Rights in Canada
Looks like the Conservative Party thinks they can raise money on the issue of getting rid of the gun registry. I hope they are right. If there’s money in it, you can create a political movement politicians will cater to.
When I first read that headline, my first thought was “How much money does it take to get rid of a gun registry?” I mean, give me a 100 grand, a bargain by Government standards, and I can “rm -rf” and “DROP DATABASE ” with the best of them.
Court Artist
Very interesting blog, called The Court Artist. I went back and found he had a sketch of the McDonald oral arguments. The guy holding his arm up to his chin in the gallery looks like it could be NRA General Counsel, and the blonde woman next to him would match his wife. Alan Gura is pretty recognizable up at the podium, but the likeness in this picture makes him look older than he looks in real life.
UPDATE: I’m told it couldn’t be them, based on the seating arrangements at the time. It’s still a nice drawing though.
Donation Djour
I have little idea what Charles Djou’s position is on the Second Amendment. Given that it’s Hawaii, my expectations aren’t that high. But it’s Obama’s home district, and this guy has a great, simple, effective message, which you can see in his videos here and here. So I kicked a few bucks to his money wave. The idea of turning Obama’s home district seat in a special election was too good to pass up. I’m glad to see he exceeded his goal of raising 100 grand in 24 hours.
Why Talking to Candidates is Important
Take a look at this video from a Tea Party forum that features the Republican Challengers for the seat currently held by F-rated Allyson Schwartz:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YIpOLsGFLM[/youtube]
The first candidate at least has the right answer, but his big intellectual contribution to the issue would seem to be noticing that both Article I, Section 21 of the PA Constitution, and the Second Amendment both use the word “shall.” Â The second guy, I have to think this is the first time he’s ever had to consider this issue seriously. He’s also got the right answers, but the fact that he’s not well versed is blindingly obvious. The third guy, Adcock, seems to be the leading contender, and probably has the best answer.
You can see from this that candidates often have no idea, honestly, what our concerns are, and haven’t thought much about our issue, or how to handle it publicly. These candidates need to talk to gun owners and develop an understanding they can build their positions from. This has recently been an issue in my club, where many of the club’s leaders don’t want to get involved in politics. I am an advocate for at least some degree of engagement, and preventing candidates for public office from wandering aimlessly around our issue is part of the reason. If they never hear our concerns, or never learn how to speak to the issue, it’s quite likely they are going to conclude there’s nothing to be gained in it, and drop it from their radar.
“Excessive and Unnecessary”
That’s what Democratic candidate for Governor, Joe Hoeffel, calls Castle Doctrine. Not too much of a surprise, though. When Hoeffel was in Congress, one of his pet issues was closing the musket loophole, by making black powder and antique firearms subject to the same regulations as modern firearms. Tony Williams, his leading competitor in the Southeast, is also very anti-gun, but I hope he cleans Hoeffel’s clock, because Williams is at least a sensible guy on other issues, and not a doctrinaire lefty. Overall, the best Democratic choice for gun owners would be Jack Wagner so far. He’s at least only bragged that he once supported an assault weapons ban.
UPDATE: Things really got interesting with Tony Williams in today’s chat. According to him, Castle Doctrine will “erode the quality of life” of his fair city, and he also took questions on the viability of his campaign for running anti-gun commercials in Western Pennsylvania markets.