Terrible Ideas
Cheers and Jeers: The Chromebook and iCloud
Cheers: The Chromebook
I’ve been doing a lot of tech reading recently, as I’m particularly interested in cloud technologies as a potential solution for one of the biggest hassles I deal with every day: data access across multiple systems.
I think a Chromebook is in my future. The battery life is incredible. Everything’s done on the cloud in ways that are not OS/software dependent, which means I can slide easily from one system to the next. It certainly seems like the best solution for me at this point, rather than using drop boxes or constantly retrieving files manually across multiple systems. Do it in the cloud, save it in the cloud, print it from the cloud.
Mind you, I’d never dream of using such a device as my primary computer. I wouldn’t even think to use it as my primary laptop. But as a tertiary system — which isn’t so far-fetched in the age of tablets — it would do nicely for basic tasks. Combine an incredible battery life on the Samsung model with an 8-10 second bootup time, and it’s looking a lot like a feasible alternative to a netbook or tablet.
But what about network access?
The only consistent criticism of the Chromebook is that it is a “brick” when not connected to the Internet. Setting aside the fact that offline access to Google Docs is on the way, I have a sincere question born out of nearly 30 years of computing, 17 of which have been spent on the Internet:
Nowadays, isn’t any computer pretty much a brick when it isn’t connected to the Internet?
Sure, you can fire up a quick game of solitaire, or work on a project through your word processor.* But think about how, for the past ten or so years, your life has come to a halt by network outages in your home. Do doors open? Do family members yell to one another about the Internet being down?
Think about how booting up your device without Internet access makes you feel like the computer is somehow missing something absolutely essential to its function. I started out with computers in an age where only my fellow hardcore nerds were really interested in them; PC use didn’t really “mainstream” until we started getting all of those AOL coasters in the mail, opening the door for an (albeit stunted) introduction to web browsing and email.
All of that aside: it’s a computer for the cloud. Shouldn’t we expect it to be severely handicapped when disconnected from the cloud?
Jeers: iCloud
Likewise, shouldn’t we expect something with the name iCloud to… actually operate in the cloud?
Let me be clear: with the exception of making your pictures accessible across devices (for 30 days, and then only 1,000 of them), Apple’s iCloud does nothing in the cloud.
The concept of a cloud is rather simple when we’re looking at user-end data. I upload something and it sits in the cloud until I need it again, either on this or another device. When I need it, I copy that file to the original or alternative device.
Easy as that.
But that’s not what iCloud does for music. Software scans your music collection against the iTunes server, then allows you to access your music collection by re-downloading it from the iTunes store. That’s not a cloud: that’s a sync. And they’ll be charging you $25 a year for the honor of doing something iTunes should have been capable of years ago, all licensing worries aside.
I’ve been an iTunes user for at least ten years. I have a great collection of classical CD’s I transferred to MP3 format some time ago, as well as a roaring collection of Grateful Dead bootlegs. And because these songs aren’t available on the iTunes music store, “iCloud” cannot accommodate my needs between PC and iPhone.
One can’t help but note the irony, however: Apple is masterful when it comes to keeping things proprietary (which is why their devices work so well), and even with the concept of the cloud, they’re continuing that tradition.
Goodbye iTunes (and eventually the iPhone). Hello Google Music and Android.
_____
* All of which Google’s Chrome OS can already do, or will be able to do in the near-future.
I Hereby Declare Sunday, May 22nd…
…Bad Theologians Day!
And I even offer a song, so everybody dance!
All This Talk About the Pope and Condoms…
…makes me dislike the media a little less. But not much less, so keep reading.
In this instance, at least, it’s more like they don’t get the nuances of moral theology. They’re not pushing an agenda: they’re just ignorant. I can excuse them that, because moral theology is by far one of the more complex fields of study.
Kudos to Pope Benedict for approaching a teaching I’d be hesitant to speak publicly on. It’s gutsy, precisely for the reason we’re seeing today. I know exactly what he was getting at: we’d talked about it on multiple occasions at the seminary, regarding condom use in an already illicit situation (homosexual activity/fornication). The problem with saying such a thing publicly is that nobody understands the nuance of the theology, so of course they’ll run with it as the media has and say, “Aha! The Pope approves of condom use!”
No… no, not at all. What the Pope is saying is that condom use doesn’t make the act any more illicit than it already is, so sin doesn’t compound upon sin. And AIDS doesn’t exactly spread through monogamous relations with one’s spouse.
Most of the recent studies out there put the failure rate of condoms at 15% in terms of disease prevention. The media is still stuck in the 90′s where I grew up, telling us to practice “safe sex” with a condom because it’d be the magic bullet which prevented AIDS transmission. So much for that.
My method — and the method espoused by Pope Benedict — works much better.
On Those European Bus Signs…
…calling for women’s ordination, I have an equally valid and just as likely idea for a marketing campaign:
What never ceases to grind my gears about this whole deal is that some continue to think the Church’s position on female clergy is a matter of policy, such as mandatory celibacy for diocesan priests, and thus subject to change.
It isn’t. Even if, somewhere down the line, the Spirit appointed a pontiff sympathetic to the cause, he would have as much power to change this dogma as he would the Christian dogma on the Trinity.
We live in strange times. On the one hand, there is a legitimate, constant need to defend Truth and Virtue in the public square. On the other, there’s this disingenuous notion that if you clamor loudly enough for something, you can change Truth and Virtue.
New Film: Pope Michael
“Pope Michael” Trailer from Pope Michael Documentary on Vimeo.
Looks entertaining, in the kind of way which has allowed me to enjoy the wacky, quaalude-driven world of William S. Burroughs.
Stupid Headline, Stupid Thoughts
Via Mark Shea, this pearl of a headline: Brain unable to understand existence of God: expert
To which I automatically say, “Of course!”
But then the article starts, and I do a facepalm:
One of the world’s foremost neuroscientists is about to tell some of the world’s foremost theologians the bad news: God may exist, but the human brain is simply not capable of knowing that for sure.
Gorsh! O RLY?
Of course, “the world’s foremost theologians” have been saying the same thing.
For thousands of years.
It’s a simple logical deduction. The brain is matter, and that which is material cannot deduce the totality of that which is immaterial. And if we were able to pin down God in a lucid moment of “Aha! I understand the totality of God’s nature!” then what we would be describing is decidedly not an infinite, limitless being.
I’m willing to give neuroscientist Greg Northoff the benefit of the doubt; it sounds like he’s just explaining the limited potential of the brain in this matter.
To suggest that this is a revolutionary concept, or a triumphant moment of victory for science over theology, however, is a completely disingenuous move. As a matter of fact, score one for the theologians who had this covered ions ago.
For evidence, start with one of my favorite theologians. Start with Aristotle.
I have studied both neuroscience and theology; would that we could say the same about others who write on such things.
My Beef With Twilight
Bloggers elsewhere have already said a great deal about Stephanie Meyers’ Twilight series, and why it is so troublesome. You can find a great analysis from David P. Goldman here, which sums up some of the more destructive elements at work in the series.
I’m also concerned about the Twilight series because of what it seems to represent, both from a literary and a cultural perspective. Since Goldman addresses the issue of sex, I’ll table that issue and look at one that really grinds my gears: the depiction of the vampire.
It’s Meyers’ depiction of the vampire that ultimately bothers me the most. Vampires are evil creatures. Most depictions put them in a league with the damned, demons and other residents of the underworld. Once human, they are now Something Else, and it is generally accepted that this Something Else is irredeemable.
What’s most important about the vampire is that they may look human, but their humanity has been destroyed. Some of the most intelligent vampire figures ever crafted are locked in a constant battle with a desire to regain some of their humanity, against the ever-present reality that they can never be what they once were.
Even the “good” vampires are objectively evil figures, insofar as anything can be, when evil is a perversion of the good. This is why vampires like Bill of True Blood and Ann Rice’s creations appeal and captivate. There’s no going back, and the vampire struggles to come to terms with that.
Twilight vampires don’t fit the tradition. At times, they seem more human than the humans. They’re vegetarians. They don’t feed off of human beings. They’re physically beautiful, perfect in every way. They… sparkle.
And personality wise, they remind me of emo kids always wrapped up in the pettiness of teenage problems. Difference is, they occasionally break out of their life-for-us-is-hard whining to battle werewolves and interact with other vampires.
Looking at a Twilight vampire, who wouldn’t want to be one of these guys? They’re not monsters, not objectively evil creatures. They can live forever, and seem to retain the fullness of their humanity. Sounds like a pretty good deal to me.
It’s an ironic – yet fitting – artistic move for Meyers, who crafts her ultra-human vampire in an age where that which has always been considered morally problematic is now acceptable, even lauded. The vampire no longer serves as a cautionary figure; he no longer stands as an example of the darkest parts of human nature and perversion: the vampire is now something it’s fine to be.
A perfect (though unintentional) commentary on the state of our ailing cultural, political, and moral values.
I leave you with this video, which wraps up everything else wrong with the series:
Academic Freedom is Dead
Thanks to David over at Cosmos-Liturgy-Sex for saying all that needs to be said about the University of Illinois’ decision to terminate Dr. Kenneth Howell.
The University of Illinois taught me a lesson first-hand, so it is not surprising that it continues to perpetuate that lesson: academic liberalism (and indeed, modern liberalism in general) is a façade constructed to push a set of ideals. It’s all about respecting other people’s opinions, until those opinions happen to conflict with the party line.
And when the party line is breached, look out. It becomes sinister, wicked, underhanded — and Amen, Amen I say to you — evil. Meanwhile, the Catholic viewpoint is proclaimed openly in a spirit of charity and love, always with regard to the intrinsic dignity of the human person, regardless of where they fall on any moral spectrum.
I would hope that Dr. Howell might find a job at a Catholic school, but this might be difficult. The game is the same, only a little less visceral. The seminary system is a good option as well, but the pay isn’t so great.
Little Instances of Martyrdom
Pray for the Church in Connecticut. As the Diocese of Bridgeport states, the proposed law is “irrational, unlawful, and bigoted.”
Really, it all comes back to the culture war. A couple of parish boards in Connecticut decide it’s swell and dandy to start marrying same-sex couples, and boom: you’ve got same-sex marriage in Catholic churches.
With all the attention this bill is causing, it’ll never pass. But what’s interesting is how this blatant, anti-orthodox position has worked its way into the legislative system. Stay tuned. There will be more like this.
Never been arrested, but I wonder if my future service as a priest will earn me a trip to the clink. Actually, I sort of hope it does.
C-L-S: Have We Entered the “Labronze Age”?
David at Cosmos-Liturgy-Sex looks at the declining quality of students in universities, adding his own commentary to selections from an article by Prof. Thomas F. Bertonneau.
Looking back at the time I spent at the University of Illinois (’98-’02), I couldn’t agree more.
In defense of the modern college student – students who no doubt consistently display their “rejection of reading, their inability to articulate themselves in anything resembling coherent English, and a general substitution of emotivism for rational discourse” – I respond, hey: we’re only a product of the culture, and one can’t HOPE that this will CHANGE any time soon.