I am growing sick and tired of the way companies design CDs for drivers (management software for printers and the like). Does there have to be a useless programme that slows the computer down to 10% speed included on the CD?! Answer: there doesn't. Usually, the programme will pretend to do something useful, such as reporting the level of toner still left in the printer, or letting you write macros for the keys on the keyboard; this makes it even more confusing. At least the drivers that are installing spyware (Do you agree to the terms and conditions of Google Toolbar?) let you give informed consent (Hell no!).
The worst company for this seems to be Hewlett-Packard... yet I like them most of all for hardware. Several days ago, I needed to install a multifunction printer/scanner/fax on my Windows drive. This thing is wireless, so I'm thinking I'll need to install the damn support bloatware with the driver, too. I grit my teeth, make a restore point just in case, and start the bloatware installer. Get this: the software is so huge that it comes on two CD's. The install, predictably, takes over an hour (that's longer than Windows itself took). You must restart your computer in order to proceed, yada yada.
Ten minutes later... What. The. Hell. My CPU usage widget is showing 80% usage, my free memory widget is showing zero free memory, and my computer is running about as fast as a turtle... on Valium. The install took 200 MB of disc space. Seriously, what the hell? I don't even bother trying to print. I start up my system restore application, restore to the last checkpoint... takes another hour. By this point, I'm sweating and my patience is about as existent as six-headed unicorns.
While the restore is happening, I grab the manual and start thumbing through it. There's a hard-to-find section on how to make the multi-function box join a network. Sounds promising. Turns out, no PC required, you can hook the box up to a network. I try it; takes me two minutes flat. Well, how was I to know? It wasn't in the quick start! By this time, the restore is done. I check my router to see at which IP address the multi-function box lives, and I navigate there. The box has the nicest admin Web page I've ever seen.
With a practiced hand, I go through every folder on the two CD's to find the drivers directory. No, not the bloatware; the bloody drivers. You try explaining that to HP's support people. I find the directory, finally, and I copy it over to my desktop. I go through the Add Hardware wizard, finally get the damn printer installed, and restart into Linux. On Windows, the whole experience took me over five hours: installing, venting, restoring, swearing, drinking beer, reading, setting up printer, setting up network, venting some more, another beer, installing just the driver, and one more beer.
In Linux, I spend half an hour on the Internet trying to find the HP printer driver kit. I finally find it, download it, run it. The driver kit asks me what printer protocol I use. This could have been made a lot easier by having the choices: wired directly to pc, in wired network, in wireless network, wired to print server. Instead, it uses all sorts of acronyms none of which I can understand, since I am not a network guru (no, the acronyms aren't wifi and 802.11b, I know what those are!). I spend a little time trying, and erring, and trying again, till I finally get it. Total time, one hour, despite some truly indecipherable acronyms.
HP's "quick and easy" driver and bloatware installation programmes are anything but. The Linux ones are easier... and yet Linux has a reputation for being completely indecipherable.
Next time I will follow, yet again, my set-in-stone directions for installing drivers; you should too. If you follow the steps below, you will never run into the kind of frustration that I ran into yesterday.
1. Open the CD that came with your product. Search for the string "*.inf". Open every folder that has a file that ends in .inf in it and copy them to your Desktop.
2. Run the Add New Hardware wizard. When possible, click the "Have Disk..." button on the bottom: a dialogue box should appear. Enter the path to the .inf folder, click OK. If there are multiple folders, find the one that is compatible with your operating system and/or product.
3. Your driver should now install, with no "support software". If you want support software, download some, or buy some.
Addendum: if you want to be shocked, select all the .inf files (sometimes they're all in one big folder called DRIVERS), right-click, and click Properties. The size should be no more than a few megabytes. Now take a look at the other stuff... next time you say that drivers slow your computer down, think long and hard about what you mean by drivers, and do you need them.
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Thursday, August 25, 2011
On cloud computing
So, back to your regular programming here at Dark of Days, the world's #1 aggregator of black coffee and morphine-induced ranting and raving.
Cloud computing. Grr. How I hate the name. It stinks of the usual business-stroke-sales-and-marketing bullshit bingo buzzwords. Like the word "convergence". Or "seamless integration". It sounds like just another phrase you slap onto a product to get it off the shelves quicker. The funny thing is, it isn't.
Ten years ago, cloud computing existed under a different name. It was used in computer-science courses at universities the world over, and in small businesses, and on a little Web site called SourceForge. Back then, cloud computing was called "real-time collaboration". Now, not many readers of this site know about a little programme called CVS; it was mainly used in higher education and in business, and it is still used mainly in those circles.
CVS was a small programme that ran on the command line. No graphic elements whatever. Its use is best explained by the following scenario: Alice, Robert, Thomas, Richard, and Henry are collaborating to author a book. Alice is the proof-reader and checks the manuscript once a month for spelling errors; Robert is the typesetter and makes sure the manuscript is in appropriate style to be published, checking in five minutes every day; Thomas writes nine-to-five, Monday to Friday; Richard writes at odd times, including on weekends; and Henry writes every day on evenings.
How can the manuscript of the book be appropriately managed? eMail would be very impractical; each person would need to keep a copy on their machines, periodically giving it to one person to reconcile with the others. If that person would prove to be irresponsible, there goes the manuscript. The answer is in what is called "cloud computing" today: a virtual whiteboard, upon which many can write. CVS is a system that does just that: it collects different people's versions of what they feel a document should be, and if two people submit the same file at the same time, CVS has an elaborate system of checks and balances to make sure that nothing becomes corrupted.
Another example of cloud computing is what was then called "simultaneous sign-in"; one username and password would log in to a large number of Web services at the same time. The most prolific of such services was Microsoft Passport, a service known by its users as "MSN". One password would sign in to MSN Messenger and a whole host of other services; today, this same thing is called "Google Accounts" and operates Blogger, Google+, gMail, Google Docs, and many other such services.
Yet in the 1990s, such services were not much used; this just further adds to my theory that some developments in computer history must be made before or after others.
Cloud computing. Grr. How I hate the name. It stinks of the usual business-stroke-sales-and-marketing bullshit bingo buzzwords. Like the word "convergence". Or "seamless integration". It sounds like just another phrase you slap onto a product to get it off the shelves quicker. The funny thing is, it isn't.
Ten years ago, cloud computing existed under a different name. It was used in computer-science courses at universities the world over, and in small businesses, and on a little Web site called SourceForge. Back then, cloud computing was called "real-time collaboration". Now, not many readers of this site know about a little programme called CVS; it was mainly used in higher education and in business, and it is still used mainly in those circles.
CVS was a small programme that ran on the command line. No graphic elements whatever. Its use is best explained by the following scenario: Alice, Robert, Thomas, Richard, and Henry are collaborating to author a book. Alice is the proof-reader and checks the manuscript once a month for spelling errors; Robert is the typesetter and makes sure the manuscript is in appropriate style to be published, checking in five minutes every day; Thomas writes nine-to-five, Monday to Friday; Richard writes at odd times, including on weekends; and Henry writes every day on evenings.
How can the manuscript of the book be appropriately managed? eMail would be very impractical; each person would need to keep a copy on their machines, periodically giving it to one person to reconcile with the others. If that person would prove to be irresponsible, there goes the manuscript. The answer is in what is called "cloud computing" today: a virtual whiteboard, upon which many can write. CVS is a system that does just that: it collects different people's versions of what they feel a document should be, and if two people submit the same file at the same time, CVS has an elaborate system of checks and balances to make sure that nothing becomes corrupted.
Another example of cloud computing is what was then called "simultaneous sign-in"; one username and password would log in to a large number of Web services at the same time. The most prolific of such services was Microsoft Passport, a service known by its users as "MSN". One password would sign in to MSN Messenger and a whole host of other services; today, this same thing is called "Google Accounts" and operates Blogger, Google+, gMail, Google Docs, and many other such services.
Yet in the 1990s, such services were not much used; this just further adds to my theory that some developments in computer history must be made before or after others.
A Memorial to Steve Jobs
OK. So, as you all know, Steve Jobs resigned from Apple "for health reasons". He's been ill before. I'd conjecture his cancer turned terminal, and he's kicking it soon. He's been called a visionary, and a genius, and all sorts of other things; I'd actually care if he turned turtle, unlike, let's say, Bill Gates or Michael Dell.
A few of his products have changed my life. I'm typing this on my aluminium MacBook Pro with 17" screen and solid-state hard drive. It wasn't always that way... in the 90s, Apple was well known for its clamshell-shaped plastic laptops (available in over ten colours) with an operating system with zero security and zero stability (I picked Windows 98 over it!). Because it was such a useless, festering pile of equine excreta, it was rightly nicknamed "the bitty box" or "the toaster" by the cognoscenti. This was, of course, when Steve Jobs wasn't around.
In 1996, Apple acquired a failing company known as NeXT, known for its obscure, but all-in-all awesome, UNIX-based workstation known as the NeXTCube. This company was headed by Steve Jobs; when I heard of the acquisition, I thought, "Oh, great. Another awesome company swallowed up by Big Business."
It proved to be the other way 'round, though. Apple had actually been swallowed up by NeXT; Apple after the acquisition became NeXT in all but name. One day, Apple announced the release of "Mac OS X", a revolutionary (and that's puttin it mildly) operating system based on UNIX, a system used on large mainframes and the like (out of all mainframes and minis I've used, only the Cray CX1 uses Windows). Of course, I had to have a try. In all but name and graphics, it was NeXTStep. They should have called it AppleStep or the like, since I associated the words "Mac OS" with the aforementioned toasters. It ran on the G3 and G4 processors; I had the choice of desktop or laptop. I chose the G4 laptop; the desktop, in those days (late 2002), was still the much-derided G3 "toaster".
OS X was the single thing that gave Apple credibility in my eyes. I don't care for looks, but when the G4 iMac came out, I was impressed. Steve Jobs was Apple's saving grace. Although Mac OS X Cheetah had serious issues when it came to missing features and performance, but the new code base (essentially, as I said, NeXTStep) fixed the two issues that plagued Classic Mac OS: memory management (i.e. stability) and security. I usually draw an analogy here between Windows NT, Classic Mac/Windows, and X. The security in Windows NT is comparable to storing your valuables in a locked drawer in your own home; in Classic Mac or Windows ME, it is comparable to storing them in a shoebox at the intersection of Yonge and Bloor (if you're from Toronto), Cornmarket and High (if you're an Oxonian), or Trafalgar Square (if you're a Londoner); in X, and therefore UNIX, it is comparable to storing your valuables at Fort Knox. At this point in time, the Mac still used a PowerPC processor; this, sadly, meant that the choice of operating systems was very limited---either Linux or Mac UNIX.
I jumped for joy when the Mac became a PC, with Intel processor and all. They kept airing the stupid "I'm a Mac, and I'm a PC" commercials... it really ground my gears, because the Mac now was a PC. I figure they kinda got it later, because the commercials were pulled.
Similarly, the iPod classic made my music experience all the better. No more Walkman, no more huge CD players that wouldn't fit in my pocket. Thanks, Steve, for revolutionising the very idea of portable music. Small, minimalistic, and metal. Thanks again.
Other products, though, I could care far less about. The iPod Touch and the iPhone, specifically. I had a test run with the iPhone to compare it with my venerable BlackBerry Bold 9700. The Bold easily won. The reasons were legion. First of all, it had a real keyboard that was sufficiently springy, almost like my Model M keyboard. I could do my homework on that thing... and did. Second, the Bold had removable batteries; I always carry an extra Bold battery with me. No such luck with the iPhone. Third of all, what the hell was with the operating system? The boys at RIM could do a better one with their eyes closed. I couldn't easily figure out how to place or receive a telephone call on the iPhone, and I had to ask a friend for help. I could also use BlackBerry apps I downloaded from the internet... you have to jailbreak the iPhone to do that, and that voids your warranty.
Now, the iPad suffers from many of these problems, but it is excused because of its size. With some hacking, I can connect a Model M and trackpad to the iPad, and have a fully functional workstation. I can't do that with the iPhone---I need a little keyboard, not a huge one like the M. I want a trackpad like I have on my Bold and my Torch. The only thing that really stinks about the iPad is iOS... you have to jailbreak it as above, and the UI stinks. Why didn't they use Mac OS X?!?!?
I don't know what'll happen when Steve finally kicks it. All I know is that I will know about it, and I will care. Good luck, Steve, and Godspeed.
Saturday, August 13, 2011
Photo Opportunity
I missed a real good photo opportunity today. Recently, in view of my pain problem, I have been (under medical supervision) self-injecting pain medications. I don't mean cooking MS-Contins like a 'phine-freak, I mean intravenously injecting hypodermic tablets (the sort that dissolve with zero residue, or perhaps with a layer of residue lying still at the bottom of the glass) and ampoules. All under medical supervision, of course.
However, to spare myself the all-too-frequent trips to the chemist for syringes and needles, I started to re-use old needles a few times before finally consigning them to the sharps bin. This was OK until one day I became very, very sick, hardly being able to get out of bed. I shivered like mad, too---had a fever of about 104. Of course, I took Panadeine to drive the fever down, and finally was able to get outside. When I instinctively looked at my arm, I saw a huge, swollen lump the size of an egg. I figured I blew a vein, no biggie.
Well, what I saw today was a big, red lump, with minor bruising, and a bit of a boil (like an acne pimple) on top. Feeling curious, I lanced the small boil, expecting nothing to come out of this wound. I was wrong. When I applied even minor pressure to the boil, enough pus came leaking out to fill a shot glass. I should have taken a picture. Wow. Just wow.
However, to spare myself the all-too-frequent trips to the chemist for syringes and needles, I started to re-use old needles a few times before finally consigning them to the sharps bin. This was OK until one day I became very, very sick, hardly being able to get out of bed. I shivered like mad, too---had a fever of about 104. Of course, I took Panadeine to drive the fever down, and finally was able to get outside. When I instinctively looked at my arm, I saw a huge, swollen lump the size of an egg. I figured I blew a vein, no biggie.
Well, what I saw today was a big, red lump, with minor bruising, and a bit of a boil (like an acne pimple) on top. Feeling curious, I lanced the small boil, expecting nothing to come out of this wound. I was wrong. When I applied even minor pressure to the boil, enough pus came leaking out to fill a shot glass. I should have taken a picture. Wow. Just wow.
Saturday, July 23, 2011
Mac OS X Lion review
As a Mac user (although I hate most everything else from Apple), I've been closely following the development of OS X Lion. In fact, I've downloaded each and every development preview released by Apple, including the release-to-manufacturing version. Now that the Lion is finally out of its den, I have been running the official version for about a day now, and I can now review the features in full. So, without further ado, here are the features I love, hate, and feel ambivalent about:
The first difference I noticed with Lion was the scrolling. In fact, right after installation, there was a one-page tutorial on scrolling. The scrolling direction is now reversed; scrolling up now scrolls down, and vice versa. Basically, Apple has now introduced a metaphor into the system that didn't exist before: the screen is like a piece of paper, so I guess they assumed that scrolling should be just like moving a piece of paper up and down (move your fingers up to move the paper up). I have four words for this: what the f**k, Apple?! Sure, it makes sense on a touch-based device like the iPad (which I hate, by the way), but on a computer?! The worst thing is that this is incredibly disorienting, not to mention annoying: it runs against every other type of computer that I've used, including big IBM mainframes, HP minicomputers, Cray machines, Windows PC's, Linux workstations, and older Macs.
Similarly, I don't like this Launchpad idea. Basically, the Launchpad is a dumbed-down application launcher. If you don't like cluttering up the Dock with un-necessary icons and don't know how to use a search box, you'll love the Launchpad. Otherwise said: if you're retarded, you'll love the Launchpad. Problem is, this encourages computer illiteracy: if one isn't forced to use the Dock, Applications folder, and quick search boxes, he will never learn to use them. This leads to bad habits; for instance, when one needs to locate and use a system utility. Other than dumbing down the system, Launchpad is an entirely useless feature: there is zero configurability, no equivalent to Stacks, and no 'lights' like on the Dock to indicate which applications are running.
Out of the box, Mac OS has always been an operating system for idiots; this was true especially in the Dark Ages of Apple history, when Mac OS didn't have an X following its name. In those days, Mac OS didn't even include a command prompt, and its mice had no right buttons. Thankfully, those days are over. What is curious about the idea of the Launchpad, as well as 'natural' scrolling, is that these 'features' appear not to have been included to make the computer easier and simpler to use, but to bring the interface closer to iOS, a mobile 'operating system' which I thoroughly dislike, being a hard-core BlackBerry man.
Apple partially redeems itself for these two 'features'; one can easily go into the System Preferences and disable the relevant options. To disable 'natural' mouse scrolling, click Mouse > 'Move content in the direction of finger movement when scrolling or navigating'. To disable the Launchpad, simply remove it from the Dock. Also, the Launchpad is not a mandatory feature; the Finder has not been replaced by it, and so its icon on the Dock can simply be ignored.
Now, I simply love AirDrop. It's Apple's equivalent of the Microsoft Windows workgroup, or the Beam function on Palm Pilots. Those that aren't in a corporate environment will probably have no idea what I'm talking about: if all the computers on a single router (network) also share a workgroup, one can share files between them after some slightly obscure settings have been enabled. Apple, as always, dumbs this down; in this case, however, it's for the better. Now, no routers, or settings, are needed: any number of Macs running Lion can participate in AirDrop, as long as they are within about 30 feet of each other, and the AirDrop button in Finder is selected (it looks like a parachute).
I also love the new document control. In Lion, you no longer need worry about losing an unsaved document; applications automatically save documents at idle times, when requested, and during idle times. In addition, this saving process is incremental: in case you make a mistake and save, you can get your old version back. In the few months I have had Lion, I have made use of this feature numerous times. With typical Apple flair, the restore screen even includes a cool space-themed background and effects.
I like Mission Control. For me, this feature has special utility, as I have always had the sort of mind that tends to compartmentalise. For instance, I keep my documents on one screen, my social applications on another, and my Web browsing on a third. I became used to this feature on my IBM mainframe running AIX (a corporate operating system similar to Linux); on AIX, there is a widget that looks like a window with four panes. Clicking on pane number one would show, for instance, my documents; pane two would switch to my social life. If I wanted to transfer an application from desktop one to desktop two, I'd drag it to the right edge of my screen, and the desktops would be switched underneath it. Such a feature existed in OS X prior to Lion, but it was horrendously inconvenient. Finally, the feature, called Spaces, has been fixed and renamed to Mission Control.
Ever since the inception of the Mac, there has been no feature to maximise a window; finally, with Lion, windows can take up the entire screen. Finally. What the hell, Steve?! This functionality has been part of Windows ever since its creation. Now, certain applications---far fewer than half of them---support full-screen mode. However, they do so in an excellent fashion: to minimise distraction, even the window borders are hidden in full-screen mode.
I like the new eye-candy. Apple has always taken its look seriously; this stands in stark contrast to Windows XP, where the default theme could only have been designed by the partnership of Herman Fisher and Irving Price. The colour has been somewhat desaturated here, which is nice; the bright blue, capsule-shaped user-interface elements struck me as somewhat childish. Functionally, in Apple applications, scroll-bars hide automatically; in addition, all applications can now be re-sized by the edges, which is a relief to me as a Windows/AIX/Linux user.
I don't use Apple-supplied applications. I find them somehow lacking; I use terminal commands whenever I can (alpine to read my eMail, vim to work on documents), and other applications (Chrome for Web browsing, VLC for audio and video) otherwise. Therefore, I can't speak as to improvements in iCal and Mail.
I am also ambivalent towards the new multi-touch gestures. Touchscreens don't belong on computers; I have a hard time accepting that they belong on mobile phones. Therefore, it's obvious that I wouldn't own a Magic Trackpad or whatever they're calling it; I do, however, use the touch pad on my MacBook Pro (reluctantly, when forced to). I still don't use the gestures.
What I love most, however, is the price and the associated freedoms. The price, at $40, is mind-blowing for an operating system; this is cheaper than most application software. For $40, you get a single application, downloadable over the Internet. When installing, there is no licence key to enter; after installing, there is no activation. Apple, unlike certain other large technology firms, has faith in its users, and acknowledges that piracy can and will happen---no sense trying to stop it and alienating legitimate users in the process.
Why are you still reading this? Get OS X Lion!
The first difference I noticed with Lion was the scrolling. In fact, right after installation, there was a one-page tutorial on scrolling. The scrolling direction is now reversed; scrolling up now scrolls down, and vice versa. Basically, Apple has now introduced a metaphor into the system that didn't exist before: the screen is like a piece of paper, so I guess they assumed that scrolling should be just like moving a piece of paper up and down (move your fingers up to move the paper up). I have four words for this: what the f**k, Apple?! Sure, it makes sense on a touch-based device like the iPad (which I hate, by the way), but on a computer?! The worst thing is that this is incredibly disorienting, not to mention annoying: it runs against every other type of computer that I've used, including big IBM mainframes, HP minicomputers, Cray machines, Windows PC's, Linux workstations, and older Macs.
Similarly, I don't like this Launchpad idea. Basically, the Launchpad is a dumbed-down application launcher. If you don't like cluttering up the Dock with un-necessary icons and don't know how to use a search box, you'll love the Launchpad. Otherwise said: if you're retarded, you'll love the Launchpad. Problem is, this encourages computer illiteracy: if one isn't forced to use the Dock, Applications folder, and quick search boxes, he will never learn to use them. This leads to bad habits; for instance, when one needs to locate and use a system utility. Other than dumbing down the system, Launchpad is an entirely useless feature: there is zero configurability, no equivalent to Stacks, and no 'lights' like on the Dock to indicate which applications are running.
Out of the box, Mac OS has always been an operating system for idiots; this was true especially in the Dark Ages of Apple history, when Mac OS didn't have an X following its name. In those days, Mac OS didn't even include a command prompt, and its mice had no right buttons. Thankfully, those days are over. What is curious about the idea of the Launchpad, as well as 'natural' scrolling, is that these 'features' appear not to have been included to make the computer easier and simpler to use, but to bring the interface closer to iOS, a mobile 'operating system' which I thoroughly dislike, being a hard-core BlackBerry man.
Apple partially redeems itself for these two 'features'; one can easily go into the System Preferences and disable the relevant options. To disable 'natural' mouse scrolling, click Mouse > 'Move content in the direction of finger movement when scrolling or navigating'. To disable the Launchpad, simply remove it from the Dock. Also, the Launchpad is not a mandatory feature; the Finder has not been replaced by it, and so its icon on the Dock can simply be ignored.
Now, I simply love AirDrop. It's Apple's equivalent of the Microsoft Windows workgroup, or the Beam function on Palm Pilots. Those that aren't in a corporate environment will probably have no idea what I'm talking about: if all the computers on a single router (network) also share a workgroup, one can share files between them after some slightly obscure settings have been enabled. Apple, as always, dumbs this down; in this case, however, it's for the better. Now, no routers, or settings, are needed: any number of Macs running Lion can participate in AirDrop, as long as they are within about 30 feet of each other, and the AirDrop button in Finder is selected (it looks like a parachute).
I also love the new document control. In Lion, you no longer need worry about losing an unsaved document; applications automatically save documents at idle times, when requested, and during idle times. In addition, this saving process is incremental: in case you make a mistake and save, you can get your old version back. In the few months I have had Lion, I have made use of this feature numerous times. With typical Apple flair, the restore screen even includes a cool space-themed background and effects.
I like Mission Control. For me, this feature has special utility, as I have always had the sort of mind that tends to compartmentalise. For instance, I keep my documents on one screen, my social applications on another, and my Web browsing on a third. I became used to this feature on my IBM mainframe running AIX (a corporate operating system similar to Linux); on AIX, there is a widget that looks like a window with four panes. Clicking on pane number one would show, for instance, my documents; pane two would switch to my social life. If I wanted to transfer an application from desktop one to desktop two, I'd drag it to the right edge of my screen, and the desktops would be switched underneath it. Such a feature existed in OS X prior to Lion, but it was horrendously inconvenient. Finally, the feature, called Spaces, has been fixed and renamed to Mission Control.
Ever since the inception of the Mac, there has been no feature to maximise a window; finally, with Lion, windows can take up the entire screen. Finally. What the hell, Steve?! This functionality has been part of Windows ever since its creation. Now, certain applications---far fewer than half of them---support full-screen mode. However, they do so in an excellent fashion: to minimise distraction, even the window borders are hidden in full-screen mode.
I like the new eye-candy. Apple has always taken its look seriously; this stands in stark contrast to Windows XP, where the default theme could only have been designed by the partnership of Herman Fisher and Irving Price. The colour has been somewhat desaturated here, which is nice; the bright blue, capsule-shaped user-interface elements struck me as somewhat childish. Functionally, in Apple applications, scroll-bars hide automatically; in addition, all applications can now be re-sized by the edges, which is a relief to me as a Windows/AIX/Linux user.
I don't use Apple-supplied applications. I find them somehow lacking; I use terminal commands whenever I can (alpine to read my eMail, vim to work on documents), and other applications (Chrome for Web browsing, VLC for audio and video) otherwise. Therefore, I can't speak as to improvements in iCal and Mail.
I am also ambivalent towards the new multi-touch gestures. Touchscreens don't belong on computers; I have a hard time accepting that they belong on mobile phones. Therefore, it's obvious that I wouldn't own a Magic Trackpad or whatever they're calling it; I do, however, use the touch pad on my MacBook Pro (reluctantly, when forced to). I still don't use the gestures.
What I love most, however, is the price and the associated freedoms. The price, at $40, is mind-blowing for an operating system; this is cheaper than most application software. For $40, you get a single application, downloadable over the Internet. When installing, there is no licence key to enter; after installing, there is no activation. Apple, unlike certain other large technology firms, has faith in its users, and acknowledges that piracy can and will happen---no sense trying to stop it and alienating legitimate users in the process.
Why are you still reading this? Get OS X Lion!
Saturday, June 25, 2011
On the State of Marihuana in Canada
This here is going to be my final post before I'm off to Europe on Monday (I'll keep posting from Europe though). I recently learned about a sad piece of news about the laws in regards to the prohibition of marihuana (the flowers of the hemp plant, Cannabis sativa) in Canada. Now, I'm going to preface this by saying I am not a regular user of marihuana, in spite of the fact that it helps me greatly with my pain, even better than oxycodone does; the reason I don't is because of the other effects, such as blood shot eyes, sedation (drowsiness), obtundation (i.e. a feeling of stupidity), and loss of motor control. Marihuana is fine on weekends, but it is far from useful on weekdays, when concentration, as well as motor skills, are paramount. Because marihuana is a substance of great medical use, it was made legal in Canada; however, just like oxycodone and methamphetamine (also substances of medical use), it is a controlled drug. Also just like oxycodone and methamphetamine, it is sold on street corners in violation of law, although the sale of marihuana is at least ten times more common than either of the two others, or perhaps both combined.
However, marihuana is far more strictly controlled in practice, despite having far less potential for hazardous use (zero marihuana overdosages, ever, in Canada). There is no Canadian pharmaceutical producer of marihuana (although synthetic tetra-hydrocannabinol is sold under the name Marinol for pain). Therefore, the Canadian government grows a small amount of hemp, but trusts the balance to private farmers and hobby growers, who are almost always individuals and not businesses. If a patient finds himself in need of medication, his doctor is to sign a form, and a marihuana card will be issued for one year to the patient. This is almost never (I'm one of the exceptions, as I've got a card) done, even if it is clear that the patient is in urgent need of this vital medication.
After being shot down in flames numerous times, 37-year old Torontonian Matthew Mernagh was arrested for manufacturing, and possession, of marihuana (he was growing seventy plants in his St Catharines flat and suffered from depression, seizures, fibromyalgia, and scoliosis). He, along with 21 other patients, took his charge to the Superior Court of Ontario, and, on 13 April, Donald Taliano J. ruled in his favour, declaring the laws regarding marihuana to be 'constitutionally invalid and of no force and effect'. He gave the Canadian government an ultimatum: either reform the laws or appeal within 90 days, or else marihuana will become, for all intents and purposes, legal. The case was covered in all sorts of media: pro-marihuana advocacy groups (of course!), established broadsheet newspapers, and network television.
Of course, with typical Canadian efficiency (or lack thereof), the government appealed. On 22 June, granted a stay (effectively putting the judgement on hold, as it were) until the appeal. In exchange, the trial is to be put on the fast track---the trial is due in six months (November) as opposed to twelve. Robert Blair J. said, about the stay, 'The practical effect of the decision if the suspension were permitted to expire on July 14 would be to legalize marijuana production in Ontario, if not across Canada, and it will invalidate many ongoing prosecutions involving commercial marijuana productions and possession offences before the appeal. While most people in the courtroom today would applaud such a result, there is much debate about this issue in this society, including about the pros and cons as to whether marijuana is a harmless but valuable therapeutic substance or whether its consumption has harmful effects that may outweigh those considerations in the absence of a controlled regime.'
This is disappointing (although Blair seems quite neutral), but what is even more disappointing is the lack of media coverage. Only a few network television and radio stations covered the story; the rest were advocacy groups. I don't smoke much, but I feel that people who dislike opioids (although I can't figure out why) need to have an alternative.
Why don't you get it, government people?!
However, marihuana is far more strictly controlled in practice, despite having far less potential for hazardous use (zero marihuana overdosages, ever, in Canada). There is no Canadian pharmaceutical producer of marihuana (although synthetic tetra-hydrocannabinol is sold under the name Marinol for pain). Therefore, the Canadian government grows a small amount of hemp, but trusts the balance to private farmers and hobby growers, who are almost always individuals and not businesses. If a patient finds himself in need of medication, his doctor is to sign a form, and a marihuana card will be issued for one year to the patient. This is almost never (I'm one of the exceptions, as I've got a card) done, even if it is clear that the patient is in urgent need of this vital medication.
After being shot down in flames numerous times, 37-year old Torontonian Matthew Mernagh was arrested for manufacturing, and possession, of marihuana (he was growing seventy plants in his St Catharines flat and suffered from depression, seizures, fibromyalgia, and scoliosis). He, along with 21 other patients, took his charge to the Superior Court of Ontario, and, on 13 April, Donald Taliano J. ruled in his favour, declaring the laws regarding marihuana to be 'constitutionally invalid and of no force and effect'. He gave the Canadian government an ultimatum: either reform the laws or appeal within 90 days, or else marihuana will become, for all intents and purposes, legal. The case was covered in all sorts of media: pro-marihuana advocacy groups (of course!), established broadsheet newspapers, and network television.
Of course, with typical Canadian efficiency (or lack thereof), the government appealed. On 22 June, granted a stay (effectively putting the judgement on hold, as it were) until the appeal. In exchange, the trial is to be put on the fast track---the trial is due in six months (November) as opposed to twelve. Robert Blair J. said, about the stay, 'The practical effect of the decision if the suspension were permitted to expire on July 14 would be to legalize marijuana production in Ontario, if not across Canada, and it will invalidate many ongoing prosecutions involving commercial marijuana productions and possession offences before the appeal. While most people in the courtroom today would applaud such a result, there is much debate about this issue in this society, including about the pros and cons as to whether marijuana is a harmless but valuable therapeutic substance or whether its consumption has harmful effects that may outweigh those considerations in the absence of a controlled regime.'
This is disappointing (although Blair seems quite neutral), but what is even more disappointing is the lack of media coverage. Only a few network television and radio stations covered the story; the rest were advocacy groups. I don't smoke much, but I feel that people who dislike opioids (although I can't figure out why) need to have an alternative.
Why don't you get it, government people?!
Friday, June 17, 2011
On the road again... soon!
I'll be flying to Europe soon, which is both a good thing and a bad. What I like about flying home is that I am under far less stress---no idiot teachers, no busywork, less stress. I also like the fact that I own, together with my family, several high-performance cars; I like driving, but can't do it when I'm under too much stress. Same for flying a helicopter---I love to fly even more than I like to drive (although it took my family a long time to convince me). I also like the mere fact of being in Europe---I guess my roots are still firmly planted there; I like England more than Canada, and Canada more than the U.S.A. And I like the fact that there's more things to do---hunting, gentlemen's club, snooker, cricket, fencing, actual pubs, etc.
However, the medications used in England leave a lot to be desired; sadly, it is the same for the rest of Europe. In America, if one is having chronic pain, they go to a palliative care (basically, a clinic to make your life easier, not to cure the disease) clinic specialising in pain disorders; these clinics, for the uninformed, do not take medical insurance (only cash is accepted), and the usual fare is an extended release oxycodone tablet called OxyContin, or a hydromorphone preparation called Dilaudid. As pain also comes with anxiety, an anti-anxiety pill called Xanax is also often given. OxyContin and Xanax are given for anything ranging from tooth-ache to scoliosis; bone fractures usually get Dilaudid instead.
In Canada, doctors are a little more careful with giving out pain medications; you won't get Dilaudid for a broken arm or leg unless you're nice (and manipulative) enough. If your doctor thinks the pain has been going on for too long, he will send you to a clinic specialising in palliative pain care, like in America; the difference here is that you can't go to a palliative clinic right away---your doctor decides if you should go or not. Such clinics are, however, a bit more careful than the American ones, as they are generally non-profits owned by hospitals, not companies owned by businessmen. The good thing is that, if you are employed, you will most likely have pills for free, as pharmacies in Canada must take insurance. Just like in America, Dilaudid is occasionally used---more commonly, though, oxycodone (called Percocet, Supeudol, or OxyContin), hydrocodone (called Vicoprofen), or fentanyl patches are used. If you have weak pain, you'll be given codeine (the usual medication for pain unless you ask for something else), morphine (called MS Contin or Roxanol), or tramadol.
By my doctor in Canada, I was given Supeudol, which is pure oxycodone, 20 mgm. a day. Not much, but not too little either. It helps me walk without limping, and it helps me feel good because it has some sort of antidepressant effect, very much like morphine does.
In England, pain clinics don't exist---yes, you read that right. If you are injured, you will be treated by your physician. The usual medication for pain is morphine (called Heroin, with a capital H), which is very weak. Morphine tablets come in 5, 10, 15, 30, and 60 mgm strengths; the strongest, morphine 60, is about as strong as a 20 mgm Supeudol. This is the strongest pain medication in common use in Europe, although the 5 and 10 mgm morphine are considered entirely safe, even for use by children. This is a gigantic pain in the rear; although over-the-counter pain relievers in England and France are far better than American pain relievers (Canadians can get codeine over the counter), the prescription pain relievers are useless in Europe, and hard to get.
This would be okay, except that my doctor doesn't exactly trust me with the Supeudol, as she is afraid that I party with my pills instead of using them for medicinal purposes. So, I get a week's worth, #30 5 mgm pills, at a time. Which is fine, except I'm in Europe. What the hell am I supposed to do?!
However, the medications used in England leave a lot to be desired; sadly, it is the same for the rest of Europe. In America, if one is having chronic pain, they go to a palliative care (basically, a clinic to make your life easier, not to cure the disease) clinic specialising in pain disorders; these clinics, for the uninformed, do not take medical insurance (only cash is accepted), and the usual fare is an extended release oxycodone tablet called OxyContin, or a hydromorphone preparation called Dilaudid. As pain also comes with anxiety, an anti-anxiety pill called Xanax is also often given. OxyContin and Xanax are given for anything ranging from tooth-ache to scoliosis; bone fractures usually get Dilaudid instead.
In Canada, doctors are a little more careful with giving out pain medications; you won't get Dilaudid for a broken arm or leg unless you're nice (and manipulative) enough. If your doctor thinks the pain has been going on for too long, he will send you to a clinic specialising in palliative pain care, like in America; the difference here is that you can't go to a palliative clinic right away---your doctor decides if you should go or not. Such clinics are, however, a bit more careful than the American ones, as they are generally non-profits owned by hospitals, not companies owned by businessmen. The good thing is that, if you are employed, you will most likely have pills for free, as pharmacies in Canada must take insurance. Just like in America, Dilaudid is occasionally used---more commonly, though, oxycodone (called Percocet, Supeudol, or OxyContin), hydrocodone (called Vicoprofen), or fentanyl patches are used. If you have weak pain, you'll be given codeine (the usual medication for pain unless you ask for something else), morphine (called MS Contin or Roxanol), or tramadol.
By my doctor in Canada, I was given Supeudol, which is pure oxycodone, 20 mgm. a day. Not much, but not too little either. It helps me walk without limping, and it helps me feel good because it has some sort of antidepressant effect, very much like morphine does.
In England, pain clinics don't exist---yes, you read that right. If you are injured, you will be treated by your physician. The usual medication for pain is morphine (called Heroin, with a capital H), which is very weak. Morphine tablets come in 5, 10, 15, 30, and 60 mgm strengths; the strongest, morphine 60, is about as strong as a 20 mgm Supeudol. This is the strongest pain medication in common use in Europe, although the 5 and 10 mgm morphine are considered entirely safe, even for use by children. This is a gigantic pain in the rear; although over-the-counter pain relievers in England and France are far better than American pain relievers (Canadians can get codeine over the counter), the prescription pain relievers are useless in Europe, and hard to get.
This would be okay, except that my doctor doesn't exactly trust me with the Supeudol, as she is afraid that I party with my pills instead of using them for medicinal purposes. So, I get a week's worth, #30 5 mgm pills, at a time. Which is fine, except I'm in Europe. What the hell am I supposed to do?!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)