The Phone Dilemma

So, as many of you know, in between cramming for the bar and raising awareness of the fight for democracy in Iran, I've been shopping around for a cell phone. I love beat up old samsung, and it has served well, but it's a little bulky, dated, and I'm getting the itch for something a little more lawyerish. I'm interested in getting a smartphone but nothing really seems right. Phones that I might be interested in all seem tied to terrible networks, or the good networks seem to offer dismal phones. Here's where I pretty much stand:

AT&T: AT&T has the two greatest phones in creation. The iPhone and the Blackberry Bold. However, AT&T is also possibly the worst network in creation. How they can make the "more bars in more places" claim is beyond me as everyone I know with AT&T service complains nonstop about what a horrible network it is. In fact, the only people I know with AT&T are on it because they are on a family plan which they don't pay for, or because they own an iPhone. As cool as the iPhone is, there's simply no justification to have to pay an extra 30 bucks for a data plan, and additional fees for text messaging plans. Seriously AT&T, is there a limit to your greed? Bernie Madoff thinks your plans are a scam.

Artist Rendition of AT&T's President

T-Mobile: T-Mobile has a reputation for good customer service, but the only phones they have that interest me are their blackberrys. Sorry Google Phones, Android looks cool, but try coming out with a phone that isn't butt ugly and can actually be used for something. The G1 was the cell phone equivalent of the L.A. Clippers (once again, condolences to Blake Griffin). Honestly though, the only decent looking BB they're running right now is the 8900, which I'm on the fence about. T-Mobile charges $40 for their standard 600 minute plan, and 35 bucks on top of that for the data. however, unlike the Ferengi's over at AT&T that figure includes unlimited text messaging (as well as picture messaging and IM). However, it does not include free mobile to mobile, which will run you another 8 bucks. Seriously, T-mobile? You couldn't throw that in for free? Anyway, the drawbacks to the greedy germans are that it has the smallest network, has a rep for dropping calls, and again, has yet to come out with a phone that not only works well, but also makes all your friends jealous (although if your friends have AT&T, then any phone that works well would probably make them jealous). Mostly, I can't get past the whole extra fees for mobile-to-mobile thing. That is just patently evil.

T-Mobile Founder. Press Photo.

Verizon: My current provider and the most frustrating company in existence. Verizon is reputed to have the most reliable network, however, it also has a lot of very crappy phones. When it comes to smartphone/pda's, Verizon just sucks. It is so bad, you can only explain it through a perfect storm of arrogance and incompetence. You could not intentionally offer a lineup of smartphones this bad intentionally. The human soul would not allow it. It's like holding your breath until you pass out. Eventually, your reflexes will take over and you'll start breathing again. Likewise, eventually, your reflexes would take over and you would offer at least one phone a person might at least consider buying. Instead, Verizon offers a host of underpowered phones which run on Windows Mobile. I already have to deal with windows freezing and glitching on my laptop, I'm not going to put up with it on my phone. Thanks, but no thanks.

Verizon does have blackberrys, but they are a little out of date, and you have to pay 30 bucks for a data plan that once again, DOES NOT INCLUDE TEXT MESSAGING!!! Even worse, Verizon seems to be oblivious to the whole idea that phones can now handle WiFi. Only four Verizon phones come with that option. FOUR! An option that is pretty much standard on every smartphone offered by every other carrier in the world is somehow a novelty in Verizon Land. Verizon's premium phone was supposed to be the BlackBerry Storm; a phone so famously bad that the New York Times wondered if they actually tested the thing to see if it worked before they released it for sale. I might even consider the abomination of cellular nation that is the Black Berry storm if only it had WiFi. I might consider the upcoming Blackberry Tour, but oh wait, once again, it DOESN'T HAVE WIFI!!! It turns out that it was actually capable of WiFi but the powers that be made RIM disable it because they didn't want their customers going outside of the verizon network for data downloands.

You know what I say to that decision? EPIC FAIL! Who is calling the shots at Verizon? A chimp? Because I can't see a chimp screwing up this badly. Chimps have pride. I know many people what would willingly switch to Verizon if they could come up with at least ONE phone worth buying. As it stands, the only way I'm staying with Verizon when I upgrade is if the Storm 2 comes out and emits waves of pure awesomeness. And even then, it had better come out before August.

Sprint: Sprint has a rep for a small network and terrible customer service. In fact, Sprint actually went so far as to cancel the contracts of 1000 of its customers last year who complained too much. (In Sprints defense, some of the customers reportedly contacted them over 100 times during the month with complaints about things that were in fact, the customers' own fault). Some people might find that shocking, but having worked in customer service and having learned from sad experience that 90% of people are functionally retarded with the approximate IQ of granite, I kind of have to admire them. Sprint grabbed headlines recently with the release of the Palm Pre and reportedly made improvements to its network as well. Reports are that resolving customer service issues remains firmly in the ninth circle of hell, but the coverage has supposedly gotten much better. The Pre is niftly little machine, and it's only real drawbacks are terrible battery life and inability to waste your disposable income on apps you don't need. The biggest selling point for Sprint is price. 70 bucks a month will get you 450 minutes, unlimited nights and weekends that start at 7 p.m., unlimited data, text messaging, picture messaging, and you can roam onto Verizon towers. The only real phone worth getting on Sprint is the Pre, but while it seems cool now, it doesn't have any kind of track record so there is no way to tell whether the Pre is going to last you for two years. Still, right now it is the strongest contender for my Cellular bid. I just wish it didn't feel like I was making a deal with the devil.

Sprint's Proposed new company logo

So loyal readers, what say ye? Which phone is the one phone to rule them all? Which service is the best service? Why can't there just be a decent phone on a decent network? Please leave your take in the comments section or by email.

Untitled 4 - Where is Iran's vote

Untitled 3

Happy Birthday Mom!

Eric Clapton

Untitled 2

Untitled

Father's Day

Here's two videos for my pops in honor of Father's day. The Eric Clapton one accidentally got posted last week, but here it is again. It's a rare video of the song "My father's eyes" which was actually written around the same time as "Tears in Heaven" and was recorded for the famous Unplugged concert, but never aired. The song was sporadically played over the next 6 years and eventually released, but this remains my favorite version.



Next Video is for my dad, and for all you lawyer dads. If you've ever billed hourly you will sympathize with this video.

3gS v. Pre

Should you get a Pre or an iPhone? This flowchart will help you decide.

http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/gizmodo/2009/06/iphonepreflowchart.jpg

Fun with Email

Here's a little email I sent to Barbara Boxer today,

Dear Ms. Boxer

I am writing to say that I found your exchange with the General the other day to be shameful and embarrassing. Let me clarify this for you: being a senator does not make you better than other people. It does not entitle you to ANY special respect and certainly doesn't grant special dispensation to be rude and hostile in public. You are a servant of the people, not royalty. You are no different than a butler or a maid, or the guy I pay to cut my lawn. You are employed by people to do a job for them. Servants do NOT insist on titles.

Maybe you should worry less about your title and more about serving the people from California. As it is, your actions show a total lack of humility necessary to serve as my senator and you can count on NEVER getting my vote, my family's vote, or any of my friend's votes. This episode has shown me just how arrogant, self-serving you are and just how disconnected you are from what your job should be.

If you can't manage to represent California well, then perhaps you could at least represent California more quietly, and kindly stop embarrassing us.

Barbara Boxer

Is a b----!

Honest, Abe.

Frequently throughout my day, I find myself bothered by a recurring question, a question I'm sure that many of you find popping in your minds several times a day as well:

Is Abe Vigoda dead?

Fortunately, there is now a website which informs you of Abe Vigoda's continued status. Simply click on the link below and it will instantly tell you if the Abe-ster is all right and you can go through the rest of your day worry free.

http://www.abevigoda.com/ffb.php

Why California is broke

Thanks to DIGG.com for the picture

Hammer Time!

Ricky Watson originally posted this on facebook, and I'm stealing it because I thought it was HILARIOUS!

War on Drugs

Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times

This year marks the 40th anniversary of President Richard Nixon’s start of the war on drugs, and it now appears that drugs have won.

“We’ve spent a trillion dollars prosecuting the war on drugs,” Norm Stamper, a former police chief of Seattle, told me. “What do we have to show for it? Drugs are more readily available, at lower prices and higher levels of potency. It’s a dismal failure.”

For that reason, he favors legalization of drugs, perhaps by the equivalent of state liquor stores or registered pharmacists. Other experts favor keeping drug production and sales illegal but decriminalizing possession, as some foreign countries have done.

Here in the United States, four decades of drug war have had three consequences:

First, we have vastly increased the proportion of our population in prisons. The United States now incarcerates people at a rate nearly five times the world average. In part, that’s because the number of people in prison for drug offenses rose roughly from 41,000 in 1980 to 500,000 today. Until the war on drugs, our incarceration rate was roughly the same as that of other countries.

Second, we have empowered criminals at home and terrorists abroad. One reason many prominent economists have favored easing drug laws is that interdiction raises prices, which increases profit margins for everyone, from the Latin drug cartels to the Taliban. Former presidents of Mexico, Brazil and Colombia this year jointly implored the United States to adopt a new approach to narcotics, based on the public health campaign against tobacco.

Third, we have squandered resources. Jeffrey Miron, a Harvard economist, found that federal, state and local governments spend $44.1 billion annually enforcing drug prohibitions. We spend seven times as much on drug interdiction, policing and imprisonment as on treatment. (Of people with drug problems in state prisons, only 14 percent get treatment.)

I’ve seen lives destroyed by drugs, and many neighbors in my hometown of Yamhill, Oregon, have had their lives ripped apart by crystal meth. Yet I find people like Mr. Stamper persuasive when they argue that if our aim is to reduce the influence of harmful drugs, we can do better.

Mr. Stamper is active in Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, or LEAP, an organization of police officers, prosecutors, judges and citizens who favor a dramatic liberalization of American drug laws. He said he gradually became disillusioned with the drug war, beginning in 1967 when he was a young beat officer in San Diego.

“I had arrested a 19-year-old, in his own home, for possession of marijuana,” he recalled. “I literally broke down the door, on the basis of probable cause. I took him to jail on a felony charge.” The arrest and related paperwork took several hours, and Mr. Stamper suddenly had an “aha!” moment: “I could be doing real police work.”

It’s now broadly acknowledged that the drug war approach has failed. President Obama’s new drug czar, Gil Kerlikowske, told the Wall Street Journal that he wants to banish the war on drugs phraseology, while shifting more toward treatment over imprisonment.

The stakes are huge, the uncertainties great, and there’s a genuine risk that liberalizing drug laws might lead to an increase in use and in addiction. But the evidence suggests that such a risk is small. After all, cocaine was used at only one-fifth of current levels when it was legal in the United States before 1914. And those states that have decriminalized marijuana possession have not seen surging consumption.

“I don’t see any big downside to marijuana decriminalization,” said Peter Reuter, a professor of criminology at the University of Maryland who has been skeptical of some of the arguments of the legalization camp. At most, he said, there would be only a modest increase in usage.

Moving forward, we need to be less ideological and more empirical in figuring out what works in combating America’s drug problem. One approach would be for a state or two to experiment with legalization of marijuana, allowing it to be sold by licensed pharmacists, while measuring the impact on usage and crime.

I’m not the only one who is rethinking these issues. Senator Jim Webb of Virginia has sponsored legislation to create a presidential commission to examine various elements of the criminal justice system, including drug policy. So far 28 senators have co-sponsored the legislation, and Mr. Webb says that Mr. Obama has been supportive of the idea as well.

“Our nation’s broken drug policies are just one reason why we must re-examine the entire criminal justice system,” Mr. Webb says. That’s a brave position for a politician, and it’s the kind of leadership that we need as we grope toward a more effective strategy against narcotics in America.

Phones

Something to think about before you buy your next smart phone.

An now, a fiscally responsible post.

Great article from Mint.com (an online budgeting software which I use and highly recommend) on whether you should pay with credit or debit.

Original article by GE Miller and available in context, HERE

Credit or debit? - an important question for those trying to come out ahead in recessionary times. The answer can be a little complicated. It depends on a few things, namely, your spending habits, your ability to pay your bills on time, and the total dollar amount that you pay with debit and credit. These are the variables that you can control. Unfortunately, they’re not the only ones.

What remains to be seen are the clever tricks credit card providers will play in light of the major reform that was recently signed into law by President Obama that will go into effect in 2010. About the best you can do is take advantage of the existing rules and set yourself up for future financial success.

An Easy Choice for Some

For starters, those whom the credit card companies have feasted on can be packaged into one of the following categories.

Group #1 - Buys a little or a lot, carries a balance, pays on time.
Group #2 - Buys a little or a lot, carries a balance, doesn’t pay on time.

If you’re in one of these two groups, the answer is simple. You have been targeted. Cut up your credit cards now. If you’re using credit to pay for things you can’t afford, you are digging yourself a big hole. Even with the new regulations that will go into effect next year, credit card companies will still be able to charge late fees and whatever fee they desire. Don’t let them. Switch to paying with debit. The “I need a credit card to survive” argument is a pretty weak one, regardless of circumstance.

A New Target?

Where it gets more interesting is when you consider those who have used cards responsibly. They fall into one of the following two groups:

Group #3 - Buys a lot, no balance, pays on time, uses credit to get rewards.
Group #4 - Buys a little, no balance, pays on time, uses credit to get rewards.

The question of credit or debit is not quite as simple for these responsible bill payers that have used credit cards as a means to reap financial reward. Creditors have long offered rewards to target these consumers. In theory, it should be safe to assume that those who have credit cards for their rewards are responsible bill payers - if you’re paying 15% interest on 2% rewards, you have some things to sort out.

With the industry set to take a financial hit on regulations aimed to protect those who are typically hit with fees and high interest, there has been mention of industry backlash against the users who have been responsible and not contributed as much to the credit card companies bottom lines. It won’t be long before the industry responds with new or old ways to make up for lost revenue. If annual fees are re-instated or rewards are cut back, those who have a choice of credit or debit and may have to make some decisions regarding which they option they choose.

Debit Card Rewards - A Game Changer?

To make matters more interesting, many debit cards have begun offering rewards in the last few years. Debit card rewards tend to be a little less enticing than credit card rewards, however. Banks generally offer one point for every $2 spent with a debit card, compared with one point for every $1 spent with a credit card.

It’s worth noting that many debit card rewards programs require you to use the “signature” option of your card, which means the card is swiped, you sign for the purchase and the transaction is run through the merchant’s processing system, versus punching in a PIN code. This is because the bank collects an interchange fee for that transaction from the merchant, which would be less if you paid with the debit option using your PIN. The bank then uses those fees to offset the cost of the rewards program.

Additionally, many debit rewards cards are charging annual fees. Those that don’t tend to offer highly scaled back rewards. Less rewards, annual fees, and the possibility of getting dinged on fees for going below your checking account minimum balance? This model has a little work to do.

Seeking Optimal Return at the Lowest Expense

Regardless of how the industry changes the fees and rewards for responsible card users, the goal here should be to get the highest total return. If you spend a lot (group #3) and benefit from hundreds or thousands of dollars of rewards each year, it may make sense to eat the expense of an annual fee and use a credit cards, both of which should point towards bigger rewards.If you don’t spend much (group #4) you may want to opt for a debit card or credit card with no annual fee, even if the rewards are small. Whichever way you choose, it is important to pay your bills on time, not carry over a balance, and stay above your minimum in your checking account.

For more of GE Miller’s writing, visit personal finance blog 20somethingfinance.com.

Best invention ever

From Gizmodo

Self-Cleaning Toilet Becomes a Urinal With the Push Of a Button

By Sean Fallon, 1:40 PM on Thu Jun 4 2009, 11,304 views (Edit post, Set to draft, Slurp)

Copy this whole post to another site

cancel

select site advertising consumerist deadspin defamer fleshbot gay fleshbot gawker gizmodo idolator io9 jalopnik jezebel kotaku lifehacker valleywag artists gawkershop

I've always wanted a urinal in my bathroom, but a lack of space (and money) has always been an issue. This Ultimate Clean Toilet could solve all of these problems and more.

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

On one side you have a toilet and on the other, a urinal. The toilet rotates between the two at the press of a button and self-cleans with steam and a UV light bath. So you are getting both a urinal and a toilet in a single, compact unit that not only cleans itself, but most likely would result in cost savings with regard to water usage. Again, this is only a concept, but it is one that has limitless potential.

Tracy Morgan

Tracy Morgan is in a new movie.

I don't know about you, but this picture alone is enough to get me to the theater for opening day.

File this under jobs I wish I could get

Reason #256 why I'm going to light myself on fire:

Jobless? Get paid $25,000 to ride everything in Orlando

Jason Cochran
Jun 1st 2009 at 12:00PM

Pack your Dramamine: The tourist city of Orlando, home to seven of the most popular amusement parks on earth, is rolling out a job search for a couple who can take 67 days off to ride every ride, tour every attraction, get rubbed down at every spa, and generally explore every crevice (and line) of the Mecca of Mascots.

The pay, to cover expenses back home during those two months, will be $25,000, and the winner will be put up in a one-bedroom condo of their own in downtown Orlando, the better to dabble in its arts district, cafés, and prime Vietnamese restaurant drag when theme parking wears out. All the job holders will have to do in return is document their grueling, turkey leg-packed adventure using a supplied set of cell phone, video camera, and still camera, and to post their doings online via hotspots such as Facebook and Twitter. Their jealousy-making life, Orlando hopes, will stir Americans to venture out of their recession caves and come play again.

The application process is pretty simple: Turn in two photos, a one-minute video, and be at least 21. Applicants can be of any nationality, and your twosome can even be the same sex -- which means you can be in a romantic couple or part of an Amazing Race-style team-up. But given the name of this promotion, 67 Days of Smiles, it's a safe bet that you'll need to be able to grin on cue as an official online ambassador of the area that supports Disney, Universal, and SeaWorld. The latter two resorts, in particular, which run a combined five parks, are entering hard times thanks to precipitous tourism drops, despite the fact that both of them have just added mega-coasters to their lineups.