text:
I went to the bookstore on Friday afternoon to drop off some trade-ins and order a few books for my wife and kids for Valentine's Day. I had no intention of buying anything, but a bit of random browsing led to me leaving with Ben Marcus's collection Notable American Women (how could I resist that blurb?), a collection of George Saunders essays, and René Leys by Victor Segalen—the NYRB edition stuck out, and then the blurb sold me on this tale of a Westerner trying to access the Forbidden City of imperial China.
I'm reading Ben Marcus's The Flame Alphabet right now, along with some short stories by Yoko Ogawa, as well as Lars Iyer's latest, Exodus; I'm pretty sure René Leys is on deck after one of those.


text:
Aurora, CO
When Japanese troops bombed Pearl Harbor in 1941, Bonnie O'Leary wanted to drop out of the University of Texas and join the service. But O'Leary's father, who had been a USMC colonel, told her to finish college first. She completed her degree at Barnard, then began working in New York as an actress and assistant television director for ABC's Pulitzer Prize Playhouse. In 1951, O'Leary learned that the Air Force was starting a television unit to produce training films, and thought that her media experience would make her a shoo-in. In 1952 she was commissioned as a first lieutenant and worked for the Air Force's mobile TV squadron.
"If you were a woman in television, you had to start out as a typist," she says. But in the Air Force, she was able to start out as a director, where she proved herself through her experience and hard work; she wound up directing 10 of the squadron's 11 training films. In her squadron, however, there were 100 men and only two women.
In 1955, O'Leary began working as an information officer, managing public relations programs for the Air Force Band and several Air Force units. For 20 years, she traveled around Europe, the Middle East, and the U.S. in the line of duty. Even as she rose in stature within the Air Force, it was sometimes difficult to gain respect. "While serving as project officer at a U. S. event for Jamaica's independence, a woman came rushing up to me with a little kid," O'Leary says. "She asked: 'Where's the ladies' room?' I said, 'I have no idea.' She replied, 'You're a pretty lousy flight attendant.'"
O'Leary's time in the service gave her a front-row seat to some of the most iconic moments in American history. "I ran the press desk for John F. Kennedy's inaugural ceremony," she says. "I even served as a press escort for three different groups of astronauts." O'Leary retired from the Air Force in 1972; a resident of Aurora, Colorado, she's now a field representative for the Women in Military Service for America Memorial located at the ceremonial entrance to Arlington National Cemetery.
- Kathryn Hawkins
- photograph by Noah Sheldon

subset: commoncrawl


text:
By Jasmyne A. Cannick
November 8, 2008
(Originally appeared in the Los Angeles Times)
Iam a perfect example of why the fight against Proposition 8, which amends the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriage, failed to win black support.
I am black. I am a political activist who cares deeply about social justice issues. I am a lesbian. This year, I canvassed the streets of South Los Angeles and Compton, knocking on doors, talking politics to passers-by and working as I never had before to ensure a large voter turnout among African Americans. But even I wasn't inspired to encourage black people to vote against the proposition.
Why? Because I don't see why the right to marry should be a priority for me or other black people. Gay marriage? Please. At a time when blacks are still more likely than whites to be pulled over for no reason, more likely to be unemployed than whites, more likely to live at or below the poverty line, I was too busy trying to get black people registered to vote, period; I wasn't about to focus my attention on what couldn't help but feel like a secondary issue.
The first problem with Proposition 8 was the issue of marriage itself. The white gay community never successfully communicated to blacks why it should matter to us above everything else — not just to me as a lesbian but to blacks generally. The way I see it, the white gay community is banging its head against the glass ceiling of a room called equality, believing that a breakthrough on marriage will bestow on it parity with heterosexuals. But the right to marry does nothing to address the problems faced by both black gays and black straights. Does someone who is homeless or suffering from HIV but has no healthcare, or newly out of prison and unemployed, really benefit from the right to marry someone of the same sex?
Maybe white gays could afford to be singularly focused, raising millions of dollars to fight for the luxury of same-sex marriage. But blacks were walking the streets of the projects and reaching out to small businesses, gang members, convicted felons and the spectrum of an entire community to ensure that we all were able to vote.
Second is the issue of civil rights. White gays often wonder aloud why blacks, of all people, won't support their civil rights. There is a real misunderstanding by the white gay community about the term. Proponents of gay marriage fling it around as if it is a one-size-fits-all catchphrase for issues of fairness.
But the black civil rights movement was essentially born out of and driven by the black church; social justice and religion are inextricably intertwined in the black community. To many blacks, civil rights are grounded in Christianity — not something separate and apart from religion but synonymous with it. To the extent that the issue of gay marriage seemed to be pitted against the church, it was going to be a losing battle in my community.
Then there was the poorly conceived campaign strategy. Opponents of Proposition 8 relied on an outdated civil rights model, engaging the National Assn. for the Advancement of Colored People to help win black support on the issue of gay marriage. This happened despite the warnings of black lesbians and gays that it wouldn't work. While the NAACP definitely should have been included in the strategy, it shouldn't have been the only group. Putting nearly a quarter of a million dollars into an outdated civil rights group that has very little influence on the black vote — at least when it comes to gay issues — will never work.
Likewise, holding the occasional town-hall meeting in Leimert Park — the one part of the black community where they now feel safe thanks to gentrification — to tell black people how to vote on something gay isn't effective outreach either.
There's nothing a white gay person can tell me when it comes to how I as a black lesbian should talk to my community about this issue. If and when I choose to, I know how to say what needs to be said. Many black gays just haven't been convinced that this movement for marriage is about anything more than the white gays who fund it (and who, we often find, are just as racist and clueless when it comes to blacks as they claim blacks are homophobic).
Some people seem to think that homophobia trumps racism, and that winning the battle for gay marriage will symbolically bring about equality for everyone. That may seem true to white gays, but as a black lesbian, let me tell you: There are still too many inequalities that exist as it relates to my race for that to ever be the case. Ever heard of "driving while black"? Ever looked at the difference between the dropout rates for blacks and for whites? Or test scores? Or wages? Or rates of incarceration?
And in the end, black voters in California voted against gay marriage by more than 2 to 1.
Maybe next time around — because we all know this isn't over — the gay community can demonstrate the capacity and willingness to change that America demonstrated when it went to the polls on Nov. 4. Black gays are depending on their white counterparts to finally "get it."
Until then, don't expect to make any inroads any time soon in the black community on this issue — including with this black lesbian.
Jasmyne A. Cannick is a writer in Los Angeles. http://www.jasmynecannick.com.


text:
All prices are in All prices are in USD
Helping to keep your "Arms Safe"
Highest Amp Rating and Most Flexible
FREE Shipping USPS 1st Class Mail in 48 states for orders over $50 !
We now offer ArmSafe® Plugs with laynards, to help keep them plugs from …
All prices are in USD © 2023 SharpRC store.
Sitemap |
Shopping Cart Software by BigCommerce


text:
Last week Mrs Sensible phoned the local hospital to book me in for a check up, and before you start leaving sarky comments it was not the psychiatric clinic nor was it a follow up appointment with the dietitian. When Mrs S finally got through to the department, they said "we only book appointments in the morning, call between 9 and 11" which is fabulous because Mrs Sensible is normally in her classroom between 9 and 11 teaching her chilblains how to sit still and not pick their noses.
The following morning she again calling the hospital and was told "Pecora Nera!! nope he is not on the system, we have recently upgraded the computer and he might have been deleted"
I have been deleted!!!! How is that possible? Mrs Sensible said she would phone the administrators and try to find out. She talked to a woman for three minutes and then hung up. Pecora, you need to go down to the main office and fill out some forms.
Now I know what Italy is like, so on Wednesday I went armed with my passport, identity card, proof of residence and one of Mrs Sensible's wooden spoons. It only took a 10 minute search to find the correct office.
Me: Hello I English, please excuse my bad Italian.
Admin: Tell me!
Me: I need hospital appointment, but my name has been deleted, here is my identity card.
She turned to her computer and started clicking buttons and occasionally glancing at me.
Admin: è scaduto
Me: I have expired!!! I am still here.
She looked at my passport and my other documents, and told me to go to the local council offices and ask them for.
- Proof that I am an European citizen.
- Proof that I am a resident of my little village.
- Proof that I have paid my taxes.
She was not convinced that my UK passport proved anything.
Later that evening I went on my facebook page and ranted about the crazy bureaucracy in Italy. A very good friend of mine messaged me and offered to accompany me to the office to see if she could untangle the mess.
Yesterday we both went back to the office with my little bundle of papers and discussed the problem with a different administrator.
Admin 2: You came yesterday didn't you.
Me: What did she say?
Admin 2:
The Englishman needs to go to the local council office and ask for:-
- Proof that he is resident of his village, the document he has is just a copy of his request to be a resident.
- A copy of his wife's identity card
- His identity card
- His codice fiscale (national insurance number)
- Certificate that his company is registered in Italy.
At the moment I am wondering if it is easier to just fly to the UK and see my old doctor. I did however drive to the council offices and managed to get most of the documents, my accountant is sending over the work related documents hopefully I might be back on the system ASP (at some point)
Oh I nearly forgot, I need your advice with something…..
When I arrived home, the postwoman gave me a very sinister brown envelope, inside it contained a speeding fine!!! I must be very unlucky because I don't know anyone else in Italy who has ever received one.
The speeding fine doesn't say who was driving, they assume it was me because it is my car. I now have two options.
Option 1
Is to quickly pay the fine and burn all the evidence, before Mrs Sensible finds out. Otherwise I will endure a lifetime of reminders about my speeding ticket.
Option 2
Prove or convince Mrs Sensible that she was driving the car and then never ever mention her mistake again…… except when we are in the company of friends.
Its a difficult one.


text:
BROOKHART v. JANIS(1966)
Petitioner, who had been indicted for forgery and other offenses, waived a jury trial. Though petitioner insisted that he was "in no way . . . pleading guilty," his court-appointed counsel consented to a "prima facie" trial which is a procedure - conceded by the trial court to be the practical equivalent of a guilty plea - whereby the State makes only a prima facie showing of guilt and the defense does not offer evidence or cross-examine witnesses. After hearing some evidence, including an out-of-court alleged confession of a co-defendant, the trial court adjudged petitioner guilty and sentenced him. Petitioner brought this habeas corpus action in the Ohio Supreme Court claiming denial of his right under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to confront and cross-examine witnesses. That court upheld the conviction on the ground that petitioner had knowingly waived such right by his counsel's consent to the prima facie trial. Held: Petitioner's constitutional right to plead not guilty and to have a trial where he could confront and cross-examine adversary witness could not be waived by his counsel without petitioner's consent. Pp. 5-8.
2 Ohio St. 2d 36, 205 N. E. 2d 911, reversed and remanded. [384 U.S. 1, 2]
Gerald A. Messerman, by appointment of the Court, 382 U.S. 899 , argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief was Lawrence Herman, also by appointment of the Court.
Leo J. Conway, Assistant Attorney General of Ohio, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was William B. Saxbe, Attorney General.
MR. JUSTICE BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court.
The petitioner, James Brookhart, while serving the first of three consecutive sentences of from one to 20 years imposed by an Ohio Court of Common Pleas upon convictions of forgery and uttering forged instruments, 1 brought this action for habeas corpus in the Supreme Court of Ohio. There is no question raised about that court's jurisdiction. Petitioner charged and contends here that all his convictions are constitutionally invalid because obtained in a trial that denied him his federally guaranteed constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him (a) by permitting the State to introduce against him an out-of-court alleged confession of a co-defendant, Mitchell, 2 and (b) by denying him the right to cross-examine any of the State's witnesses who testified against him. 3 Master Commissioners appointed by [384 U.S. 1, 3] the State Supreme Court recommended that habeas corpus be denied. They found that "petitioner although he did not plead guilty agreed that all the state had to prove was a prima facie case, that he would not contest it and that there would be no cross-examination of witnesses." This finding was not based on oral testimony but was based exclusively on an examination of the transcript of the proceedings in the trial court in which petitioner was convicted. The State Supreme Court accepted its Commissioners' view of waiver, stating that the transcript of the trial showed that:
In this Court respondent admits that:
The question of a waiver of a federally guaranteed constitutional right is, of course, a federal question controlled by federal law. There is a presumption against the waiver of constitutional rights, see, e. g., Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 70 -71, and for a waiver to be effective it must be clearly established that there was "an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege." Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464 .
In deciding the federal question of waiver raised here we must, of course, look to the facts which allegedly support the waiver. 4 Upon an examination of the facts [384 U.S. 1, 5] shown in this record, we are completely unable to agree with the Supreme Court of Ohio that the petitioner intelligently and knowingly waived his right to cross-examine the witnesses whose testimony was used to convict him. The trial record shows the following facts: Petitioner was arraigned January 29, 1962, without a lawyer, and pleaded not guilty to all charges against him. Two days later the court appointed counsel to represent him. Not able to make bond, he remained in jail until March 23, 1962, at which time he was brought before the judge for trial. There petitioner's appointed counsel told the judge that his client had signed waivers of trial by jury and wanted to be tried by the court. The judge in order to verify the waivers showed petitioner the two written waivers of trial by jury bearing his signature and asked him if the signature was his. Petitioner said it was. The following colloquy among the judge, petitioner, and his counsel then took place in open court:
[ Footnote 2 ] Mitchell pleaded guilty after being indicted with petitioner, was sentenced to an Ohio state reformatory, and although in the reformatory at the time of petitioner's trial, was not called to testify in person.
[ Footnote 3 ] The petition also charged that Brookhart had not been given adequate notice of the charges upon which he was tried because the indictment charging him with forgery and uttering forged instruments was amended at trial. And in this Court petitioner attacks his convictions on several other constitutional grounds. We [384 U.S. 1, 3] find it unnecessary to decide any of the additional contentions set out in this note.
[ Footnote 4 ] When constitutional rights turn on the resolution of a factual dispute we are duty bound to make an independent examination of the evidence in the record. See, e. g., Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229, 235 ; Blackburn v. Alabama, 361 U.S. 199, 205 , n. 5.
[ Footnote 5 ] Compare Rideau v. Louisiana, 373 U.S. 723, 726 .
Separate opinion of MR. JUSTICE HARLAN.
I do not find the issue in this case as straightforward as does the Court. If the record were susceptible only of the reading given it by the Court, I would concur in the judgment. However, for me this case presents problems of two sorts.
First, the precise nature of the "rights" that were allegedly "waived" is not wholly clear. One view, adopted by the Court, is that petitioner's lawyer in effect entered a conditional plea of guilty for the defendant. Another interpretation, which is certainly arguable, would find the agreement between petitioner's counsel and the trial court to involve no more than a matter of trial procedure. I believe a lawyer may properly make a tactical determination of how to run a trial even in the face of his client's incomprehension or even explicit disapproval. The decision, for example, whether or not to cross-examine a specific witness is, I think, very clearly one for counsel alone. Although it can be contended that the waiver here was nothing more than a tactical choice of this nature, I believe for federal constitutional purposes [384 U.S. 1, 9] the procedure agreed to in this instance involved so significant a surrender of the rights normally incident to a trial that it amounted almost to a plea of guilty or nolo contendere. And I do not believe that under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment such a plea may be entered by counsel over his client's protest.
Second, given the need for petitioner's approval of the entry of such a plea, the further question arises whether petitioner did in fact agree to be tried in a "prima facie" trial without the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. The Supreme Court of Ohio, on the basis of an examination of the record, found that petitioner "agreed that all the state had to prove was a prima facie case, that he would not contest it, and that there would be no cross-examination of witnesses." Brookhart v. Haskins, 2 Ohio St. 2d 36, 38, 205 N. E. 2d 911, 913. This Court, after an independent examination of the relevant portion of the same record, reprinted, ante, pp. 5-6, finds that petitioner "did not intelligently and knowingly agree to be tried in a proceeding which was the equivalent of a guilty plea . . . ." Ante, p. 7.
The decisive fact is of course the state of petitioner's mind - his understanding and his intention - when his counsel stated to the trial court: "Prima facie, Your Honor, is all we are interested in." My reading of the record leaves me in substantial doubt as to what petitioner's actual understanding was at the end of the pertinent courtroom colloquy, a doubt that is enhanced by the general unfamiliarity that seems to exist with this Ohio "prima facie" practice. * I cannot see how the [384 U.S. 1, 10] question can be satisfactorily resolved solely on the existing record. I would therefore vacate this judgment and remand the case for a hearing under appropriate state procedures to determine whether petitioner did in fact knowingly and freely choose to have his guilt determined in this type of trial. Failing the availability of such proceedings in the state courts, the avenue of federal habeas corpus would then be open to petitioner for determination of that issue.
[ Footnote * ] The Supreme Court of Ohio characterized the procedure as "unusual," 2 Ohio St. 2d, at 39, 205 N. E. 2d, at 914. At oral argument, the Assistant Attorney General of Ohio noted that he had been unaware of such a procedure, and that the practice could not be found in any statute or rules of court. The State explains the procedure as follows: "There is no statutory plea of nolo contendere [384 U.S. 1, 10] in Ohio in felony cases, therefore, when one is charged with a crime which he knows that he cannot successfully defend, but a plea of guilty will subject him to a penalty in a civil suit arising out of the same factual situation, he is without recourse to a plea of nolo contendere as is permitted in federal courts and certain other state courts. To circumvent this difficulty some Ohio courts have allowed, as was done here, the accused to enter a plea of not guilty and by arrangement require the prosecution to prove only a prima facie case." Brief, at 44-45, note 41. [384 U.S. 1, 11]


text:
We know only a few people who still have landlines. Everyone else either gave theirs up or didn't bother to get one in the first place. We got very little sympathy during the election when, as swing state voters, our landline got up to 20 robo calls a day. "Get rid of the thing," people told us. (We got robo calls on our cells too.) But we're holding out.
Our cell numbers have changed several times in the last few years but our home phone has stayed the same. It's the line our elderly relatives have used for years, the line we list on important documents. It's also the line we use for our little farm, where our customers call about eggs, honey, and grass-fed beef.
But I think the real reason we keep a landline is because we know what it means to be cut off from communication during a disaster. As people discovered in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, wireless networks aren't reliable when the power grid has been knocked out. No electricity, no cell. That's exactly when we most need to communicate.
Good old copper-wire phone networks were built as public utilities, expected to provide stability even during times of crisis. That means landlines and pay phones still put calls through when the power is out. But every year fewer of us have access to those phones. A third of U.S. households are wireless only, and of the lowest-income people, over half live in wireless-only homes. And pay phones, which once waited at every convenient corner, are rapidly disappearing. Back in 2000 there were 2.2 million; the U.S. has 425,000 today. Traditional phone lines are still vulnerable to earthquakes and, in some instances, flooding. But emergency plans by wireless providers don't always include backup power for cell towers, and when there is backup power it only stays on until the batteries give out or until the generators run out of fuel. (As we know, gas pumps also require electricity to pump that fuel.) Hurricane Sandy knocked out cell reception for a quarter of cell customers in 10 states. In an unprecedented act of collaboration, AT&T and T-Mobile are temporarily sharing networks to help residents of New York and New Jersey who have been without service.
The problem isn't limited to disasters that rob us of electricity. Eleven years ago, two of my children were on an educational trip with their uncle to Washington, D.C. Their itinerary for that day? The White House and the Pentagon. The date? Sept. 11. After the attacks we couldn't get through to them for many long hours and had no way of knowing if they were safe. Each call resulted in an "all circuits busy" message. Their uncle spent those hours driving towards home, finally stopping at a pay phone to call us from landline to landline. That call went through.
We talk about getting rid of our landline nearly every time we pay the bill. We're not entirely sure it's worth it. But last week the edge of Hurricane Sandy hit our area, causing power outages and again, smartphones were quiet and our clunky old landline phones hummed with reassuring dial tones. I think we'll hang on to them awhile longer. If you don't have one, remember this if disaster strikes: Find a Luddite.


text:
iPad mini won't be much smaller, but will be a lot narrower, thinner, and lighter
iMore previously reported that Apple would be releasing an iPad mini in October for around $200-$250, and that it would be announced at the iPhone 5 event on September 12. At the time we heard that it looked and worked like the 9.7-inch iPad, only smaller. That makes sense both from a financial and interface perspective. However, unlike the next iPhone whose parts leaks have given us an idea of just what it might look like, the exact design of the 7-inch iPad has been much more mysterious. Earlier tonight, however, Seth Weintraub from 9to5Mac posted a mockup of the iPad mini showing a narrower profile with a much thinner size bezel than the 9.7-inch iPad.
Based on several sources, I believe that design to be an accurate representation of what the iPad mini will look like. In addition, it's my understanding that it will be the exact same thinness as the iPod touch, which is substantially thinner than the 9.7-inch iPad. The quick mockup above shows what I believe are accurate proportions for the iPad mini compared to the 9.7-inch iPad and the current generation iPod touch 4.
Looking at it, the iPad mini may not seem radically smaller than the 9.7-inch iPad. And that's the point. It's not supposed to be a major compromise in screen size or usability. It is, however, thinner and lighter enough to make a substantial difference. Holding it with one hand will be easier, and holding it for prolonged periods of time will be much easier.
It's those two elements, the lightness at that size, that allows for the smaller bezel -- just like the iPod touch's thinness and lightness allows for even less size bezel. (Obviously the top and bottom bezel aren't as radically thin, due to the components that need to be placed there, like the Home button.)
Most importantly, this isn't a big iPod touch.
The Google Nexus 7 is arguably closer to a big iPod touch than this device. The Nexus 7, in part, scales up smartphone interface elements and apps. The iPad mini runs the iPad version of iOS and scales it down. The iPad mini is an iPad, and that makes a tremendous difference. That allows it to run that higher class of apps that Steve Jobs talked about.
This is a full on iPad, just smaller and lighter.
Likewise, the iPad mini not intended to woo away people who might currently be buying a Google Nexus 7 or Amazon Kindle Fire -- not to be a jerk, but that's not a significant market for Apple. While Apple might want to nip those devices in the bud now, as opposed to when they hit their second or third generation and become truly competitive, it seems like the primary consideration right now is a far more massive market, a hundreds of millions of devices sold market:
People who haven't yet bought an iPad because it was too big or too expensive, but would buy it if was lighter and cheaper.
At around $200-$250, thin, and very light, Apple will lower the barrier of entry and once again greatly expand the reach of iOS. While that might cannibalize the existing iPad market, Apple has repeatedly shown a willingness to do just that -- they'd much rather cannibalize themselves than let a competitor do it. The iPod mini, iPod nano, and even 11-inch MacBook Air are prime examples.
The iPad mini should hit the shelves in time for the holidays. And it should sell like hotcakes.
Note: For some of the discussion behind all of this, check out the Branch M.G. Siegler hosted last night with me, Seth Weintraub, Mark Gurman, Matthew Panzarino, Jim Dalyrymple, and several others.
Update 1: John Gruber of Daring Fireball has weighed in, adding:
Update 2: Here's another quick mockup, this time giving a rough example of how thin the iPad mini will be, and how that compares not only with existing iOS devices, but the Google Nexus 7 and Amazon Kindle Fire as well.
Get more iMore in your inbox!
Our news, reviews, opinions, and easy to follow guides can turn any iPhone owner into an Apple aficionado
Rene Ritchie is one of the most respected Apple analysts in the business, reaching a combined audience of over 40 million readers a month. His YouTube channel, Vector, has over 90 thousand subscribers and 14 million views and his podcasts, including Debug, have been downloaded over 20 million times. He also regularly co-hosts MacBreak Weekly for the TWiT network and co-hosted CES Live! and Talk Mobile. Based in Montreal, Rene is a former director of product marketing, web developer, and graphic designer. He's authored several books and appeared on numerous television and radio segments to discuss Apple and the technology industry. When not working, he likes to cook, grapple, and spend time with his friends and family.
Still find $200 to be a tad optimistic. I'm thinking $250 for a 16GB version would be ideal though we're likely to get 8GB at that price and 16GB at $299.
I tend to agree however I'm hoping Apple can bring down the price. If this "mini" is around $350 I'm out. I love my iPhone but that's just too high. I'd end up getting the Nexus 7 or nothing at all.
Still only 1024x768?
well obviously. they didn't want to have to make developers resize every app
I can't see this launching in September. The iPhone would cannibalize its sales. I also don't think there would be a 3G version in this generation because that too would canibilize iPad (big) sales. It would also add cost.
Google my name for a rumor podcast. I'll be talking about this.
I agree with you that there may not be cellular models but iPads and iPhones don't cannibalize each other.
If you could only pick one though, which would it be? Many are fortunate enough to pick both, but most cannot, o a choice would have to be made. If I was given a choice I would pick the iPhone over the iPad mini. I have both the iPhone4 and the original iPad right now. Though thinking about more, they are less likely to cannibalize if the iPad mini cannot do 3G data.
iPhone is a completely different device, with a different form factor and mostly different uses on the whole. I don't see this cannibalising iPhones at all.
first realistic model i believe, gonna exist..its not going to cannibalize any existing product in -ve way. its better than cannibalize by the products of other companies. as biography said, "apple can't stop innovating or showing new product to people". they are not afraid of cannibalizing sales by their own products. they are smart enough of not letting others to do that.
once the iPad Mini goes retina, I'll purchase. If this mock up is a good, albeit not accurate, representation, it looks good and I like the size.
I'll believe it when I see it. Basically now it's a dreamed up idea from bloggers needing something to talk about. I enjoy my 9.7 inch iPad. It's perfect in size for viewing and I don't believe a pound and a half is heavy for a computer. Just saying.
I don't like that; I prefer the old one which we thought it would look like, that's hideous man.
Just out of curiosity, how is the Nexus 7 more like a big iPod Touch and the iPad Mini isn't? If it has to do with Android not having a lot of apps that are optimized for use on a tablet, I can understand that. If not, I'm not sure what causes you to come to that conclusion.
Just asked the exact same thing. I didn't see your post.
I think it has to do with what Rene believes are different app experiences for devices larger than 7 inches. I don't perceive that boundary as vividly as some seem to but I won't say that I'm convinced that it does not exist. The current iPad screensize works for me largely because it approximates the size of a piece of paper (8.5 x 11). So a mini device wouldn't be as ideal but could be useful in certain ways.
Nexus 7's interface is a combination of Android tablet and smartphone interfaces, of which smartphone interfaces currently dominate to an absurd degree. The iPad mini runs the iPad iOS interface, not iPhone iOS. As mentioned in the article, that allows for a fundamentally higher class of apps. (Of which the iPad has tens of thousands now.) Software more than shape, IMHO, determines what something is "like".
I'll admit...the default interface for the Nexus 7 was a bad move for Google. The combined Tablet/Smartphone interface is not the way to experience the the device in its most ideal form. They really need to change the default interface to give a better experience from the start. They will lose people to the iPad Mini because of this...so you are entirely correct in this. Android is, of course, notoriously more friendly to modifications...even without rooting. Fixing this tablet/smartphone interface is simple to do. Getting the full tablet experience with the "higher class of apps" just takes being rooted (simple to do, was the first thing I did after starting up the tablet), and 1 app. Yes, I shouldn't have to do this, it should come stock this way...but my point is...doing this on Android is simple...doing the same on iOS is like pulling teeth. Apple's looking to capture that captive audience of iPhone owners who don't quite want to buy an iPad, or don't want a tablet that big, and also don't want to abandon the money they've spent on apps in the Apple app store. I don't see a lot of Nexus 7 owners jumping ship for an iPad mini...even with the default interface it is a great tablet experience. Modifying it just made it an ideal tablet experience for me. I really don't see much need for a 10" tablet for me. If I were to get one it wouldn't be the tablet I carry daily on my train rides to and from work...the Nexus 7 is ideal in that role. Kindle Fire owners on the other hand (I am one, but it's gathering dust now at home) may defect if they aren't too heavily invested in the Amazon/Android ecosystem. The Kindle Fire interface is subpar...and even a rooted Fire with a different launcher is nothing like the experience I have with my modified Nexus 7. People looking for tablet rather than an e-reader who haven't already gotten a Nexus 7 are potential defectors for the iPad Mini. The Fire is an e-reader...not a proper Android tablet. Someone going in expecting a tablet are targets for Apple. I don't see Amazon releasing a newer version of the Fire with a proper tablet interface...they built exactly what they wanted to build...a color e-reader that can also run Android apps. It's really a different class of tablet from the Nexus 7 (modified to a tablet interface) or iPad mini. Apple wants a chunk of that market...though the unsatisfied iPhone owners are their bigger target with the iPad mini. I don't see them hitting the $200 mark with it though. I'd say an 8GB at $250 is more realistic...with a 16GB at $300 being the backup option. Another way they could differentiate is to offer cellular connectivity...and that could pull over some more of the market...since both the Fire and the 7 are wifi only. Won't get me though...I just tether to my phone and have all the connectivity I need on T-Mobile.
"The iPad mini runs the iPad iOS interface" Say what? We don't even know if there is an iPad mini in the making and you already know for a fact that it runs iPad iOS and not iPhone iOS? Have you ever seen one in operation? On a different note, I agree with Steve Jobs, 7" is too small for a tablet. In fact, I think the iPad could be an inch larger. The added space could be enough to make it just as thin as the iPod Touch.
You don't know what you're missing until you use one...trust me on this. I see a lot of electronic devices during my commute. On the commuter train I see everything from full size laptops, 10" tablets, 7" tablets (very few, more kindle fires than nexus 7's), e-readers, and smartphones. On the bus I only see smartphones, e-readers, and 7" tablets because of the cramped spaces. I have never seen someone haul out an iPad on the bus. It is too big for those cramped spaces. That makes the 7" tablet the ideal tablet for the commuter. It's big enough to comfortably watch movies on (can't say the same for smartphones), but small enough women can fit them in their purses and men can put them in pockets (at least my nexus 7 is narrow enough for that). That makes it easily stow-able when you need to be on the move quick. Steve Jobs dismissed 7" tablets and look at what we are discussing...a possible 7" Apple tablet. He was notorious for dismissing things until it came time for Apple to reinvent it their way. This does not mean he thought it was a bad idea...it just means he was being dismissive to hide his true interest in it. Apple would be stupid not to fill that gap between the iPad and the iPhone...especially with how popular the 7" tablets are becoming.
I think they are referring to the home screen which is portrait only on the Nexus 7 and the iPod touch as opposed to the iPad which works in portrait and landscape.
Rene without even holding the device or knowing the official look of the new iPad mini, how can you say its not a big iPod touch like the Nexus 7? Just curious how you came up with this conclusion.
me too
It runs the iPad version of the iOS interface, not the iPod touch version. Software is the high order bit.
Do you know that for a fact? Have you seen one?
Interesting. Not quite sure I agree about the narrower bezel on the longer edges. I still think it would be better to have a more or less even width all the way around. Even if it means slightly larger overall device dimensions. It would just be easier to hold the iPad mini on any edge, in any orientation, if the bezel were more or less the same width all around. The iPhone is small enough to palm (no pun intended) so it doesn't need a bezel at all, really. But even an iPad mini needs a bezel for the thumb.
From using my Nexus 7..it's narrow enough that I can palm it too. I can also slip it into the pockets on my slacks (standard business casual dockers) and the rear pockets on my jeans. That helps when I'm juggling headphones and my phone when getting ready to get off the train in the morning. If they don't go that narrow they are making it less convenient and more difficult to handle. Wider means you need the bigger bezel...narrower like the Nexus 7 you don't. It's still there and big enough for a thumb...so it gives you option in how to hold it. It's a tradeoff between screen width and convenience in holding/pocketing it.
It will be a mistake if they make the 7″ iPad as thin as Gruber suggests. Why? just imagine yourself holding it in your palm (with your thumb on top of the iPad and other four fingers supporting below), you must bend your palm so much, that it is tiring to do so for a long time.
This is true even if it has a feather-like weight, the problem is the palm positions and not the weight.
I like the idea. A 299 or so tablet is easier to handle if I'm getting the kid one. Personally, I just sold the new ipad to switch from att to verizon. But I'm just going to hold off and see if I even miss it as I was hardly using it.
This is the device I've been waiting for. I passed on both previous iterations of the iPad. Why? Too big. I passed on the 7'' tablets from other manufacturers. Why? They weren't iPads. THIS IS THE DEVICE I'VE BEEN WAITING FOR.
If this is happening then it is going to be the number one Christmas item on my wife's list.
Am I the only one that doesnt get this? Apple will sell an ipad for $500
A smaller version (itouch) for $200 (And we are told they completely different for the ipad) And now, they will introduce something right in the middle, for the same price as the itouch? (and this also will be nothing like the itouch, but just like the ipad?) Either this will be a large itouch and sell for a little more, or it will be a small ipad, and sell for something closer to the ipad price ($300-$350)
I agree: I can't see it selling for less than $299, unless they also drop the bottom out of the price of the iPod Touch like making it $149, or introduce the long-awaited 128 gig version for $249 or something. I'll add an iPad mini to my device menagerie if it has a retina screen, but not if it's 1024 x 768. That is, I'll pay more for it if it has the retina screen, but won't buy it at all if it doesn't. Apple can get away with charging a premium, well, because it's Apple, so they shouldn't go cheap on the iPad mini "just" to compete in the "entry level tablet" space. The iPad 2 at $399 is "entry level" enough. The iPad Mini should be about form factor, not about specs, and if I knew that the iPad Mini had the same specs at an iPad 3 but smaller, I'd put my iPad 3 up for sale today.
I agree... Even if it would be great, I don't believe much about a $249 iPad. However, I do believe Apple will just stop to sell the iPad 2 as soon as they're introducing the iPad mini. That way, I can easily see a: - $299 iPad mini 7.85" 16GB
- $399 iPad mini 7.85" 32GB
- $499 iPad mini 7.85" 64GB That would make the transition between the iPod Touch and the iPad 9.7". I don't believe in 3G or 4G network, mainly since you can share your iPhone Cell network. It will reduce the cost, antenna, space, etc... And if you want 3G/4G, you could still use the bigger iPad. They need to keep some feature for the big brother model :) They might keep a $249GB (iPad Mini 8GB), but I doubt about it, they never or rarely have more than 3 choices and it would be time to move away from the 8GB models. Maybe they will also announce a storage bump for the current iPad 9.7" and finally increase to 32GB, 64GB and 128GB... I'm just thinking out loud while hoping for an iPad mini 7.85" 64GB.
The Ipad mini design is realistic enough. The size is just about right. I would have to agree that it would be difficult to hold, as almost are tablets are.
Go to Sam's Club and try out a Nexus 7...it's not difficult to hold due to the narrowness of the screen. You can easily palm it like you would a big phone. When I'm palming my Nexus 7 I'm not overly stretching out my hand to grip the sides of the tablet. That narrowness also allows me to slip it in areas a wider iPad mini wouldn't be able to fit, like pants pockets...making it ultra-conveinent. Google got the size right for portability.
"The Google Nexus 7 is arguably closer to a big iPod touch than this device. The Nexus 7, in part, scales up smartphone interface elements and apps." - And with this I saw that poster has no clue when it comes to 'something else than apple' and stopped reading.
Uum the mini is a big iPod. It runs the same ios as the ipod uses it will scale apps differently but it is more of a stretched iPod touch.
Speculation based on rendered images, which themselves aren't based on any factual information, can't be considered an "accurate" representation of anything other than idol speculation. Apple hasn't announced any form of iPad mini any more than they announced an Apple TV set that everyone was speculating on and posting renders of before last year's holiday season. Just like all of the iPhone 5 speculation led to no iPhone 5 last year and no Apple TV set was announced or launched then. It's unlikely that there is also an iPad mini. No one has yet produced any "leaked parts" images to lend any credibility to the speculation around an iPad mini. It will be hilarious if all this speculation leads to the direct opposite of what is being speculated. I believe that at least some of the websites out there posting Apple product speculation based around rendered images of products that no one can prove really exists, are just attempts to increase site traffic and nothing more. We will see on September 12th, if my belief in that is correct or not.
I would like the 8 inch iPad Mini to offer the full range of options that the 10 inch iPad does, minus the retina screen in the original version: 16 to 64 gig memory; cellular and GPS options; and Siri. The same options, plus improved cameras, should be offered on the iPod Touch. FaceTime would offer an audio-only service as an option, and Apple could make this really interesting by providing an on-line phone number to all who have an Apple ID. After all, if a little App like Burner can provide such numbers, Apple should be able to manage. Now that would be disruptive, but still with the profits going into the same till.
Rene, a good article as always. Here are some thoughts. Right now, this entire mobile space is a growing market and this rising tide is floating all boats. So, no matter what, Apple will sell a ton of these tablets, with ever-increasing sales numbers. But I am sure Apple is not really looking at absolute sales, but sales in relation to the market. Every competing device sold is a lost Apple sale. So, with phones, this is already a huge issue. While Apple is making a TON of money, what they know is that this outrageous profit could have been at least DOUBLE were it not for Android's skyrocketing growth. For Apple it is not about how much profit they make compared to Google, or compared to Samsung, I am sure they are comparing their actual profits to their lost profits and the potential profits to be had if they can regain the marketshare lead. So, with tablets, they need to plan to avoid another Android steamroll. Remember that for every iPhone owner, there are two Android owners. And up to now, almost all of those Android owners have been buying iPads because there were no truly comparable Android tablets. Now with the Nexus 7 there IS a comparable tablet (at least to a 7" iPad) and I bet we see the majority of Android phone users buying Android tablets from here on out. So, to stem the tide, they need to slash prices as you say. But what they REALLY need is for the iPhone to regain the marketshare leadership since going forward, with tablet quality being roughly equal, people will start choosing tablets based on ecosystem and OS familiarity. This means a complete iOS overhaul, possibly faster iterations and competitive prices. This last would mean thinner margins. OR, they could go the other route entirely, and revert to their older familiar role of high-margin, low marketshare, luxury niche space. They used to take great pride in their exclusivity and small marketshare was a badge of honor (Think Different). But after tasting the market leadership role, can they go back to that? I don't think so.
The Nexus7 feels like an ecosystem vehicle and Jelly-Bean demonstration device. Android cant force OEMs and users to use 4.1, so it must persuade. The success of Android in phones is partly driven by hardware diversity, but that trend has not worked in tablets due to a lack of compelling devices. Samsung's first Tab was a nice size but still quite expensive. The Amazon Fire was the first (Android based) device to move fast in quantity through pricing. If Apple do this, it will aim at expanding the user base through differentiation, so an aspect ratio change in harmony with the new iPhone makes a lot of sense. Driving prices down in a race to the bottom with the Nexus7 (and others) sounds like a foolish move; that would harm the iPad and cut long term margins. Can you seriously see Tim doing something like that when Apple is in a position to dictate market trends?
I think the compelling devices in Android Tablets is just getting started. The N7 only feels like an ecosystem vehicle for those who don't have one and see the "Kindle-like" widget on the homescreen. Everyone seems to just delete that right away and moves on to treating like any other tablet. But, yes, lower prices on the iPad would be a race to the bottom, and I agree that is risky for Apple.
A device tailored to fit a different user profile would be welcome. I find 7" tabs much better in the hand for content consumption than 10" slabs. Reading, some web browsing and most (if not all) media consumption applications. People prefer taking smaller Tabs out with them. Sufficient differentiation might bring in entirely new users. Even some existing iPad owners might buy one, for other uses. It feels like a positive move for Apple and customers.
What seems like forever ago, when the iPad was announced, many people (including me) were asking "Is it a phone?" Three iPads later the answer is no. Due to poorer vision, it has always been difficult for me to use the small iPhone screen in any productive way. Plus, I do not want to pay for data service on 2 devices. Believe it or not, all I have at the moment is an iMac on my desk, a keypad Kindle, and a "stupid" phone -- hard to imagine that, I know. If the iPad mini had phone capabilities, it would be the perfect compromise for me, and my guess is for many others as well. Resistance would be futile. I so wish this would happen.
Rene, my my, not to be a jerk, but you sound foolish believing rumors at $200-250. Even a child wouldn't believe that rumor. Lets see $500 for 16gb ipad and $200 for 16gb ipod touch. Lets make a reasonable estimate off of those figures. REASONABLE would say this is $300+, how could apple even launch one of these at the same price of an ipod touch at the same price or $50 more. To put it simple here is what apple is facing. Google nexus 7 will be a better value at $200 over a $300 ipad mini. Google nexus 10 will be a much better value than a $500 ipad when it launches for $300-350. Apple will have to deal with the fact they have a higher price point and try to sell it based off of yuppy features like an aluminum body and jacked up pixel count. Realistically at 10" or less 1080p effectiveness surely diminishes when you hold a device 1ft - 2ft from your face. 1080p vs 720p viewing distances and effectiveness with 20/20 vision is a scientific discussion not an editors opinion. You'll see many 720p devices at 10" that will look excellent, whereas 1080p will not be effective to casual users. At 32", an hdtv resolution of 1080p vs 720p at 4ft viewing difference drastically diminished in the next 2 feet to a 6 foot viewing distance. At 6 feet you are easily lying to yourself saying you can tell the difference on a 32" tv. Usually people will say a tv at that distance will look nicer based off of they're preference of motion/color vividness/color accuracy not that their 20/20 vision can detect a sharper image based off of pixel count. at 10" you better be holding your device within 12" if you want a retina display to make a difference, most people will hold a 10" device 16-20" away from their face in which 720p vs 1080p simply is not a big difference at all. To go above and beyond 1080p is not only expensive to do at this point, its value is diminishing whenever people look at cheaper devices in which they can't even tell the difference. Google will have a cheaper tablet with better hardware over time. Microsoft will launch tablets in the 10" or sub 10" range BUT you are missing the real idea microsoft has in mind. Windows PCs are 90% of computers out there. Looking at it business wise, maybe 98% of computers used at business sites at windows, most mac users are dicking around or casual home use. Microsoft will launch 12"+ tablets with windows 8 or a never OS by then, they will have keyboard cases and be able to dock into stations in which you can use a monitor for the device. Basically the 12" tablet with windows 8, in which there is a functional windows 7 os packed in it, will replace the $400 laptop over the next 4 years. Businesses simply have to much dependence on office programs and obviously need the power of a good pc for office workers. Even if apple wanted to launch a dockable ipad to rival this, you would see their PC sales drop off significantly, and they have a huge profit margin on large pcs in which people buy good specs at a very high price point. Above $1200 you see the MAC cost twice as much as a windows pc with the same internal specs. Safe to say businesses wont be investing in apple, which is what is happening in the world today anyway. Apple is worth $650 a share, easy to say it will be $250 in 5 years. This will be from the rise of google providing great value for good hardware for home use tablets. This will also come from windows launching tablets to replace computers in the work place that will be used at workstations and replace todays laptop or desktop in today's office. Apple will lose ground in years to come the same way it happened before. History repeats itself. If you only pair hardware with software and charge too much, someone will be you at your own game and provide more value. IBM, HP, Toshiba, Dell etc will all eventually make tablets that use windows operating system that is a hybrid of a mobile touch os and a full pc os, they will have market segments within the business field to keep microsoft in check. See the cycle.
RE: Businesses You're right... businesses love Windows and MS Office. And cheap PCs. So I never thought Apple was in danger of losing the business market... because they never had it in the first place. As for other markets... Google tablets might end up outselling Apple tablets. And just like Macs vs PCs.... I don't think Apple really cares where they rank among manufacturers. Apple makes premium products that people seems to like. Expensive... yes... but they obviously manage. And they sell just enough of them to stay afloat. Apple's been scraping by on just 5% of the worldwide PC market... and a whopping 7% in phones. If you put it that way... it sounds like Apple is doing very poorly. But you know it's quite the opposite. So yeah... if Apple eventually loses their edge in tablets... I think they'll be fine. They survived single digit market share in computers and phones... tablets won't kill them either.
Apple will do more than just survive when google and microsoft take over market share. Apple does well with a small segment making a large profit margin. However my point in case was apple passed exxon mobile, its the company worth the most money now, like 500+ billion. You will see their stock price drop like crazy over the next five years, its inflated. I'm saying apple will be worth half as much in 5 years, not that it will be gone. I mostly wanted to address the editor's wishful thinking that a near 8" ipad will ever keep a great pixel density like the ipad 3 and release for $200. He looks very gullible seems as an ipod touch is $200. It will be $300, possibly more. They will still lose out to the google nexus 7 as far as value, parents will sure like the $100 cheaper christmas present this year now that android vs apple quality is surely neck in neck not like it was 2-3 years ago with alot of cheap junky devices. Those devices are still out there, but as long as google pushes advertising enough and gets them on the shelves for christmas, why would you spend $100 if you are new to tablets and online marketplaces such as itunes/google play/amazon appstore. However there will be many people who have itunes content from past ipods who will buy this up. However that person may never buy and ipod touch again then. 2 things can happen over the next couple years. Apple can try to match google in value on 7" devices, then their ipod touch segment will lose ground. Also apple would have to drop the pixel count thats currently on steroids to not lose too much $ with a 7" $200 tablet. That would kill their ipad 10" sales as well. They will also have to compete with the surface tablets to come that will revolutionize buiness. If apple ever wants to push a $500-800 tablet that has a keyboard and can dock into a monitor (thus basically replacing the laptop), they will see sales or macbook airs, macbook pros, and imac desktop computers ERASE!!!!! There is an advantage in pairing hardware and software like apple is doing. If people need the mac os in a nice desktop, they can charge $1600-3000 for large desktops because there is nowhere else for a consumer to turn if they want the OS. Same with a laptop with mac os, people are at mercy of limited availability if they want a laptop new running mac os. IF APPLE CAN EVEN COMPETE with a surface tablet that has a hyrbird mobile os/desktop os, they will have to release sub $1000 tablets. Once these are available they're very profitable segments wont even be a gullible apple fanboy purchasing decision, everyone will buy a decent tablet that replaces the laptop and desktop. Since apple's philosophy is hardware software pairing, imagine those profitable segments that will disappear such as their high profit margin laptops and desktops. Making big $ off of hardware is nice, its also a big risk if you need your hardware to sell. If apple is to compete with a future it has to boost sales in tablets only to lose like crazy in laptops and desktops. Or it has to never release a TRUE VALUE FAIR PRICE PRODUCT like a $800 do it all tablet so that apple users will have to keep buying high price laptops and desktops if they want a desktop version of a mac operating system. Either way they are losing sales to a large degree in one of these segments in the near future, there is NO WAY to keep the high profit margin they currently have.
Parents already had a cheap tablet for kids last Christmas... it was the Kindle Fire. Amazon is a huge, well recognized company... with an app store and everything. And the iPad still outsold it... handily. I'm not sure how well Google will advertise the Nexus 7. Maybe the Nexus 7 will be on the list of hot Christmas gifts this year. But I'm not sure many teens even know about it... they are already playing games on iOS. Who knows if Android games will strike their fancy. As for Apple and their high profit margin... they have been doing it for YEARS. You said it yourself... Apple is in a small segment making a large profit margin. Why would it have to change? There are TONS of Windows PCs that are far cheaper than a Mac. Yet the Mac still has an audience... and they sell quite a few of them. You could say the Mac is "losing" to Windows PCs... but are they really losing? Apple has never been the top selling company in computers or phones. And the same might happen in tablets too. But I've already shown how Apple can be successful and not be the top seller in a particular market. Apple has high profit margins but low market share in phones. Apple has high profit margins but low market share in computers. And the same could happen in tablets... but I think you're putting a tremendous amount of faith in the Nexus 7. As for the Surface... I do think it will revolutionize BUSINESS. But I'm still not convinced that average people will buy WindowsRT tablets instead of the iPad. We'll have to wait and see. Surface Pro is an amazing idea that combines full Windows OS with touch friendly tablet apps. But since it's not on the market yet either... I cannot even begin to speculate. As for Apple's stock price... it may be inflated. But it's the market that determines that. Apple's stock price has RISEN despite crushing competiton from Windows PCs and Android phones. So I see little reason that the stock price will tumble from a little extra competition in tablets. Like I said before... Apple only has 5% in computers and 7% in phones. Product market share has little to do with a company's success.
I don't think that's an accurate reading. They have high profit margins because they don't consume themselves with market share. Instead they focus on providing a high quality product that suits consumers' needs. That the iPad is so hard for competitors to undercut is a testament to Tim Cook's operational excellence. The Mini at $249 and up is a sincere issue for competitors. Why? Because dominance hasn't been established in the 7" space yet. So Apple releasing a smaller version of an international blockbuster product that has already sold north of 100 million, is almost insurmountable. Easily estimates of Mini sales range from 6-8 million this holiday quarter. That's 3 months. Compare that to competitors who have yet to sell that many all year.
I really hope it has an anti-glare screen so I can use it as a proper e-reader. If it doesn't then what's the point?
Here are the links to these mockups in actual size (and movable):
Wisely, by what I gather here, Apple is not considering this per se as an entry in the so-called "mini-tablet" market. Apple creates categories instead of reactiing to them. The unique size/display ratio fits in with being just a more portable iPad. So this is still an original category which Apple first introduced evolved. By competing with no one except themself Apple has a chance at another game-changer, albeit a much more modest one. While the article wisely pointed out that the category is filled with what in effect is oversized commodity priced Android smartphones sans the phone, this device runs iOS and will have Apple computer dna. So, what earlier seemed less compelling is beginning to really make sense at below $300 for the, likely, 2 initial iterations which the device seems poised to introduce. A capable iPad that is now very portable and can do many tasks people most commonly do on laptops as well as now being a better portable device and reader. Still...at below $300 Apple is obviously breaking ground on making something for the first time with a much lower built-in profit margin. That may be a slipperly slope for the company, but not so much when seletively applied on a product that is almost sure to sell en masse at that price. These are truly interesting times as Apple is still at the top of the heap, but many of their product categories have become too pricey even as they have matured. Usually a mature product faces a decline that is inevitable...Apple needs a hit here even though everyone believes the iPhone 5 will be so big that all else will be dwarfed. A company in control still, but in transition...that's Apple as of late 2012.


text:
Wondering which ski to reach for? All-Mountain or Freeride? Twin tips or flat tail powder skis? Whether it's your first time on the slopes, or you're looking for your next pair of skis to take on the backcountry, we've got all the information you could possibly need to get out on the mountain, and get shredding.
Skis come in a variety of shapes and sizes and are usually designed for a specific purpose and terrain. Finding the right skis can be a difficult task so we've devised a buying guide to help you narrow your selection when purchasing skis.
As well as talking you through the factors you need to consider when selecting your skis, we'll also explain the tech stuff so you know exactly what you're looking for. Similar to most board sports, the first thing that needs to be established before you start choosing kit is your ability level.
Ability Level
Beginner/Novice: If you're about to step onto the slopes for the first time, or have a few days' worth of skiing experience, this is the category you fall into. You will be skiing supervised slopes, just starting to get into the ski scene and have no freestyle experience as yet.
Intermediate: If you're comfortable skiing without supervision on green and blue runs, you are an intermediate skier. You will be accustomed to common skiing techniques and are likely to be starting to explore new slopes whilst controlling your speed. Intermediate skiers may also have basic freestyle skills, such as small jumps and boxes.
Advanced: Advanced skiers are proficient on all runs on the mountain and in variable conditions. You'll have experience skiing off-piste in different depths of powder and are becoming more confident on steeper terrain. Advanced skiers may also hold freestyle skills of an intermediate level. You can perform rotations on bigger jumps and can ride in control above the lip in a halfpipe. You will also be competent on narrower rails.
Expert: If you're confident on all slopes, on and off-piste and in all conditions, you are an expert skier. Most expert skiers will hold relevant teaching or guiding qualifications or are likely to have competed in racing/freestyle disciplines.
Ski Types
Piste Skis
90% on piste – 10% off piste
Piste skis are so called because they are used primarily on groomed snow (on piste). Piste skis are used by all levels of skier and tend to have a narrower waist for quick edge changes. A shorter turn radius makes these skis great for carving turns at various speeds. Beginner to intermediate piste skis focus on helping you progress with turn initiation and control, whilst models for advanced skiers deliver exceptional power the faster you ski them. These skis are used for slalom and racing disciplines.
All Mountain Skis
70% on piste – 30% off piste
These skis enable you to explore beyond the marked trails and into softer, deeper snow. As well as inspiring confidence off-piste, all mountain skis also excel on the groomed runs. They are great for developing technique in a variety of conditions. You may still spend the majority of your time on piste, but like to nip off the side into the powder between runs.
Freeride Skis
50% on piste – 50% off piste
These type of skis are incredibly versatile. They are great for all types of terrain and all snow conditions. Thanks to their wider waist (normally between 84mm — 100mm), freeride skis provide plenty of float in deeper snow and are great for building confidence in the powder whilst remaining manoeuvrable through trees and narrower runs.
Freestyle Skis
50% on piste – 50% off piste
Freestyle skis are used primarily in the terrain park. They tend to be more durable than other skis meaning they can handle hits on rails and other park elements. These skis feature a twin tip profile and will ride backwards as easily as they ride forwards, this allows you to develop your tricks and dominate the park and pipe. They share very similar characteristics to Freeride skis making them extremely versatile all over the mountain too.
Backcountry Skis
10% on piste – 90% off piste
Backcountry skis (also known as big mountain or powder skis) are designed to be used primarily off piste or in unpatrolled areas. They have a much wider waist which provides greater floatation in deeper snow and will feature some form of rocker or early rise in the tip and tail. Most will still have a reasonable amount of camber underfoot which makes them surprisingly easy to ski on piste too.
Touring Skis
50% on piste – 50% off piste
Touring skis are essentially exploration skis. With the addition of climbing skins – removable pieces of grippy fabric stuck to the base — and touring bindings, these skis let you walk up hills and venture into the backcountry. Touring bindings allow you to release the heel for efficiency when climbing uphill, and lock the heel in place when skiing back downhill. They share similar shapes to Freeride skis but with a much lighter construction to reduce fatigue when ascending into the mountains.
Ski Length
As a very rough guide your skis should come up to about nose level. Shorter skis are easier to turn making them useful for beginners, and longer skis are more stable at higher speeds. It all depends on the terrain you are riding and what you're most comfortable on. Trying different lengths of skis will give you a good idea of which you prefer.
Camber vs Rocker
Camber refers to the side profile of a ski which features an upward curve in the middle. The contact points to the snow are towards the tip and tail and the centre is elevated. As weight is applied, the ski will flatten and pressure is spread evenly along the length creating continuous contact with the snow. As the pressure is released, the camber provides a rebound of energy for greater 'pop' and power on groomed terrain.
Rocker is the opposite of camber. The ski arches upwards so the centre of the ski makes contact with the ground and the tip and tail are raised. This profile means these kinds of skis are perfect for floating in deep snow. They also make turn initiation easier due to the reduced contact the base of the ski has on the snow.


text:
21 Apr 2010
Reflections on Eyjafjallajokull: Let's Not Waste Another Wake-up Call
Last week none of us had ever heard of an Icelandic volcano called Eyjafjallajokull, and still even now, very few of us can actually pronounce its name. The volcanic dust spewn forth across Europe as a result of its spectacular eruption has had a remarkable effect, leading to, among other things, the total grounding of the UK's aviation fleet for several days until this morning. The headline on Metro, the free newspaper the person next to me on the train is reading as I write this, is "Fly, fly again". It will take days to clear the backlog and to get things back to normal, but let us not pass up this opportunity to meditate on vulnerability and resilience, which led to major disruption to the air freighting of produce from Kenya and other places, thousands of people stuck in their Easter holiday destinations, and Liverpool Football Club having to travel to its Europa League fixture with Athletico Madrid on public transport . But perhaps rather than seeing it as the 'misery' most news broadcasts labelled it as, we might see it as good practice for the near future.
Two days ago, 400,000 Britons were stranded around the world, 268,000 across Europe, the rest mainly in the US, Home Secretary David Miliband calling for the 'great British spirit' to be invoked by stranded tourists. The navy fleet was on standby for a Dunkirk style 'rescuing' of Brits from the European mainland to get them home. A Royal Navy ship picked up tourists from Spain, the captain saying "it's a warship so the civilians won't be used to the austere conditions, but they will get fresh rations, fish and chips for dinner tonight and curry tomorrow. We will provide as many camp beds as we can, but it's not a 5 star hotel. An Englishman who organised a flotilla of boats to sail to Dunkirk to pick up tourists in a restaging of the Dunkirk evacuations of World War 2, was turned back by French authorities who told him that such behaviour was anti-commercial and could affect the viability of French ferries (at least that's the story as it was told to me, true or not, it's a great story).
Kenya's horticulture industry, mostly flowers such as roses, grown for the UK market, has been losing $2 million a day in exports, with tonnes of roses and other fresh produce being thrown away each day (at least they were 'composted', according to the Guardian). One of the tabloids headlines yesterday was "TFI Flyday!" such was the media jubilation at the return to the skies. However, as Heading Out at the Oil Drum notes, this might just be the beginning of a series of eruptions, this may be just the beginning, rather than just the end of a week-long interruption to business-as-usual.
As a result of the grounding of the UK's planes, Europe's carbon emissions from aviation fell by 60%. This great graphic from informationisbeautiful.net answers the question of what produces more CO2, the volcano, or aviation? In spite of the huge amount of carbon pumped out by Eyjafjallajokull, aviation is still a far greater polluter.
Of course that was partly offset by the rather large amount of carbon belched forth by the unpronounceable volcano, but I spent Monday reading a fascinating piece of research by Meinshausen et.al.(1). It puts into context what 'misery' actually means, and it goes way beyond a few days stuck in a foreign airport or composting roses. Runaway climate change, accompanied by 2 metre sea level rise, crippling impacts on agriculture and most other aspects of modern life, would be utterly catastrophic. While not wishing in any way to denigrate the experience of those who have had a stressful, costly and disruptive few days, perhaps looking at this experience as a dry run for an oil-strapped near future might be healthier.
Of course we have had these 'wake-up' moments before. In 2000 the lorry drivers went on strike, blocking refineries, and the UK was a few days away from a major food crisis. The same thing was threatened a few years later when Grangemouth refinery was blockaded. Then there was the oil price spike of July 2008, and the impacts of the oil price rises. There was the snow of last winter, many communities cut off and distribution of essential goods made rather tricky. Oh and I think there was the world nearly coming to the brink of economic meltdown quite recently if I remember rightly, although I'm told that is all fine and sorted out now.
Now we have the grounding of the entire UK air fleet, and still the press coverage focused on newly-weds stranded in their honeymoon locations, or school choirs stuck in the US, rather than questioning how utterly reliant we have become on aviation, and how perilously unresilient we have grown as a culture. One minor interruption and everything starts coming unstuck at the edges rather quickly, developing countries find their agricultural sectors on the edge of bankruptcy, school exams might have to be scheduled, we will be short of fruit and other imports, etc.etc.
Meinshausen et.al. look at what level of cuts in emissions we need to make if we are actually going to avoid runaway and catastrophic climate change. They estimate that there is about a 70% chance of staying under 2°C if global emissions are cut by 50% from 1990 levels by 2050, and that emissions would need to have peaked and started to decline by 2020, and that they would need to continue being cut beyond 2050, and would need to have reached zero before 2100. A cut of 72% by 2050 would give us an 84% chance of avoiding runaway climate change.
They suggest that a programme of reductions capable of producing cuts in emissions necessary to avoid a 2°C rise, would mean that by 2050, the annual UK personal carbon allowance would need to be between 1.96 and 1.10 tonnes of CO2e per year, a cut of between 86% and 92% on 1990 levels, a level of emissions similar to that of Mozambique today. In this context, there really is little or no place for aviation, and that's before we add in the question of what, by then, planes would even be running on.
We are talking about reducing emissions, personally and societally, by over 90%. Personally I don't think future generations will be especially bothered that I had a few days over Easter chilling out in Rome or snorkelling in Thailand as they come to grips with the irreversible nightmare they have inherited from us. They will almost certainly look at any interruption to our "Fly, fly again" collective madness as having been a good thing, and would have hoped that we might have learnt something instructive from it.
Profoundly thought-provoking though the implications of Meinshausen's study is, it is seen by some as being the optimistic scenario. A different study by Helm et.al. argues that even this scale of cuts is unrealistic, because presently the emissions of different nations are based on production rather than consumption, that is, they don't factor in the carbon emissions that go into making imported consumer goods, which could be seen as 'outsourced emissions'. If emissions were allocated to countries on the basis on consumption rather than production, the UK's emissions would increase by 50%. Then there's the fact, as set out so clearly in the recent Climate Safety report, that we haven't even reached 2°C yet, we have gone up 0. 8°C and are already seeing feedbacks starting that the IPCC didn't think we'd see for many years yet.
A re-immersion in the climate change literature is always a chilling experience (the word 'sobering' doesn't somehow feel anywhere near strong enough). We are talking about a profound shift, such as that set out in the excellent forthcoming 'Zero Carbon Britain 2030' report, that takes as its basis the need to cut emissions to zero by 2030. In that context, in spite of all the wonders that aviation brings to our lives, whether it be 2 weeks in Rome over the Easter hols or early spring broccoli, roses and green beans airfreighted from Kenya, we are going to have to let it go.
The Department of Transport argue that air passenger numbers will have grown by 200% by 2030 (this is, of course, the same government that argues that peak oil won't be a concern until 2030 at the earliest), and 21% of all the UK's transport emissions come from aviation. It is, however, the key element of our transport infrastructure that defies decarbonisation. The aviation industry is already nearly as fuel efficient as it could become, electric planes are a non-started, hydrogen powered planes put 2.6 times the water vapour that ordinary planes put into the upper atmosphere, and biofuels for planes would be a humanitarian disaster, hitting food security hard. We have no option than to consciously, intentionally and urgently design for the end of the aviation industry.
Listening to 5 Live yesterday morning the speculation was all about whether or not planes would get into the air today, like a 'which-airport-gets-planes-back-in-the-air-first' competition. Gave me a mental picture of Boeing 737s on runways up and down the country, white knuckles clenching joysticks, revving their engines ready to reconquer the skies as soon as they get the green light. The sky with no planes is clearly seen by some as abhorrent, like a football match with no players, or, in my own case, a garden with no vegetables growing in it.
Alain de Botton wrote a beautiful piece for the BBC, a Transition Tale in effect, writing about life in 2050 with no planes, and people thinking back to the day when people flew. Writing in yesterday's Guardian, George Monbiot wrote that "over the past few days, people living under the flight paths have seen the future and they like it". Would it really be that bad to have a vastly scaled back aviation industry? Of course not. I haven't flown for four years, and it has had no adverse impact on my quality of life at all.
In talks I sometimes use the analogy of the 7 League Boots, how people in the world before oil couldn't imagine being able to travel long distances in any way other than by foot or travelling on an animal. Now we have lost any sense that distant places are, well, quite distant. The Canaries is actually a long long way from the UK, it's an island in the middle of the sea. New York is also really a very, very long way from London. Cheap oil and not giving a toss about our carbon emissions has enabled us to shrink distances and as George Monbiot put it yesterday;
"it made everywhere feel local, interchangeable. Nature interjects, and we encounter – tragically for many – the reality of thousands of miles of separation. We discover that we have not escaped from the physical world after all".
Rather than seeing the past few days as an interruption to our inherent right to go wherever in the world we want to whenever we want to, perhaps we ought to reflect on the awesome power that fossil fuels have brought, albeit temporarily, to our lives.
Helm et.al. argue, as does James Hansen, that the 'tipping point' for the Earth's climate was a 0.5°C increase on pre-industrial levels. Given that the global climate is already committed to a 1.4°C increase, this might seem an impossible task. As Spratt & Sutton write in 'Climate Code Red', "the fact that we have long passed this point in no way detracts from its importance as a policy goal, and a state to which we should wholeheartedly endeavour to return the planet". The Climate Safety Report and the forthcoming second edition of Zero Carbon Britain argue that this means nothing less than a target of zero carbon within the next three decades, a target clearly far in advance of current UK government policy, which, as set out in the 2008 Climate Change Act, is to cut UK emissions by 34% by 2020 and at least 80% by 2050.
Is such an ambition feasible without some major rethinking of many of the assumptions that underpin a business-as-usual approach? I for one struggle to imagine that aviation has any place whatsoever in a world of volatile oil prices, liquid fuel shortages, where biofuels have taken a backseat to actually feeding the world's population and where avoiding the undermining and irrevocable destabilisation of the world's climate systems is afforded the seriousness it deserves.
As Rosie Boycott wrote in today's Guardian, #
"… perhaps this cloud of ash will have a genuine silver lining. Maybe we'll wake up to where our food comes from, the real price it costs to get here, and the vulnerability of the systems in place. By ramming home the message that what we eat is now at the mercy of acts of God – as well as dwindling resources such as oil and the threat of climate change – I sincerely hope we'll all start to reconsider how and what we eat".
Indeed. As George Monbiot concluded yesterday in his typically forthright style:
"we have a choice. We can start decommissioning this industry (aviation) while there is time and find ways of living happily with less of it. Or we can sit and wait for physical reality to simplify the system by more brutal means".
Designing creatively for this inevitable transition will require a shift in our expectations, shifting what we think of as being the best thing to do when the kids have 2 weeks off school, and what we expect to find on supermarket shelves.
However, as Rafa Benitez, Liverpool manager, told 5Live yesterday after expressing his disapproval with UEFA for making them play their tie in Madrid in spite of the flying ban, and contemplating a very long journey made up to coaches, trains, and at the end, a plane, "we will adapt". Of course we will, and be healthier, leaner and better connected for it, and we may just, still avoid runaway climate change. Let's just not have a bank style bail-out for airlines please.
(1). Meinshausen, M. Meinshausen, N. Hare, W. Raper, S. C. B. Frieler, K. Knutti, R. Frame, D. J. Allen, M. R. (2009) Greenhouse-gas emission targets for limiting global warming to 2 degrees C. Nature 458, 1158-1162


text:
Dr. Jane Smith
About me...
I earned my Bachelors in Fine Arts from Laguna College of Art and Design, magnum cum laude in 2004 and my Doctorate in Fine Arts from the New York Academy of Figurative Art, summa cum laude in 2010. As a graduate student, I was awarded a full scholarship by the Prince of Wales Foundation to study landscape painting in Normandy, France. Upon graduating from the New York Academy of Figurative Art, I received a third year fellowship grant, deemed the Academy's highest honor. As a fellow, I created paintings exploring female form as a metaphor for spirituality. This work brought out my innate desire to uplift the ethos of female body from mere carnal associations to a more inclusive conception of what women are. I continue to paint in the humanist tradition, exploring our relationship to each other, and to existence.
It is a privilege to work at State University. Teaching bestows upon me an opportunity to share my enthusiasm for art. It is my passion to inspire students to greatness and to give them an appreciation for the beauty of applied knowledge.


text:
Magnetic Levitation Model
vrmaglev is an example showing the interaction between dynamic models in Simulink® and virtual worlds. The Simulink® model represents the HUMUSOFT® CE152 Magnetic Levitation educational / presentation scale model. (http://www.humusoft.com/models)
The plant model is controlled by a PID controller with feed forward to cope with the nonlinearity of the magnetic levitation system.
The position of the ball responds to the changing value of the setpoint. You can observe this change not only in the Scope window, but also in a viewer window displaying the virtual world. Note that the position of the ball represents the real dynamics of the system. If you switch the VRML viewer to the Camera 3 viewpoint, you can observe and control the ball easier.
There are two possible methods of setting the ball position setpoint - using a Signal Generator and visually by clicking at a desired position in the virtual reality scene.
In the virtual scene, a VRML sensor is defined. If you click in the space between the magnetic coil and the bottom plate, VRML sensor is updated and its value is read into Simulink model using the VR Source block.


text:
Judge orders plane carrying deported mother and daughter to turn around
An angry federal judge ordered a plane carrying a mother and her daughter to turn around and head back to the United States, hours after being whisked away by U.S. authorities before a court hearing on their deportation status could be finished.
"I know I'm raising my voice, but I'm extremely upset about this," U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan said during Thursday's hearing. "Somebody … seeking justice in a United States court is spirited away while her attorneys are arguing for justice for her? It's outrageous. Turn that plane around and bring those people back to the United States."
A Department of Homeland Security official said the agency has complied with the court's order. By Thursday evening, the mother and her daughter had landed in El Salvador. But they did not disembark, and the plane immediately headed back to Texas, the DHS official said.
Had the family not been returned, Sullivan was prepared to order Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen and other senior administration officials to appear in court "to show cause why they should not be held in contempt of court."
The mother in the case, identified in court papers only as "Carmen," is at the center of a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, which challenges a decision by Sessions to exclude domestic and gang violence as reasons for immigrants to be granted asylum.
Sullivan, who sits on the U.S. court in the District of Columbia, threatened to hold Sessions in contempt of court.
The lawsuit seeks a stay of removal for immigrants who, the ACLU argues, could face "grave danger of being raped, beaten, or killed" in their home countries if they are forced to return to them.
"We are thrilled the stay of removal was issued but sickened that the government deported two of our clients – a mom and her little girl – in the early morning hours," said the ACLU's lead attorney on the case, Jennifer Chang Newell. "We will not rest until our clients are returned to safety."
The ACLU's lawsuit says Carmen and her daughter left their native El Salvador because they feared for their lives amid extortion attempts by gang members. Some of Carmen's friends and co-workers have already been murdered, the ACLU claims.
Under the fast-track removal system, created in 1996, asylum seekers are interviewed to determine whether they have a "credible fear" of returning home. Those who pass get a full hearing in immigration court.
Named in the ACLU's lawsuit are Sessions, Nielsen, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Director Lee Cissna and Executive Office for Immigration Review Director James McHenry.
Homeland Security's "credible fear" policy instructs authorities to deny asylum to immigrants fleeing domestic abuse and gang violence. Critics have blasted the new policy as an affront to human rights and a systemic attack on immigrant women.
A "credible fear" interview is a threshold screening that determines whether there is a "significant possibility" that an immigrant could show they are eligible for asylum in a full hearing with evidence, witnesses and appeals. If so, they get that chance; if not, they are quickly removed from the United States, according to the ACLU.
More:Texas investigating death of migrant toddler after leaving immigrant detention center
Related:Ivanka Trump calls father's immigrant family separation policy 'low point' for administration


text:
Lots of fantastic people are coming to Women in Secularism. One woman is coming from Melbourne, another from Norway.
Jane Fae has a post at the New Statesman on "Misogyny, intimidation, silencing – the realities of online bullying." The subhead is
The aggregated effect of floods of negative comments online can be enough to put opinionated women off appearing in public.
And thus we get a feeback loop. Opinionated women get floods of cunting and bitching and why the fuck are you so uglying, so they're put off appearing in public, so dudebros look around and don't see many opinionated women mouthing off and they conclude that opinionated mouthing off is more of a guy thing. And they say that, and opinionated women say no that's not it, that's a stupid sexist stereotype, think harder – and they get floods of cunting and bitching and why the fuck are you so uglying, so they're put off appearing in public, so loop loop loop loop.
Last night I was chatting online, offering support to a friend who had just been bullied off Twitter. Nobody famous. Just an ordinary, everyday sort of woman who has taken the nastiness that life has dealt her over the last few years and come through it. Smiling? Mostly. But also vulnerable.
As an active feminist, she deals with anonymous abuse – she gets a fair bit of that, from the EDL and their hangers-on – and though it's not nice, she copes. What got to her this time, though, was the viciousness of "friends" when called out on their refusal to condemn violence against women and joke polls about "people you'd most like to kill".
The viciousness of "friends" can be quite staggering.
Beard makes the point well, in a blog responding to her own online treatment. It is clear that she is no stranger to tired old jokes about her appearance – but even she has been shocked about the response she evoked, describing the level of misogyny as "truly gobsmacking". The focus of much of the abuse is sexual, sadistic even and, she adds: "it would be quite enough to put many women off appearing in public, contributing to political debate".
In other words, it is silencing, something I get very well from personal experience. I've opted out of contributing online for periods ranging from hours to a couple of weeks after being subjected to this sort of online nastiness. Not just me. Many far braver women with serious contributions to make to public discourse on violence and abuse have suffered similar: been silenced simply for having an opinion.
And there's another turn of the screw which Fae doesn't mention: they get called "Professional Victims" for publicly objecting to the abuse. They, I mean we, cannot win.
Another person who's going to Women in Secularism is Marc David Barnhill. Why? Because of
yet another "parody" website and Twitter account mocking the aims and methods (and ripping off copyrighted images) of prominent women secularists.
Plus his eight year old daughter may have had something to do with it.
Was I opposed to attending in the first place? Well, no, actually I very much wanted to, having missed the first one last year. And the roster is once again a stellar one: Lauren Becker, Ophelia Benson, Jamila Bey, Soraya Chemaly, Greta
Christina, R. Elisabeth Cornwell, Vyckie Garrison, Debbie Goddard, Jennifer Michael Hecht, Adriana Heguy, Melody Hensley, Teresa MacBain, Amanda Marcotte, Maryam Namazie, Katha Pollitt, Carrie Poppy, Edwina Rogers, Amy Davis Roth,
Desiree Schell, Shelley Segal, Rebecca Watson, Stephanie Zvan. It's a startling collection of speakers.
So why wasn't he going?
Well, that's my business, frankly, and I'm starting to find your rhetorical questions a bit impertinent. But a combination of personal, financial, and health issues had led me to the decision to sit this one out as well. The women have got this, I thought. It's covered.
Tonight I tucked my eight-year-old daughter in bed and settled down to scan Twitter and see what I've been missing.
A lot has happened in the last year, some of it wonderfully inspiring and much of it dismayingly ugly. One of the things about privilege is that an ally can choose to withdraw from the struggle when burnout or shocked sensibilities request it. Not everyone has this option. It's an option I was too easily prepared to exercise.
So thank you, guy with the sophomoric, nearly clever parody account. Thanks for a gentle reminder just when I needed it. I'll make it work. I'm going.
I feel a little abashed. I don't give the guys with the sophomoric senses of humor enough credit. I'm not appreciative enough of all the free publicity. I'm too focused on the aesthetics and not enough on the consequences, however unintended.


text:
Medical Assistant I
Job Description
Steward Medical Group has a great opportunity for Medical Assistant to join our growing team. This outpatient opportunity supports our Family Medicine Physicians in the Phoenix East Valley.
Minimum Requirements:
- Knowledge of medical terminology
- Graduate of Medical Assistant training program
- High School diploma or equivalent
- CPR/FA certification
- One year experience – preferred
- Schedule 9AM to 5PM (M-F)
Benefits of Working for Steward Medical Group:
- Medical Assistant Loan Repayment Program up to $12,000
- Pursue your passion with our Career Ladder Growth Plans
- Tuition reimbursement
- Generous paid time off
- 401(K) retirement saving plan
- Flexible Spending Accounts
- Short- and long-term disability
- Competitive and affordable medical, dental, and vision insurance
About The Role:
The Medical Assistant summary of duties included but are not limited to: coordinating processing and care provided to patients examined by the Provider in the office, assisting in maintaining and documenting of patient chart with current information on patient's condition, care provided, and follow-up prescribed by the physician/provider, participating in performing or arranging for any lab or other diagnostic/clinical tests or treatments provided during examination, or needed, and assists or as directed, schedules and coordinates hospital admissions or procedures, specialty and procedural referrals, and in-office procedure activities.
Key Responsibilities:
- Place patients in exam rooms after registration, ensuring that chart reflects current complaint/condition, medical history and any test results appropriate to follow-up visits. Take appropriate vital signs and document in chart.
- Set-up room and/or equipment and assists with or performs as directed any special procedure, etc., including EKG procedures/tests.
- Coordinate patient's office visit discharge and if needed assists in arranging for diagnostic tests or referral exams.
- Performs and/or assists physician with tests/procedures available in the office per their orders and in accordance with established safety and infection control procedures.
- Ensures that blood or tissue samples are sent to appropriate referral laboratory.
- Assist with contacting pharmacies for new or refill prescriptions per physician approval.
- Obtains authorizations to perform tests, procedures, or referrals to outside providers.
- Cleans, sterilizes, and packages surgical instruments/packs in the office setting.
- Prepares all charts for next day's appointments by reviewing physician notes to determine what must be available for the visit. To include retrieving x-rays, lab results, etc.
- Maintains and rotates appropriate supplies/medications to be stocked in exam rooms. Appropriately discards any out-of-date medications.
- Keeps patient areas and exam rooms clean and prepared on a daily basis. Uses bleach solution or antimicrobial solution for cleaning as appropriate.
- Interacts professionally with patient/family.
- Maintains HIPAA confidentiality at all times.
About Steward Health Care
Steward Health Care is the largest private, for-profit health care network in the United States. The company is owned and led by a management team of Steward physicians. Headquartered in Dallas, Texas, Steward employs more than 40,000 health care professionals and operates 35 hospitals across the United States and in the countries of Malta and Colombia which regularly receive top awards for quality and safety. The Steward network includes multiple urgent care centers and skilled nursing facilities, substantial behavioral health services, more than 7,000 beds under management, and approximately 2.2 million full risk covered lives through the company's managed care and health insurance services.
The Steward Health Care Network includes more than 5,000 physicians across 800 communities who help to provide more than 12 million patient encounters annually. Steward Medical Group, the company's employed physician group, provides more than six million patient encounters per year. The Steward Hospital Group operates hospitals in Malta, Colombia and nine states across the U.S., including Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Utah. For more information, visit www.steward.org.
Additional Information
Steward Medical Group is taking additional necessary preparations to ensure patients can receive compassionate care in safe, carefully managed environment – with confidence and without fear.
Our Safe and Ready program consists of a rigorous [three-point] standard ensuring patient safety, confidence and convenience.
- Any COVID-19 related care takes place in designated areas away from other patients and their families.
- A stringent cleaning policy has been implemented throughout our facilities.
- A strictly controlled visitor and mask policy is required for patient and colleague safety.
Application Instructions
Please click on the link below to apply for this position. A new window will open and direct you to apply at our corporate careers page. We look forward to hearing from you!Apply Online
Posted: 3/17/2023
Job Status: Full Time
Job Reference #: 96588


text:
Devoy, John
Devoy, John dĭvoi´ [key], 1842–1928, Irish-American journalist and Irish revolutionary, b. Ireland. He joined the Irish Republican Brotherhood (see Fenian movement) in 1861. For proselytizing within the British army he was sentenced in 1866 tp 15 years in prison. He was released in 1871, however, and went to America. He founded (1881) and edited the Irish Nation, and became one of the leading Irish propagandists in the United States. He organized the rescue of six Irish prisoners from Freemantle, Australia, using the Catalpa in 1875–76, and secured American financial support for the Land League movement. In 1903 he founded the Gaelic-American. During World War I he secured much of the financial backing for the Easter Rebellion (1916). Afterward he back the Irish Free State against the republican extremists and helped secure a market for its first bonds.
See his Recollections of an Irish Rebel (1929); biographies by, T. Golway (1998) and T. Dooley (2003); D. Ryan, The Phoenix Flame (1937).
The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6th ed. Copyright © 2023, Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.
See more Encyclopedia articles on: British and Irish History: Biographies