I’ve completed a cursory review of applications that allow you do your blogging off-line and synchronize to your blog later. I’ve played with Blogjet, BlogDesk and Windows Live Writer for the most part. I’ve looked at other applications as well but never got as far as even installing them for one reason or another, usually because their web sites didn’t compel me to even give them a try. I am windows user so I mostly concerned with that. Generally the free application are feature lacking compared to the once you pay for. The exception to that is Windows Live Writer which has all the features of a commercial application, thanks to the deep pockets of Microsoft. Lately though I’ve been getting bad taste in my mouth with the Windows Live suite of application, such as Microsoft forcing stuff on you (like the bing bar) via Windows Update. Another reason why I disliked Windows Live Writer is the size of the composer window. This is why I choose not to use Windows Live Writer . I went instead with Blogjet as it fully featured, easy to use and has the modest one time licensing fee of $39.95 at the time of this writing.
Are women better than men?
Someone once asked me if I though men or women were the better gender so I figured I’d blog a little on my opinion there, what my thoughts are surrounding that and my reasoning. For those that don’t know me I am a red blooded heterosexual male in his early 40’s at the time of this writing.
First a little disclaimer: I’m going to be talking generalities and stereotypes here. As such when ever you talk generalities and stereotypes you tend to over generalize, and as such it is very easy to find cases where such overgeneralization fails. I’m specifically staying general while acknowledging that it doesn’t hold true in all cases. I further acknowledge that I will be over generalizing, and exaggerating on purpose to illustrate a point. OK with that out of the way there are at least three separate topics embedded in the question “Are women better than man”.
- Can one survive (individually and/or as a species) without the other
- Which one is more capable, wider skill set, etc.
- Personal preferences
Can one survive (individually and/or as a species) without the other?
The short answer to that one is an unequivocal NO. Of course the species can not survive with only one gender. So lets expand the question into exploring which gender “needs” the other more. Naturally each gender will claim that they don’t need the other one. However I’m going to argue that men would have a much harder time being without women than the other way around. While I presume most guys will deny this and argue against this, even make derogatory statements against me for making this argument with statements such as “I’m revoking your man card”, I think those same guys would agree with me when they think about it even if they can’t admit it. One only needs to analyze a random sampling of single men vs. single women to see evidence of what I’m talking about.
As a species which would work better to repopulate society, lots of women of child bearing years and only handful of guys, or lots of guys and only a handful of women. Again I’m going to argue that here women have the upper hand. While it is still necessary for sperm to come from a man, a man doesn’t actually have to be involved with the process of impregnating women. Modern science has made it possible for a women to get pregnant without ever having to even see a man. I have not heard of science growing a baby without a woman carrying it to term. While it may run counter to social norms one man can impregnate many women even without any scientific means. While some might argue that this makes the man more useful, etc., it does demonstrate that fewer men than women are needed to maintain the species, making the women more important.
Lets look at an analogy. Lets say for the sake of argument that a person could either know how to drive a car or know how to start it, that it was impossible for the same person to both know how to start the car and drive it. Ideally the number of starters would equal the number or drivers. They are both important as without the one the other is useless, you can’t a drive car that doesn’t start, and there is no point to start a car than no one can drive. If there a lot of starters and very few drivers, most of the starters have nothing to do. However just because the drivers are factor of magnitude greater in number than starters things can still work smoothly. Drivers may have to wait a bit until a starter comes along but ones the car is started the driver is on their marry way and the starter can move onto the next car. To put the analogy in context of bringing a baby into the world, a man gets the process started but after the woman is pregnant the man is not really needed. Therefore I submit that women are better than man in this context.
Which one is more capable, wider skill set, etc.
Here again I’m going to argue for the woman. First lets examine what men tend to be better at generally speaking. The most obvious one is that a man can generally lift heavier items than women, in today’s society though there isn’t a lot of need for that, so how important is that ability? The other is that men tend to have greater spatial abilities. Spatial abilities is the ability to visual objects both in two dimensions as well as in three dimensions (for example to take a two dimensional architectural plan and visualize it in 3D), the relationship between the objects and the ability to rotate those objects in your head. Key example of this ability is when you are looking at a map, those with high spatial abilities keep the map oriented the same way regardless of which direction you are going, those with lower spatial skills will want to rotate the map so that the direction they are going points up. Men tend to have higher spatial skills, this has been attributed to men being greater navigators and scientists. Some have argued that all the greatest inventors in history have been men as well as the greatest warriors and politicians and thus men must be superior. This is a false argument in my mind as we don’t know all the variables. Throughout history woman has always been the caretaker of the family and as such undoubtable has had little time to be tinkering with stuff that would lead to invention. Men on the other hand, history tells us, were not that involved in their families and thus had a lot of time on their hand so they would tinker with stuff. So what is the true reason for all those great inventors through history were men? Is it just because men have superior spatial abilities, or because women were too busy raising families to have time for that, or a little of both? We will never know the answer to those questions, I suspect the answer is along the lines of “little of both”. So we’ve identified two things men tend to be superior at: lifting heavy things and spatial abilities. So now lets look at things that woman are better at. Here are few items I can think of where women outshine men:
They can multitask. Guy’s are very single focused. Each gender is amazed at the other in this regard and both have their uses. In today’s society being able to focus on a lot of different things is a huge advantage in my opinion.
They can tell the difference between eggshell, cream, ivory, and off-white, as well as the difference between hunter green and forest green and all the other different shades of colors. To guys it’s white, red, green, blue, etc. Not so much as critical skill set I suppose but still amazing to me.
They can give birth to a child, talk about miracle of life!
They are better communicators. They can talk about more than sports and cars. Most guys that seems to be all they talk about. I am constantly amazed the breadth of conversation women can have, sometimes all at the same time.
- They are much better at paying attention to detail for example they actually remember your birthday. As result they are better care takers.
- They can talk about their feelings, this is not something a guy is capable of doing. Guys can’t even identify their feelings let alone talk about them.
They have stronger immune systems which may explain why they tend to live longer
So with 7 items versus 2 items I think it is clear which is the greater gender. Some may argue that men are greater leaders but is that really true? Are men really greater leaders or do women just let men think they are greater leader, in which case is that a strength or a weakness? My take is that is strength. If you look at most households men may claim they are in charge but up on closer inspection it is really the woman that is in charge.
I have been called “girl crazy” which is a accusation I can not deny. As I think is evident from this post that I hold women in the highest regard. I guess it is all summed up in this joke:
Question: What did God say after he created Adam? Answer: I can do a lot better than that!!!!!
Then he created Eve and was pleased with his work.
I have installed an interesting application – BlogJet. It’s a Windows client that allows me to compose and edit my blogs off-line. I’m testing it out and will let you know how I like it.
“Computers are incredibly fast, accurate and stupid; humans are incredibly slow, inaccurate and brilliant; together they are powerful beyond imagination.” — Albert Einstein
There’s been a lot of talk about health care reform. From what I’ve heard there have been a lot of emotionally charged statements made, that don’t seem to be all that relevant or maybe just too heavy on emotions and too short on specifics. Take for example the statement “No one should die because they couldn’t afford health care”. On the surface that is a statement I can totally get behind and I totally support the spirit in which I believe it is offered in. When I start to analyze it and pick it apart I realize that it’s pretty vague and very emotional. For those that don’t know me I love to be the devil’s advocate and pose ridiculous questions as food for thought, and/or to illustrate a point. For example if we take that statement extremely literally one could interpret that people that can’t afford health care just simply shouldn’t die, even if they get hit by a train. Of course this is an extreme example bordering on ridiculous, made strictly to illustrate a point. If one were to simply take the statistics of people that died while not having insurance it produces fairly meaningless statistics in my book as it could include people that died under circumstances where their lack of insurance was irrelevant (like in my extreme example, if you get hit by a train you’ll die regardless of your insurance status). In some cases we will never know if having insurance would have helped, as in cases where insurance declined to cover procedures that have unverified success rate. People could argue that it isn’t fair that not all people get access to all treatments, which quickly rat holes to an observation that live isn’t fair. Is it fair that some people are homeless while other live in multimillion dollar mansions? Is it fair to make me pay sky high medical bills for someone who got cancer because they decided to smoke? Smokers don’t like non-smokers to tell them to stop smoking the same way non-smokers don’t like to pay for medical issues that arise from smoking.
The health care system is in serious trouble and does require a lot of work. It is a complex problem and it’s easy to latch onto one symptom instead of digging down to the root of the problem. Common troubleshooting wisdom is that solving a symptom isn’t really solution, you have to find the root cause and address that then symptoms go away. Analyzing symptoms is a good start as it provides data points for your root cause analysis but it’s only a start.
The health care system has many components that all could be contributing to our current crisis. There are the insurance companies, the doctors, the hospitals, the drug companies and the patients. Focusing on only one aspect isn’t going to produce the best solution.
There seems to a lot of talk about national health insurance or national medicine, etc. That sounds a lot like national HMO and/or socialized medicine. Having grown up with socialized medicine in Iceland (located in northern Europe) I believe socialized medicine works about as well as HMO’s. Do we really want to the HMO’s to take over all health care; is that going to fix the problem? From what I’ve heard HMO’s are on one hand being heralded as a solution and on the other hand are used as an example why the system is totally broke.
Here are some of the other symptoms I see:
- Drug companies charge a small ransom for the drugs, seems like they charge whatever they want.
- Insurance companies sometimes care more about their bottom line than the insured
- There are unscrupulous doctors and hospital administrators.
- Hypochondriacs go to the doctors demanding quick fixes for everything in the form of a pill
- Some people would rather have liposuction or gastric bypass than do the work of losing weight the old fashion way of watching what you eat and get exercise. Not saying those aren’t valid medical procedures that have their uses and necessities, just that there is the potential for over use.
Since the problem has multiple components we can’t solve it by attacking just one of the symptoms. Yes we need to ensure everyone has access to affordable health insurance. To keep health insurance affordable we need to keep cost of health care down by ensuring drugs are reasonable price. We also need to ensure doctors and hospitals keep their costs in check. Without that we have no hope in keeping insurance affordable. People also need to take responsibility for their own well being and start to take care of them self. Eat sensible, get exercise, etc.
The government regulates how much a moving company can charge, the same goes for utilities companies (Gas, Power, Phone, etc.) as for many other types of businesses. From what I can tell health care provided do not have tariffs.
It is a fact of life that everyone dies, it sucks big time to lose someone you love. We only have limited time on this earth and no one knows just how long they’ve got. Some people live to be 100 while we lose others in what is often described as “in the prime of their life”. Modern medicine may offer theories as to why that is but frequently those theories are proven wrong. As when a chain smoker and heavy drinker that never exercised lives to be 100 and a health nut and exercise fanatic with low cholesterol and otherwise declared fit as a fiddle by the doctors dies of a heart attack at age 40.
While recognizing that losing a loved one is probably one of the worst experiences anyone can have, there comes times when we have to be pragmatic about it. Does it really make sense to spend endless amount of money to keep someone a life artificially? I’m sure we would all be willing to pay whatever it took so that we could have few more months with a loved one. What if it was someone we didn’t know? Would you be willing to pay higher taxes so that some stranger at the opposite side of the country could have few more months with a loved one? If we end up with some sort of government health care your tax dollars will pay for it. If there isn’t some sort of limit to what procedures will be covered it will end up increasing your taxes. Health insurance, whether governmental or private, is simply a business. All business that want to stay in business do a cost benefit analysis when they spend major money. You do the same kind of analysis whenever you make major purchases (hopefully at least). Would you purchase a new car if it came with no warranty and no one was known to drive it more than 6 months before it completely broke down? The same goes for health insurance companies. While it may seem heartless and cold I can totally understand their decision to not cover a procedure that has very low success rate, etc. What is not cool is when the insurance companies denied treatment when that treatment is proven to totally cure a life threatening illness.
Whatever the solution is I believe it needs to allow for health insurance for all as well as keep all aspects of the systems more accountable both in terms of cost, fees and performance.
I find the recent news reports about city council for city of Seattle working on requiring strip clubs to raise their light levels to that of a super market as well as banning the dancers from coming within 4ft of the patrons to be quite interesting in a weird sort of a way. This is obviously being done to shut down the strip clubs as attendance to strip clubs would become pretty non existent if these rules were to be enforced. I hear that strip clubs are bad as they bring crimes and other undesirable elements with them, yet I haven’t seen anything backing up those claims. For example what do they mean by “undesirable elements”? I would also be interested in seeing statistics on crime rate between say Lake City Way and Pioneer Square, Bell town Capitol Hill. If strip clubs are such a nuisance why do you hardly ever see Seattle PD along Lake City Way where there are couple of strip clubs, but Pioneer Square and Bell town are always crawling with Seattle PD. Is Seattle PD misappropriating resources or is the Seattle City council over reacting and catering to conservatist purism. My bet is on the second one. News media around here seems to be somewhat biased and very much into sensationalism so I tend to take anything I read or hear in the media with a grain of salt. So when I read stories about violence in Pioneer square or Bell Town I figure it probably has some truth to it even though it could be blow out of proportions. Yet I don’t recall when the last time they published a story about the crime problems surrounding strip clubs. Consider that this is the type of stories that seems to sell these days I’d think that if there was any traces of criminal activity problem around those clubs they would be writing about it.
So my message to the Seattle City Council is, get a life and work on issues that truly are affecting the safety and well being of your residents.
For good or bad I live outside the Seattle City limit and only go into the city for entertainment so it doesn’t directly affect me too much, but stupid stuff like this still bugs the crap out of me.