iPhone, and "The Device Formerly Known As iTV"

So the Church of Steve all got together overnight to be told what new tech they should get excited about. Here's the run down of the keynote:

1.) iPhone. This year, for US zealots.
2.) Partnerships involving iPhone - Google and Yahoo. Singular/AT&T for carrier.
3.) *TV, where "*" represents an Apple symbol. From here on, called AppleTV.
4.) "Apple Computer Inc." now called "Apple Inc."

Here's my POV on these:

1.) iPhone
Firstly, expect a lawsuit involving Apple vs. Linksys and Cisco shortly about the name.
Second, we all knew this was coming. It's an iPod and a phone. Together. In one box. Now, out of everything announced at this keynote, this is the only thing of any real merit. The iPod brand is strong and the design recognition is also. iPhone adheres to the iPod simplicity of design and interface, and generally is an impressive looking device. Now here's where my praise of it ends.
Firstly, it's running OSX. I hate OSX. But aside from my personal distaste of it, putting a desktop OS on a phone seems like a bad idea to me. Memory management and OS functions surely are built with assumptions of cache/memory/processor/storage configurations that are just not possible in a phone. However, I'm willing to be proven wrong.
The next thing that irked me was Steve making a big ol' claim about owning the patents for multi-touch touchscreen interfaces. OH MY GOSH. While none of the linked videos prove that Apple don't own the patent, I'd like to note also I've seen video of HP and another company demoing multitouch screens in coffee tables at tech shows. I can't see that Apple's patent could be on anything other then their specific design implementation. Expect to see the competition doing simular things shortly, despite Steve's claims of exclusivity.

2.) Partnerships for iPhone
Google, Yahoo, Singular and AT&T (I don't know the relationships between the last two) were all showcased as providers with services for iPhone. Looks like they haven't done particularly much - I don't really understand it all, but Yahoo's push-email service seems... expected? a requirement? It's a shame my Exchange server at home will do this, and has been able to do this for quite a while - to ANY Windows Mobile phone, and I believe Palm ones too. Not impressed. But hey - nice that they've set these up for people who buy the iPhone. Seriously - I think iPhone is a reasonable offering, minus the OSX factor.

3.) The Device Formally Known as "iTV"
There was only one piece of information about this I don't remember being in last year's keynote, and that's that it will output 720p resolution via HDMI. Whoo. As I predicted previously, iTV *is* just an iTunes player.
Justin's official line on this product is that it blows. Why? Because you can do everything it does for cheaper, and without being locked in to Apple's iTunes/iPod model for content, and DRM scheme. And, as previously stated, it's yet ANOTHER device for your livingroom that does one very specific subset of what you need to do. It doesn't record TV. It doesn't play DVDs. It doesn't connect to your cable/satelite box. It sure as heck doesn't do anything with HD-DVD/BluRay technology. So why waste your money? Buy a cheap-ass hard disk recorder that will play back DivX/XVID/Mpeg4 content, and get your content from wherever you like. If you're willing to spend a bit more, a PC running Media Center (with AMD LIVE! for added value) and you'll get an easy to use system for displaying digital content in the living room that does a million bazillion times more useful stuff then AppleTV. Perhaps even a brazillian times more.
If you buy this product, you are nothing more then a zealot. So either suck it up and admit that Steve is your pimp, or be sensible and buy a device that is more then just a glorified expensive iPod with HDMI.

4.) The name change
Personally, I see this as an "about time" event. Apple's computer offerings have picked up some new sales recently, granted, but overall - it's not what's keeping them afloat as a business. In particular, Apple will claim OSX as a superior OS in one breath, and then say they're not a software company in the next. Let's be honest - Apple is now about consumer electronics, and one of those items just happens to be a shiney white plastic coated computer, which is now completely capable of running OS's other then Mac's OSX. For those of you who remember Dvorak's prediction that Macs would eventually be running Windows full-time, note that we're already halfway there. Every Mac in my office now has a copy of Windows installed on it, even though the users are all die hard Mac adherents. Why is that? Because they need Windows to run an effective business. It's just life, zealots, get over it. Windows dominates because it's a good OS, where "good" is not necissarily defined as being built on *nix. (Not saying *nix based OS's are bad... just that Windows can be good without being based on it) I have more points, but I really should get to work now...

Summary:
Less then impressive keynote, with one impressive device - iPhone. iPhone still needs to be identified as being functional as well as pretty before I'll give it too much credit. I guess we'll see.
Mac zealots to buy millons worth of iTVs, even though they already own multiple devices that do the same job.
Apple finally identify themselves as not being a computer company. Something Windows users have known for years.

First Pictures

This is the first photo that has ever been taken of our new baby, now affectionatley given the in-utero name of "Button". For those that don't know, our son was named "Pud" (short for pudding) before he was born, and we've decided to make it somewhat of a tradition that we select names for them that they'll be called while they're still enjoying the comforts of my wife's internal organs.
The only thing this scan was to tell us is how far along we are, and today we are officially 11 weeks and 2 days. Woohoo! Just slightly further then we thought. As a side note, the scan also told us our baby has 2 legs, and 2 arms - which I'm sure you'll agree is the best number of legs and arms.
I also now have a vague suspicion we *may* be having another boy. Just was looking at that picture again and suspecting there may be some male bits in view. Anyway - I'm no sonographer or whatever they're called, so we shall see... :)

Useless weapon in new game

The above link will take you to a description of a weapon in the upcoming game Hellgate: London, which looks to be a fairly epic 1st person shooter. However, when I saw the description of this weapon, I had to laugh. Quote:

The Cricketbat

Max mod slots: 1 relic

A common item used for generations on pitches around the world, these sanctified versions can crush the skull of a demon as swiftly as England winning the Ashes.
...

So... use this weapon and die? :) Probably not the most choice of description, seeing as how England almost never win the Ashes, and we flog the pants of them on a regular basis. Maybe we should revise it to read "...can crush the skull of a demon as swiftly as England getting absoluely trounced by Australia in the Ashes." Probably would better convey the imagery they're aiming for...
lol

The Church of Faith-Based Science

I've been struggling lately with the emergence of science as a substitute for a belief in God, and the promotion of said belief system. While adherents will deny it adamantly, the belief that humans have the capasity and facility to understand the universe from an external perspective I believe requires as much faith as a belief in God, as if you follow the logic of that idea through, it very quickly becomes infinitely recursive, as it would require us to have a capasity to fully understand ourselves and all our understanding, which in turn would require us to have the capasity to understand ourselves and all our understanding, etc. etc. Presently, the issue of this recursion is resolved with a simple "it just is", which people choose to believe. The same result is used to explain away the advent of life, and the understanding of what it means to be concious, as well as my personal favorite, where did the empty space come from? Whenever something is finite, it must be contained by something else yes? So what contains the now-believed-to-be-finite universe? Ah, we don't know - but obviously something does.

The argument against the existance of God is that his existance can't be proved using experiments which produce consistant results. Possible results are all-encompasing, and therefore aren't real experiments, which leads scientists to believe God to be "made up" as his nature isn't testable. However, that doesn't prove God doesn't exist.
In a recent video I watched of a Q&A with Richard Dawkins, someone said to him:
"The problem is that you're applying natural laws to God, when He claims to exist outside of them."
Dawkins' response was: "Well that's awfully convenient, isn't it?"
While Dawkins is suggesting that the inability to apply natural laws to God's existance is ultimately evidence of his non-existance, that is not necissarily the case. It's just a fairly typical humanistic stance to take when faced with questions that don't fit in with our current understanding. It's just as convenient to ridicule an avenue of possibility simply because you find another more appealing (and in Dawkin's case, I'd suggest "comforting", but that's another discussion...).
Here's an example:

The rules of this universe are as follows: There are three school boys - Billy, Timmy and Freddy. Billy's mum and dad work overseas, and so Billy has to talk to them on the phone. Timmy and Freddy have never seen Billy's mum and dad, and so don't believe he has parents. Billy can talk to his mum and dad on the phone, but they screen their calls and will only answer phone calls from his home phone. Timmy and Freddy can't go to Billy's house, because they told their parents that Billy lives on his own, and thus are not allowed. Obviously Timmy and Freddy are school children, and can't travel overseas to verify Billy's parents existance. For the purpose of this experiment, the boys' universe is their town.

Timmy says to Billy: "You don't have parents Billy. I've never seen them."
Billy: "Yes I do. I talk to them every night, and they talk to me. Just only on the phone. But they send me presents and stuff."
Timmy: OK then, ask them to send you a scooter. Then I'll know that they're real.

Billy goes home, asks his parents for a scooter. They send one.

Billy: See, I have a scooter. My parents are real.
Timmy: No, see, that could have been a coincidence. You might have already had a scooter, or maybe you went out and bought one, or maybe another one of our friends sent it to you. Hang on a sec. (turns to Freddy) Freddy! Come here!
Freddy: What?
Timmy: Billy says he has parents, but I don't believe him. I got him to ask them for a scooter, and he got one, but now I need you to verify my findings. Get him to ask for something.
Freddy: OK... Um... Billy - ask your parents for a soccer ball.

Billy goes home, asks his parents for a soccer ball. His parents say no, as sometimes parents do.

Billy: My parents said no.
Timmy: No they didn't. They don't exist. You're just pretending they're real. You didn't get a soccer ball, so they're not real.

Timmy doesn't believe Billy, because Billy's parents exist outside of the confines of Timmy's explainable universe. This is a simplified analogy of why the science vs. religion argument will never be resolved. Science likes problems with mutually exclusive answers. You have to find an experiment that will either come back positive or negative. This doesn't work with God, as he doesn't necissarily choose to respond the way we want him to, and in particular he's not so big on being tested. Imagine if Billy's parents were getting calls from Billy every night asking them to provide evidence of their existance? What's important to Billy's parents here? Meaningful conversation with their son, or the belief of his friends? I'm going with option one. God isn't really into satisfying sceptics, and while sceptics will say that's evidence of his non-existance, logically that doesn't work. If I choose not to answer a question for you, that doesn't mean I don't have an answer.

I'm going to take this one step further - I don't think it's the place of science to be suggesting that it can answer these kind of questions. Science might be able to tell me that sometimes my wife acts in a way I find irrational because of her hormones, it can't tell me the right thing to say to make her feel better every time. It's just not a "science" question. In the same way, science can make observations about the laws the govern the universe, but it can't answer the question of why they did, do, and will behave that way. It's just the way it is, and that's as far as it can go.

This is why I think it's important to recognise the growing number of faith-based science adherents who believe that ultimately, science holds all the answers. That our current scientific understanding shows the existance of God to be false. And most scarily of all, that steps should be taken to stop people being allowed to think, speak and act based on a belief in God, as they're "obviously deluded/irrational/unintelligent". The general consensus from the reading I've been doing seems to be that these faith-based science adherents (who would cry out in disgust at being called that, by the way) see people's right to hold a religious belief as a right to believe in something imaginary if that's what you want, but ultimately it IS imaginary, and the law, education, etc. should treat it as such. Well, I'm not up for that. I believe that God is real. Not just in my head, but that he's real in your world, even if you don't believe it. And believe me, I'm starting to get fired up about this. A short read of the forums on www.richarddawkins.com will show there's plenty of support for this idea, and as a Christian, I can see this as a possible threat to my freedom to continue to be a Christian in the way I can today.

Having just watched some short video on the above mentioned site, I'd like to prove the existance of what I describe as faith-based science adherants with the following quote from Richard Dawkins himself:

It is, of course, a very difficult question to ask how things began at the very beginning of the universe. It's very difficult to even know what the word 'beginning' even means with respect to the universe, that any scientist, any biologist, any reasonable person would accept. However, when you ask what is the
alternative - if the alternative that's being offered to what physists now talk about; a big bang, a spontaneous singularity which gave rise to the origin of the universe - if the alternative to that is a divine intelligence; a creator that would have to have been complicated, statistically improbable, the very kind of thing which scientific theory such as Darwin's exists to explain, then immediately we see that however difficult and apparently inadequate the theory of the physist is, the theory of the theologians; that the first cause was a complicated intelligence, is even more difficult to accept. They're both difficult. But the theory of the cosmic intelligence is even worse.

Well, Dick, that's your opinion. And that's just the thing - it's just opinion. Not science. But because it's a scientist's opinion, that makes it gospel in the church of faith-based science. Believing in the unprovable option you find most easy to rationalise is as much faith as believing in the one that you persieve offers the least rationalisation, but is the most universally applicable solution (which is why it's seen as being "convenient"). You want to believe that something sprang from nothing, even though it flies in the face of the rest of accepted scientific theory? Go ahead. I guess we'll all either see for ourselves or not exist in the end.

And then, there were four.

It is my wonderous pleasure to inform you, oh reader of my blog, that my lovely wife is currently just over seven weeks pregnant. :D

YAAAYYY!!! I'm going to be a Dadda all over again!!

More to come, but right now, I'm off to bed...