Why Android is better than iPhone

Battery Life:
Achieving more than 3 days on a single charge is pretty nice. I do not have to worry about having to charge my device every night, or like many of my iPhone possessing freinds carry a charge cord everywhere I go and plug in constantly. I find it amusing when I see iPhone users tethered around outlets at Disneyland, ComicCon, Starbucks, etc trying to get a little charge into their power hungry device. Besides the fact that I have 2 extra batteries for my Motorola Droid X which can be swapped out with just a quick reboot. Should I ever need to, but don't even carry them with me anymore since I have never had to use them.

Multitasking:
Anyone that knows me, knows that I always have 100 things open on my computer. Usually, Chrome and Internet Explorer, each with many tabs open. Photoshop, Word, Excel, Music, and several other applications. Well, my droid is the same way. I usually have Google Maps/Navigation open to monitor traffic or navigate me, Pandora or Google Music playing, web browser, Facebook, GMail, Weatherbug, Yelp, FourSquare, and depending on what I am doing a couple more maybe. Look at the screenshot icons at the top, GMail, MySpace, Yahoo, Facebook...

Removable Memory:
As a photographer I usually have my Nikon with me. Sometimes I feel the need to upload pictures immediately, but as a photographer I am not going to rely on my DroidX's 8 megapixel phone camera. I use my Nikon with an SD>MicroSD adapter and all my cards are MicroSD. For example, I was at a friend's graduation a couple weeks before writing this, and I took a few great shots with my Nikon using a 200mm zoom and flash. Shots that could never be made with any cameraphone. Even before the ceremony was completed and all the graduates has left the building those pictures were posted on Facebook. Simply by switching out the MicroSD card. There have been days I have taken over 5000 pictures with my Nikon and having an extra card with me, in my phone, is quite useful as I never anticipate having 16 GB of anything on my phone's SD card when I already have 8 GB in the phone itself. Especially since I am using Google Cloud to host my files and music independent of any device.

Google Music
Speaking of which, Apple needs to keep up so they just announced that they are going to introduce the iCloud or whatever to store and stream iTunes music to Apple internet enabled devices. I have no idea what Apple will do with their forthcoming cloud, but Google allows for 20,000 songs to be stored in the cloud for free and streamed to any computer or Flash enabled mobile device, like Android phones and tablets and Windows Phones.

Adobe Flash:
Pass the salt. I will rub it into the STILL open wounds of Apple fanatics. As much as I loathe the abuse of Adobe Flash on websites for no reason. There are still practical uses for Flash and I appreciate that my DroidX can run the most current version of Flash.

Screen Size:
My DroidX has a 4.3" screen compared with Apple's iPhone 4 still running the same old 3.5" screen from 5 years ago. That is 51% more screen area than the iPhone 4. My previous phone had a 3.5" display I can say the difference is night and day. It felt like when I went from a 60" TV to a 73". It is absolutely stunning.

Mobile HotSpot/Tethering:
I have on many occasions utilised the Mobile HotSpot feature of my DroidX to share my internet connection. Recently I was on a film shoot, I was playing with my netbook so I had the HotSpot open. And actually was providing internet service to at one point 8 other users, most of which were using iPhones. If the AT&T is so great then why were half a dozen iPhone's jumping onto Verizon's internet through my DroidX?

HDMI Output:
Not something I am using at this point, but having the ability to stream the screen out of the phone and into an HDTV seems pretty awesome, all for the need of an $8 cable. Could be useful I guess, if I had the cable, I could go to someone else's house and stream my Netflix or Uverse video from my phone to their TV in HD.

Google Integration:
I have for the most part giving up on Microsoft altogether. I have dual boot WinXP and FroYo I don't even have Office installed on my netbook, I am using GMail, Google Calendar, Tasks which replace Outlook. I am using Google Docs which replaces Word and Excel, as well as cloud storage for the docs. I am using Chrome instead of MSIE except sites that require MSIE. Then all the other Google integrated applications, Maps, Earth, Navigation, Places, Goggles, Books, Reader (rss), Health, Voice (voip calling), SkyMap (astronomy), Listen (podcasts), Buzz (check-in), Translate, Finance (stocks), Scoreboard (sports), Panaramio and Pandora (pictures), Blogger, and a plethora of other Google solutions.

Voice Application:
Not to be confused with Google Voice, VOIP service, I am referring to the concept of controling the phone by voice. I can speak and it will respond. Like "Send Text to Sydney I'm on my way" or "Call mom at home" or "Navigate to Disneyland" or "Listen to Beethoven" or "Go to Wikipedia" and countless other features. My Droid can also talk back, I can have it read me text messages while I am driving, or annouce reminders.

There are still more benefits...

6 Marks of the Novus Ordo Mass

by Father Stephen Somerville, S.T.L.

At the Good Friday trial of Jesus, Pontius Pilate the governor asked Jesus, "What is truth?" To this day, people are still wondering about truth, and where to find it. When St. John the Apostle wrote the introduction to this Gospel, he said to us, "In the beginning was the Word, the Word of God ... and (this) Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, and we (Apostles) saw His glory ... full of grace and truth." Jesus, the Word of God, is full of truth. We must constantly refer to Jesus to know the Truth.

In the very first prayer of the Roman Canon of the Mass, we pray God the Father to bless our sacrifice which is offered for the whole Church, including all right-thinking believers and teachers of the Catholic and Apostolic Faith.

Thus, in every Mass, we recall that Jesus is full of truth, and has given us a faith that makes us right- thinking believers. Let me add one article of this Catholic faith of ours. This article or truth is spelled out in the Secret Prayer of one of the Sunday Masses after Pentecost. This truth is that God has enacted one perfect sacrifice, that of Jesus His Son, in place of all the victims that were sacrificed under the Old Testament before Christ. We pray God to receive this one perfect sacrifice and to sanctify it in order to help us all to attain salvation.

Now I sum up briefly: Jesus, full of truth, has given us a right-thinking Faith that says the Mass is a perfect sacrifice of Jesus' very Body and Blood, that replaces all the Old Testament sacrifices of lambs and bullocks and so forth.

I want to remind you, in sadness, that those who are called Protestant do not accept this notion that the Mass or Eucharist is a true, unbloody sacrifice of the real Body and Blood of Christ. For Protestants, the Eucharist or communion service is merely a religious meal that is a symbol and memorial of the Last Supper of Jesus. It is not a true victim-sacrifice offered by an actual priest. This contradiction of our Catholic faith means that we cannot consider our Protestant neighbors to be "right-thinking believers," even though we may love them and pray for them. What is more, you know that there are other notions or articles of Catholic Faith that Protestants do not accept. Examples are the Seven Sacraments, the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Holy Mary, and the Infallibility of the Pope.

But let us return to the Mass. In 1969, Max Thurian, an important Protestant theologian who helped found the ecumenical Taize monastery in France, made this statement: "It is now theologically possible for Protestants to use the same Mass as Catholics." Protestants offering the same Mass as Catholics? How is this possible? How can we all be "right-thinking believers"? How can Protestants in honest conscience accept to offer the Catholic Mass?

To answer these questions, remember that the year is 1969. The Second Vatican Council of the Catholic Church has ended only 4 years earlier, in 1965. The Liturgy Commission set up by the Pope in early 1964 was mandated to prepare a reform of the Mass and all the other liturgy services of the Catholic Church. This commission, called Consilium for short, did in fact reform the Mass, quite promptly, and the Pope, who was Paul VI, did approve this new order or Novus Ordo of Mass on April 3, 1969. This is the New English Mass that is so well known and used in Catholic churches today around the world. It is quite different in many respects, large and small, from the traditional Catholic Latin Mass, even though it is recognizably similar to a Catholic Mass. We must ask ourselves: How should right- thinking Catholic believers evaluate this New Mass of Vatican II? What should we ourselves, as right-thinking Catholic believers, think of the Novus Ordo Catholic Mass, the Vatican II Mass, the neo-Catholic Mass?

To answer this serious question, let us briefly describe the New Mass in the language of expert theologians and liturgists.

First, they describe it as ECUMENICAL. This means designed to foster unity and agreement with non-Catholic beliefs. Thus it becomes important to "accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative". One must emphasize what we believe in common, and tone down the beliefs we do not share. The New Mass has changed many prayers, especially the Collects, to speak less of Hell, less of eternal punishment, less of the world as the enemy of God, less of the need to fast, and so on.

The Novus Ordo Mass is next described as ANTIQUARIAN. This means emphasizing the ancient, early, original features of the Mass in the time of the Church Fathers, that is, the first four to six centuries. It means recovering supposed early simplicity of worship, and other primitive qualities. It means diminishing or removing the enrichments of the Catholic Mass that were developed in medieval times, in renaissance or baroque times, in post-reformation times. It means a more austere, bare- bones, elemental kind of worship. Some of these simplifications include less bows or genuflections by the priest, shorter prayers, less use of bells and incense, less feasts of saints, less statues and holy water, and so forth. This then is the antiquarian aspect of the new liturgy.

The third characteristic is to be COMMUNITY- BASED. Now the community is the horizontal dimension, that is, around us. The alternative is the vertical dimension, that is, above us. It means pointing to God, to Heaven, to the angels. The Novus Ordo tends to emphasize us more than God, here more than hereafter, goodness in human society rather than in the mystical body of Christians. Notice that new churches, that is, Mass buildings, are wider and lower, with little or no tower that points up. Notice the big entrance lobby for people to meet and chat, horizontally, rather than to pray to Heaven, vertically. Notice the new sign of peace, when the congregation has a surge of hand-shaking. The New Mass, then, is community-based.

The next element is that of a DEMOCRATIC church. This means literally government by the people, rather than by priests and bishops and Pope, which is hierarchic, not democratic. It means that the Mass should be led not just by the priest, but by many lectors or readers taking turns, by many communion ministers, including women and even teenagers, by many ushers or so-called ministers of hospitality, and above all by a parish liturgy committee that decides the style and structure of the various Masses. The cantor or leader of song is another player on the team of the democratic liturgy.

A fifth trait of Novus Ordo is to be DESACRALIZED. This means rendered less sacred. It means signs of reverence or mystery, of transcendence or Heaven, should be reduced to a minimum or removed. Some of these eliminations and purgings of the Mass were mentioned earlier, under the antiquarianquality of keeping the gestures etc. of only the early age of the Church. Other trimming of the sacred we see in no more communion railing, no more Latin language, simpler and less ornate vestments, and in priests who do not even wear some of the proper vestments, but remain more casual. Many priests no longer wear clerical attire even outside the Mass. They celebrate Mass facing the people, not God. They act more as a chairman or presider of a meeting, rather than as a sacred Minister before God. This is liturgy desacralized. 

The sixth and last adjective to describe the Vatican II Mass is PROTESTANTIZED, that is, harmonized more with Protestant views and practices. This is a theological area, that is, it touches on what we are taught and do believe about God, about the Sacraments, the Church and so forth. Because of the ecumenical urge, and also the urge of modernist heresy, the designers of the new liturgy have certainly made Catholic worship more Protestant in tone and content. We could call this elementdeviance, because liturgists are deviating from traditional Catholic belief. Here are some specific examples:

• The doctrine of the Real Presence is toned down, that is, the reality of Jesus' Body and Blood under the appearance of bread and wine. Thus the tabernacle is off in a corner or even in a separate room, out-of-sight. One receives Communion not kneeling and on the tongue, but standing and in the hand. One must fast not three hours or from midnight, but only one hour. The word transubstantiation is omitted from documents on the Mass.

• The practice and doctrine of Confession, almost unknown among Protestants, is less and less surviving among Catholics, and the risk of sacrilegious communions is now chronic, that is, Holy Communions received in the state of mortal sin or without prior absolution by the priest.

• The ministerial role of the priest is much diminished. We spoke of this in the democratic emphasis in the new Mass. The priest is actually a man chosen apart and made sacred for a holy task of offering worship and sacrifice, even if only few or no faithful are present. But the new priest concept is more that of a functionary, an elected or appointed official, a presider or master of ceremonies, even sometimes an entertainer. No wonder there are few young men today answering the call to be such an uninspiring, humanist kind of priest.

We already noted that the sacrificial character of the Mass has been largely lost. The Mass is merely a "sacrifice of praise" now, in offering of holy words to God. One quality of true sacrifice is to bepropitiatory, that is, appeasing God's anger over our sins. If we believe that Jesus did this more than adequately on Good Friday for all time, or if we believe that God is too kind and loving to demand atonement for sin, or if we believe that God is too magnificent to be offended by our puny sins, then we have lost the Catholic Faith, and, in this case, a propitiatory sacrifice would make no sense.

We have now seen the six marks of the New Order of Catholic Mass: ecumenical, antiquarian, community-based, democratic, desacralized, and deviant or protestantized. By contrast with Catholic tradition up to 1960 and before Vatican II, it features numerous changes, reversals, and opposites, and it is hardly a Mass for right- thinking believers. It makes us understand why a strong and holy movement to preserve and restore the traditional Latin Catholic Mass sprang up very soon after Vatican Council II. It is sad to report that this traditional Catholic movement is ignored, or suppressed, or combated fiercely by the Novus Ordo establishment. I hope you will follow up this short meditation by constant prayer, and generous reading and study, so that we all become or remain "right-thinking believers," and disciples of traditional, Catholic Truth.

EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS

(No Salvation Outside the Church)

Today's pluralistic and godless society creates an environment of indifference in matters of religion in order to achieve a false and empty unity and liberty. It is said that everyone must be allowed to believe as they see fit and do what makes them happy. The implication is that God is not very concerned about whether one believes in what is true, for all will be saved as long as they are "nice." Some come to this conclusion by asserting that there does not exist any objective truth for us to adhere to, which in turn leads to a denial of the existence of God. Others say that there exist only a few basic objective truths that we need to believe in order to be saved. Both opinions miss the plain reality of the order established by God – one must believe all and everything that the Catholic Church teaches to be saved.

This assertion implies that all non-Catholic religions are false, that only the Catholic Church contains the entire deposit of Truth given to the Apostles by Christ, and that this entire deposit – not a majority of it or a part of it – is necessary for salvation. Although these truths are denied and scorned by today's world, they are fully in accord with common sense and the constant teaching of the Church. Christ gave to the Apostles the entire deposit of faith ("The Holy Ghost will teach you all things" John 14:26), told them to pass it on to the world ("Going therefore, teach ye all nations" Matt. 28:19), and threatened damnation for those who did not believe them ("He who believes not will be condemned" Mark 16:16). He would not have condemned to hell the disbelievers if either it was not important to believe all that the Apostles taught or if He was not certain that the Apostles were teaching the truth ("He that heareth you heareth Me"Luke 10:16). The Apostles themselves knew that all who believed in any way different from their infallible teaching would perish – "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema" (Gal. 1:8).

Christ did not intend for only men who lived in the Apostles' lifetime to know and live the Truth. He ensured that the deposit of faith would be passed on throughout the generations so that all might have an opportunity to believe all that He entrusted to the Apostles – "I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world" (Matt. 28:20). His truth, the actual truth, never changes, and it is as important to hold it today as it was in the first century. It is only by holding to what is true that we can love and serve God and be saved, for false principles lead to evil actions. Since there is only one truth and it is unchanging and indispensable, it is impossible for more than one of the systems of belief or religions that exist in the world to lead to salvation. Any other position negates the words of Our Lord.

It is certainly through the Catholic Church that Our Lord has guided men to keep the deposit entrusted to the Apostles throughout the centuries. It is the Catholic Church that defeated the many heresies against the nature and person of Christ, long before Protestant denominations appeared, such as Arianism, Monophysitism, Monothelitism, Nestorianism, Pelagianism, Apollonarism, etc.. – all of these had to be opposed vigorously with the true doctrine before they were extirpated, and some still exist today. It is the Catholic Church that holds to the same doctrines that the Fathers, who had the words of the Apostles "resounding in their ears", taught and defended and which all but the schismatics reject today – auricular confession, veneration of images, the Real Presence in the Eucharist, the existence of seven sacraments, the Church as the final arbiter of all doctrinal disputes, and many more. It is only the Catholic Church that has not changed and it is only She that has existed since the time of Christ.

The Church has certainly always been aware that she has been given by Christ the entire deposit of revelation to guard until the last day and thus asserts the infallibility of her Supreme Pastor, appointed by Christ to be His Vicar on earth, and also that salvation can be found only within her maternal bosom. Whenever the Pope, 1.) using his full apostolic authority, 2.) defines, 3.) as supreme teacher of all Christians, 4.) a matter of faith or morals 5.) that must be held by the universal Church, he is infallible and is expressing a doctrine that is part of the deposit of the faith entrusted to the Apostles and which has been believed always and everywhere by Catholics.

The Catholic Church has solemnly defined three times by infallible declarations that outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation. The most explicit and forceful of the three came from <span> Pope Eugene IV</span>, in the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441, who proclaimed ex cathedra: "The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, also Jews, heretics, and schismatics can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire 'which was prepared for the devil and his angels' (Mt. 25:41) unless before death they are joined with Her... No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."

The other two infallible declarations are as follows: There is one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all can be saved. <span> Pope Innocent III</span>, ex cathedra, (Fourth Lateran Council, 1215).

We declare, say , define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. <span> Pope Boniface VIII</span>, (Unam Sanctam, 1302).

This means, and has always meant, that salvation and unity exist only within the Catholic Church, and that members of heretical groups cannot be considered as "part" of the Church of Christ. This doctrine has been the consistent teaching of the Popes throughout the centuries.

Further, it is dogmatically set forth that no authority in the Church, no matter how highly placed, may lawfully attempt to change the clear meaning of this (or any) infallible dogma. Vatican I taught: "The meaning of Sacred Dogmas, which must always be preserved, is that which our Holy Mother the Church has determined. Never is it permissible to depart from this in the name of a deeper understanding." This same Vatican I defined solemnly that not even a Pope may teach a new doctrine.

Naturally, the truth that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church has been supported by all the saints from every age. Following are several examples:

St. Irenaeus (130-202), Bishop and Martyr: "The Church is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account we are bound to avoid them . . . . We hear it declared of the unbelieving and the blinded of this world that they shall not inherit the world of life which is to come . . . . Resist them in defense of the only true and life giving faith, which the Church has received from the Apostles and imparted to her sons."

St. Augustine (354-430), Bishop and Doctor of the Church: "No man can find salvation except in the Catholic Church. Outside the Catholic Church one can have everything except salvation. One can have honor, one can have sacraments, one can sing alleluia, one can answer amen, one can have faith in the Name of the Father and the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and preach it too, but never can one find salvation except in the Catholic Church."

St. Fulgentius (468-533), Bishop: "Most firmly hold and never doubt that not only pagans, but also Jews, all heretics, and all schismatics who finish this life outside of the Catholic Church, will go into eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels."

Pope St. Gregory the Great (590-604): "The holy universal Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in Her and asserts that all who are outside of Her will not be saved."

St. Francis of Assisi (1182-1226): "All who have not believed that Jesus Christ was really the Son of God are doomed. Also, all who see the Sacrament of the Body of Christ and do not believe it is really the most holy Body and Blood of the Lord . . . these also are doomed!"

St. Thomas Aquinas (1226-1274), the Angelic Doctor: There is no entering into salvation outside the Catholic Church, just as in the time of the Flood there was not salvation outside the Ark, which denotes the Church."

St. Louis Marie de Montfort (1673-1716): "There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. Anyone who resists this truth perishes."

St. Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621), Bishop and Doctor of the Church: "Outside the Church there is no salvation...therefore in the symbol (Apostles Creed) we join together the Church with the remission of sins: 'I believe in the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins"...For this reason the Church is compared to the Ark of Noah, because just as during the deluge, everyone perished who was not in the ark, so now those perish who are not in the Church."

St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori (1696-1787), Bishop and Doctor of the Church: "All the misfortunes of unbelievers spring from too great an attachment to the things of life. This sickness of heart weakens and darkens the understanding, and leads to eternal ruin. If they would try to heal their hearts by purging them of their vices, they would soon receive light, which would show them the necessity of joining the Catholic Church, where alone is salvation. We should constantly thank the Lord for having granted us the gift of the true Faith, by associating us with the children of the Holy Catholic Church ... How many are the infidels, heretics, and schismatics who do not enjoy the happiness of the true Faith! Earth is full of them and they are all lost!"

Pope Pius XII (1939-1958): Some say they are not bound by the doctrine which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing. Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation. Others finally belittle the reasonable character of the credibility of Christian Faith. These and like ERRORS, it is clear, have crept in among certain of our sons who are deceived by imprudent zeal for souls or by false science." (The dates for the two Popes are the years they reigned as Sovereign Pontiffs.)

The greatest act of charity that one can perform is to bring others to the truth. The Catholic Faith is a gift from God, one that can be shared, one that gives life and salvation. Mother Church, being solicitous for the welfare of all mankind, has always sought to bring all into the One Fold (John 10:16), and to unite all in the profession of the one Faith given to us by Christ through the Apostles. If She were to hide the truth, or be content to leave others in their error, She would be cruel and indifferent.

This is a great lesson for Catholics, for many do not esteem the priceless value of their Faith as they should. It must be given to others at every opportunity; it must be passed on to those who languish without the true sacraments, who struggle to interpret the Bible without an infallible teaching authority, or who lead often immoral lives without the guidance of the "pillar and ground of truth" (I Tim. 5"15).

Let all Catholics then, be both like the martyrs of old, who died rather than relinquish one doctrine of their Catholic Faith, and like the great missionaries, who endured extreme privations and sufferings in order to bring salvation to even one soul. It is only a firm belief in the importance of the Catholic Faith for salvation that motivated these heroic actions and it is only such a faith that can "overcome the world" today (I John 5:4).

5 Reasons people Hate Apple

I came across this humorous article online, and it didn't have a link to share it... Obviously from a fan of Apple... Also, for the record I would like to point out that when Apple had the Rainbow logo I was a raving fan, but since they changed logo (and company direction) I have been a hater and find that I fit into EVERY one of these categories. My first computer was an Apple ][e and my first PDA was an Apple Newton, which I still have and still works, however I bought a 3rd generation iPod that never worked properly.


Every company has its opponents, but Apple really gets people worked up. Some people hate Apple a lot, more than they hate Nazis or Smurfs. They leave angry comments on Apple blogs. Based on my extensive observations of the species, Apple-haters fall into five categories. If you're an Apple-hater, which one of these categories do you fit in?

You believe buying Apple undermines your individuality. You see yourself as making a bold stroke for your individuality and freedom by your refusal to buy Apple. You use words like "brainwashed" and "lemmings" to describe Apple fans.

Is this a good reason to hate Apple? No, it's dumb. Your choice of consumer products says nothing about your individuality. The true individual doesn't care what the herd does, he does what's right for him. Sometimes that means forging a unique path, but other times, what the masses do is just fine. If your sense of individuality is bound up in the consumer products you buy, then you have no individuality at all -- you're just one of the Body of Landru, kidding yourself that you're a unique special snowflake.

Moreover, Mac OS has just 5% market share, Windows still runs on more than 90% of desktops. The iPhone is only the third most popular phone in the U.S., lagging Android and BlackBerry. If Apple is trying to absorb everyone into its universal groupmind, they're doing a poor job of it.

You hate Apple culture. Your favorite word is "arrogance." You look at Apple's secretive culture, its slick stores, its polished advertising campaigns, and you think that Apple feels it's superior.

Is this a good reason to hate Apple? No, it's dumb. What do you care what Apple thinks about you? Do you get worked up in a hissy fit if the barista at Starbucks looks at you funny?

The more you go on about Apple's "arrogant" culture,the more you reveal about yourself, your own insecurities and father-issues. Go get therapy, give yourself a hug, and shut up about Apple already.

You've had a bad experience with Apple products. Every company produces occasional lemons, and if you're stuck with one of them, you're likely to hate the company that sold it to you.

Is this a good reason to hate Apple? Heck, yes. If a company sells me a bad product, or gives me lousy service, they're dead to me. I'm still holding a grudge over a bum Compaq laptop I bought in 2002. I have a voodoo doll of Carly Fiorina that I torture whenever I'm felling blue. Carly, you know that pain you occasionally get in your lower back? That's me.

On the other hand, relatively few people have had bad experiences with Apple. Apple has great quality control, its customer satisfaction rankings are routinely among the highest for retail experience, the App Store, the iPad, its technical support, and the iPhone.

But if you're one of the people having problems with the iPhone, or with any other Apple device or service, then I don't blame you for hating Apple.

Apple isn't right for you. There are great swathes of people for whom Apple products simply aren't right. Apple is rarely the right choice for large and medium-sized businesses. The company doesn't provide the kind of close, hands-on relationships that these customers require.

The iPhone isn't for everyone. Phone service is poor in many areas of the US, including New York, San Francisco, and Boston, so if voice calls are still very important to you, then you're better off with an alternative. Likewise, if you want tethering, true multi-tasking, an open operating system, or Flash support, then an Android is a better choice.

Is this a good reason to hate Apple? No, it's dumb. I don't like McDonald's, but I don't spend a lot of energy denouncing it. I just don't go there.

You hate Apple's closed architecture. By refusing to buy Apple, you see yourself as striking a blow for freedom. You believe that Apple's control over the App Store is an affront to your right to read what you want to read, view what you want to view, and run whatever software you choose, without Daddy Steve Jobs telling you what to do.

Is this a good reason to hate Apple? Well, half-and-half.

App Store restrictions protect the consumer. The iPhone is a device for people who don't want to take a lot of time customizing, managing, and learning to use their phone, and App Store restrictions mean consumers spend a lot less time worrying about porn (which many people don't want to see, even if it is also popular among many others), malware, and junk apps.

App Store restrictions do sometimes go too far, as when Apple blocks a a Pulitzer-prize-winning political cartoonist and an app from a Republican Congressional candidate. That was wrong. And while Apple reversed itself on those cases, we don't know how many other cases there may have been where the wronged app developer simply walked away quietly.

Overall, my beef with the App Store restrictions aren't that they exist, they're that they need to be better. I want a native Google Voice App -- Google developed one, but Apple rejected it. I want an app that will let me update all my podcasts automatically, over the air, without having to sync to iTunes; Apple blocked a podcasting app in 2008.

While Apple kills those useful apps, it allows more than a hundred fart apps, including iFart Mobile, Atomic Fart, Fart Piano, 1,000,000 Fart Generator, and something called "Bluetooth Fart" (because, presumably, USB and Firewire farts just weren't good enough). You stay classy, Apple.

Still: Apple is not blocking your choices. Apple isn't the only choice in any of the markets it serves, you can always buy an Android phone, a Windows desktop, and download your music from Amazon.com. If Apple is trying to control America's thoughts, they're doing a poor job of it, an alternative to Apple is on the next aisle of any electronics store.

Things we can learn from Alice

It's easy to think that Alice in Wonderland is a dreamland fairy tale for children. On the surface it appears to be just that. However, if you look closer, you will realise that Alice's world translates into much more than a children's fairytale.

The story has been studied by psychoanalysts since the early 1900's and although it's filled with chaos there is lots to learn from its underlying messages.


1. Manage your Personal Growth
The most important metaphor in the story is one of growth. We see Alice grow from tall to short and from big to small. Growing up is about changing body size, dealing with ups and downs, feeling confident or insecure about oneself. When Alice eats she grows, when she drinks she shrinks. She soon learns to use the resources in her world to control her personal growth.

We spend our lives 'growing up' in one way or another. What are you doing to manage your personal growth?


2. Be Specific about What You Want to Achieve
Alice learns about the importance of knowing what she wants. We can learn a great deal about the importance of goals from her conversation with the Cheshire Cat.

“Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?”
“'That depends a good deal on where you want to get to”' said the Cat.
“'I don't much care where” said Alice.
“Then it doesn't matter which way you go,” said the Cat.

Think about what you will achieve over the next 90 days! Write it down together with the steps that you will take to achieve that. Imagine specifically what you will see and hear as you achieve your goal. Think about it until you can run a mental movie of what you want over and over again. In particular think about how achieving your goal will make you feel, and build the intensity of that emotion in your mind.


3. Develop your Identity
The characters in wonderland continually ask Alice who she is. As a result, she questions her identity. When we have doubts about who we are and what we stand for it affects our entire life. Consider the roles you have in your life, for example; a parent, a spouse, a son or a daughter, a colleague, a leader or a friend. Write out the qualities you believe you have in those roles. E.g. "I am a caring father" or "I am a creative business person". Remember that you will assume different behaviours in each role. As you learn more about yourself in each role, you will reinforce your self-belief and learn to develop your capabilities within each role.

4. Say What you Really Mean
Alice is continually told to say what she means. How often do you really say what you mean? When did you last have a conversation really meaningful conversation? When you connect with people who share similar values, you will find that you share more meaningful conversations.


5. Challenge your Creativity
In the latest movie Alice's father, a successful entrepreneur, tells her that he thinks of 6 impossible things before breakfast every day. Imagine if you just thought of 1 impossible thing per day. You could find ways to solve problems or create something that was never invented before. Get your creative juices flowing by thinking of 1 impossible thing everyday.


6. Follow the Advice you Give Yourself
"Alice generally gave herself good advice (though she very seldom followed it)."
Do you give yourself good advice and do you follow it? Or are we better at giving others advice and expecting them to follow it?

Whether you enjoy this fairytale for its entertainment value or search for the deeper meaning like I have, there is lots of value to be had.

We spend all of our lives “growing up” in one way or another. The underlying messages in Alice in Wonderland are about personal growth and development. Growing up is about learning who we are, what we stand for, what we want to do, be and have. It's about dealing with difficulty, hurt and pain as well as love, laughter and fun. It's about overcoming fears, embracing new challenges and nurturing relationships. It's about using our talents and learning to be the best we can be.

This may be a children's story at heart, however we can learn a great deal from a young girl who acquires the confidence and courage to break free from rules to become that person she aspires to be.

Sixty-two reasons why, in conscience, we cannot attend the New Mass

Sixty-two reasons why, in conscience, we cannot attend the New Mass (also known as Mass of Pope Paul VI, Novus Ordo, new liturgy) either in the vernacular or the Latin, whether facing the people or facing the tabernacle. Thus, for the same reasons, we adhere faithfully to the traditional Mass (also known as Tridentine Mass, old Latin Mass, Roman Missal, Pian Missal, Missal of St. Pius V, Mass of All Time).

1. Because the New Mass is not an unequivocal Profession of Catholic faith (which the Traditional Mass is), it is ambiguous and Protestant. Therefore, since we pray as we believe, it follows that we cannot pray with the New Mass in Protestant fashion and still believe as Catholics!

2. Because the changes were not just slight ones but actually "deal with a fundamental renovation...a total change...a new creation" (Msgr. A. Bugnini, co-author of the New Mass).

3. Because the New Mass leads us to think "that truths...can be changed or ignored without infidelity to that sacred deposit of doctrine to which the Catholic Faith is bound forever."*

4. Because the New Mass represents "a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent" which, in fixing the "canons," provided an "insurmountable barrier to any heresy against the integrity of the Mystery."*

5. Because the difference between the two is not simply one of mere detail or just modification of ceremony, but "all that is of perennial value finds only a minor place (in the New Mass), if it subsists at all."*

6. Because "Recent reforms have amply demonstrated that fresh changes in the liturgy could lead to nothing but complete bewilderment in the faithful who already show signs of uneasiness and lessening of faith."*

7. Because in times of confusion such as now, we are guided by the words of Our Lord: "By their fruits you shall know them." Fruits of the New Mass are: 30% decrease in Sunday Mass in U.S. (NY Times 5/24/75), 43% decrease in France (Cardinal Marty), 50% decrease in Holland (NY Times 1/5/76).

8. Because "amongst the best of the clergy the practical result (of the New Mass) is an agonizing crisis of conscience..."*

9. Because in less than seven years after the introduction of the New Mass, priests in the world decreased from 413,438 to 243,307 -- almost 50% (Holy See Statistics).

10. Because "The pastoral reasons adduced to support such a grave break with tradition...do not seem to us sufficient."*

11. Because the New Mass does not manifest Faith in the Real Presence of our Lord -- the traditional Mass manifests it unmistakably.

12. Because the New Mass confuses the REAL Presence of Christ in the Eucharist with His MYSTICAL Presence among us (proximating Protestant doctrine).

13. Because the New Mass blurs what ought to be a sharp difference between the HIERARCHIC Priesthood and the common priesthood of the people (as does Protestantism).

14. Because the New Mass favors the heretical theory that it is THE FAITH of the people and not THE WORDS OF THE PRIEST which makes Christ present in the Eucharist.

15. Because the insertion of the Lutheran "Prayer of the Faithful" in the New Mass follows and puts forth the Protestant Error that all the people are priests.

16. Because the New Mass does away with the Confiteor of the priest, makes it collective with the people, thus promoting Luther's refusal to accept the Catholic teaching that the priest is judge, witness and intercessor with God.

17. Because the New Mass gives us to understand that the people concelebrate with the priest -- which is against Catholic theology!

18. Because six Protestant ministers collaborated in making up the New Mass (Drs. George, Jasper, Shepherd, Kunneth, Smith and Thurian).

19. Because just as Luther did away with the Offertory -- since it very clearly expressed the sacrificial, propitiatory character of the Mass -- so also the New Mass did away with it, reducing it to a simple Preparation of the Gifts.

20. Because enough Catholic theology has been removed that Protestants can, while keeping their antipathy for the true Roman Catholic Church, use the text of the New Mass without difficulty. Protestant minister Thurian said that a fruit of the New Mass "will perhaps be that non-Catholic communities will be able to celebrate the Lord's Supper using the same prayers as the Catholic Church." (La Croix 4/30/69).

21. Because the narrative manner of the Consecration in the New Mass infers that it is only a memorial and not a true sacrifice (Protestant thesis).

22. Because by grave omissions, the New Mass leads us to believe that it is only a meal (Protestant doctrine) and not a sacrifice for the remission of sins (Catholic doctrine).

23. Because the changes such as: table instead of altar, facing people instead of tabernacle, Communion in the hand, etc., emphasize Protestant doctrines (e.g. Mass is only a meal, priest is only a president of the assembly, etc.).

24. Because Protestants themselves have said "the new Catholic Eucharistic Prayers have abandoned the false perspective of sacrifice offered to God." (La Croix 12/10/69).

25. Because we are faced with a dilemma: either we become Protestantized by worshiping with the New Mass, or else we preserve our Catholic Faith by adhering faithfully to the traditional Mass of All Time.

26. Because the New Mass was made in accordance with the Protestant definition of the Mass: "The Lord's Supper or Mass is a sacred synaxis or assembly of the people of God which gathers together under the presidence of the priest to celebrate the memorial of the Lord" (Par. 7 Introd. to the New Missal, defining the New Mass, 4/6/69).

27. Because by means of ambiguity, the New Mass pretends to please Catholics while pleasing Protestants; thus it is "double-tongued" and offensive to God who abhors any kind of hypocrisy: "Cursed be...the double-tongued for they destroy the peace of many." (Sirach 28:13).

28. Because beautiful, familiar Catholic hymns which have inspired people for centuries have been thrown out and replaced with new hymns strongly Protestant in sentiment, further deepening the already distinct impression that one is no longer attending a Catholic function.

29. Because the New Mass contains ambiguities subtly favoring heresy, which is more dangerous than if it were clearly heretical since a half-heresy resembles the truth!

30. Because Christ has only one Spouse, the Catholic Church, and her worship service cannot also serve religions that are at enmity with her.

31. Because the New Mass follows the format of Cranmer's heretical Anglican Mass, and the methods use to promote it follow precisely the methods of the English heretics.

32. Because Holy Mother Church canonized numerous English martyrs who were killed because they refused to participate at a Mass such as the New Mass!

33. Because Protestants who once converted to Catholicism are scandalized to see that the New Mass is the same as the one they attended as Protestants. One of them, Julian Green, asks, "Why did we convert?"

34. Because statistics show a great decrease in conversions to Catholicism following use of the New Mass. Conversions, which were up to 100,000 a year in the U.S., have decreased to less than 10,000!

35. Because the traditional Mass has forged many saints. "Innumerable saints have been fed abundantly with the proper piety towards God by it..." (Pope Paul VI, Const. Apost. Missale Romanum)

36. Because the nature of the New Mass is such as to facilitate profanations of the Holy Eucharist, which occur with a frequency unheard of with the Traditional Mass.

37. Because the New Mass, despite appearances, conveys a New Faith, not the Catholic Faith. It conveys Modernism and follows exactly the tactics of Modernism, using vague terminology in order to insinuate and advance Error.

38. Because by introducing optional variations, the New Mass undermines the unity of the liturgy, with each priest liable to deviate as he fancies under the guise of creativity. Disorder inevitably results, accompanied by lack of respect and irreverence.

39. Because many good Catholic theologians, canonists, and priests do not accept the New Mass, and affirm that they are unable to celebrate it in good conscience.

40. Because the New Mass has eliminated such things as: genuflections (only three remain), purifications of the priest's fingers in the chalice, preservation from all profane contact of the priest's fingers after Consecration, sacred altar stone and relics, three altar cloths (reduced to one), all of which "only serve to emphasize how outrageously faith in the dogma of the Real Presence is implicitly repudiated."*

41. Because the traditional Mass, enriched and matured by centuries of Sacred Tradition, was codified (not invented) by a pope who was a Saint, Pius V, whereas the New Mass was artificially fabricated.

42. Because the Errors of the New Mass which are accentuated in the vernacular version are even present in the Latin text of the New Mass.

43. Because the New Mass, with its ambiguity with permissiveness, exposes us to the wrath of God by facilitating the risk of invalid celebrations. "Will priests of the near future who have not recieved the traditional formation, and who rely on the Novus Ordo with the intention of 'doing what the Church does,' consecrate validly? One may be allowed to doubt it."*

44. Because the abolition of the Traditional Mass recalls the prophecy of Daniel 8:12: "And he was given power against the perpetual sacrifice because of the sins of the people" and the observation of St. Alphonsus de Liguori that because the Mass is the best and most beautiful thing which exists in the Church here below, the devil has always tried by means of heretics to deprive us of it.

45. Because in places where the traditional Mass is preserved, the faith and fervor of the people are greater, whereas the opposite is true where the New Mass reigns. (Report on the Mass, Diocese of Campos, ROMA, Buenos Aires 69, 8/81)

46. Because along with the New Mass goes also a new catechism, a new morality, new prayers, new ideas, a new calendar -- in one word, a New Church, a complete revolution from the old. "The liturgical reform...do not be deceived, this is where the revolution begins." (Msgr. Dwyer, Archbishop of Birmingham, spokesman of the Episcopal Synod.)

47. Because the intrinsic beauty of the traditional Mass attracts souls by itself; whereas the New Mass, lacking any attractiveness of its own, has to invent novelties and entertainments in order to appeal to people.

48. Because the New Mass embodies numerous errors condemned dogmatically at the Council of Trent (Mass totally in vernacular, words of Consecration spoken aloud, etc. See Condemnation of Jansenist Synod of Pistoia), and errors condemned by Pope Pius XII (e.g. altar in form of a table. See Mediator Dei.)

49. Because the New Mass attempts to transform the Catholic Church into a new, ecumenical Church embracing all ideologies and all religions -- a goal long dreamt of by the enemies of the Catholic Church.

50. Because the New Mass, in removing the salutations and final blessing when the priest celebrates alone, shows a disbelief in the dogma of the Communion of Saints.

51. Because the altar and tabernacle are now separated, thus marking a division between Christ in His-priest-and-Sacrifice-on-the-altar, from Christ in His Real Presence in the tabernacle, "two things that of their very nature must remain together." (Pope Pius XII)

52. Because the New Mass no longer constitutes a vertical worship from man to God, but instead a horizontal worship between man and man.

53. Because the New Mass, although appearing to conform to the dispositions of Vatican Council II, in reality opposes its instructions, since the Council declared its desire to conserve and promote the traditional rite.

54. Because the traditional Latin Mass of Pope St. Pius V has never been legally abrogated and therefore remains a true rite of the Catholic Church by which Catholics may fulfill their Sunday obligation.

55. Because Pope St. Pius V granted a perpetual indult, valid "for always," to celebrate the traditional Mass freely, licitly, without scruple of conscience, punishment, sentence or censure" (Papal Bull "Quo Primum").

56. Because Pope Paul VI, when promulgating the New Mass, himself declared, "The rite...by itself is NOT a dogmatic definition..." (11/19/69)

57. Because Pope Paul VI, when asked by Cardinal Heenan of England if he was abrogating or prohibiting the Tridentine Mass, answered: "It is not my intention to prohibit absolutely the Tridentine Mass."

58. Because "in the Libera Nos of the New Mass, the Blessed Virgin, the Apostles and all the Saints are no longer mentioned; her and their intercession thus no longer asked, even in time of peril."*

59. Because in none of the three new Eucharistic Prayers (of the New Mass) is there any reference...to the state of suffering of those who have died, in none the possibility of a particular Memento, thus undermining faith in the redemptive nature of the Sacrifice.*

60. Because we recognize the Holy Father's supreme authority in his universal government of Holy Mother Church, but we know that even this authority cannot impose upon us a practice which is so CLEARLY against the Faith: a Mass that is equivocal and favoring heresy and therefore disagreeable to God.

61. Because, as stated in Vatican Council I, the "Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter, that by His revelation they might make new doctrine, but that by His assistance they might inviolably keep and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith delivered through the Apostles." (D.S. 3070)

62. Because heresy, or whatever clearly favors heresy, cannot be a matter for obedience. Obedience is at the service of Faith and not Faith at the service of obedience! In this foregoing case then, "One must obey God rather than men." (Acts of the Apostles 5,29)

* Letter of Cardinals A. Ottaviani and A. Bacci to Pope Paul VI, dated September 25, 1969 enclosing A Critical Study of The Novus Ordo Missae.

Music

So I was thinking as I compiled music to carry with me how many songs I have and how many albums (CDs for the youngins). It occured to me that I only have 5, yes 5 albums that I would listen to all the way through and like EVERY song. They are not necessarily listed in order of preference, but by release date.

Trans-X - Living On Video (February 2, 1986)
Pet Shop Boys - Please (March 24, 1986)
Boston - Third Stage (September 23, 1986)
Debbie Gibson - Out Of The Blue (August 18, 1987)
Debbie Gibson - Electric Youth (January 2 1989)

So in almost 20 years no artist or band has produced an album (not including greatest hits compilations) that I like every song. But this goes way back also, all the way to the 50’s. It also amazes me that all 5 of these albums all came out within 4 years of each other. To top things off I still listen to these all the way through, in the order that the artist arranged them.

I guess that is why everyone buys just the songs they want online since there is no point in buying a disc with only a couple "good" songs on it.