When I wrote about recent Apple partnerships with businesses, I only looked at part of the equation. There’s a lot more to report, but I’ll get to that shortly.

 

Now the closest look I had at the business case for the Mac was a company I worked at during the mid-to-late-1980s. It was a prepress shop, a descendant of traditional typesetting, which output clients’ jobs on a high resolution printing device from CompuGraphic. It was a close cousin to phototypesetting, based on similar output technology, but incorporating Adobe

PostScript for compatibility with documents created by our clients.

 

Despite the fact that the Mac started the desktop revolution, Microsoft still ruled the roost when it came to personal computers. In the days of MS-DOS, Macs were not taken seriously by most business. Point and click was not the way to do real work. Macs were just toys, or best used by artists and entertainers.

 

But I remember one important factor that cemented the dilemma of the PC user. I wanted to set up online chats with an office colleague, who used a PC. I used a Mac app, Microphone plus a modem, and I was able to set it up and begin to run terminal sessions in less than 15 minutes. The fellow at the office told me he was setting up a “shell” on his PC, and he’d have it working soon. Each day he’d tell me he was close. Just a few more things to do, and it would be ready.

Soon became never and he eventually left the company. I lost touch with him then.

 

Once Windows became useful enough for most work, Microsoft came close to killing the Mac. Software companies made Windows versions of their products. True, it was harder to set things up on a Windows PC, and maintaining those boxes was costlier than a Mac, even though the Mac cost more.

 

But the enterprise didn’t get the memo, at least not then.

 

Worse, Apple really didn’t pay attention to the business market except in the areas where the Mac first became popular. This situation existed more or less until the iPhone arrived. As hundreds of millions bought them, customers looked to Macs as a way to ensure a consistent experience within Apple’s ecosystem. Both the iPhone and the iPad had high business penetration percentages, and Apple provided the tools to help IT people to manage deployment of these devices quickly and safely.

 

In recent years, Apple has made notable conquests for Macs in the enterprise. As I reported previously, IBM made a deal to work with Apple to build special mobile apps, and even gave employees the option to use Macs instead of PCs. They also reported something Mac users have known all along, that a company saves hundreds of dollars per device due to the much lower support costs when they switch. It makes up for the differences in purchase price.

 

Many companies also allow their employees to bring their own devices (BYOD), which means that you don’t have to depend on what the IT person gives you. That has only added to Apple’s ability to chip away at Microsoft’s dominance.

 

According to published reports, such companies as Delta Air Lines and GE are now deploying Macs and iOS gear. Other adopters include Capital One, the financial company, Bank of America, Medtronic, Panera and even Walmart. Walmart? The New York City police have given up on Windows phones because Microsoft doesn’t support the platform anymore? They bought iPhones.

 

This is just the tip of the iceberg. But isn’t it curious that it’s taken the enterprise over 30 years to realize that Macs are cheaper to run and more reliable? We are in the twilight of the PC area, and Microsoft is no longer a dominant player in all markets it enters. The Windows Phone platform has failed miserably, and is basically history in the wake of Microsoft’s failed acquisition of Nokia’s handset division. Ask the former Nokia employees who got pink slips.

 

At one time the Mac’s market share had declined to what might be referred to as little more than a rounding error in some countries. It’s a lot better now, and when it comes to the mobile space, Windows Phone’s market share is a rounding error since it’s so low. It’s not that Nokia handsets were bad. They were, in fact, well reviewed, or maybe tech journalists cut them too much slack. Clearly customers weren’t buying.

 

iOS gear has clearly helped Apple make unexpected inroads into the enterprise. As companies bought iPhones and iPads, dumping PCs for Macs proved to be a fairly easy process, especially if a company used apps that are available on the Mac. Those that rely on Office should be able to move over without much trouble, although some less-used features might not have been brought over. It helps that Microsoft also offers credible versions of Office on iPhones and iPads.

 

As for apps that aren’t available in Mac versions, the ability to run Windows and other operating systems within virtual machines, such as Parallels Desktop, or via Boot Camp, completes the process. Running macOS and Windows side by side with great performance can clinch the deal.

 

This is, by the way, a key reason why Apple probably will not move the Mac to its custom ARM CPUs. The Mac platform has grown considerably since the switch to Intel. So why switch?

 

Now when I recall my Mac experiences of 30 years ago, I hardly expected it would take all these years for businesses to take them seriously. But it’s better late than never.

 

Peace,

 

Gene Steinberg

 

----

Gene Steinberg is a guest contributor to GCN news. His views and opinions, if expressed, are his own. Gene hosts The Tech Night Owl LIVE - broadcast on Saturday from 9:00pm - Midnight (CST), and The Paracast - broadcast on Sunday from 3:00am - 6:00am (CST). Both shows nationally syndicated through GCNlive. Gene’s Tech Night Owl Newsletter is a weekly information service of Making The Impossible, Inc. -- Copyright © 1999-2017. Click here to subscribe to Tech Night Owl Newsletter. This article was originally published at Technightowl.com -- reprinted with permission.

 

I’ve been looking to adopt a dog for about two months now, and while I’ve been picky about what type of dog I want to adopt, potential pet owners are subject to a more investigative process than potential gun owners.

I want a dog for multiple reasons. I just bought a home with a fenced yard, so I finally have the space to get the type of dog I want. I’ve always liked big, lap dogs, specifically, those that have come to be called “aggressive breeds” or “bully breeds.” I’ve come to despise those monikers because a dog’s behavior is representative of its owner. So despite having big teeth and a large bite radius, an “aggressive breed” like a Rottweiler is only aggressive if the owner makes it so, just as a gun is only dangerous if the owner makes it so.

Now, if you want to call them “protective breeds,” I’d be fine with that, because that’s what they are -- protective of their owners. That’s just one of the reasons I want a dog. I live in a relatively high crime rate area, especially when it comes to vehicle and home burglaries, but I’d rather have a home security system that acts instead of phoning the police. A dog might not be a better deterrent than those home security stickers people put in their windows, but a home security system doesn’t have a personality, either. I’ll take the personality.

I’ve never owned a gun and have never come across a reason for owning a gun. I grew up shooting BB-guns with my grandfather like most Americans. I even hunted as a child (once) but still never felt a gun to be necessary. The first day I went hunting, I shot a Whitetail doe in the neck while it was running away from me -- the perfect shot for preserving the meat. I was praised by all the old men who accompanied my dad and me, but I wasn’t surprised by my ability. I was the best marksman in my hunter safety course, and yet I still didn’t feel comfortable using a gun. I didn’t think it was fair to the deer. I find bow-hunting more sporting, or even fishing.

I’ve also enjoyed firing handguns for recreation, but that’s not reason enough for me to own a handgun. It certainly wouldn’t be my first choice when it comes to home protection, but it is for too many Americans in my opinion. Stand-your-ground laws have only exacerbated this situation.    

I’ve submitted multiple applications revealing more about myself and my home than is required to get a gun. Some pet adoption agencies even require a home inspection, but getting a gun in this country is as simple as attending a gun show with enough cash in-hand or knowing someone with a gun looking to sell. I asked Minnesota Senators Al Franken and Amy Klobuchar whether they thought legislation that would make the gun application process mirror the pet adoption process could pass Congress, and only got a vague, email response from Franken.

“We can...address gun violence by closing loopholes in the federal background check system so that guns don't get into the wrong hands, like convicted felons or people with serious mental illness,” the letter read.

The response doesn’t answer my question, of course, but I think members of all political parties can agree that “gun control” should start with controlling who can get guns. The fact we as a society are more concerned about who owns a dog than who owns a gun reveals plenty about the American way. Dogs, like guns, aren’t inherently dangerous. Dog owners and gun owners are dangerous. A dog in the wrong hands can be as dangerous as a gun in the wrong hands. Both can take a life.

--

If you like this, you might like these Genesis Communications Network talk shows: The Costa Report, Free Talk Live, Flow of Wisdom, America’s First News, America Tonight, Bill Martinez Live, Korelin Economics Report, The KrisAnne Hall Show, Radio Night Live, The Real Side, World Crisis Radio, Lock ‘n Load

Look out sports fans! Maybe, just maybe, baseball is making a big comeback. Now I know we are in the middle of football season. Down my way in the Bayou State, both the Saints and the LSU Tigers are on a roll. And a hyped-up basketball season is just beginning. But baseball is drawing record crowds with the World Series ringing up the largest TV audiences in years.

 

The luster is off pro football. The “take-a-knee” controversy has turned off thousands of viewers. Just check out all the empty seats at any Sunday NFL game. Quite frankly, many of the pro games are, well, just boring. Then there is the “thug factor” and the statistic that some 50 NFL players have been arrested for domestic violence. To many former sports fans, politics has become their favorite entertaining diversion.

 

Just what is America’s favorite pastime? Is it politics or baseball? Politics has always been a major spectator sport, particularly here in my home state of Louisiana. But don’t sell baseball short. Not only has baseball been around longer than any of America’s professional team sports, the game’s highs and lows have been injected in national politics almost from the sport’s inception.

 

Now I’m a diehard baseball fan. I grew up in St. Louis and was in the stadium the Sunday afternoon back on May 2, 1954, when Stan the Man Musial hit five home runs on the same day in a doubleheader. I’m a regular at spring training down in Tampa, where I follow my perennial favorite, the New York Yankees.

 

Baseball has been well ahead of the NFL in confronting issues of race. The problems of major league baseball have often served as a mirror image of the problems facing America. Its history is both a reflection of this country’s fears and ignorance, and its hopes and promises. Like almost any other cultural phenomenon of such prominence, baseball has served as solace and as a poke to our conscience.

 

In 1948, the major leagues faced the problem of segregation earlier than the politicians in Washington, DC, did.  Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier playing for the Brooklyn Dodgers, and won the rookie of the year award in his first season. It took court cases and sit-ins to get the attention of our political representatives to follow suit.

 

A few years back, the Tampa Bay Rays were the Cinderella team that went from “worst to first,” winning the American League pennant. Maybe it has something to do with their name. They used to be called the “Devil Rays” and their record was terrible. As soon as they dropped the word “Devil,” they became victorious overnight. Is it baseball pure and simple, or is the Religious Right involved?



Maybe it’s impossible to get away from campaigns and politics by focusing on the current World Series, but I’m going to give it a shot.  The Fox network carried many major league games this season. In the National League, everyone, even the pitchers, get an equal chance to bat. Will Fox News say that the National Leaguers are socialists?  Will their commentators argue they should call some home runs out if they are too far to the left?  And I guess you can’t blame the Democrats from bemoaning that every time someone steals a base, they get reminded of the 2000 presidential election.

 

There is also a lesson to be learned from Babe Ruth as Congress is considering limiting executive pay and bonuses of corporations who received bailout money. When the Babe was asked how he could justify making more money than the President, he shrugged off the question by answering, “I had a better year.”

 

I suppose one of the biggest differences between these two spectator sports is the sense of optimism that baseball brings every spring. The crack of the bat, a pop fly against a blue sky, and the green grass seem to offer a sense of renewal. It harkens back to the essence of youth and heroes of the past, and you feel that almost anything is possible in the coming season.  But in today’s political climate, there is little thought of great statesmen and principled political figures.  Political courage today is too often defined by poll watching and sticking a wet finger to the wind.

 

So when the TV remote offers a choice of the NFL, politics or baseball in the coming week, I’ll choose the great American pastime.  It’s baseball hands down. Like a fellow once said: “The difference between politics and baseball is that in baseball, when you are caught stealing, you’re out.”

 

Peace and Justice

 

Jim Brown

 

----


Jim Brown is a guest contributor to GCN news. His views and opinions, if expressed, are his own. His column appears each week in numerous newspapers throughout the nation and on websites worldwide. You can read all his past columns and see continuing updates at http://www.jimbrownusa.com. You can also hear Jim’s nationally syndicated radio show, Common Sense, each Sunday morning from 9:00 am till 11:00 am Central Time on the Genesis Communication Network.

 

A third type of diabetes has been identified by researchers. Type 3c diabetes may be mistaken for Type 2 diabetes, causing delay of proper treatment.

 

Researchers from the University of Surrey found Type 3c diabetes to be more common in adults than Type 1 diabetes.  Moreover they found that those with Type 3c were twice as likely to have poor blood sugar control than those with Type 2 diabetes.

 

They believe, discussed below, that the diabetes occurs years after injury to the pancreas, the organ that produces insulin.  So a person with Type 3c diabetes will most likely need insulin rather than an oral medication that treats insulin resistance



Study author, Andrew McGovern, writes: …our latest study has revealed that most cases of type 3c diabetes are being wrongly diagnosed as type 2 diabetes. Only 3% of the people in our sample – of more than 2m – were correctly identified as having type 3c diabetes.

 

So if many Type 2 diabetics fail to maintain control with their oral medications that address insulin resistance, they may actually have Type 3c and need insulin instead as low insulin is the cause of their diabetes.  Identifying this early will hopefully prevent some of the complications that occur with long term diabetes.

 

What is diabetes?

 

Diabetes is a disease in which the body doesn’t utilize and metabolize sugar properly.  When we consume food, it’s broken down into proteins, nutrients, fats, water, and sugar. These components are necessary for cell growth and function. They get absorbed in the small intestine and make it to the blood stream.   In order for a cell to utilize sugar, it needs the hormone insulin to help guide it in.  It’s similar to a key that fits in the keyhole of the “door” of the cell, opening it up so sugar can enter.  Insulin is produced in the pancreas, an organ that receives signals when one eats to release insulin in preparation of the sugar load coming down the pike

 

Diabetes explained.

 

So I imagine our mouth like a waiting room, the blood stream like a hallway, and the cells of the body the rooms along the hallway.  Insulin is the key to open the cells’ “doors” allowing sugar to enter.  If the sugar does not get in, it stays in the bloodstream “hallway” and doesn’t feed the cell.  

 

Weight loss occurs, and individuals may become more thirsty as the sugar in the blood makes it fairly osmotic, something the body wants to neutralize, reduce. The kidneys are going to want dump the excess sugar, so to do so, one would urinate more, again causing thirst. So when a diabetic loses weight, urinates more frequently and becomes thirsty, you now understand why.

Type I vs. Type II vs. Type IIIc Diabetes.

 

Type I Diabetes, previously called insulin dependent or Juvenile diabetes, occurs when the pancreas doesn’t produce insulin, possibly from the immune system destroying the cells that produce the hormone. When this occurs there is rapid weight loss and death could occur if the cells don’t get the sugar they need.  Insulin has to be administered regularly.

 

Type II Diabetes, previously called non-insulin dependent or adult-onset diabetes,  occurs in those who began with a fully functioning pancreas but as they age the pancreas produces less insulin, called insulin deficiency, or the insulin produced meets resistance.  This is the fastest growing type of diabetes in both children and adults.

 

Type IIIc diabetes may occur in individuals who suffered damage to their pancreas.  Inflammation/infection of the pancreas (pancreatitis), a pancreatic tumor, or surgery affecting the pancreas may destroy the beta cells that produce insulin.



Complications of Diabetes

 

Cardiovascular disease – Sugar is sticky, so it can easily add to atherosclerotic plaques.



Blindness – high sugar content draws in water to neutralize and small blood vessels in the eye can only take so much fluid before they burst.  Moreover, high blood sugar weakens blood vessels.

 

Kidney disease – the kidneys work overtime to eliminate the excess sugar. Moreover, sugar laden blood isn’t the healthiest when they themselves need nourishment.

 

Infections – pathogens love sugar. Its food for them.  Moreover blood laden with sugar doesn’t allow immune cells to work in the most opportune environment.

Neuropathy – nerves don’t receive adequate blood supply due to the diabetes-damaged blood flow and vessels, hence they become dull or hypersensitive causing diabetics to have numbness or pain.

 

Dementia – as with the heart and other organs, the brain needs healthy blood and flow.  Diabetes has been found to increase risk of Alzheimer’s as well.

 

What is insulin resistance?

 

Insulin resistance, if using our hallway and door analogy, is as if someone is pushing against the door the insulin is trying to unlock. As we know, those with obesity are at higher risk for diabetes, hence fat can increase insulin resistance.  It’s also been associated with an increase in heart disease.

Blood sugar numbers

 

If your fasting blood sugar (glucose) is greater than 126 mg/dl, or your non fasting blood sugar is greater than 200 mg/dl, you may be considered diabetic. Pre-diabetes occurs when the fasting blood sugar is between 100 and 125 mg/dl. If ignored, and the sugar rises, pre-diabetics may go on to develop diabetes.

 

dmp-blood-sugar-levels-chart



SOURCE DIABETESMEALPLANS.COM

Preventing/Controlling Diabetes.

1/3 of American adults are currently pre-diabetic.  Experts predict 1/3 of US Adults will be diabetic by the year 2050.  Although genetics plays a big role, decreasing one's sugar intake and maintaining an active lifestyle can help ward of diabetes.

 

Foods high in sugar and carbohydrates increase one’s risk, so a diet rich in vegetables and lean meats is preferred.

 

For more on the study visit here.

 

----

Daliah Wachs is a guest contributor to GCN news. Doctor Wachs is an MD,  FAAFP and a Board Certified Family Physician.    The Dr. Daliah Show , is nationally syndicated M-F from 11:00 am - 2:00 pm and Saturday from Noon-1:00 pm (all central times) at GCN.

 

If you’ve driven near downtown Minneapolis lately, you’ve surely noticed how different (and better) Target Center looks on the outside. Target’s mascot Bullseye looks much more at home shaking his tail on the north side of Target Center overlooking Target Field. But it’s what’s inside Target Center that makes the new Minnesota Timberwolves experience worth every penny.

The Product

There has never been a Timberwolves team with so much potential. What head coach and president of basketball operations Tom Thibodeau has done with the roster over the last few years is extraordinary. Everything the team lacked last season has been addressed. The Timberwolves now have the lockdown defender who can guard anyone on the floor in Jimmy Butler.

Thibedeau has vastly improved the bench, which has already paid dividends, with Jamal Crawford taking over the fourth quarter in the home opener against Ricky Rubio and the Utah Jazz. And the potential of Andrew Wiggins and Karl-Anthony Towns is getting closer and closer to being realized with every game. The two have already won a huge conference, road game at Oklahoma City in the closing seconds, with Towns providing the hard pick that freed Wiggins to bank in a buzzer beater on Sunday night. Beating Russell Westbrook, Carmelo Anthony and Paul George on their own court is no small feat, regardless of how early it is in the season.

While many of these Timberwolves are still pups (Towns is 21 and Wiggins is 22) and will continue to experience growing pains closing out games, they are already 2-0 in close games this season. They were 26th in the league with a .391 winning percentage in close games last season. The product is definitely worth watching.

The Package

The Timberwolves are wrapped in a newly beautified building, but the amenities inside the building are what make a visit to Target Center worth every penny. The new Daktronics LED video display features 4,300 square feet of display space, making for a better view of replays than you’d have from the comfort of your own home. Each of the four main displays are approximately 18 feet high by 33 feet wide.

Following the example set by the Minnesota Twins, the troughs in the men’s bathrooms are now gone. And while concession prices might be a little higher than in the past (a Coca-Cola will cost you $6 and a water $5), the accessibility to food and refreshments regardless of your location has improved considerably. There are more local and healthy options available, including a Walleye Sandwich at Lord Fletcher’s in Section 136 and Tuna Togarashi at the Life Cafe in Section 106. (Hint: the lines at the concession stands offering healthier options are always shorter than those offering burgers and hot dogs. I didn’t spend any time in line at the Life Cafe during the home opener.)

The Presentation

Jimmy Butler taking the microphone prior to the home opener and welcoming everyone in attendance to the new Target Center was a fabulous way to present the new product to the people. Better yet were the pregame introductions.

While the new uniforms are a little blah, at least the advertisement for Fitbit isn’t overdone, and at least the Timberwolves are advertising a health product. Once the neon green, alternative jerseys debut, though, they’re going to catch on like football did in Seattle when they went to a similar color scheme.

The new Timberwolves logo is a vast improvement, though. The old logo didn’t convey much through imagery. Sure, the Timberwolf was menacing, but the only way you knew the team was from Minnesota was due to the word “Minnesota” in the logo. The new logo can stand alone without words and conveys not only where the team resides, thanks to the use of the North Star, but it also conveys what sport the team plays, with a basketball included in the background. It’s also an homage to the original Timberwolves logo, which was much better than the last attempt and utilized a similar shade of green used now.

The Timberwolves organization mostly aced their rebranding. The only thing that could have been done better are the jerseys, and those change pretty regularly. If you haven’t seen a Timberwolves game yet, now’s the time to get down to Target Center.

--

If you like this, you might like these Genesis Communications Network talk shows: View From The Couch

Donald Trump’s executive order he declared killed Obamacare hasn’t actually changed any laws, but if Trump cuts subsidies paid to health insurance companies like he proposed, it would increase premiums for middle-class Americans and increase the federal deficit by $194 billion over the next decade, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

The $19.4 billion that would be added to the federal deficit annually on average is $12.4 billion more than the government is currently paying to subsidize health insurance discounts for low-income Americans. That $7 billion the federal government pays in annual subsidies to cover the discounts insurers are required to offer under the Affordable Care Act insures helps about 7 million Americans afford health insurance.

Since insurers are required to offer those discounts by law, that $7 billion in lost income (and any in lost premiums due to more Americans choosing to go uninsured) will fall on the backs of middle-class Americans who don’t receive insurance through their employers. Individuals making around $48,000 or a family of four earning almost $100,000 annually are expected to see their premiums increase 20 percent next year.

While Senators came to a bipartisan agreement to float Obamacare for the next two years, Trump said he opposes any measure that “bails out” health insurance companies. But if Trump is so concerned about the $7 billion paid annually to health insurance companies to make health insurance more affordable for low-income Americans, what about the $92 billion the government spends on corporate welfare, according to research by the Libertarian Cato Institute done in 2006? The federal government spends $6.18 billion more subsidizing Boeing aircraft production than it does to make health insurance more affordable to low-income Americans.

Trump's Obamacare Executive Order Explained

While Donald Trump’s executive order he claimed killed Obamacare hasn’t actually changed any laws, it could eventually allow associations to skirt state rules so employers can provide employees health insurance that covers next to nothing.

Under the new executive order, an association of businesses offering similar products or services could choose which state’s marketplace they want to use to provide health insurance to all the association’s employees -- regardless of location. The association could and likely would pick a state offering the cheapest option providing the fewest benefits for its employees, resulting in less money paid in premiums and, therefore, higher premiums for individuals and families who don’t get insurance through their employer.

These associations would be considered large employers, which aren’t subject to the same rules as individual or small group plans under the Affordable Care Act. They are not required to cover all the ACA’s essential health benefits nor are they required to offer insurance that covers a minimal percentage of their employees’ medical bills. This puts the bulk of the medical risk and expense burden on the employee instead of the insurance company while also lowering expenses for employers. This will also result in individuals and families picking up more of the tab when it comes to premiums paid.

The executive order also expands short-term insurance plans, which were designed for people temporarily out of work for a limited amount of time. Like insurance plans for large businesses, these insurance plans are not required to meet ACA regulations of providing essential health benefits, not charging sick people more than healthy people for health insurance or denying people insurance based on preexisting conditions or medical history.

The executive order will lift the burden of insurance premiums off the shoulders of businesses and onto the shoulders of individuals and families, which will result in more under- and uninsured Americans and higher premiums.

--

If you like this, you might like these Genesis Communications Network talk shows: USA Prepares, Building America, Free Talk Live, The Easy Organic Gardener, American Survival Radio, Jim Brown’s Common Sense, Good Day Health, MindSet: Mental Health News and Information, Health Hunters, America’s Health Advocate, The Bright Side, The Dr. Daliah Show, Dr. Asa On Call, The Dr. Bob Martin Show, Dr. Coldwell Opinion Radio, The Dr. Katherine Albrecht Show

You can bet that, when reviewing smartphones, Consumer Reports magazine appears to have a blind spot towards Samsung; maybe a few blind spots. How so? Well, I’ll get to that shortly.

Now on the surface, CR ought to be the perfect review source. Unlike most other publications, online or print, it actually buys tested products from retail stores. That includes luxury cars costing over $100,000 if need be. So, in that area at least, it should be incorruptible. Compare that to regular publications that contain reviews, most of which receive free samples from the manufacturers.

Indeed, when I announced recently that Vizio sent me a 4K TV for review — with no preconditions as to how I rate the product — I got a comment from a reader suggesting that my article would somehow be tainted. But I’ve been reviewing tech gear received on that basis for over two decades, and it’s definitely not a factor. Never has been.

But even if there’s a tiny bit of suspicion on the part of some people that product reviews might be slanted if those products are sent free of charge, I am not surprised that CR gets high credibility. So there’s a story from Seoul, South Korea touting the fact that, “Samsung’s Galaxy S8 tops U.S. consumer review.”

South Korea? But isn’t CR an American magazine? Yes, so this story no doubt originated from Samsung, even though a manufacturer is theoretically prohibited from quoting a CR review. So the article mentions the conclusion, not the contents, so even if it was originated from Samsung, the company is off the hook.

According to the latest CR report about smartphones, the Samsung Galaxy S8 and the Galaxy S8 Plus gained top ratings by CR. Number three, peculiarly, was last year’s Galaxy S7. Really. So where did the iPhone 8 end up? According to CR, fourth and fifth. Number six was the Galaxy Note 8.

I decided to take a look at the factors that put the iPhones below three Samsungs, including one of last year’s models. Let’s just say it didn’t make a whole lot of sense in the scheme of things, but I’ve had these issues before with CR.

Take, for example, the Galaxy S8 versus the iPhone 8. The former is rated 81, the latter is rated 80. So despite the implications of the article from that South Korean publication, the scores are extraordinary close. A minor issue here, another minor issue there, and the results might have been reversed.

But what is it that makes the Samsung ever-so-slightly superior to the iPhone? Unfortunately, the two reviews aren’t altogether clear on that score. So on the basis of 11 performance categories in which the two phones are rated, the iPhone 8 has six excellent ratings, four very goods, and one good. So in theory the Samsung should have scored better in these categories. However, it has four excellent and seven very goods.

From my point of view, the Apple ought to rate better. More excellent ratings, right? But there is a Good rating for battery life, whereas the Samsung rates as Excellent. Evidently that factor must supplant all other considerations and award the Samsung with a higher total. Curiously, the longer battery life of the iPhone 8 Plus evidently didn’t merit a rating higher than Good either.

Just saying.

But there’s more. It turns out that the iPhone is far more resilient to damage than the Galaxy S8. According to CR, the iPhone “survived the water dunk test and our tough 100 drops in the tumbler with just some minor scratches.”

Evidently, being a rugged mobile handset doesn’t count for very much, because the qualitative ratings don’t include that factor. So the Galaxy S8, according to CR, doesn’t fare nearly as well. The report states, “The screen is rather fragile. After 50 rotations in the tumbler, our experts rated it only fair. The display was badly broken and not working. For this phone, a protective case is a must have.”

What does that say to you? It says to me that the Galaxy S8 should have been seriously downgraded because it’s very fragile; users are forced to buy extra protection for normal use and service. Smartphones are routinely dropped or knocked against things.

To me, it’s barely acceptable. To CR, ruggedness doesn’t matter.

Nor does the reliability of a smartphone’s biometrics count, evidently. As most of you know, the Galaxy S8 and its big brother, the S8 Plus, have three biometric systems. The fingerprint sensor, located at the rear, is an awkward reach. You are at risk of smudging the camera lenses instead. Both the facial recognition and iris sensors aren’t terribly secure. Both can be defeated by digital photographs.

In short, you have a breakable smartphone with two biometric features of questionable quality being judged superior to another smartphone that’s rugged and has a reliable fingerprint sensor. But maybe it has somewhat shorter battery life than the competition. In other words, CR seems to regard battery life above other important factors, but how ratings are weighted, and why potential breakability is not considered, is just not mentioned.

But since CR buys the products it reviews, the serious flaws in its review methods aren’t important. The media that continues to quote the magazine’s ratings without critical comment aren’t helping to encourage CR to change its ways.

And please don’t get me started about the curious way in which it rates the battery life of notebook computers.

----

Gene Steinberg is a guest contributor to GCN news. His views and opinions, if expressed, are his own. Gene hosts The Tech Night Owl LIVE - broadcast on Saturday from 9:00pm - Midnight (CST), and The Paracast - broadcast on Sunday from 3:00am - 6:00am (CST). Both shows nationally syndicated through GCNlive. Gene’s Tech Night Owl Newsletter is a weekly information service of Making The Impossible, Inc. -- Copyright © 1999-2017. Click here to subscribe to Tech Night Owl Newsletter. This article was originally published at Technightowl.com -- reprinted with permission.

 

“If Hillary Clinton is not brought to justice, then America is doomed.” -Live feed

The above statement may sound over the top or extreme in many different ways, yet it is true.

History teaches us just that. Ask countries in the past who refused to bring corrupt politicians to justice and you will discover, without fail, that they were destroyed.  If you leave corrupt politicians to do what they will, without suffering the consequences of breaking the laws (I John 3:4), you will simply add strength to tyranny.

To put it into perspective, look at what President Thomas Jefferson stated:

"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first."

Taking it to the present, we recently heard Newt Gingrich say that the way to resolve the problem of corruption is to “Start putting a few people in jail, you’ll see the leaks dry up dramatically (Isaiah 56).”

Clearly, Scripture teaches us in Isaiah 26:9 that “…when Thy judgments are in the earth, the inhabitants of the world will learn righteousness.” Also read Isaiah 51:4.

Yet, Americans fail to do so, and what they do is draw the seat of violence nigh unto themselves.

“Ye that put far away the evil day, and cause the seat of violence to come near.” -Amos 6:3

Furthermore, it is inscribed on government buildings throughout America in stone.  On one, Moses holds the two tablets of the Law (Exodus 20) with the inscription:

“Justice the Guardian of Liberty”

The reason this is happening is because the American Church (78% claim to be Christians -1 John 2:4) has been taught by the hirelings (John 10:12), who occupy the pulpits in this country, that they have no business in judging right from wrong. How ridiculous!

Maybe they should try that next time they break speeding laws.  Just rip up the ticket, throw it at the police officer’s feet, and tell him “Who are you to judge me?” See how far that gets them!

I say, “Twist not Scripture, lest you be like Satan.”

It amazes me how Americans give a pass to corruption as if to suggest that the politicians are above the law.  

“…they overpass the deeds of the wicked: they judge not the cause…” (Jeremiah 5:28)

Didn’t the representatives of “We the People” put their hand on the Bible swearing to uphold the laws found in our Constitution? YES THEY DID!

“They are waxen fat, they shine: yea, they overpass the deeds of the wicked: they judge not the cause...” (Jeremiah 5:28)

This was Jeremiah preaching to a people that fell under the judgments of God.

America, 8 months ago a new president was sworn in. If you remember, for a long period of time on the campaign trail, you were promised that he was to bring forth a “special prosecutor” to deal with “Crooked Hilary.” Donald Trump at this point has done nothing, worse yet he told Americans that, “We owe her a major debt of gratitude.” That’s the opposite of what he promised to do (Matthew 23:3).

Judicial Watch recently reported the following:

A Judge Forces the State Department to Open Up on Clinton Emails

This week United States District Judge James E. Boasberg ruled that the Department of State must make public a FBI declaration detailing its efforts to retrieve the former secretary of state’s government emails (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Rex Tillerson (No. 1:15-cv-00785).

Statement regarding the decision:

We’re happy with the ruling, but it is unbelievable we’re being opposed by Trump appointees in the State and Justice Departments on the Clinton email issue.  President Trump ought to be outraged his appointees are protecting Hillary Clinton. The State Department should initiate action with the Justice Department – and both agencies should finally take the necessary steps to recover all the government emails Hillary Clinton unlawfully removed.

Here is the background.

On April 30, 2015, we sued former Secretary John Kerry after the State Department failed to take action on a letter we sent to Kerry “notifying him of the unlawful removal of the Clinton emails and requesting that he initiate enforcement action pursuant to the [Federal Records Act],” including working through the Attorney General to recover the emails.

After initially being dismissed by the district court, our lawsuit was revived on appeal by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on December 27, 2016. The Federal Records Act states that an agency head “shall” initiate an action through the Attorney General when he becomes aware of any unlawful removal of agency records.

While at the State Department, Clinton conducted official government business using an unsecure email server and email accounts. Her top aides and advisors also used non-“state.gov” email accounts to conduct official business.

The Trump administration defended the handling of the email matter by the Obama administration and filed two declarations from the FBI trying to justify the State Department’s refusal to follow the law and refer to the Clinton email issue to the Justice Department.

As the decision notes, the second FBI declaration is non-public and was filed in camera and ex parte with the court. Judge Boasburg rejected the State Department’s arguments that the FBI declaration be withheld to protect grand jury secrecy: “After reviewing the document in camera, the Court concludes it largely rehashes information already made public, thus obviating any need for secrecy.”

Meantime, transcripts reviewed by the Senate Judiciary Committee reveal that former FBI Director James Comey began drafting an exoneration statement in the Clinton email investigation before the FBI had interviewed key witnesses.

Chairman Chuck Grassley and Senator Lindsey Graham, chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism, requested all records relating to the drafting of the statement as the committee continues to review the circumstances surrounding Comey’s removal from the Bureau.

The senators wrote to the FBI: “Conclusion first, fact-gathering second—that’s no way to run an investigation. The FBI should be held to a higher standard than that, especially in a matter of such great public interest and controversy.”

And so should a president be held to his promises to a people that entrusted him to represent them in the first place.  

Remember, "The people of these United States are the rightful masters of both congresses and courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert that Constitution," according to the Preamble to the US Constitution. Amen!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCWFvLGqqt4&t=7s

--

Bradlee Dean is a guest contributor to GCN news. His views and opinions, if expressed, are his own and do not reflect the views and opinions of the Genesis Communication Network. Bradlee's radio program, The Sons of Liberty broadcasts live M - Sat here at GCN.

 

Last week the Boy Scouts of America announced it will allow girls to join the organization with the following statement released on their official website:

 

“Today, the Boy Scouts of America Board of Directors unanimously approved to welcome girls into its iconic Cub Scout program and to deliver a Scouting program for older girls that will enable them to advance and earn the highest rank of Eagle Scout. The historic decision comes after years of receiving requests from families and girls, the organization evaluated the results of numerous research efforts, gaining input from current members and leaders, as well as parents and girls who’ve never been involved in Scouting – to understand how to offer families an important additional choice in meeting the character development needs of all their children.”

 

Skeptics claim it’s not really a decision about actually being inclusive, it’s just a publicity stunt to increase Boy Scout membership which has steadily decreased in the last decade. The Girl Scouts of America are not terribly happy about the announcement, either. In fact, the day after the Boy Scouts posted the above statement, the Girl Scouts released their official position on their website:  

 

“Girl Scouts is the best girl leadership organization in the world, created with and for girls. We believe strongly in the importance of the all-girl, girl-led, and girl-friendly environment that Girl Scouts provides, which creates a free space for girls to learn and thrive.

 

The benefit of the single-gender environment has been well-documented by educators, scholars, other girl- and youth-serving organizations, and Girl Scouts and their families. Girl Scouts offers a one-of-a-kind experience for girls with a program tailored specifically to their unique developmental needs.”

 

The two organizations have never really seen eye to eye. The Boy Scouts were founded a little more than 100 years ago and the Girl Scouts (then called Girl Scouting) approx. five years later. By the mid 1920’s the Boy Scouts of America sued the Girl Scouts for use of the word, “Scouts.”  The traditionalist “manly-men” of the time objected to the term “Scout” being used for girls. That’s right, the lawsuit was all about the manliness of the word Scout and how, if used to describe a girl, the word would be emasculated.

 

Obviously, the Girl Scouts won the lawsuit. 

 

Several decades later and the two organizations still don’t really get along. That being said, the Girl Scouts have been far more progressive for much, much longer. The Girls Scouts have long since championed civil rights, inclusion and acceptance. And to them it wasn’t a big deal. It just seemed like the right thing to do. (It is).

 

The Boy Scouts have been firmly anti-gay membership, anti-LGBT inclusion and 100% -- no girls allowed, until very recently.  It wasn’t until 2013 that the Boy Scouts lifted the open ban on gay scouts. It wasn’t until 2015 that the Boy Scouts ended the prohibition on adult gay Scout leaders. Finally, in Jan of 2017, the Boy Scouts said it will allow members that self-identify as male to join. 

 

So, the Girl Scouts have been way ahead of the Boy Scouts on pretty much all progressive social issues so I can understand the  G.S. leadership annoyance. The Girl Scouts have been all inclusive for decades -- no press. The Boy Scouts finally, finally, finally catch up with the rest of progressive America -- all the press.

 

And maybe Boy Scouts are changing for the wrong reasons. But that doesn’t matter much to me. As long as progress is being made forward I’m all for it.

 

Conservatives around the internet shrugged a collective “meh” at the Boy Scout inclusion news. I honestly thought there would be more faux outrage and I’m glad to report that there wasn’t.

 

And, let’s be honest, the Boy Scouts will still be overwhelmingly male. But now, a troop can form and all boy, all girl, or mixed gender Cub Scout group.

 

Seems fair to me. 

 

And for anyone who thinks this is another liberal, feminist platform “ruining” things for real Americans I offer two things:

 

First: the overwhelmingly conservative Boy Scout board of directors unanimously voted in favor of the more inclusive policies.

 

Second: Samantha Bee and Full Frontal's: Fem Agenda: What to Ruin Next.



 

----

 

If you like this you might like the GCN live talk radio show: Free Talk Live - M-Sun from 6:00-9:00 Central. 

Despite Donald Trump declaring Obamacare dead after signing an executive order on Thursday, United States Senators came to a bipartisan agreement on Tuesday to float Obamacare for the next two years. That doesn’t mean Obamacare is in the clear, but it is still the law of the land, and with open enrollment beginning on Nov. 1, it’s time you understood your healthcare options so you can make the right choice for you and your family.

First Thing’s First: Check if You’re Eligible for Medicaid

Medicaid expansion has been implemented in 32 states, and if you’re a citizen of Louisiana, your state expanded Medicaid in July of 2016, so check to see if you qualify. If you make less than $16,040 annually and are single, you do. Here’s the breakdown of the Federal Poverty Level for households of multiple people and here’s where you can find your state’s income requirements. Medicaid in any state will be considerably cheaper than a Bronze plan on the Obamacare marketplace.

Louisianans are already taking advantage of the Medicaid expansion, with enrollment in the program increasing 42 percent since Obamacare debuted in 2013. The state’s 21.7 percent uninsured rate in 2013 has fallen to 12.7 percent.

Weighing the Risk of Going Uninsured

Going uninsured only increases premiums for your family, friends and neighbors, and if you were to require medical care, you would incur considerable medical debt for which you could end up paying the rest of your life. A 2016 study by the National Bureau of Economic Research found those who visit the hospital without insurance double their chance of declaring bankruptc within four years.

Even if your hospital visit doesn’t burden you with medical debt, any “uncompensated care” the hospital provides, it makes up by raising rates on medical care for everyone. So going uninsured raises medical costs for everyone and is not advised.

That said, if you haven’t been to the doctor in years, don’t do dangerous work or have dangerous hobbies and are healthy -- you can determine whether it would be cheaper to pay the penalty for going uninsured than it would be to pay a health insurance premium.

The penalty for going uninsured in 2017 is 2.5 percent of your income or $695 -- whichever is higher. So if you make less than $27,750 annually, you’d pay $695, which would likely be cheaper than any health insurance plan you could purchase on the Obamacare marketplace. In fact, if you make less than $45,000 annually, the penalty for going uninsured ($1,125) is likely less than your premiums would be for the year. Keep in mind that premium payments are only part of your potential healthcare costs, though. It only takes one accident or illness to make you regret going uninsured.

If You’re Healthy and Under 30 (or not), Get a Catastrophic Plan

Catastrophic health insurance plans cover the same essential health benefits marketplace plans cover, including preventative care and three primary care visits. They’re also cheap and protect you from both the penalty for going uninsured and the medical debt that could bankrupt you in the future. You might even qualify for a catastrophic plan if you’re over 30 years old.

If you have experienced any one of the hardships listed here in the past year, you could qualify for a catastrophic health insurance plan. Some examples would be death of a family member, increased expenses due to caring for a sick family member, or damage to property due to natural disaster. You might even qualify if you experienced a hardship applying for health insurance not listed on the website.

You could also be eligible for a catastrophic health plan if your employer doesn’t offer affordable health insurance and Obamacare is prohibitively expensive for you, or if your state didn’t expand Medicaid, for which you would qualify. Be sure to investigate your eligibility for a catastrophic health insurance plan thoroughly, especially if you live in one of the 18 states that didn’t expand Medicaid.

Finding the Best Health Insurance Plan for You and Your Family

If you and your family is healthy and has no history of medical problems, a Bronze health insurance plan is probably all you need. Bronze plans only cover up to 60 percent of medical costs, though. Silver health insurance plans cover up to 70 percent of expenses, Gold plans cover 80 percent and Platinum plans cover up to 90 percent of medical expenses.

Based on you and your family’s medical history and current health, you can determine which plan best fits into your budget while also covering your expected medical costs for the year. If you are injury-prone or have a history of visiting the hospital regularly, a Gold or Platinum plan might actually save you money in a bad year health-wise.

So there’s your checklist for understanding your options prior to Obamacare open enrollment starts on Nov. 1. Exhaust all of your healthcare options before giving up and taking the penalty, because you never know what could happen.

--

If you like this, you might like these Genesis Communications Network talk shows: USA Prepares, Building America, Free Talk Live, The Easy Organic Gardener, American Survival Radio, Jim Brown’s Common Sense, Good Day Health, MindSet: Mental Health News and Information, Health Hunters, America’s Health Advocate, The Bright Side, The Dr. Daliah Show, Dr. Asa On Call, The Dr. Bob Martin Show, Dr. Coldwell Opinion Radio, The Dr. Katherine Albrecht Show