NickBalaz.com

I know what you're thinking. "Nick!" you shout, "What the hell? Everybody else had their iPad articles published over a week ago! What took you so long?"

What took me so long is that I wanted to wait. I wanted to sit back and take it all in, let the Reality Distortion Field wear off before I put fingers to keys. But it has been a week, thus I present the following.

Name

Let it be stated on the record that I stand in firm opposition of calling it the "iPad". While the name itself makes sense, considering that the device is essentially a gigantic iPod touch, but I can't shake the feeling that there is something weird about it. And I can't help but recall that one MadTV skit whenever I hear the name.

To be honest, I didn't expect Apple to continue the 'i' moniker with this product. Similar to Gruber, I expected the device to be called the "Apple Tablet", or, based on the event invitation, the "Apple Canvas". I even felt that "iSlate" or "iTablet" were more likely than iPad. Steve is clearly not a frequent viewer of suggestive sketch comedy.

Hardware

Design

The Wifi version of iPad is hands-down one of the most gorgeous devices to come out of Cupertino. The front of the device is dominated by a single sheet of glass, interrupted only by the home button. Like the iPhone, iPad seems to feature the bare minimum amount of buttons, focusing solely on interaction through the screen. The iPad is a Jonathan Ive product in every way.

Form Factor

I'm concerned.

Look at the trends with display technology. Over the past decade, every display that we interact with has slowly turned towards the 16:9 form factor. The iPad does not follow this trend. It is possibly the only major consumer electronics device of the past year that does not employ a widescreen display. This is especially worrying if, like myself, you have ever had the experience of watching 16:9 video on a 4:3 screen. Let me tell you my friends, it is not pleasant. The display ratio also affects the way that applications written for the iPhone will run on the iPad. Applications that are built with the iPhone SDK are built to run on a 16:10 display. Even with the application expansion that the iPad promises, there will be an awful lot of wasted space on the edges of the screen.

What I am not, however, concerned about is how one would hold the iPad. Looking at the demonstrations done during Wednesday's keynote, the iPad seem entirely intuitive to hold. It seems, and I hate to use that analogy, but it seems almost as natural as holding a book. Being that the device features only four buttons, you could, in theory, operate the device properly at any orientation.

Software

I'm a little disappointed in the software side of the iPad, specifically in regards to the operating system. I expected Apple to provide us with something a little better than what amounts to a giant iPhone. I was hoping for a platform that more resembled Mac OS X that the iPhone OS.

That said, they seem to be presenting a decent software offering, even if it is hindered by its mobile roots. The new built-in applications are, gorgeous; really showcasing what can be done with this larger screen. The new implementations of the Mail, Contacts and Calendar applications are three of the most beautiful pieces of software I have ever seen.

iBooks

This is both the most interesting and most concerning feature that the iPad has shown off. To illustrate this, please consider the following scenario:

It is the Twenty-eighth of January, 2010. J.D. Salinger has just died. As a fan of literature, you are saddened by this event. You suddenly feel the urge to re-read The Catcher in the Rye. Then you remember that your copy of the novel was destroyed not three months ago by your neighbour's dog.

Do not fret, however, because there is a solution. You turn to your trusty iPad (which you obtained through a rare flaw in the Space/Time Continuum), hop onto the iBookStore and download yourself a copy. Problem solved.

The iBookstore is intended to allow anyone access to any book at any time. But there is a problem with that plan. It was unofficially revealed yesterday that the iBookStore function will not be available outside of the US at the iPad's launch. This saddens me. Sure, Apple will sell you the iPad, but they're going to cripple its functionality because they couldn't get their act together in time to make international publishing deals. They've gone and limited one of the key functions to only work in 0.005% of countries. Which, you know, kind of sucks.

"Downfalls"

This section right here is the exact reason that I've so long to publish this article. Over the past week, the giant squids of anger have, as they do with every new Apple product, done nothing but complain. From the moment Steve stepped off the stage on Wednesday, nearly every piece of the iPad has been ripped apart by these chronic pessimists. From all that I've seen out there in the ether, there are three common grievances that these haters sight when making their damning predictions.

No Multitasking

Near every non-nerd that I know is freaking out over this. The complaint about lack of multitasking is second only the complaint that "it's just a big iPhone". For some strange reason, people assume that the iPad will be completely useless if you can't run more than one application at a time.

I'm not entirely sure where this fear stems from. We've had the iPhone around for almost four years now, and ninety-nine percent of us have gotten along just fine without multitasking. But people seemed really rattled that the iPad will, as far as we know, ship without multitasking functionality. Perhaps it's their [NAAD][].

As you may have guessed, I stand contrary to this view. I'm a firm believer in the sentiment that the iPad does all the multitasking it need to. Beyond the use of the music player, I have never found the need for background processes on my current OS X iPhone device.

Then, of course, there will be those that argue "the iPad is a netbook-type device! It needs multitasking". But, in reality, it isn't. Steve was very clear that the iPad is a new category of device. If a comparison has to be made, then the iPad is closer to a Kindle than a netbook. And let's be honest. How many times have you heard people complain that their Kindle doesn't support multitasking?

No Camera

To the angry internet people yelling about the iPad's lack of a camera, I have two words: Prove It. As of writing, Apple has neither confirmed nor denied that the iPad feature a camera. Recent rumours have claimed that there is an unannounced camera lurking behind the bezel of the iPad.

But I would like to present you with a different rumour. Just about a year ago, a bunch of reports appeared regarding a new Apple patent. Essentially, Apple wants to put a webcam behind your screen. The patent is strictly in regards to laptops, but who's to say that the same system couldn't be implemented within the iPad.

Even more pressing, who's to say that the systems has not already been implemented, but hidden from the public eye?

No Flash

I'm not seeing the problem here. Perhaps it's because I'm a person who supports web standards, but I really can't find a problem with Apple not supporting Flash. In all my experience with browser crashes, Flash is the culprit close to ninety-five percent of the time. Flash is an old piece of technology. It is a bloated, legacy product that is fraught with security exploits and used in unnecessary ways.

Even the dominance of Flash in web video is slowly dying. Both Youtube and Vimeo are slowly introducing video players based off of the HTML5 video spec. Every modern browser, with the exception of Internet Explorer 8, supports HTML5. This includes the browser shipping with the iPad.

There is almost no reason for the iPad to support Flash. This is not a disadvantage. It is an improvement.

En Finale

The iPad seems like a contender in the growing ultra-portable category. Despite all of its apparent advantages and downfalls, it is most likely that people will have to get their hands on both the hardware and software before they can make proper judgments.

You should follow @nickbalaz on Twitter here, and then say hi: hi@nickbalaz.com

For the past several weeks, my friend Joshua and I have been hard at work designing something. Since just before the beginning of January, we were charged with re-designing a website vaguely reminiscent of the 1990s. This is the result.

Though there are still a few bugs to eliminate, a few pages to implement and some aesthetics to be modified, we are both very proud of what has been done.

But we don't want to become to full of ourselves. Which is why we are asking for your feedback. We would like to know what you think about the new design. We're looking for constructive criticism here, folks. I you have to be harsh, please try to remain fair.

So, go ahead. You can provide use with feedback either by commenting on this post, or by shooting us an e-mail at bchrobotics[at]gmail[dot]com.

• An over-sized ground sloth.
• A Jewish grandmother.
• A man with his McDonald's in one hand and his balls in the other.

You should follow @nickbalaz on Twitter here, and then say hi: hi@nickbalaz.com

In honour of Guy Fawkes day, I present an essay, written for my Grade 11 English class, on why I do not trust governments.

My grandfather died in October of 2004. Up until five years prior, there was no cable television allowed in his house. Like so many of his generation, my grandfather was an avid reader. His favourites included the works of Jeffery Archer, Ken Follett, Tom Clancy, and George Orwell. And like so many that read Nineteen Eighty-Four, he developed a fear and mistrust of the government. Cable television wasn't allowed because he was sure of the fact that he and his family were being monitored through the TV. And while these particular fear seems irrational, it's origin is not. While I may not agree with his methods, I do agree with the underlying theme. Governments are scary. They are benevolent organizations, riddled with hypocrisy, corruption, broken promises and hidden agendas. They are comprised of men and women who I find myself unable to trust, resulting in my inability to trust the organization as a whole.

Just as in the world Orwell created in the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, world governments have begun the invasion of our daily lives. In the days following the September 11th terror attacks, the United States government introduced the Patriot Act. This bill allowed government organizations such as the FBI, CIA, and NSA to reach into both public and private organizations and procure information about patrons at will. Another example of this level of invasion is Facebook. When the company was in the process of raising capital funding, they approached a venture capital firm which eventually invested in Facebook, receiving, in exchange, a sizable amount of the company's equity. In the months following Facebook's arrival on the mainstream, it was revealed that the aforementioned VC firm is owned by the Central Intelligence Agency. Meaning, of course, that the CIA has access to every byte of information that users place on their Facebook pages. Of course, all of this is done in the name of security. Let's say that the US government is looking for potential terrorists. Under the Patriot Act, it has the ability to go to a grocery store and find out the names of any purchasers of hummus. Or the addresses of people who check out books on communism from the library. Doesn't that make sense. No. What purpose does reading people's grocery bills serve? So what if they read about communism. My family and I have engaged in both of the "suspicious" activities described above. Does that make us a terrorist cell? Are we suddenly the enemies of capitalism? The Junior Antichrist Brigade? Again, no. The only purpose this type of law serves is to aid in racial profiling. None of this information is relevant to tracking down terrorists. And even if it did, it removes the privacy of the normalized many to track down the radical few. As Benjamin Franklin said, "Those willing to sacrifice a lot of privacy for a little security deserve neither privacy nor security."

Another, more obvious side effect of the attacks on September 11th was the invasion of Iraq by American soldiers. President Bush, recognizing the opportunity presents to him, quickly assembling the armed forces and sending them into Iraq, supposedly in search of Osama Bin Laden. Unfortunately there was one, itty bitty little problem. Bin Laden wasn't in Iraq. It was public knowledge that, at the time of the invasion, Bin Laden and his followers were hiding in the mountains of Afghanistan. Bush, using the opportunity presented by a "War on Terror", began nursing his own private agenda. Bush was not the only leader who has exploited a situation to achieve personal ends. Indeed, governments across the globe have used these tactics since the days of Christ. Governments, while meant to serve the people, place vast amounts of effort in serving their own means. I cannot support this. I cannot stand behind a system that pretends that it cares about my needs and concerns, while working only to achieve those that the politicians want met or filled.

Take a look at newspaper archives from the lead-up to one of the more recent elections. Throughout the month of campaigning, the candidates made a myriad of promises, each made to counteract and discredit those of their competitors. The different parties promised tax cuts and the like, while claiming the others wanted to perform actions the population would find unfavourable. One of the most prominent Canadian examples of this was the 2004 Ontario Provincial election. Dalton McGuinty, leader of the Liberal Party, made dozens of promises about lowering taxes, ranging from those supporting education to those supporting healthcare. The public took to the promises like an obese child to a Big Mac, with similar results. As McGuinty and his Liberals entered office, still holding these promises in full view of the public. And yet five years on, the taxation has only gotten worse. It seems as though McGuinty had discovered the power of lies. By manipulating the views of the public, he has been able to secure not one, but two terms in the office of the Premier. McGuinty employed hypocrisy and deception to create a guise of good intentions and receive goodwill. Mr. McGuinty is not the first to employ this technique. For generations, politicians have lied to their constituents, with mixed results. None the less, it is clear that these tactics are ground into the DNA of those who dream of a career in government. Why would we trust these people? These people who make a living off perfecting the art of lying. These politicians, whatever party they may belong to, do not promote themselves through honesty. I do not believe in a system that works like this.

The goal of a governing body is to serve those who fall under it's authority. Decades ago, there were many governments who worked to achieve the goal of this statement. Today, you'll be hard pressed to find this attitude from anyone, save small town mayors. The world is rampant with examples of the government working to serve their own ends rather then those of humanity, or simply their own citizens. In the late 1980's the then Soviet government created a nuclear fallback system called Perimeter. In the simplest terms, Perimeter is designed to strike back when all other components of the Russian military failed. During a scenario in which major Russian command centers have been destroyed, the Perimeter sequence can be activated by any employee of the facility. After that point, the launch of Russia's 12,000 plus nuclear warheads is controlled entirely by computer, with heavy offensive concentration toward the United States. Perimeter is still operational today. This is not a defence mechanism approved by the now democratic population of Russia. This was a system created by the Soviet government to serve the wishes of the bureaucrats. This is not dissimilar to the Iraq War. The American government, meant to be "for the people, of the people, by the people", is acting in a manor that is frowned upon by the majority of "the people". And yet what power do the people have to change this. Sure, there is the quadrennial election, and yet we have already seen that these politicians are experts in the field of appealing to constituents during these periods. In reality, the people hold no control over the goings on in a government, even one of the democratic nature. The powers that be are going unchecked, serving only to create more chaos then had existed before.

I have never understood how governments can act in such a manor. These are the people who are supposed to be working toward the betterment of mankind, and yet have served only to cause so many to lose hope in the goodness of people. I do not trust organizations that require a mask of deception to get by under the scrutiny of today's public. I cannot trust governments, and I fear the lengths that they will go to in order to achieve selfish ends.

Auction site Profiles in History is offering the sale of Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry's Macintosh 128k. Perfect for the science fiction/Mac nerd in your family.