Adventures in Cooking: Cowboy Pasta Sauce

Quick and easy meat sauce for pasta.

Ingredients:
• 1 jar tomato sauce of choice. Delallo's recommended or similar quality sauce... not Ragu unless that is your thing. Obviously you can make your own but a decent base in a jar cuts the cooking time considerably.
• 1 Bell pepper (choose a color any color) Chopped to personal chunkiness level
• ~ 1 cup chopped mushrooms of choice
• 1/2 yellow onion (or white, probably not red) (~1/2-3/4 cup chopped)
• 1lbs ground buffalo (or other ground meat of choice)

To Cook:
• Put jar in 2 quart sauce pan on very low heat, add seasonings if needed (chopped garlic, oregano, ground black pepper, Basil, Bay leaf or two etc...)
• put meat in frying pan, break up with spatula and season to taste
• Add onions, peppers, mushrooms to meat or cook separately as you like
• Cook on low-med heat until meat is browned and onions are turning translucent
• Drain meat concoction (if lots of grease is present, some low fat meats don't need it)
• add all to tomato sauce and add any remaining seasonings if you forgot earlier
• let simmer (very slow bubbling) for 30 minutes - 1 hour with the occasional stir
• When done its ready to go once its cool enough to eat, remove bay leaves (if any)


Notes:
If cooking ahead of time and this is too much stuff for one meal (2 adults and small child for us) then fill the sauce jar back up for use sometime during the week and freeze the rest for a second go round. Whole concoction with pasta of choice serves 4-6 folks depending on portion sizes. Heavy on the pasta and light on the sauce, or very 'healthy' portions might get you 8, maybe more... but what fun would that be?

Cost depends on ingredients, The above is around $25. Use Ragu/Prego and ground beef it is $10-15. use some seasoned chopped canned tomatoes with more seasoning added by you then simmer longer and it can be considerably cheaper (jar of sauce is 6-12 bucks, Couple of cans tend to be less than $5).

Time depends on how good you want it to turn out. Heat the sauce and cook the meat while adding the chopped veggies, then add to sauce and mix up. As long as you cooked the meat enough in the pan it is ready to go at that point. But the meat and sauce will taste independent of one another but is still pretty good. That can all be be done in 20-25 minutes or so. 30 with a quick simmer. However, leave it on to simmer for another 20+ minutes and you will have a much better sauce. More than 45 minutes or so is overkill with a pre-made sauce but as long as the heat is properly low you have to leave it going for a loooong time to screw it up. If you want your veggies to be a bit more... solid/crisp etc... then add them well after the meat and cook just long enough to let them soak in the sauce a bit. With a picky eater you can blend everything in with the tomato sauce in a cuisinart prior to adding the meat and they will be none the wiser!

You have lots of options to change this to suit tastes. For example throw in a spicy pepper for some heat. The better the starting sauce the better the end result. Low fat content meats (less than 7%) are easier to deal with but have less flavor and need more seasoning and simmering to soak in the goodies from the sauce etc... Higher fat content meats add more flavor on their own but need more cooking up front to get the fat out so you can drain it. If you are using higher fat content meats it is best to brown the meat separately from the onions/peppers/shrooms etc... You know you messed the meat part up if after the sauce cools you have congealed grease on the top... learn your lesson for next time :-)

In terms of healthiness the above with Delallos sauce has no preservatives etc and the rest is what you add and should primarily be fresh meat and produce. Use low fat meat and add no salt and all you have of those two hot button items is what is in the jar of sauce and the limited fat from the meat. Change this to a high fat meat, with poor draining and a crappy sauce and that can change fairly quickly. Not to say this output is super healthy or anything but it is better than average and strikes a good balance between naughty tasty goodness and flavorless health nazi fare.

Braves vs Cards wild card debacle

http://usat.ly/QBSmGN

This kills me. This is the second completely bullshit call in a professional sports event in the last couple of weeks. The infield fly rule is aptly named. While it does not have to be an infielder that makes the play it is about proximity to the infield. The distance from the bases in this case made it a fair ball to play for the base runners and also made it not a routine effort. This is the reason for the routine effort clause in the rule. Suffice it to say when an outfielder playing routine depth and an infielder both have a reasonable play on the ball the infield fly rule NEVER applies. Everybody in the stadium knew it was a horse crap call. Every ball player I saw commenting (go Eck!) called it a straight up wrong call. Pity they couldn't just man up and reverse the call because at the time they could have done so without adversely affecting the game. Now it most certainly is to late to rectify the screwup.... Bu they could at least own up to the mistake rather than blowing out this crap.

Lance Armstrong: A look at reality… and some legalities

Lance Armstrong: poor put upon hero or scumbag cheater? You know I honestly don’t really care. Spin his story either way and it is remarkable. However, at this point I’d have to say he meets the duck criteria…. at least if you look at the various results around him. I fully grant he passed the tests. Full stop, no argument. The sport had a testing regimen, he passed and I do truly believe that should be the end of it. This current process of performing ex post facto discoveries is evil regardless of whether or not it is finding the truth. There is a reason the US justice system has rules about ‘double jeopardy’ and ‘ex post facto’ prosecution. But we will get to that bit in a second.

First, lets get something out there that has to do with positive test results. That is the results of the top tier riders in the tour with Lance who undisputedly HAVE tested positive. This means if Lance didn’t dope he beat the rest of the worlds best cyclists who are proven dopers ‘au natural’. If you know much about the science and physiology of cycling that is a mind boggling concept. You are talking about a physical endeavor where the removal of say a 100 grams of weight in the equipment of a cyclist or making very small aerodynamic improvements can have not just a measurable impact in their results, but over the course of an event like the tour de france can convey a significant competitive advantage. In order for that to be the case, it means that at the professional level there are fairly minuscule differences in the physiological abilities of the riders in the pro peleton. How about some numbers. The tour is ~2000 miles long. In 2012 ~17 min separated 1st and 10th place. Total ride time for the winner was 5,254 minutes: 10th place crosses the line in 5,271 minutes. The difference is measured in 10ths of a percent (.4%). Dead last finished in 5,491 minutes. That is a difference on the order of few percent (4%). Now what is the impact of doping? Well EPO, Blood Transfusions and Testosterone used for performance gains are illegal, so there are no definitive tests clearly defining just how advantageous they are. That being said, most of the evidence that has wound its way out there indicates doping can impact riders personal efforts on the order of whole % point gains, lets say 5% at best. Interestingly this seems to be roughly the difference between the back of the peleton and the leaders.

So lets posit a theoretical clean peleton where the best rider represents 100% physical capacity of a human body without illegal assists. If the best rider dopes the theoretical performance max is 105% or 5% better than is possible without assistance. The theoretical worst rider in the clean peleton is at around 95% or 5% below that best unassisted rider. That would seem to indicate an ability spread from a low level clean rider to a top level doped rider of about 10%. Since the separation in Tour results seems to be fairly stable over the last 10 years or so at around 4-5% from best to worst would seem to indicate that to be a clean rider who can stay in the field you would have to be in the upper echelon and many lower level clean riders would be pushed out of the field of professional competition. Which is a sad story… but the bit I find more interesting is it would seem to indicate that there is no realistic way to be at the front of the pack without illegal assists unless only the lower tier riders were doping. The reality seems to be that doping is pretty wide spread in the pro peleton and spread across all skill levels.

How about technology? Well most technical advantages developed are typically measured in .1% or .01% or even .001% rates rather than whole percentage advantage jumps and anything that works quickly ends up spread across the entire peleton. Put simply, it generally cancels out but occasionally riders do find a small advantage over the field here and there… but nothing on a level that would account for 7 Tour Titles.

Bottom line? Whether he doped or not, Armstrong was certainly one of the upper echelon riders on natural ability alone. If he were strictly a back of the pack rider then a comprehensive doping program would have just made him competitive in a mixed field of clean and doped riders rather than dominate. Given his success then If he were the only comprehensive doper then he could have been a mid pack rider. The remaining explanation is that he was in a group of upper echelon riders that doped but probably not at the maximum levels possible in order to retain a decent margin of safety with regards to being caught.

Is it possible he could be clean? I would say its only possible if the Pro Peleton is largely clean or if the rumored wide spread doping is largely focused in the lower echelon riders serving to tighten the field up (i.e. a natural spread should be greater than 5% from to to bottom). Once you look at the scenarios with widespread doping across skill levels it gets to be a pretty impossible outlook very fast that the best of the best for 7 years was clean and still better than anyone aided by illegal methods.

That being said here is the likeliest ‘clean Armstrong’ scenario assuming widespread evenly distributed doping in the Peleton. He would have to be the absolute best rider in the world… i.e. he is the 100% example. In fact he would probably have to be the freak outlier best. Like Jordan in Basketball, Woods in golf etc… say 101% natural vs the normal range of human capacity. He would have to have a significant combinations of technical advantages every year he won giving him another .5 - 1 % advantage over the field. And the support of his team mates would have to account for another 1-2% advantage over just his basic natural skill… and to do that his team would have to be the absolute dirtiest one in the peleton by enough to convey that large of an advantage to their top rider. That could sit the best theoretical clean rider in the 102.5% - 104% range of a posited field that could house up to a 105% rider if the best riders were comprehensively doping. And for him to end up in the front of the pack 7 times in a row would mean that nobody above the 98% natural capability mark engaged in a comprehensive doping program with similar technical and team support.

Now there are all sorts of problems with the math up above in terms of determining the meaningful values used. Tweak the field range a bit, mess with your peleton doping assumptions, impact of tech or how useful doping really is and you can tilt it either way fairly easily. But the dirty team bit I suggest above is pretty much documented. Technical advantages are within the realm of possible, though the idea his team maintained that much of an edge in the tech for 7 straight years is not… IE I don’t think the tech improved a whole 3-7% in the years he won, and there is no way a .5-1% advantage remained a secret across that length of time. The fact he won I think clearly shows that he was one of the very best if not the absolute best with zero help. If all the top riders were doping then they were all doing so at levels not prone to detection so I would argue the very best were also less likely to maximize the advantages… which does leave a theoretical hole for a really good clean rider with assistance from a bunch of dirty riders to be able to do what Armstrong did. So that means my best case scenario is that he did it with help from a dirty team… and he somehow was in the midst of doping central and refrained.

Hence my statement earlier that in my mind there are to many ‘duck like’ qualities to the story to realistically think he didn’t dope.

Now on to those legalities. Legally speaking I don’t think there is a case for Armstrong’s doping. The US government dropped its case against US postal for a reason. At best the eye witness testimony claimed by the USADA suggests the doping was at insufficient levels to be detected. Throw in the obvious conflicts of interest of those giving testimony biasing them against Armstrong and all that testimony looks awful shaky. The only physical evidence being claimed by the USADA (as yet unverified by unbiased third party review) relates to the 2009 tour, and the samples in question passed all testing at the time of the competition. Re-testing the samples now smacks of ‘double jeopardy’ in trying to assess guilt on the same charges twice. Since the re-testing was not random, and it was not universal (all samples from that year re-tested in these same manner) it also smacks of unfair and unwarranted targeting of an individual. Finding positive results in this case should be deemed as similar to unwarranted search and seizure leading to inadmissible evidence. If the possibility of a later retest was not clearly layed out in the rules of the competition it also smacks of an attempt at convicting Armstrong through an ‘ex post facto’ process.

Now the USADA process is not a legal proceeding… but the fact it does not even try to hold itself to such basic principles of US judicial concepts lends a great deal of credence to Armstrong’s claim they are on a witch hunt. The process used assessed guilt prior to any kind of hearing and thus placed the burden on the accused to prove their innocence after their ruling. This is in direct contradiction to a foundation principle of US judicial process in which innocence is presumed and the burden is on the accuser to prove guilt. And finally, the USADA declaration that Armstrong is stripped of a title in an athletic competition it does not preside over is frankly disturbing. At the very minimum that should have been worked as the USADA recommends to the UCI (or whoever it is that presides over the Tour) that based on its findings Armstrong be stripped of his titles.

So let me put this plainly. I don’t care if everything the USADA claims is true. As I say above I think the odds are pretty overwhelmingly pointing to Armstrong having doped. But the process they have used is so utterly evil, unprincipled and in direct contradiction of numerous fundamental judicial rights of a US citizen that acting on their findings, no matter how true, is far more dangerous to society than allowing an alleged doping cyclist to retain the official record of a ‘win’.

Update 2/21/2013

I wrote the above prior to the Oprah interview where Lance admitted to doping in all but his last two Tour rides (neither of which he won). He claimed he was clean in the last two rides because of the bio passport system that he credited for largely cleaning up the pro peleton so that he felt a clean (un-doped) ride was a fair ride. He compared doping in his earlier rides to 'just like putting air in the tires... of course we did that..." but he steadfastly refused to name any other names or comment about or theorize about any other doping going on.

Even with that... I stand by this post. What the UCI did and how they did it is worse than any overall benefit to outing this truth. About the only good thing I saw in this whole debacle was Lance saying the reason he finally came forward was his Son defending him when he knew he was guilty of the charges laid out against him.

The UCI should have focused on strengthening programs that would keep widespread doping programs from being sustainable and moving forward. All they have done is once again proven that highly competitive athletes seek ANY advantage they can and that banning something you can't effectively test for is silly.

All in all if the man on Opera is truly a repentant of his wrong doings and not just 'spinning it' (pardon the pun) to his advantage then I actually look forward to his next book (assuming there is one) about setting the record straight and fully discussing at least HIS doping practice and how it worked. I actually plan to go back and re-read 'its not about the bike' in light of what he said in the Oprah interview.

2012 Olympics: Things that are bugging the crap out of me

First: NBC needs to wake up and smell the 21st century. Either embrace the new technology and roll your coverage accordingly or at the very least… don’t spoil your own tape delay news. I hope by the time Brazil rolls around the rights holder will be a bit more with the technology. If you want some amusement then tune into #NBCfail twitter streams for a running skewering of their mangling of the games.

Second: The exclusion of a third or more participants from a given country in the gymnastic all round individual events is absurd. Jordyn Wieber and several other competitors are being excluded from a competition not because they failed to qualify in the top 24, but because they are on teams that had more than 2 competitors qualify in the top 24 scores. In the case of Wieber it is most noticeable because on her ‘off day’ during the qualifiers she ‘only’ had the 4th highest score in the competition. So in the competition ostensibly about crowning the best all round female gymnast, the 4th overall qualifier at the games (and others who had one of the top 24 scores) will not be in the field due to this asinine two competitors per country limit. This is a tragic example of the IOC loosing sight of the true spirit of athletic competition. As a former Athlete I for one will stand up and say I would never want a slot I hadn’t earned and I don’t know that I played with anyone who would. At its heart the Olympics represent a fairly simple concept… at least I thought they did. That concept is to get the best athletes from all over the world together to compete to find out who is the best. Its a shame that in one of the most iconic events of one of the most iconic international sports, the best of the best will not be who takes the floor.

Third: The announcers covering the Phelps story and the Wieber story I think need a serious reality check. Phelps ‘stumbles’ in a competition to finish 4th and its not… hey the guys had a long and amazing career but the reality is he just isn’t going to dominate the way he used to. Its super man just lost his cape and oh the tragedy and he has no competitive fire any more. But I have to admit I can understand the tones of those stories far far FAR more than I can the one regarding Wieber being excluded from the all round competition in gymnastics. Listening to the commentators the past couple of days you would think she completely fell apart during qualifying and deserved to be excluded from the all round competition, not that she had the 4th highest score of ALL the competitors in the world that made it to the olympics.

Lastly and just for fun… Kobe’s comments about this ‘Dream Team’ vs the original just has to bring a smile to your face. Man if only you could arrange for those two teams to meet (or any similar kind of generational matchup like that) wouldn’t it be awesome? My take? The original team beats the snot out of them, and I think 10/10 times. Not because they are superior individually… but because they understood how to play as a team and perhaps more importantly ALL of them were consistent focused players ALL of the time for the vast majority of their careers. For them there was never any question about how they would play at the Olympics. Much has been made of the fact this current group is actually taking it seriously… The fact that it was a realistic possibility they wouldn’t is why they would be crushed by that original group.

Google Nexus Tablet and Android Jelly Bean

So the last few years have seen me go almost entirely Mac. It started innocently enough when I got one of the 1st generation unibody MacBook Pros where I naively believed I was just going to screw with OS X long enough to get a feel for it before loading up a boot camp windows install to get some actual work done. Needless to say that didn’t happen. One of these days I think I am going to sit down and write out exactly what it is about the Mac OS that has captured me so.

However the recent announcement from google about a $200 tablet they are selling direct to the public along with their latest Android system sparked my attention enough to plunk some money down for a pre-order. I have a couple of things I think I will use it for… namely a potential GPS/Music system for my car since there just is not a decent mounting solution for an iPad due to its size. But honestly I got it because I had the money available at the time to satisfy my curiosity… and this is the first android device that has made me curious enough to plunk some money down. Why is that?

Conceptually I like Android far more than I like iOS. However it has been seriously hampered in the market place by carriers that insist on skinning the interface and then refusing to push out updates as google improves the OS. Additionally google had a fundamental problem with the display just not being terribly responsive compared to iOS devices which is extremely frustrating on a touch based device. So the fact Google is directly selling the device means it will get updates when they are released… and one of the major accomplishments of Jelly Bean is to make the display/interface as smooth as ‘butter’. This along with a lot of the interesting things they are doing with maps (offline google maps AT LAST) and searching (google now) intrigues me enough that I want to check this device out.

Stay tuned for one of my long winded hands on thoughts articles once this new piece of Mountain View goodness lands on my doorstep.

WWDC 2012apple

If you think Apple ran out of gas with the passing of Steve Jobs you ought to take a look at the most recent keynote from WWDC. I suppose it is possible that these products are the cleaning out of the pipeline of the last few products the great one presided over. But even so I think a couple of things are obvious. Jobs created a culture that can survive without him. The other thing is that the Apple approach to design and close integration of software and hardware works. So long as the Apple approach meets the needs of the consumers and does not have to adapt to new times the company is going to remain a juggernaut. What amazes me is dthat companies have not begun making strides to imitate the core element of their success and that is integration at all levels.

Ok... That aside lets take a look at what Cupertino served up.

1. Fairly standard MacBook lineup hardware refresh with a move to faster cores, graphics and SSD technology. Prices lowered or remaining the same. Absent and later confirmed as no longer in the lineup is the longstanding odd child of the family, the 17" MacBook. Now whether you are in the small dedicated minority of those who see this machine as a one of the kind system unable to be replaced by smaller options or one of the many non-initiated who think they serve the same purpose for geeks that ferraris do for investment bankers... Let us observe a moment of silence for the apparent passing of this remarkable machine. Because if there was anything both groups could appreciate about the 17" inch MBP is that it was an incredible machine. I myself am an owner of the penultimate generation of this beast and have had a love hate relationship for it and find myself at a difficult cross roads for trying to decide on what my next machine will be... Which of course brings us to a very likely candidate.

2. The introduction of a next generation MacBook Pro that is classic Apple in that it is not a common denominator formula machine. This new box is attempting to read the tea leaves of the future market of professional mobile work power or perhaps more likely attempting to shape that landscape. Gone is the optical drive. Gone is the FireWire port, gone is the express card slot, gone is the Ethernet port and gone is the platter based hard drive. In addition to the same updates announced in the rest of the line you can say hello dual thunderbolt , dual USB 2/3 capable ports, HDMI, SD card slot, svelte form factor damn near as thin as the air consumer level machines, and last but definitely not least... HELLO 220ppi laptop retina display. If laptops were playmates this one would be playmate of the year because it's specs and designs are pure techno porn. Apple has continued its regression ( Or perhaps march in regaining) a fully customised internal component design across its products. While this is causing a great deal of controversy re: self upgrades and repair ability there is no doubt this marks the continuing return to the roots of the company as a designer of hardware. That aside this is not just being driven by Apples desire to do a whole lot of expensive redesigning as much as it is a necessity if Apple wants to continue to distinguish itself from the competition. Things have reached the point in laptop design that the exterior dimensions are largely a function of the standard components being housed inside by everybody.. So the only way to significantly change the exterior dimensions became the customisation of the internal components. I suspect the cost of this redesign and related machining changes in addition to some fundamental tech limitations is what killed the 17" machine.

3. OS X is moving to mountain lion and the name of the game is integration. Facebook, iCloud etc... And of course Retina HiDPI support. Safari in particular got a lot of updates. Also of note is the increased symmetry between OS X and iOS as dictation, notifications, reminders, iMessage etc have all made their way to the full OS.

4. iOS development continues apace with the introduction of a fully functional navigation solution, increased SIRI abilities, and some pretty nifty user friendly modes of operations that are finally moving beyond simple silent mode or not. A major move is afoot to present iOS as a Chinese friendly solution which is pretty damn important for anyone that might be envisioning a future where iOS is universal.

So having become a firm acolyte of Cupertino devices... will I be jumping on the new Retina MacBook? Not sure yet to be honest. I have seen the new screen in person now and it is impressive. It is still a mirror but it is noticeably muted in comparison to the older panels with an independent glass front. It is still not as good as the matte option screen but it might be bearable. The scaling system seems to work extremely well with none of the typical fuzzy or awkward edges endemic to current systems when not displaying native resolutions on an LCD panel. However no matter how many pixels it has it still is physically smaller than my current 17" screen and that is the catch for me. It does have a 1920x1200 mode... however In the past I had a 15" 1920x1200 screen and even with 20/20 vision I ultimately had to admit it was just to small for comfortable use. On the other hand switching between the scales looked to be very snappy and zooming options are much better supported these days. Might could work. But ideally... for someone like me that utilizes screen space with multiple windows a large percentage of the time the loss of physical space compared to the 17" is quite possibly a deal breaker. I understand the financial and technical realities that likely drove the demise of the 17" system but that does not make me stop wishing for a 17" Retina MacBook Pro. I will put it this way. If they had simply updated the 17" the same as they did the other MacBooks I would opt for it over the retina 15". As is I may opt for the Retina system due to a lack of a better alternative.

To Apple Care or not to Apple Care? Phones and iPads are mostly no-brainers on this front with AppleCare+ but I have never really been tempted on the laptop front. In general the design choices Apple made just made this laptop far LESS likely to suffer from a failure during a 3 year extended warranty period. If Apple adds accidental coverage to Apple Care for the retina macbook I would suggest getting it if you will be hauling it around with you a lot. On the other hand if it is largely just component failure coverage I would not sweat it to much. Any fundamental design flaws will surface in the included year of coverage all devices come with. Now that spinning discs are gone the next most likely failure is the battery and a battery replacement will be much cheaper than the $350 for the laptop Applecare. The only caveat to this is if in the next couple of weeks we find out that mass production has introduced issues that compromise the thermal management system. Though in that case I would advise just avoiding the Retina MBP all together.

Finally there is a good reason to not pony up for the New Retina machine. Ivy bridge is a nice processor line but the Haswell architecture may be worth the wait if you are not in need of a new machine. Perhaps more importantly is when Haswell lands Apple will also certainly increase the graphics horsepower. The current setup is capable of running the screen but it is definitely being pushed to the limits. So far this device looks like it is avoiding any major new device gremlins but it is still a device on the edge or what is possible and with that comes some headaches. The 2nd gen of this device has a good chance of being a very very nice machine.

Other than the iOS and Macbook upgrades and Retina display Apple also Previewed Mountain lion. The merge of iOS and OS X continues. I am wondering if Apple will never ship an OS XI and instead choose to go numberless from iOS and OS become simply OS. One of the upgrades that has my attention is supposedly multiple screens will be handled better than the current blank linen screen that has myself and many others screaming in frustration when trying to use full screen mode in Lion.

Google Glass: Next big thing or another scrap heap addition for VR?

Well first off I suppose VR is an inappropriate term. The new Google Glass project is part of a growing field of devices and technologies aimed at AR or Augmented Reality as opposed to the older awkward vision of Virtual Reality. The main difference is the mobility of the user. VR was and is aimed at transplanting a static user into an immersive digital world. AR is about taking the technology out into the real world. The technology is really a bit older than you might think and in many ways is already far more successful than VR. If you have ever seen a Heads up Display in action you have seen a form of AR. Lately smart phones that use cameras, accelerometer, and GPS to overlay information on the world around you have become as common as your nearest iPhone or similar device. Google Glass wants to take the next step and instead of having us look at a screen like a phone, they want us to wear a headset with a display ready and waiting just outside of our eye line... ie look up and perhaps a bit to the right and there it is. The clunky design of eye wear displays seems to be slimming down considerably judging by the early prototypes breaking cover though battery life remains as a major stumbling block to a truly svelte design powerful enough to rest comfortably in the design space afforded a pair of glasses.

How big a deal is this? Consider it this way. If the brains of this device is your phone then it doesn't have to break its way into the market so much as present a strong case for its use in conjunction with equipment you already have. So think of the phone as just a mobile computer. It has entertainment, directions (GPS), contacts, communications etc... It could for example connect wirelessly to your car and allow you to control music, conversations, display trip information and basic operation information like speed, temperature, warning signals etc... All in an integrated display you take with you everywhere. IE Get into another car and the experience is the same. Sit on the sofa and control your TV or other entertainment system. When playing a movie or video game be able to see ancillary information if desired. Provided the optics are accurate enough imagine walking through a grocery store and shopping with a running total that updates as you place things in your cart or put them back on the shelf... displayed against a pre-set budget amount and reminders of special occasions (little pete likes hotdogs for his birthday in two days etc...). When you get to the counter it helps you compare the cost expected vs what rings up and works via NFC to authorize the transaction with a real time update on your remaining bank balance/budget etc... imagine walking up to a vending machine and browsing the nutritional value information of the items inside and selecting one without touching the machine. Imagine getting onto an elevator that knows what floor you need based on the person you are in the building to see and it has directions provided as you navigate the building including a detour to the nearest restroom. When you see something you want a picture of you can decide to keep the last few seconds of time being constantly recorded or snap a higher quality still shot (also possibly happening periodically or based on surprising changes (guess at something interesting). Imagine it running facial recognition on anyone you engage in conversation and helping you remember someones name or connections to you.

There is a LOT of promise in something with a quality camera, an unobtrusive always there display and access to the internet and other smart phone type information. It will also change a lot of notions about what constitutes privacy.

iPad (2012): What is in a name?

So the new iPad announcement and release has come and gone. Not the iPad 3 as most if not everyone had assumed and in its place *drum roll* is just plain old iPad. So what is in a name? In this case I think this says a lot about how Apple is planning to move forward. This falls directly in line with the naming convention for every other Apple product except the iPhone. I give you three guesses what my prediction is about the naming convention regarding the release of the next iPhone is and all three don't count.

Simply put this means the iOS devices have grown up. Do not look for massive hardware changes in them any time in the near future, especially the iPad. It looks for all intents and purposes like the formula for a tablet has been set. Print quality display, solid battery life, partial multi-tasking and growing cloud interconnectivity. To me the future in terms of major changes will be in software with incremental hardware advances that keep pace with the technology updates. There are a couple of frontiers that could drive some significant hardware changes, namely true multi tasking and the ability to provide a fully functional content creation environment (think docked iPad driving a more traditional work station environment). However the OS and battery capacities at this point are the limiting factors and barring a major unexpected shift it is unlikely for that next step to occur any time soon. On the plus side this means the iPad line may now be subject to mid cycle updates rather than just full generational hardware changes.

So where does that leave this current piece of gadgetry? I will get into some details below but here is the short version. I bestow upon it the best praise I think possible for a 'new fangled gadget'... it is a fully baked device. Other than perhaps the display the story here is the fact Apple has filled in the few remaining weak links and chinks in the armor of the original iPad that survived the release of the iPad2. It took Apple one less generation to get to this point with the iPad than it did with the iPhone. Arguably the iPhone did not reach this state until the 4s (5 generations of device) but I would grant the 4 that status with the argument largely surrounding the failure to go multicore as its largest weakness. And that weakness has more to do with its longevity than any problems with the device itself.

The Good:

Retina Display

Lets get this out of the way early... Retina Retina Retina Retina. In geek terms this word may now replace Hallelujah as a general phase of praise. Apple confirmed rumors and now has released upon the world the first electronic display that is both on par with the standard printout in size and resolution (260ish dpi vrs 300dpi). For the few that haven't heard Apple calls this a 'Retina' display because the pixels are so small that you cannot see them at normal viewing distances. There have been a few folks like myself that have been harping about the need for higher DPI screens for many years. Display technology hit a real doldrum on this front as the race got underway for LCD HDTV sets. On the one hand it made LCD screens insanely cheap. But that cheapness also stymied any attempt at new levels of computer specific resolutions. To this day it is prohibitively expensive just to buy displays at larger than 1080p resolutions even at standard DPI just because there is no mass demand for them. It is a classic chicken and egg problem. Make them cheaper and folks would buy them, but nobody wants to buy them because there are much cheaper options (you can get 2-4 high quality HD screens for the cost of a Cinema display for example). It looks like Apple is poised to break the dam on this one and we should once again see computer display resolutions far out strip basic video in the not to distant future. Once people get a load of the Retina iPad screen and all the other Android tablets soon to use this it will be a short matter of time before laptop and desktop monitors begin to follow suit. And just like laser and ink jet printer technology it is likely to fixate around the 300dpi level for exactly the reasons of Apple's Retina marketing spiel. For almost all purposes 300 dpi sits right at or above the capability of the human eye to detect pixels. Thus print level electronic displays of a size in line with standard print outs are finally here and the first generation of them is a portable tablet no less. Bottom line... its as good as you have heard. And if you own stock in Xerox or any standard format printer technology (Letter, A4 size) I'd say the time to sell is not to far away. They just got turned into horse and buggy makers with the release of the car. The fall may not be immediate but it is coming. Also expect that old paperless office stuff to crop back up... only this time it has a real chance to stick if the Tablet uptake in corporate environments continues at its current break neck pace. Make exceptions if they adapt by kickstarting mass availability of 3d printers that do more than put ink on paper... in fact the major print company that makes that leap successfully may well be the next 'Apple' in terms of insane stock growth.

The Design

Many continue to lament Apple's reluctance to significantly change the design and give it poor marks for keeping the same basic look. I'm sorry but what exactly is the problem with a slim metal backed, glass fronted high quality feeling slab? Baring a production ready haptic system to bring tactile feedback to the touch interface system I don't for see a major change or a need for a major change to the basic design. The bezel allows you to hold without interacting with the screen. The size of the display drives all else. May see a move to more and more durable materials, especially if the spec of the internals ever flatlines (ie Moore's law hits the limits of physics). Though it looks like we are on that ride for a few more years at least.

Battery Life

Move to LTE and Retina display with quad core graphics and 1gb of DRAM had many worried that the iPad would give up some battery life. Early reviews are in and all seem to be unanimous that the real use battery life is close to the marks listed by Apple with the largest variance I have seen listed by 'The Verge' and they credited it to their use of a brighter default screen setting than Apple uses in their tests (65% vs 50%).

LTE

Must say I was a bit surprised by the inclusion of LTE. 4g technology rollout has been a real mess and its an ugly time to get out there into it. However its here and it works and it is certainly faster than the 3g/4g mess the iPhone 4s shipped with. Big thumbs up on this one.

Apple Care

I am not a fan of extended warranties as they are typically super high margin cash cows preying on uniformed user fears. This is still true for Apple Care BUT under a certain set of circumstances this plan is a very good value for the money. I use my iPad daily. It has become something that if I am without it I miss it sorely. It goes with me EVERYWHERE and I have the most expensive version. For 100 dollars I get 3 years of coverage and 2 accidental replacements covered at 50$ per incident. It is the accidental coverage (even with the additional 50$ hit) that puts this in the good column for me specifically. It only applies as a good value for me because I rely on this device daily and my usage will expose it regularly to the possibility of damage. under those circumstances I think it makes sense to plunk down the dough for Apple Care. On the other hand, If it is going to be a coffee table device or even if you are getting the base spec device the value is not nearly as strong unless damage from mishandling (young children etc...) is a real concern. Manufacturing defects almost always manifest well within the 1 year basic warranty period and the basic pieces of this device just are not prone to failure. Apple uses high quality and minimal amount of switch gear (only moving parts), a very durable casing design and there is no spinning drive making all the internals solid state hardware. Assembly quality has been verified as at least on par with previous devices which have experience no deterioration issues due to assembly defects.

The So So:

Battery Charge time

Ok the new display radio and memory did all tack on significant energy usage and Apple upped the battery by a whopping 17 watt hours. This leads directly to an increased charge time. Figure 30% longer to recharge your device than before. Expect a possible improvement in this the next time around of either faster recharge times or an increase in expected battery life. The original iPad challenged mobile charging solutions with its heavier amperage draw than USB spec... this one shatters it. Charging this device on USB is going to be an exercise in patience where it was marginally useful on the first two generation devices.

Heat

You may have seen some stories bouncing around about how the new iPad runs hotter than the 2... well this is directly tied to the above two issues of battery life and charge time. Apple is running through some 40% more power in the same amount of time. That energy has to go somewhere. Hands on experience for me has been that prolonged LTE data transfer (video streaming) is probably the most consistent cause... high graphics games have not had a huge effect. In perspective the worst I have experienced so far is far less noticeable than say a laptop actually in your lap doing the same types of activities. On the brighter side all this waste heat means there are some real gains to be made with the electronics to make them a bit more efficient that we can hope to see in the next generation or two.

Storage

No increase in total storage from the first device to the last. This may be the first real limitation folks hit on the device. New high speed LTE connectivity and memory hungry graphics (bumps to standard still quality and all those retina app updates/releases coming) are going to make short work of even the max 64gb size memory device. Lack of an SD slot continues to be a sore spot for many and rightly so I think. The new beaming capabilities of wirelessly sending files between iOS devices is all that keeps this out of the bad category for me. Apple is finally sort of dealing with the fact that these devices need to be able to talk to each other somehow. Even so the beaming capability does not seem to be universally implemented (only found it in iPhoto so far) and requires you to be on the same wifi network (can't do it across two LTE connected devices).

The Camera

Depending on how you look at it this could be in the good column. The rear shooter is the same hardware that was so successful in the iPhone 4 and as such is a very capable mobile camera. But taking snaps with a tablet actually feels more silly than you would imagine it to be. However this is a serious step up from the excuse for a camera put on the iPad 2 and should be much better at supporting augmented reality efforts and QR/Barcode reading applications. Front camera is still base VGA instead of HD capable which is not terribly surprising. Video chat at HD levels is still somewhat rare and for what it does this thing works. Bottom line is that at least the snaps you take with the rear camera no longer have less pixels than the screen even with massive jump to the 2048x1536 Retina display.... and the low resolution of the front camera means people won't be able to count your nose hairs from the unflattering tablet video chat positioning.

The Bad:

Cellular Data Caps

This is still probably the single worst aspect of cellular enabled tablets. LTE speeds now make the data caps/cost look more and more ridiculous. They were to small relative to the cost 2 years ago and today are insanely out of whack with the intent of how the device is supposed to be utilized. There is nothing wrong with profiting. But the carriers are beyond that and I believe are at best profiteering and at worst involved in organized price fixing. The past 4-5 years has seen a MASSIVE increase in mobile devices with data service contracts which have led to massive profits. In a sane market this would drive costs down. 2 years ago when the iPad launched there were offers for unlimited monthly plans, they no longer exist and more expensive plans capped at a mere 5gb are in their place. Something is rotten in the wireless provider world. Are unlimited plans supportable by the infrastructure? Quite possibly not. Is the cost of providing users 5gb of access 50$? Most assuredly not. There is currently talk about allowing some app makers to subsidize bandwidth used by consumers and if any such plans come to pass we may get an idea of what the real carrier cost is. Because there is no way in hell Netflix or ABC etc... would agree to subsidize bandwidth at the current cost pushed to the consumers. I expect this to be an issue that gets greater and greater scrutiny as if the carriers fail to shape up they are going to be standing directly in the path of advancements possible with a connected mobile infrastructure trying to defend unreasonable levels of profit for providing what will soon come to be viewed as a basic utility.

The iOS AppStore Limitation

Censoring is bad and Apple is currently the self crowned king of the mobile application world. They give the final thumbs up to any and all apps officially accessible from an iOS device and the viciously defend they right to be the only legitimate distributer of software for their devices. Did they earn it? Yes they did. Is it their playground? Yes it is. But the bigger their success becomes the more the app approval process and disallowing of alternative application installation is going to be viewed as counter productive and possibly destructive to the consumer. Currently this is not the reality. The careful selection process and walled garden nature of the store is a large part of the devices success. But Apple is playing a dangerous game with the way they deny an app, sherlock the ideas and enforce arbitrary censorship restrictions on content that will sooner or later raise anti-competitive suits and freedom of speech issues. All of this could be solved not by Apple opening the floodgates to any and all crap in their App store, but simply by allowing supported access to other application providers such as the popular Cydia store linked to the very active iOS jailbreak community. The current model of app delivery to iOS devices is like Ford saying you can only fill their cars up at their dealerships or special gas stations. It has got to change. I say this as a massive fan of the App store and what it provides. This could quite possibly be an issue that hits Apple similar to the anti-monopoly issues that plagued Microsoft in the late 90's and early 2000's. They need to open up the doors to alternative app stores before they get forced to.

Lack of Case

Gorilla glass may be tough but its also now designed to not be easily replaceable. As with my original review I find it reprehensible that Apple does not at least provide a token screen cover as part of the basic equipment package when purchasing an iPad.

Conclusions:

As I said this is a solid fully capable device with no obvious holes as were the case with both previous devices. I used the first gen device for 2 years with quite a few annoyances. I expect to use this one for 2 years with very little concern for tech envy despite my wandering eye when it comes to new fangled gadgets. I ponied up for Apple care for the first time because I actually expect there to be a decent chance I will still be using it daily for the full 3 years of the coverage. And I got it for the accident replacement coverage more than anything else.

Recommendations:

For any 1st generation tablet device owners (Apple or otherwise) this is a no brainer contender for your money if you are looking for something new.

For second generation device owners, especially iPad 2 folks it isn't a slam dunk. If you read a lot, mess with high quality digital imagery and/or need faster mobile bandwidth speeds there is a lot to be gained. If you are a more typical browse and e-mail type the cost benefit of upgrading so soon is not so hot.