IPad: The Microwave Oven of Computing
techinch.com
techinch.com
Therein lies the interesting fact: The new, "in the middle" device may trigger new approaches and ways of life that may indispensable. The baby bottle sterilizer is an unexpected but vital byproduct of the microwave.
There's actually a number of ways to make your parenting life a bit easier if you dig past why you're getting certain bits of advice, then take action based on the underlying facts rather than the resulting "official advice" suitable for parents with an IQ of 90 (and I do not mean that as a joke in the slightest, they are real, and I don't really begrudge the official "advice givers" for the resulting advice). Cough medicine in particular was a real life-saver for us one week when I dug into why we couldn't use it. It turns out that just about the only reason not to give it to your two-year-old is that somebody else ignored the clear directions on the label and either gave them too much or used it on purpose for the sleep-inducing side effect. Solution: Don't do that.
Regarding cough medicine, the issue appears to be effectiveness. Most doctors now recommend honey for babies (older than one) as it actually appears to be as effective. See: http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/honey/AN01799
There have also been studies that show that cough medicine may simple have the placebo effect. Unless there are allergies or other conditions, honey just seems like the better choice.
Part of the problem here is that if you type it all out it sounds horrible. In reality, the world is not as dangerous as an Internet debate can make it sound. Type out the full description of what's involved in walking down the stairs and you'll make an emotionally-appealing for banning them ("my god, any one muscle fails to work and you can fall to your death!"), but it has no correspondence to reality. In my judgment, I am not even remotely endangering my kids in the real world. You are welcome to your opinions, but in my opinion turning my judgment over to others is itself not a good judgment.
"There have also been studies that show that cough medicine may simple have the placebo effect."
Right. Kid goes from a hacking cough that kept him awake for three nights straight to fast asleep (and resumed coughing the next day & night, so "he just got better at the same time" isn't on the table either) and it was all placebo, for a kid who can't even talk yet. Sure.
Honey's an interesting thought which I may consider, except that there's no evidence that cough syrup is a problem, except vague nervousness because there haven't been any "scientific studies" on the topic. However I consider the abundant real-world experience that preceded the hand-wringing about it not being "properly" studied to trump it; on the scale of evidence scientific studies are not the highest good, the real world trumps it (which is actually a core tenant of any decent theory of science, any theory of science missing that isn't worth anything), and it was extremely widely deployed for a long time before some people got nannyish about it. If it were noticably bad, we wouldn't have to theorize, we'd know. (At best it can have a small below-the-noise-floor effect; widespread experience can't prove 0 bad effect but it can and does put a rather low upper bound on it.)
(In fact I'm rather strongly of the opinion that there are numerous real-world examples in the field of medicine and nutrition in which science has "studied" itself into wildly wrong beliefs that nobody would have taken seriously but for the failures in the scientific process and the misapplication of its authority, and as much as I love science and wish I didn't have to do this, I've really deprioritized science in this area.)
Stairs are fairly dangerous for some people. Our neighbors child has fallen down their stairs three times, and only on the last one did he even need a trip to the hospital. He'll be fine. And probably between the age of three to 85 he's not in any serious danger of falling again. But that's an aside.
The real point is that many of the recommendations may not apply to you. That's fine, don't follow them (especially when it comes to your child... that's one place where you have extreme flexibility). But they are meant to apply to a large population, and I don't think IQ is the best metric to apply to determine if you're in that population.
Regarding cough syrups, I suspect you are familiar with the various studies, but I'll pass this along for those that aren't: http://www.cfp.ca/cgi/content/full/55/11/1081
From the article:
"The US National Electronic Injury Surveillance System-Cooperative Adverse Drug Event Surveillance program reported that OTC CCM preparations were responsible for 7091 visits to emergency departments (EDs) during 2004 and 2005 in children younger than 12 years old. This represented almost 6% of total ED visits related to medication. Of these cases, 66% were due to unsupervised ingestion. A quarter of cases were due to properly administered medications with undesired outcomes. Eight times more children presented with effects of medication errors related to OTC CCMs compared with other medications. While children aged 2 to 5 years represented the largest group in this study, children younger than age 2 had the highest rate of adverse reactions.8 Providing further evidence of the ED burden related to OTC CCMs, the Centers for Disease Control reported that 1519 patients younger than the age of 2 were treated in American EDs in 2005 for problems related to OTC CCMs.
The true prevalence of OTC CCMs in pediatric illness might be underreported. Physicians might not consider the role of such medications in various presentations, such as apparent life-threatening events (ALTEs). Pitetti et al reported 13 out of 274 (5%) patients presenting with ALTEs had evidence of OTC CCM use on toxicology testing.10 This raised concern about the potential role of OTC CCMs in ALTEs and led the authors to conclude that toxicology screening should be performed in all cases of ALTEs. "
In fact I'm rather strongly of the opinion that there are numerous real-world examples in the field of medicine and nutrition in which science has "studied" itself into wildly wrong beliefs that nobody would have taken seriously but for the failures in the scientific process and the misapplication of its authority, and as much as I love science and wish I didn't have to do this, I've really deprioritized science in this area.
Science doesn't have the truth. It has the best theory for the data at the time. But I do think in general that I trust "scientists" more than the mom trying to convince me that SIDS doesn't exist from first principles.
I lived a rough and tumble childhood, and I'm better for it... but that's just lunacy.
Me neither, but I've found that taking fifteen minutes to clearly specify the exact thing I mean has a pretty bad payoff. As shorthand goes, it's fine. This is HN, not a medical journal.
And there's a world of relevant difference between SIDS doesn't exist vs. cough syrup does what it says on the tin. This is another thing that's damned easy to do on the Internet, blur lines between various fuzzy things, but also has no relationship to reality. No, I am in fact not denying the Holocaust by thinking that the evidence suggests that cough syrup actually does work.
That is the exact logic people use to say that vaccines cause autism.
Again, let me reiterate, if it works for you, that's great. There are people who appear to be largely immune to HIV. For them unprotected sex carries little risk of AIDS. But an isolated statement about a single person is only an isolated statement about a single person. That one person has great advice, but its not generalizable w/o more information.
Ah, you're making a critical error, which is frequently made by people. There can't be a control group. This is real life, not a science experiment. It is not possible to life your life in the realm strictly covered by science.
By far the dominant theory from a Bayesian perspective is that the kid had a cough (abundantly demonstrated from evidence), that the thing called "cough syrup" worked as designed, and that once it wore off the cough returned. There is no science here. We can no go back and "rerun" the experiment. The use of science terminology to attack my experience is actually a deep, deep perversion of the principles of science. The tools are completely inapplicable.
Unfortunately, it has become abundantly clear that again from a Bayesian perspective, reading a medical paper about something like cough syrup in toddlers and expecting it to contain Unvarnished Truth is not justified.
I'm not using science to attack your experience. I've tried to say several times, and in many different ways, if it works for you great.
BUT I am using science to say that you haven't made a scientific statement. You've made a statement about your son in a specific instance. That's it. And that's fine. As you say, that's your experience. But that's about all you can say.
(Incidentally, the same appears to be true of Benedryl, for what it's worth.)
I think your detectors for anti-scientific crackpot triggered, which I understand because someone who actually deeply understands science and its limits can accidentally trigger them sometimes where the science is particularly iffy or thinner than advertised.
In any case, lets not be these ladies if our kids ever do have a party together:
http://www.hulu.com/watch/223360/saturday-night-live-corn-sy...
Although if we were these ladies, who would be who?
Hear, hear. There's a highly effective headache medicine called Midrin which has been pulled from the market because the FDA demanded proof that it was effective, and it wasn't profitable enough to be worth doing the studies. It predates the law that required medicines be proven effective (as opposed to just safe), so it was grandfathered...for about four decades. Four decades of patient experience (plus however long it was on the market before that) ought to be enough to say, yes, this stuff does work.
>the real world trumps it (which is actually a core tenant of any decent theory of science,
"Tenet".
Here's something I don't understand. In some cultures, honey is the _first_ thing they give to a newborn. Out of the womb, into the doctor's hand, and the first thing they give the newborn is honey. I don't know why in the US they prohibit honey.
Because unpasteurized honey can contain botulism spores. It's a small enough quantity not to bother an older stomach, but infants can die from it. I guess pasteurized honey is safe, but doesn't taste very good.
My question is: why in the world would you give a newborn infant honey? I can't imagine the logic that says, "hey, a baby just popped out of a vagina, let's get some honey into that sucker, stat!"
Look at the population of India. Do you think the "botulism spores" have caused any damage?
Compare the rates of allergy in the US (for instance) and India. When I was in India, I hadn't even heard of something called "allergy". And in the US, it's all around.
Besides the obvious, "YES!", what effect does your statement have on the fact that American babies have died from botulism spores found in raw honey?
Have you verified that, of Indian infants who died, all were tested for botulism?
I suspect you haven't, and it sounds like maybe you're just ranting about the tangential subject of cleanliness and allergy. But hey, maybe a few dead babies and some hookworm (42.8% infection rate) is better than popping a Claratin.
So the data is not there for an "advanced" country like Canada; what are the chances that there's such data in India?
Do you have any references to back up your _fact_ that babies have died from botulism spores that definitely _came_ from raw honey?
Here's a good paper on infant botulism: http://www.iss.it/binary/publ/cont/ANN_09_20_Fenicia.pdf
From this you'll see that things are not very black and white. It's understanding a relatively rare condition w/ imperfect data.
In fact, some 25% of the population is 89 or below. No reason to treat that as a joke, really.
As always, pay attention to how the child reacts, too.
You still need to stir, because microwaves can heat unevenly.
I'm sure you know this already, just a thing to keep in mind.
The very best gifts are the ones that you didn't know you wanted until you received one, and thereafter you discover that you can no longer live without them. My first microwave was a gift from my sister, and it followed this pattern. I scoffed at them as being convenient but taking up counter space for a function that my stove could accomplish already. Soon after she gave me one, I started wondering how I lived without it.
Great products fit this mold exactly. People scoff until they try it, then they become attached to it, and finally dependent upon it.
No (extra) sterilization, no manual refilling, no going to the store to get formula, etc.
I don't expect we'll evolve an embedded display that can run Flipboard anytime soon, however.
One mans killer feature is another's meh.
Incidentally, I stopped using microwaves a few years ago. I wonder what that means my future relationship with tablets will be.
Did the microwave only cook food that was specially labeled microwaveable(and food grocers had to pay 30% of the price of food to the microwave manufacturer to get that special label) ? Isn't that what happens with the iPad?
Eg. The free Sony e-reader app was rejected, Readability was rejected. Kindle and Netflix are on the chopping block if they don't pay up by June 30th, same with any apps for magazine or content subscriptions. Microwaves never had these restrictions.
Not that that happened with microwaves, but it seems like the danger's greater with the iPad.
The iPad is designed for consumption (yes, I know there are instances of people creating awesome stuff with the iPad, but I think it's generally true that its basic purpose is consumption) and the interaction bandwidth is so low that it discourages content production by users, which is what makes the internet so great. It degrades the great promise of all of the new technology we've been creating.
Yes. It's mostly mediocre at cooking traditional recipes, but great with foods that are specially designed for it, some of which wouldn't otherwise be feasible.
and food grocers had to pay 30% of the price of food to the microwave manufacturer to get that special label
If there were legal and technical means to license microwaveable food, I'm sure someone would do it.
No, but it's a bad idea to use dishes that aren't specially labeled microwaveable. And, with older microwaves, metal was right out. (Apparently things are better these days?)
I personally had the iPad grew on me more and more to the point I rarely pull my MacBookPro when at home now. As a nerd it really helps me cut off steam and saves me from burning out. Using the iPad triggers some kind of zen moment in my day where I can contemplate, learn and create (I draw) stresslessly.
It happens that my use case of the iPad is actually the opposite of my iPhone where I'm constantly diverted by various events and notifications. It's not that the iPad is disconnected but it's more of the flowing kind and less of the pinging kind.
When the iPad gets to that same price point we'll probably get one as well.
Is it? Maybe for small meals. http://www.terrapass.com/images/blogposts/450-POWER-GRAPH.ht...
I think a pressure cooker on a stove is much more energy and water efficient.
Even when we cook larger quantities the 'traditional way' we end up heating them again the next day. Besides it's just outrageous to boil half a teapot for a singe tea cup when just filling the cup and popping it into the microwave.
When cooking vegetables with steam in the microwave we use a (provided) accessory with which you lay vegetables on a grid, fill the bottom with one glass of water, cover with a metallic lid and throw in a few minutes of power. A pressure cooker requires more water, a longer heat up time and a longer cooking time. It is also extremely bulky. We have one but never use it.
However, not all of that zone is equivalent! If your non-sterile food stays at 100°F for a long period of time, its decay rate will be much, much higher than if you keep it at 60°F. So a generalization of your advice is often applicable.
The Microwave, on the other hand, was my magical baked potato maker and chinese-food/pasta reheater.
Of course, I've been in my current house for a little over a year, and don't believe I've ever heated up anything in the kitchen, so perhaps I'm an outlier.
And while Apple said it will only use their certification program to prevent the heating of cats, it took only a few days until Apple prohibited heating aluminium foil, then raw eggs, alcohol (bad for you anway!), and finally - any meat. Tofu and mineral water is fine by Steve, though...
But if the iPad with its control freak attitude stays at its 90% penetration in this market, I've got no trust in humanity anymore.
And it's not just the iPad; Android Tablets will play a big part, and HP/Microsoft/RIM/others will as well. But for now, the iPad is the 900 lb. gorilla in the room, pushing tablet computing forward.
I recommend never suggesting this if you ever visit England.
"One or two Americans have asked me why it is that the English like tea so much, which never seems to them to be a very good drink. To understand, you have to know how to make it properly.
There is a very simple principle to the making of tea and it's this - to get the proper flavour of tea, the water has to be boiling (not boiled) when it hits the tea leaves. If it's merely hot then the tea will be insipid. That's why we English have these odd rituals, such as warming the teapot first (so as not to cause the boiling water to cool down too fast as it hits the pot). And that's why the American habit of bringing a teacup, a tea bag and a pot of hot water to the table is merely the perfect way of making a thin, pale, watery cup of tea that nobody in their right mind would want to drink. The Americans are all mystified about why the English make such a big thing out of tea because most Americans have never had a good cup of tea. That's why they don't understand. In fact the truth of the matter is that most English people don't know how to make tea any more either, and most people drink cheap instant coffee instead, which is a pity, and gives Americans the impression that the English are just generally clueless about hot stimulants. "
http://www.booksatoz.com/witsend/tea/orwell.htm
Thanks again!
Also, a microwave helps you with the basic necessities of life (making/eating food) if you lack cooking skills. The IPad is an entertainment device.
IMO this analogy is very weak.
My family was a relatively late adopter of the microwave.. I think we got one around 1984. It was a used model that (IIRC) cost $300 which would be about $611 now. If you bought a new one in the 70s it would have been quite a bit more than that.
Everyone should have a mate called Dave, think I'll just stick to my nokia classic for telecoms.
Normally people wouldn't buy a microwave without also owning an oven... well, unless you're really cheap and don't care about your health!
What's your particular problem with the initial sync stage?
For the larger issue of DRM I must say I've never used a microwave that was more open than an iPad. I can't load any third party software into my microwave. I can't even find any schematics for the internal designs to allow for my own modifications. I'm pretty sure companies like GE own patents for many of the components inside so I couldn't reproduce them and sell my own open source microwave.
I know I've read you can activate it in the store before taking it home.
(Edit: I know my mom has an iPad and no Mac.)