Did I get what I wanted? I got some of it, there were things I didn’t get that I never expected to get and doubt whether Apple will even ever give me. I’ll go over my list from the previous post.
1. Verizon
Well, I knew there would likely be nothing in the iPhone OS event about opening up to other carriers in the U.S. even if it is going to happen (which I still doubt by the way). This event was about iPhone OS 4, and I think support for other carriers would be announced with a hardware event since the current iPhone hardware only fully works on AT&T’s network. In my book this makes a multi carrier strategy announcement a hardware announcement.
And anyway, much as I would like to see a CDMA/EV-DO iPhone, in my opinion, it will never happen. You see, Apple has stated on many occasions that their business model is to make one iPhone. AT&T’s network operates on the same standard as 80% of the rest of the world. T-Mobile uses weird 3G frequencies, and Verizon and Sprint run CDMA/EV-DO networks (we’re not even going to talk about Sprint’s weird iDEN network left over from their Nextel merger, and their affinity WiMax). So the point here is that AT&T is the only network I see the iPhone running on for now, inept though AT&T may be compared to Verizon. However, as we move to 4G this may change. Verizon is going to have the first commercial LTE network (4G). LTE is the 4G technology of choice throughout most of the world so we may well see a Verizon iPhone when Verizon has deployed LTE across their entire footprint with full voice support (in other words they can’t be relying on CDMA for voice or it still won’t work for Apple).
So that’s a long explanation for my opinion that we won’t see a Verizon iPhone for a few years to come, and it STINKS!
2. Multi-Tasking
Yes, we got it. At least we got it in ways that count and make sense. I was blown away. Summer can’t come fast enough. Apple will be providing 7 OS integrated services to reduce the processor strain and battery life issues of having each app do it’s own thing when in the background, but the result will be the same to the end user. And state saving (freezing) apps will be huge! For those apps that don’t need to run background services, state saving will be the same as multi tasking without the battery drain or CPU cycles.
So yeah, I think I’m happy with the way Apple is implementing this. Still, took them long enough!
3. Better Notifications
Yeah… didn’t get it. We still have single mode pop ups that obliterate previous notifications if there are any, and stop you doing whatever it is you are in the middle of. STUPID! But I can deal… for now.
4. Release the App store shackles
I knew this would never happen. And it didn’t. I doubt that Apple will ever give up their current app model. I’ll have to evaluate whether I can deal with this at the end of my current AT&T contract.
5. Better Lock Screen
Oh Apple how you disappoint! Such a wasted opportunity!
6. Customization
Oooo, looky, pretty wallpaper behind my icons! Seriously, it seems small, but it is a baby step in the right direction.
7. Widgets
You know, I’m not the only one that wants them. And in the Q&A after the event, one of the media people asked why Apple wasn’t giving any love to widgets, glancable info, or better lock screen info. The answer was a sidestep. That either means it’s coming in future builds of the OS, or they didn’t want to draw any more attention to this glaring omission. In any event, we didn’t get it (yet, he says hopefully).
8. Notes and to-dos
Still no word on to-dos. And I have a feeling that Apple is going to do nothing about my “Die Marker Felt, die” sentiment in Notes. However, though not directly talked about, according to some sleuthing of the iPhone geeks around the interwebz, it does seem as if over the air note sync is a part of iPhone OS 4
9. Unified Inbox View
We got that and more. There are some major updates for Mail on the way. I am a very happy camper in this department! See Apple, I know you can impress, you still have it in you! Go Apple! Now give me my other stuff!
10. Better Home screen icon management
Folders for the home screen have been long in coming! But it is going to be awesome! And it is going to help a LOT!
So, I got some stuff, and I didn’t get some stuff. I’ll have to see if I’m satisfied when this update comes out in the summer.
Here’s one of those gems that is so good I had to post it. You may find the original here on Iron Ink.
“While the Anabaptists argued against infant baptism, that children could not experience faith and repentance, the Reformed replied that although children did not possess the acts of faith, they still could possess the disposition (habitus) of faith. Since absolute certainty about the internal state of the recipient is never certain in the case of either adults or children, the question is whether we have the same certainty in either case…. Just as with adults, the hearts of infants should be judged with charity….
Since as a poorer dispensation of grace circumcision was administered to children, it follows that as a richer dispensation of grace baptism ought to be administered to children as well. Also, the entire idea of the covenant as the historical and organic realization of election points toward the inclusion of infants through their connection with their parents in grace and blessing.”
Herman Bavinck
Reformed Dogmatics Vol. IV – pg. 498
1.) Those who hold to anabaptist ecclesiology while trying to embrace Reformed soteriology at the same time are seriously confused. Anabaptist ecclesiology suggests that membership of the church is characterized by those who themselves choose to be part of the church. The emphasis falls on the individual. This is advocated in keeping with anabaptist “pure church” theology. (A “pure church” is one that has no tares. Classical Baptist theology holds that all that are members of the Church are saved.) This emphasis on the individuals choosing has an Arminian flavor.
2.) As faith is received passively and is a consequence of regeneration before it becomes active in conversion it was fitting for the Reformed to speak of infants having the habitus of faith. The idea is that in having this disposition of faith infants will display that faith actively as they age to the point of being able to display that faith.
3.) The judgment of charity should be extended to infants of believers in Christ since as being the child of at least one believer infants are already members of the covenant. Throughout scripture God promises to be God to His people and their children. God reckons and counts His people covenantally. This differs from Baptists who reckon God’s people individually and who count them one by one in conversion. The difference here is the difference between God counting His people as one with individuals seen as extensions of that one community. On the other hand Baptists count God’s people as individuals who when totaled together count as the whole.
4.) In the old covenant the children were clearly part of the covenant. Baptists would have us believe that in the new and better covenant the children are only part of the covenant upon their “asking Jesus into their hearts.” The new and better covenant leaves children out of the covenant.
5.) In the end Baptist theological notions of covenant should be seen as a ongoing social compact that each generation has to ratify for themselves with their vote for Jesus in order to be part of the compact. On the other hand Reformed notions of the covenant should be seen as a social compact decreed, organized, and populated by God.
Source
As I wait on pins and needles for the baby to arrive (due date day is almost over and still no sign of labor) I thought I would share this article. It is after all, that time of year again when the air can be filled with a lot of “BAH humbug.” 
Should Christians celebrate Christmas?
I sympathize with those who want to be rigorously and distinctly Christian, who want to be disentangled from the world and any pagan roots that might lie beneath our celebration of Christmas, but I don’t go that route on this matter because I think there comes a point where the roots are so far gone that the present meaning doesn’t carry the pagan connotation anymore. I’m more concerned about a new paganism that gets layered on top of Christian holidays.
Here’s the example I use: All language has roots somewhere. Most of our days of the week—if not all—grew out of pagan names too. So should we stop using the word “Sunday” because it may have related to the worship of the sun once upon a time? In modern English “Sunday” doesn’t carry that connotation, and that’s the very nature of language. In a sense, holidays are like chronological language.
Christmas now means that we mark, in Christian ways, the birth of Jesus Christ. I think the birth, death and resurrection of Christ are the most important events in human history. Not to mark them in some way, by way of special celebration, would be folly it seems to me.
I remember I lived next door to somebody back in seminary who didn’t celebrate birthdays for their kid. The idea was, partly, that all days were special for their kid. But if all days are special then it probably means that there are no special days. Yet some things are so good and precious—like anniversaries, birthdays, and even deaths—that they are worthy of being marked. How much more the birth and death of Jesus Christ!
It’s really worth the risk, even if the date of December 25 was chosen because of its proximity to some kind of pagan festival. Let’s just take it, sanctify it, and make the most of it, because Christ is worthy of being celebrated in his birth.
There is no point in choosing any other date. It won’t work.
By John Piper. © Desiring God. Website: desiringGod.org
So, I ran across this article in my Google Reader Shared items. It’s just way too good not to post here as well. I don’t know a lot about the blog it comes from since I’m not a regular reader… but this is a great post none the less.
Source
I read a great quote from Pastor McAtee on how the Credo-Baptist position essentially views children as salvifically-unviable-fetuses:
Credo-baptists believe that soteric worth is tied up with moral agency. Such moral agency is dependent upon consciousness. For Credo-baptists, soteric rights presuppose interests, and creatures without a fairly advanced state of consciousness do not and can not have soteric interests. Hence, until such a time that a child is considered salvifically “viable” as witnessed by a advanced state of consciousness, the child is, salvifically speaking, not a person, but rather is a soteric fetus awaiting enough consciousness to be considered a candidate for soteriological personhood.
And ironically, the first commenter on Pastor McAtee’s post takes most Paedo-baptists to task with the same logic:
Insert Paedo into this article where it reads Credo and some would think that you had certainly made a mistake and truly meant Credo. However, many who would think you made that mistake apply this very reasoning to God’s Covenant children by rejecting them from Christ’s table “until such a time that a child is considered salvifically “viable” as witnessed by a advanced state of consciousness”.
And if you’d like to be entertained by hearing some Lutherans (Missouri Synod) discuss it, check this thread out. Pastor Weedon brings out a quote from Luther on 1 Corinthians which explains that the “examine himself” command doesn’t apply to children at all. Its quite telling that Pastor McCain jumps in immediately and begins repeating slogans and ad-hominems as if his life depended upon it. He knows exactly the threat that the quote presents to the anti-paedocommunion establishment, even if others don’t yet see it.
I found another good read today via a good friend of mine. It was such a good read that I have to post it here:
Why You Shouldn’t Allow Your Children To Eat Thanksgiving Dinner
(Man I’m really on a roll with this theme aren’t I?)
