I have a Tivoli Songbook alarm clock which works in every way except that its plastic casing is literally melting. No, I don’t live near the sun. It’s a design flaw, and Tivoli refuses to answer my queries about this obvious manufacturers defect, which is well documented online. The thing attracts hair and simply feels grrrrross.
So. I am shopping for a new alarm clock. Got a good recommendation? If so, please post below.
Here are my criteria:
Elegant midsized design
Large snooze button
iPod dock
AM/FM radio (preferably with ability to preset stations)
Decent sound quality
Nighttime display should not be bright (I have to sleep next to it)
15 Comments.
Aren’t you in the middle of the OWS protests? What’s with all the consumerism? Wanting a new alarm clock is bad enough but look at the feature list requirements. I mean, talk about capitalism.
I’ve used my cellphone as my alarm clock for many years now. I can’t remember the last time I owned an alarm clock, truly an antiquated device if there ever was one.
@exkiodexian, Have you read the articles about cellphone radiation? The one thing no one should do with their cellphone is to use it as an alarm clock; it’s not good to have it next to your head for a third of every day.
Besides, because I can’t sync my iPhone to a laptop (my 2006 MacBookPro’s OS is too “old”) I don’t have music on it. And I like my music, not the shit they play on local radio. But I do need radio for news.
I am not anti-consumerist. That’s lifestyle activism, thinking your buying (or not buying) habits can change things. That’s silly, like recycling.
“Have you read the articles about cellphone radiation?”
There’s no evidence that deadly radiation is being emitted from cellphones. None. Not only that, when it’s being used as my alarm clock the phone function is not engaged.
“Thinking your buying (or not buying) habits can change things. That’s silly, like recycling.”
Thanks. Now I understand the dichotomy of Ted Rall.
@Ex, There’s no official evidence that cellphones are dangerous. But there is plenty of anecdotal evidence, common sense, and a lot of worried scientists. I err on the side of caution here.
The more interesting comments in this thread are:
“I am not anti-consumerist.”
“Thinking your buying (or not buying) habits can change things. That’s silly, like recycling.”
If you really believe those things, then you will forever be stuck in the American capitalism loop. You will forever be stuck in the fantasyland of infinite growth. Forever stuck in the fantasy of infinitely higher profits. Forever stuck in the fantasy of infinite innovation. And for you – Ted Rall – forever stuck trying to get readers to understand the reality they live in, which they will never be able to comprehend.
Common sense says anything called “radiation” is not only dangerous, but just exactly as dangerous as everything else called “radation.”
Common sense, in other words, doesn’t mean shit. See also, Sarah Palin.
Radiation is never safe, even at low levels. It’s merely less dangerous.
““Thinking your buying (or not buying) habits can change things. That’s silly, like recycling.””
BofA just announced that they’re dropping the $5 per month debit card usage charge. I wonder what caused that change to happen. DFHs running around in Zucotti Park talking about Marx? Or people closing their BofA accounts? I know the answer.
The only way you hit corporations in the gonads is by affecting their profits. Period. That’s the only language they know, other than the language of violence. To suggest buying habits don’t change things is not only not true, it’s dangerously false. Perhaps you should join Michael Moore on TV to talk about how we can guarantee more of the same, forever and ever.
You want real change? Then YOU need to change too. If all the OWS people are protesting is that they aren’t currently able to be good little consumers, that’s pathetic. It’s the single most pathetic revolution in history. The OWS people, if they were serious, would understand that changing their belief system is the largest part of the equation.
@Exkio: That’s awful nice of BofA to go back to a more salable business model. Stuff like that happens all the time, though. A recent attempt at a fare hike by the major airlines was just rolled back. When I mean change, I mean real, substantial change. Like equal pay for equal work. Like free college tuition. Those things won’t come about as the result of boycotts.
“When I mean change, I mean real, substantial change. Like equal pay for equal work. Like free college tuition. Those things won’t come about as the result of boycotts.”
Ok, yes. In this context, I agree with you.
“That’s silly, like recycling.”
Really, Ted? Or can you just not be bothered to sort your trash? Recycling won’t save the world, but it helps in many small ways, from saving space in landfills to reusing resources to reminding us just how much useless junk we really go through.
And there are many kinds of radiation… to a physicist visible light is radiation… electromagnetic radiation from your phone is not in the same category of danger as beta particles or gamma rays.
I do recycle. But only because it’s polite. Like saying please, it doesn’t really change anything–but it feels good.
My theory is that if cellphones emitted radiation, most of the people in the US (and the rest of the world that habitually uses cellphones), would have died of exposure by now. And you can’t argue that cellphone use has been responsible for cancer rates, because we’ve been getting cancer for longer than we’ve been using cellphones.
Here’s some facts:
——————–
Each pound of mixed municipal solid waste (MSW) that you recycle is not only a pound saved from many years in a landfill, but saves 2.5 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions. Considering that the average person recycles (or composts) 1.5 pounds of MSW every day, it can really add up; every ton of recycled MSW saves 2.27 metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions.
And it doesn’t stop there. As stated above, on average, we recycle about 1.5 out of 4.5 pounds of MSW each day — about one-third of our waste. If we get that number closer to 50 percent, or half of our waste recycled, we’d save 2,400 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions per household each year.
——————–
Recycling does help, and the facts prove it. It’s just a single component in a larger reality which strives to encourage people to you know …. give a shit about the planet. To …. you know ….. give a shit about their consumer behavior.
To be deny recycling or re-use is pointless is stubbornly wrong. This is one of those items Ted has made his mind up about, and nothing is going to change it though. Sort of like climate skeptics. No amount of data will convince them.
@Exkio: OK, but what percentage of Americans refuse to recycle? What percent live in places where it isn’t available? I bet the overwhelming majority. The problem with recycling is that it’s a drop in the bucket yet deludes people into thinking they’re making a big difference. The real problem is runaway industrial production of tons of shit nobody needs, a problem that can only be resolved by the seizure of state power followed by a quick transition to a state-controlled economy.