The iPad Mini vs. the iPad Biggie

There's trouble in Pixeltown.

The reviewers, non-reviewers, and Mac pundits are embroiled in an intense debate: is the Apple iPad Mini better than the regular Apple iPad?

The iPad Mini is a perfect form-factor, they all agree. The iPad Biggie, the larger version with the retina display, is the perfect screen resolution. But is it better to wait for the Mini to get the screen of the Biggie? That, dear reader, is the question.

It's O.K. Take a deep breath, we'll get through this together.

Dave Winer, who has been covering the tech business since before devices began with the letter “i,” argued on Gizmodo that the Apple Mini is a failure - a travesty, if you will. He thinks that the screen, with its low resolution pixel density, signifies one thing: Apple's decline.

“I believe it's not only not a winner, but it signals a new Apple that's no longer beyond compare,” Mr. Winer wrote.

But others disagree. (Go figure.)

John Gruber , the author of the Apple blog Daring Fireball, unsurprisingly loves his iPad Mini more than chocolate cupcakes with sprinkles on top.

“I completely stand behind mine, and still have barely even used the iPad 4 I have on loan from Apple,” Mr. Gruber wrote. “In the meantime, we have to choose: big iPad with sharp retina display, or small iPad with a fuzzy one. I've gone small and fuzzy.”

So what do mere mortals decide in a debate worthy of Revenge of the Nerds?

I've used them both and I have to say, the iPad Mini, although fuzzier than the retina display variety, is incomparable to the larger iPad. Picking them both up together feels like picking up a feather and a dumbbell. And as any geek who hasn't been to the gym in a while knows, lighter is usually better.

I never felt like the original iPad was a portable device. Its size was too close to the Macbook Air to be different. Frankly, it was just too heavy to tote around.

The iPad Mi ni, which now fits in my jacket pockets, is the perfect size. Sure, it doesn't have a screen that allows me to zoom into see a grain of sand, or a pimple, but the weight and shape instantly negate that. 

I've gone warm and fuzzy, too.

Leaked Report on Sri Lanka Critical of U.N.

“Sri Lanka's Killing Fields,” a documentary broadcast by Britain's Channel 4 News in 2011.

An internal review of how the United Nations handled the bloody final months of Sri Lanka's civil war in 2009, when as many as 40,000 civilians were killed, has concluded that the response was “a grave failure of the U.N.,” according to a leaked draft of the report.

The investigative panel, led by Charles Petrie, a former United Nations official, criticized what it called “a sustained and institutionalized reluctance” by staff members in Sri Lanka at the time “to stand up for the rights of the people they were mandated to assist.” In blunt language, the report's executive summary states that “many senior U.N. staff simply did not perceive the prevention of killing of civilians as their responsibility.”

The report, copies of which were given to the BBC and The New York Times, also found fault with the way the crisis was dealt with by senior United Nations officials in New York. “Decision-making across the U.N. was dominated by a culture of trade-offs â€" from the ground to U.N. headquarters,” the draft report states. Officials chose “not to speak up” about “broken commitments and violations of international law” by both the Sri Lankan government and Tamil Tiger rebels because that “was seen as the only way to increase U.N. humanitarian access” to victims of the conflict.

The report does note that “the last phase of the conflict in Sri Lanka presented a major challenge” to the international body.

The U.N. struggled to exert influence on the Government which, with the effective acquiescence of a post-9/11 world order, was determined to defeat militarily an or ganization designated as terrorist. Some have argued that many deaths could have been averted had the Security Council and the Secretariat, backed by the U.N. country team, spoken out loudly early on, notably by publicizing the casualty numbers. Others say that the question is less whether the U.N. should assume responsibility for the tragedy, but more whether it did everything it could to assist the victims.

The internal review panel was established by Ban Ki-moon, the United Nations secretary general. A spokesman for Mr. Ban refused to comment on the leaked draft on Tuesday, but told reporters that the secretary general planned to meet Mr. Petrie on Wednesday morning and that the final version of the report would be made public soon.

Lyse Doucet, the chief international correspondent for BBC News who obtained the leaked draft, reported on Tuesday that United Nations sources said that the “brief executive summary, which sets out the panel's conclu sions in stark terms, has been removed,” from the final report.