Story 1: Alleged Kidnappers Surrender to Police.  In this story 3 men (without description) are said to have lured a 21 y.o. woman into their van and sexually assaulted her.  While the report was filed after 2 AM, there is no hint as to when the abduction and assault occurred.  Oh–and the three men apparently surrendered to police on their own.

Is anyone surprised that the comment section is rife with people challenging every aspect of the story?  Someone was lured (not abducted forcibly) into a van, and the story failed to include any description of the perpetrators.  Not their estimated ages, race, height, or even accents.  And while the report was early morning (2 AM) no indication of the time of the abduction makes things even more “sketch” as the youth today say.

I am like the rest of the more rational commenters on this story in that I believe we wait for all the facts before reaching any judgement.  But this story doesn’t help in any way.  As far as news goes, it creates more questions than it answers.  Is this something we should all be worrying about?  Was this someone that she knew? What was the “technique” used to lure a young adult into a (purple-the only retail we get) van with three men?  And what compelled these men to turn themselves in?

Make no mistake: I am not excusing bad/evil/illegal behavior.  I am saying that this reporting does nothing but feed fear without providing any useful information.

Story 2:  PSU Students cited for trespassing at pool.  This story should be well below everyone’s radar, especially the CDT, but apparently it was made “newsworthy” by the lead sentence:  ”A Penn State student convicted of being involved in November’s downtown State College riot got a citation after police said they caught him and two others at the university’s outdoor pool this past weekend.” The story goes on to say the suspect and his friends were caught inside the fenceline “‘partially clothed’ but hadn’t gone into the pool yet.”

In what world is this a news story?  I worked at several swimming pools and during the summer “fence hoppers” were a common occurrence.  Generally speaking we not only didn’t notice, but we didn’t mind, except in those instances when they felt compelled to vandalize the pool. (And keep in mind, the vandalism usually consisted of simply tossing lounge chairs into the pool.)

No–what made this story “news” is that one of the three was convicted of “being involved” in the “riot” following the firing of Coach Joe Paterno.  Really?  What is the connection?  Does being involved, and caught up in the moment last November make this action somehow more heinous?

What happened is, once again, there is “just enough” information to get the commenters on the CDT site all riled up and full of righteous indignation. They get to once again hate on the vicious criminals that burned their city down.

By the way, for those that missed it on Twitter, I have been quite incensed at the use of the term “riot” to describe much of what happens on college campuses and around the US lately.  Read up on Riots.  REAL Riots.  Riots that, in fact, were occurring simultaneously with the events on US College campuses.    In “real” Riots people die.  Property is damaged in large swaths.

What happened in State College was not a riot.  It was large gathering of students expressing their emotions, and a few, a very few, took an opportunity to commit vandalism.

But we can’t expect it to be reported that way either–since once again, it would involve too much work on the part of local media reporters.

The argument generally falls on the view that the Court should follow the “strict constructionist” view–that is, it is there to assess the constitutionality of laws, not create new rights or laws. And this is where Obama’s criticism, and the criticism from the right, diverge. President Obama said he was:

“confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically-elected Congress, and I just remind conservative commentators that for years, what we’ve heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a dually constituted and passed law.”  (Emphasis added)

He is a brilliant orator. He essentially argued that the will of the majority of the people should trump the constitutionality of a law, while covering his argument with the cloak of “you did it too.” The passing and signing of a law doesn’t make it “dually constituted” and certainly doesn’t make it constitutional. Regardless of how strong the majority was that passed the law. In fact, a law that passes unanimously through Congress must still pass Constitutional muster.

So let’s be clear here: Congress passed a law, and the President signed it. The law is being judged in this case solely and completely on the constitutionality of specific clauses of the law, based on long standing understandings of the intent and interpretations of the Constitution. If anything, that is exactly the role conservatives have been calling for the Court to play. To argue that Obama’s position, and those on the Right who criticize the Court, are the same, is simply specious.

Here’s what scares me about Obama.  On New Years Eve he signed the National Defense Authorization Act, which, among other things, allows the President to authorize the indefinite detention, in secret, and without legal counsel, of US Citizens.  At the time, he expressed his concerns about the language but promised that his administration would never use it.

Then he (at the beginning of the month) started a campaign to discredit the Supreme Court, attacking them as “unelected people” who should never consider overturning a law (Obamacare) that the majority supports. (Set aside, for just a moment, the thought that he isn’t interested in protecting the minority from the tyranny of the Majority)

He is now running the campaign against Congress, working to do things without them passing laws first. This he is calling “We can’t wait.”

What do you call a President who is actively working to discredit two branches of government that are in place to control the excesses of the other two? A President who is actively working to undermine the “Checks and Balances” protections that our constitution so brilliantly enacted.   A President who has convinced the “Law makers”  to give him the authority to detain and even kill at will?

I hate to say it–but I think the word is “Dictator.”

N.B.:  Now I hope my good friend over at A liberal Dose, and the other one at Pressing the Flesh may actually agree with me on this.   We as a nation must band together. And honestly, at this point, I am beginning to think our only answer will be Ron Paul.  And if you know me, you know I don’t really like that idea all that much.  But at least he isn’t part of the corrupt system.

In a nutshell, this means prices on ebooks went up because the agreement with Apple made it so other sellers, like Amazon, couldn’t lower the price on ebooks.

Three of the seven publishers have already settled with the Department of Justice, but Apple, Penguin, and Macmillan rejected the offer. Now that we know the reasons behind the lawsuit, let’s see if any of this news is actually will have an effect on pricing.

Read the full article here.

Watch the video (and read MY thoughts) after the break:

When I first saw this commercial I was cheering!  You see, the largest contributor to greenhouse gases are the power generating plants–the ELECTRIC plants.  They contribute more than all the cars in the nation–combined.  So I saw the commercial as pointing out that, while we think we are “being green” using electronic devices.  I thought the message was, while we aren’t the “point source” of pollution, we are still polluting.

But NOOOOOooo.  The message is: Drive an electric car.  That somehow taking the cars off the road will be better.

The real message?  ”Out of Sight, Out of Mind.”

===========

I wanted to take a minute of your time and let you know I am sorely disappointed that Drivers’ Education is being eliminated from the CV Curriculum and more importantly, that the teacher will be leaving the HS and no one else has stepped up to be the faculty advisor for CV THON.

Honestly, I have three points of interest here that happen tointer-weave. First, I believe the of all the courses at a HS that are beneficial, the most beneficial is the Drivers’ Ed course. I have seen places where that course is only taught outside the school, and honestly, all they do is teach driving. The benefit of the course taught in the HS is that there is more thought to the education portion of the program than just the training. By being in a setting with your peers, and having a sense of community that is brought through with this course, they learn more than simply how to pass a driving exam.

Secondly, as I am sure you are aware, CV THON has done wonders for supporting the Four Diamond fund and has put CV School District on the map as more than an academic or a sports district, but as one with compassion. I can’t say for sure if the THON’s sprouting up around the nation are directly related to PENN STATE THON, but I think the THON at CV has much to do with them as well. Specifically, several universities around the country have THONS, many with direct support and leadership from students who graduated from CV HS. These students learned empathy, compassion, and action from their engagement and participation at CV THON. They are making a difference, in part because CV THON made a difference. Let’s not discontinue that.

Finally, the one common thread in both of these is not the decision to eliminate Drivers’ Education. That was just the push of the domino. The common thread is the faculty advisor with a heart, that not only pushed CV THON, but cared about teaching responsible driving in the HS.

Please–find another way to economize. But do not harm the students, or the district, by allowing both of these to go away.

Thank you.

Steve Brady

I enjoy, no LOVE, my place at Rose Valley Lake in PA. Perhaps you have seen some of my photographs that I have posted here ocassionally, or visited my  sets on Flickr (around Rose Valley Lake and  creeks and rivers)  The beauty remains despite reasonable and rational development.

I love it so much that I am, In fact, disappointed every time I have to leave here to return to “Civilization.” That said, I also understand that private citizens have a right to use their private property in ways that they see fit, so long as the proposed uses are in line with the general guidelines and zoning of the area.

The “Friends of Rose Valley Lake” are stepping beyond the bounds of good citizens, as they are now seeking to block an individual from using his property in accordance with the zoning laws of the area. They are asserting that by granting this man access to his property (through the State fish commission property) he will somehow be violating the law.

They write on their homepage that:

” The ‘intent’ for Rose Valley Lake, was to ‘prevent developments . . . and retain the area in generally primitive conditions,’”

They then are somehow complaining that this citizen is willing to “trade with the PFBC one acre of land (generally inaccessible to the public) and $15,000 in exchange for an expanded farm lane right-of-way through Rose Valley Lake.”

Apparently the fact that he isn’t asking for a flat trade of one acre for another, but rather giving the state the land, AND $15,000, isn’t sufficient. Also, apparently the statement that the one acre of land is “generally inaccessible to the public” is meant to imply that is somehow a negative. Interesting in that many believe that in order to meet the objective of maintaining land in “generally primitive conditions” we should keep people from going there. (Remember, the biggest enemy of National Parks tends to be visitors to those same parks….)

One final comment from them. They are argue that the proposed trade would be for an “expanded farm lane right-of-way through Rose Valley Lake public lands in order to facilitate private development.”

Note this citizen isn’t proposing to DEVELOP public lands. He is simply seeking access to his privately owned property, so that he can exercise his legal right to develop his property as he sees fit, in accordance with the local zoning ordinances.

I ask–who are the unreasonable ones?

Also, they are requesting people sign their petition, but there exists no comparable avenue to elicit support for the land owner.  I have created a form, and would appreciate your taking the time to respond.  And for the record, I am interested in learning about BOTH sides of this.

I actually presented a paper on the challenges of digital textbook pricing at the Western DSI (Decision Sciences Institute) conference in 2011.   You can read the paper here.  In that paper, I point out that by driving the logistics costs of moving, handling, and returning paper products out of the system, along with other costs such as maintaining a bookstore, one can drive the costs down to about (surprise!) $15.00 while maintaining the 2 year profits of the publisher. And by withdrawing the pressures of the resale market, the profits only go up from there.

First thoughts that led to that paper were written about here  and here.

Most recently I wrote about  consumer driven markets. Who should make the  choice? Digital textbooks are able separate the content from the medium, and allow flexibility–unless we are locked into a hardware platform.  I also wrote about this in this post.

I would welcome other thoughts on those posts and on the paper.

The first two were aimed to address the issues at the heart of the charges being levied against Penn State in the scandal–that there was a cover-up, and that leaders of Penn State perjured themselves–lying in court rather than allegedly tell of the evils revealed to them.  The last one? Transparency?  Where did that one come from?

Calls for transparency arise when people believe some one, or some organization, is perceived to be acting in secret, and that secrecy is assumed, rightly or wrongly, to be covering improper or even illegal behavior.  Often the charge of improper or illegal behavior is warranted, and often it is not.  Of course, we rarely remember those instances when things ended up perfectly but as humans we are “inclined to believe the very worst about anything and everything.” (see “Free: The Future of a Radical Price,” below).  Of one thing we can be sure–when an organization commits to transparency they are doing so because of a perception that they haven’t been, and they need to change. ¹

In this case, Penn State faced tough critics from around the nation that felt that a cloak of secrecy pervaded the actions of the University that at best hindered investigations into Sandusky, and at worst enabled his predatory behavior.  Then, as the crisis broke, the lights in Old Main were on, but the President of the University was no where to be seen.  Depending on who you follow he was either hiding, or he was being held back by the Board of Trustees.  Then, the Board began their activities in near silence allowing just enough light in to let us know they were “engaged.”  Many questioned how the whole Board could both remain silent at this critical juncture in Penn State history, and how they could all unanimously support what seems to many to be terribly wrong decisions.²

In response, we saw a promise from Erickson, the interim President of the University, to transparency.  He wrote:

Penn State is committed to transparency to the fullest extent possible, given the ongoing investigations.

• I commit to providing meaningful and timely updates as frequently as needed.
• I encourage dialogue with students, faculty, alumni, and other members of the Penn State community.(http://president.psu.edu/promise.html)

So we have here a practical application of how Penn State will be “transparent” but not much of a definition of what Transparency means.  We have an expectation to receive “timely” updates, and that they will be “meaningful.”  But no clear definition of what even “timely” means.  And updates on “what?”  Finally–who determines “frequency?”

To be clear then, what is the definition of “Transparency” that Penn State is using? According to Tactical Transparency (see below) there are traditionally two definitions of transparency that are already accepted–financial transparency, and governance transparency.  Publicly traded companies are already required to provide certain financial and governance information.  But we are seeing companies stepping beyond that simple definition.  But before we go much further on what this “new” or modern view of Transparency has become, let’s quickly review: once again, we have documentation on how the university’s governance has been anything but transparent, and those with any memory longer than 6 months will remember the significant battles Penn State has fought to keep from disclosing salaries and other financial information.  In fact, just last month the Philadelphia newspaper, the Philadelphia Inquirer wrote:

The school has long had a reputation for guarding its secrets closely and zealously, and when the state attorney general announced the charges against Sandusky, she said their investigation , by a grand jury with subpoena power , had been hampered by an uncooperative atmosphere among unnamed school officials.

In addition, the NY Times wrote concerning the unique ability that Penn State has to use a cloak of secrecy:

But the public’s access to e-mails, phone records and other potentially critical evidence is restricted because Penn State has a special exemption from having to disclose a host of information that state agencies and many other state universities are forced to divulge under Pennsylvania’s Right to Know Law.

So there you have it–Penn State has been reluctant to release information and in fact has engaged in legal battles to keep from releasing even those records usually expected from government and publicly traded companies.

These first two definitions of transparency, long held, and expected. And yet, Penn State hasn’t even met those expectations. But this is not the transparency Erickson was discussing.  It was clear he was talking about a new form of transparency–a transparency to the inner workings of the University.

This transparency is about the reputation of the University (or any organization).  It is one that builds credibility.  That instills trust. That, as a senior leader for a major retail firm recently told me, is “opening the Kimono” and letting the stakeholders see just how things are being done.  I don’t think anyone can argue that the comment from the President is one driven by a need to restore the reputation of the University.

In the case of Penn State I think they set themselves up for failure from the start.  First, they failed to define what they meant by transparency, creating a vacuum that is filled by whatever definitions the hearer expects.  (Not unlike “Change you can believe in…” led many to vote based on a blank check).  Second, their behavior didn’t change. I don’t think you can argue that you are “more transparent” when you do things essentially the same way you always have done things. [4. This is the essence of the article from StateCollege.com–that this is how things have always been done.)

Much of the background and thoughts on Transparency comes from the book Tactical Transparency: How Leaders Can Leverage Social Media to Maximize Value and Build their Brand as well as from Free: How Today’s Smartest Businesses Profit by Giving Something for Nothing

Does transparency mean that you tell everyone everything you do and why do it?  bust you violate all levels of confidentiality?

It seems to me when people an organization promise transparency, they are acknowledging a problem and suggesting they can no longer continue doing things the way they have always been done.  I realize this is not always the case, in that sometimes we’re just promising to foster an environment of trust, but that trust is based on the concept of sharing information.

reach leads me to ask these questions is the reality of organizations promising transparency while then defending your actions as being consistent with how things have always been done. If things have always been done this way how is that being more transparent?  Or to put it another way, if you have always been transparent why promise transparency as if it is something new?

I welcome your thoughts on these questions.

On Veteran’s Day, Genesis10’s founder and CEO Harley Lippman and newly appointed Manager of Diversity and Veterans Relations, Richard Sanchez, were interviewed by MSNBC’s Dylan Ratigan about the challenges American Veterans face transitioning their careers from the military to corporate America. Watch the clip here:

Working with Genesis10 means working with a company that is dedicated to serving our community where and when we can. Veterans Outreach is our latest initiative whereby Genesis10 will partner with clients to identify opportunities for U.S. Veterans. Using training and mentoring programs in place internally and through external partners, Genesis10’s Veterans Outreach will prepare and support Veterans during their career transition from the military to the private sector.

If you know a Veteran who may benefit from this program, we want to know. You or the Veteran can send a message directly to G10Veterans@genesis10.com. Please share this message with your network. We ask you to help us spread the word – because by working together we can connect and support the men and women who served to protect our freedoms with new career opportunities in business and technology.

I would encourage everyone to share this post, the video link, and the email address with anyone who is either a veteran, or knows a veteran–or knows someone who knows… (you get it–tell everyone!)

While perusing Gina Trapani’s blog from Smarterware.org, I saw she too struggles with sharing her varied, yet often inter-related, interests.

She writes:

It’s a tough question to answer, especially when you’re not working on a single thing. Last weekend at Foo Camp I failed miserably at explaining myself and my slash careers and how they all intersect. But at that same conference, I had the pleasure of attending a session by David Eaves, who eloquently explained that his goal is to apply his experience and training in negotiation skills to open source community management. On his site, he published a map of his past, current, and future work, and how those activities all interrelated. Cool!

When I read this I had one of those “DUH!” moments. It’s a brilliantly simple idea.  I like the way it forces some things into reductionism (you have to determine a fixed set of spheres–how many do you REALLY have?).  In addition, this approach can even help one find relationships between work that seemed “intuitively” there, but were never explicitly stated, even to oneself.  And finally, the approach David and Gina have both taken is to show how they are seeking the “greater good” (or a “Better world”) through their work.

The Venn Diagram David Eaves created is below.  To see the one Gina put together about her interests and work, go visit the link (really–you should!)  To see mine…. well, that may take a while longer.

Feel free to share yours here, or just put a link to yours in the comments!

“For those questioning the appropriateness of the celebrations on Sunday night, especially at PSU, keep in mind that many of us were In middle school. Those were the most impressionable days of our lives. It completely changed our lives and views.”

He wrote much more, and I took the liberty of making it more readable, and posting it over at our joint blog, http://thefathersonchats.com.

Please, go read his thoughts, and share yours. These thoughts are the ones we need to share, and preserve.

We don’t like PowerPoint and we don’t like presentations.  But as much as we want to blame the tool we find we cannot leave this crutch behind.  Perhaps it is because we do not see it as a tool that assists in our delivering content but rather as a surrogate, a stand-in,  so that we aren’t the ones being observed, but rather it is our slides.  Too often we expect (or are required) to have our presentations “stand alone” or worse “speak for themselves” (I say worse, because when given this mission it rarely actually means including the voice of the presenter, but rather that the written words must contain all the thoughts.)  Yes, we cannot leave the world of wordy slides.

Chris Brogan at the time reminded us of the importance of “big pictures” (real images) that convey the emotion, or the sense of the topic discussed, but that we as the speaker should deliver the content.  He also shared that we should remember that presentations are about the audience and our connecting with the audience.  If we are to connect, we cannot have them getting lost in reading the words (the many, many, often forced to be tiny, words…) on the screen.

Here is another take on just that very thing:

So my question for you is this:  What sort of presentation do you prefer? Do you want all the information laid out before you in verbose slides, ensuring you have all the information at your fingertips for later, or are you instead a person who learns best by listening and asborbing?

Leave your comments, or tweet me @SCMProfessor

========================

Twitter has proven itself to be an amazingly useful tool.  Remarkable considering it was only introduced at SXSW in 2007.  We have seen Twitter move from a discussion about “what I had for lunch”, into a tool used by people daily to find topics of interest to them usually because their friends view them to be interesting as well.  And recently-well, we have seen Twitter used as a tool for social and political change.

This is what’s most interesting about twitter.  Twitter is not one thing.  It’s not even a couple of things.  Twitter is an amorphic tool, that is shaped by the way each and every user will use that tool.  Individuals use twitter to share information or thoughts for the day.  Corporations use twitter to monitor what people are saying about their product and in the case of Comcast stepping in and fixing problems customers are having.  Some corporations are even using twitter as a marketing tool offering free products through drawings.  Many even blend twitter with face book to create a more socially aware, new media presence.

Herein lies the challenge: there is no quote user end quote of twitter.  There is no specific use case of twitter.  Where many predicted the death of twitter once britney spears and Ashton kutcher arrived we have seen twitter continue to thrive and grow.  What these doomsayers failed to understand is that while the arrival of these celebreties to Twitter may have removed them from the “most followed” ranks of Twitter, people were not forced to follow these people.

The magic of twitter is that we choose the people we follow.  We can even block the people we wish to have not follow us (sort of).  We create our own tribes as Seth Godin would say.  I personally have several tribes if you will that I view as my friends, or people I follow, on Twitter.

Here are my tribes:

1. Educators
2. Real people who use technology
3. Supply chain people
4. Family and friends
5. People who discuss politics (on all sides of an issue)

So what lessons can we take from this as marketing people looking at twitter?  I think you can walk away from twitter knowing that everyone there are seeks information that is of value to them.  Not everyone uses twitter in the same way, but everyone is there to gain value for themselves.  For some the value comes in being able to share information they have, while for others the value is simply seeing what people they respect are thinking on specific topics.  These range from political viewpoints, to the latest cool tech application, to experiences as a diabetic or even sharing a favorite restaurant.  We need to find the value that we provide to those who want to follow us.  What would make someone want to follow me on twitter, and how can I deliver that to them?

So as we step forward I suggest we keep in mind my following “main points of twitter”:

1. People follow you on twitter-so while it is transmit not everyone will receive
2. People follow you because you do or say something of interest.  Stay on topic!
3. Provide value in your tweets.  Give information, insights, links, or all of the above.
4. The twitter stream is just that-and it flows past people.  Don’t expect them to see everything you say
5. You can reach people that are not following you when engaging in popular topics.  Watch the hash tags.
6. Don’t hijack a hash tag!  Be relevant.

You might think about donating your computer to a school, or other charity. And when you do, you know the conventional advice, right? “Be sure to completely wipe your hard drive.”

(More after the break!)

While we used to recommend you WIPE your hard drive, we now recommend you remove it, and physically destroy it. Hard drives are now true commodities and your older computer can still be useful with only a $50 hard drive installed.  Even better, donate the computer (sans hard disk) and then donate the cash to the charity to BUY a new hard drive.  In that way, you don’t have the hassle of justifying the value of the computer, and the hard drive you purchase.  You can deduct the cash donation directly.

But then again–I am NOT a tax attorney, so don’t trust my tax advice.  Just trust me–you don’t want to give away your hard drive.

One final thought:  you might want to consider destroying your old hard drive.  While there are various techniques out there, I wouldn’t recommend the one in the video below (but it looks fun!)

To hear more on this discussion and much more, listen to Real Tech for Real People at http://rtfrp.com, episode 76.

This sort of scenario falls easily into the realm of “doom and gloomer” crackpots. (Ed Dames even has a Video The Killshot.)   But Scientists are warning that this particular solar cycle, and our dependence on electronics, could be catastrophic.  This article describes things in economic terms, but imagine the potential harm that can result in $2,000 BILLION in losses.

According to this story, we were visited by another flare, but luckily it was weak in comparison.  I include an excerpt below, but recommend you read the full article.

From the article:

The sun is waking up from a long quiet spell. Last week it sent out the strongest flare for four years – and scientists are warning that earth should prepare for an intense electromagnetic storm that, in the worst case, could be a “global Katrina” costing the world economy $2,000bn.

Senior officials responsible for policy on solar storms – also known as space weather – in the US, UK and Sweden urged more preparedness at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington.

…

In terms of terrestrial vulnerability, the biggest change since the 2000 peak is that the world has become more dependent on global positioning system satellites – and not just for navigation. The world’s mobile phone networks depend on ultra-precise GPS time signals for their co-ordination.

I have been assigning blogs for my “Service Operations” class for several years now.  The purpose of the blog is to have the MBA students reflect on a service experience they have recently had and then directly analyze the experience in light of the topics recently covered in the course.  The challenge is quite like the one my brother pointed out–the writing dropped off when they began to feel that no one (least of all, the professor–me) was reading.  My first response was to mandate commenting, similar to what he  mentioned–a sort of stick to the carrot.   Of course, that is difficult to enforce, and leads too often to a quick “nice blog–thanks.” type of analysis.

I have attacked that in four specific ways this semester.

First, I have created a Google Reader bundle which I distributed to the class (and now to you! )  This addresses the issue of me not getting to all of the blogs–I simply work down the full list every week and find some amazing blog entries! In addition, by giving them the bundle, I have directly connected the students with one another and their writings.  That has led to more direct initial engagement. But I suspect that this will not be the “fix” that I hope it to be if there is no way to encourage engagement.

Second, I have used Google Forms to allow students to evaluate their team members’ blogs. I have given them criteria on which to evaluate the blogs of their team-mates, and;

Third, while I treat the responses as confidential information, I share the summary information with the class regularly.  In this way I remind them that others are reading their blogs.  For instance, one of the questions is whether the blog entry covered a positive or a negative service experience.  I used this as a question specifically to encourage a more reasonable balance in the class, since we are more likely to remember (and write about) negative experiences.  As you can see, the balance, at least so far, has shifted to positive experiences. ¹

Finally, I directly reference their blogs in class, asking the author to perhaps lend more backstory, and then weave their narrative and lessons learned into the content of the course.  This works even better when other students are encouraged to share their views on what they took away from reading that blog.

Have any of you found ways to encourage commenting and engagement on blogs? Share it here (seems sort of META doesn’t it?)

Well, as an iPad user and an observer of tech, I was a bit surprised by this.  I have seen many iPads showing up around campus, and in other places, and almost exclusively I have seen it used as a reader (PDFs for class, books, and such) and as a device to view movies and shows.  Actually, I have seen less “video” than text on the screens of those around me.  I would venture to say that for most people the use of the iPad remains consumption.

I mentioned that, and my brother challenged me, arguing that he, and his colleagues, are using the iPad quite regularly for note taking and email.  I had to agree, but then…. we learned.

See, for me the operational definition of “content creation” is something that is substantive.  I have a definition that looks at the degree, or dare I say it, quantity, of the “content” being created.  I never viewed writing emails, taking notes, or editing existing slideshows as real “content creation.”  And I certainly don’t view arranging photographs into a slideshow as a “content creation” event.  The creation of the content in that case was during the translation from the photographer’s eye to the sensor in the camera.

So things came down to “Operational Definitions.”  In research we are often faced with the need to not just have a  simple definition but one that we can use to clearly differentiate between things, and more specifically, to transfer from a qualitative assessment to a measurable response.  For instance, we often talk about “small businesses” but without an “operational definition” we open ourselves up to a wide range of mis-communications.  For instance a small business can be measured as:

• a level of revenue (less than 1 million a year?)
• a level of profit (less than 1 million a year?  Notice that the same dollar figure leads to two very different thresholds)
• a number of employees (less than 5? 50? 500?)

So then, we are now faced with the question, how do we define “Content creation”?

Is it simply “creating a document of some sort and any size, so that something that did not exist, now does?”

Or does it require a greater degree of creativity and involvement in the process?

So readers:  I was wondering how you would define “Content Creation” and what amount of additional creativity do you believe needs to be brought to the process?  Please–comment here so others can see your thoughts!

I know, I should be doing all sorts of things techie, and you might think I am “all over the net.” But I am not. In fact, I not only don’t like the invasion of privacy that is so often the net, I actively choose to not invade other’s privacy as well.

So let me share my little rule book with you.

1. I view twitter as I do the ocean. I can’t take it all in, even with the people I follow. I will read any and all messages sent @ me, and also the direct messages. I will try, when I am on, to scan the twitter feed of people I follow, but just as I can’t catch every wave when I am at the beach, I can’t read every tweet that flows my way.

2. I don’t chase down people’s comments and statements on “the Facebook.” My family will tell you that. When asked by my kids or even my wife “did you see ____ on Facebook?” My answer invariably is “No.” They have learned–if you want to be sure I see something on Facebook, you might want to let me know through some other means (say, an @ comment or DM on Twitter–or an email!)

3. If a platform is not meant to be a social communication platform, I DEFINITELY don’t go there often. This includes Flickr, and PicasaWeb, and Youtube. I view these sites as places to go and see the creations of others, and perhaps be inspired. I certainly don’t go there for conversation. If you thought I had been reading your conversations there, i am sorry. It wasn’t me.

4. Honestly, I only put things on these sites that I want to have out there, and am willing to share with the world.

5. I have no expectation that the world will care, or even visit anything I write, or photograph, or post. If no one visits, then that is fine. I am not hurt.

6. If I create something for someone (think–water polo videos, or slideshows) I will point out that it is available.

7. Finally, I believe protecting other’s privacy is so important that I actually think long and hard before posting things that include other people in them, and often will ensure (double, and triple check the privacy settings) that I have shared certain things only with those people. Generally these are family photographs, or photographs from events, and I will share those with “family and friends.”

So there are my “not so short” rules that I live by when it comes to social media.

Now, dear reader, let me ask you: are you more or less open with your life and sharing your thoughts with the world now that we are in the era of “social”?

Or more importantly–do you really know just how much you are sharing, and how much “anyone” can actually see?

Let me know YOUR thoughts (in the comments, or in twitter! But remember to @ me, or I might not see it. LOL)

For those of you that have been following along, you know I co-host Real Tech for Real People, a podcast for “people with Tech in their lives, but who don’t live for the tech.”  We have created a Facebook page (and I encourage you all to visit and subscribe) and as part of that page I am going to be doing “tutorials” for things people want to know how to do.

WebCamMax is the perfect tool for me to record this.  I want to be able to switch between cameras, and screen shots, when preparing the tutorials.  So if you go watch the first video I did, on how to create a book from a collection of Wikipedia pages, you will see I start with a camera shot of me, and then switch to the screen shots, live as I edit.  I switch back and forth between me, and the screen.  WebCamMax makes that as simple as selecting a different button on the main WebCamMax screen.

WebCamMax also allows me to just select an area of the screen, or a window on the screen, and transmit that.  I have used that when Tony and I are recording our podcast on skype, so Tony can get a good video recording out of skype, while I transmit the audio AND NOW VIDEO to the chatroom as we record our podcast live (come join us in the chat room on Tuesday nights at 9PM ET– http://tinychat.com/realtech)

WebCamMax also has a few other “interesting” features, some I like, some I won’t use…

First, I do like that it will allow you to use a different background image, without a green screen.  All you have to do is step (or roll) out of the image for a few seconds, while it captures what it sees as your background. It then will replace that background with whatever image you choose to insert.  I will be using this down the road to insert the Real Tech for Real People graphic behind me, for recording the videos and the podcast.  One critical note: Don’t wear something that matches your background.  Just like you shouldn’t wear green when working with a green-screen, if you or your clothing match colors in the background, you will “disappear.”

I also like that, in addition to switching between cameras and screen shots, you can play media files.  This will be useful for me when I record a “how to” video using my Kodak Zi8 digital video recorder.  I can have the file “ready to go” and then just embed it, either with it’s own audio or with my dubbing over it.

You can also add on those “fun” graphics such as hats, faces, and beards and such.  Not exactly my cup of tea though.

I have a few issues with it, but I suspect that my problems are more of my inability to understand the intricacies of the program. For instance, I don’t like having to move my mouse back to the WebCamMax screen to click to change “views” when I have it set to follow my mouse pointer.  That is distracting.  Hopefully I will find a keystroke combination that will let me do that more smoothly.

I also would like to see it be licensed for use on two computers, for those times when I am mobile, and will be using my notebook rather than my desktop.  The software is affordable ($50 for a “lifetime” license) but paying an additional $50 for the privilege of being mobile seems a bit excessive.

Overall, I like it, and I have already recommended it to several colleagues who like what they saw in the video tutorial I put together.

Perhaps there is a very good reason why someone would ask for money for a helicopter (oh, wait–”helOcopter”) ride to JFK–but wouldn’t a cab be more affordable?

From 2010_08_08

I also chuckle at “pan handling” while talking on a cell-phone, and having your Starbucks cup between your feet.

Speaking of “Pan Handling“–feel free to donate to this blog to keep this blog, and the podcast “Real Tech for Real People” moving along!  The donate button is over there on the right!

And I promise not to use your money for helicopter rides.

…players are forbidden from using the popular microblogging service.

The decision follows at least two instances where players were told to take down Twitter posts.²

My first reaction was “Wow!  Banning the use of a personal tool, on a personal phone or computer–that seems a bit Draconian!”  Then I started wondering what I would suggest instead.  After a little thought (very little) I decided this–he should take the same approach that I have had with my children.Football players are taught, or at least trained, to have discipline on the field, and in their practice regimen.  They must learn daily to control their urge to run over someone, to rush to a position, and rather hold their place, watch the play unfold, and then react.

Twitter (and life) isn’t that much different.

This was a “teachable” moment.  The coach (at the college level) is a teacher, a mentor–a COACH.  Take this as an opportunity to remind the players of important life lessons:

• Their words and their actions have consequences.
• They need to learn self-discipline as well as football discipline.
• They need to understand that what is said on twitter (or Facebook, or even a blog like this one) will take on a life of its own, and perhaps spiral well beyond the few people you thought you were talking with at the time.

Banning them from using Twitter teaches them nothing.  They don’t learn how to engage in a social (network/media) setting.  They don’t learn self discipline.

They don’t learn life lessons that they will need once they are off the field.

Sorry Coach–you lose this game.  And unfortunately this is the only game that matters–the game of life!

So does this mean that Flickr is as bad as Facebook, running rough-shod over our rights with our own photographs?

I don’t think so, and let me explain why.  In the case of Facebook, they (the Facebook Machine) declared that all our Photos belong to Them (and us.)  Actually, the Flickr action is meant to ensure that all my photos remain my photos.  If I take a photograph, and I am willing to show it to the world, then I don’t mind you sharing it (perhaps) but only if you keep my credit attached.  People have been going around, linking to others photographs without linking back to the original, or to Flickr.

That is changed.  Now you must provide a way to link back.

To demonstrate, I have included one of my photos taken using the iPhone in the local Walmart.  As you (most likely) know, I am a Supply Chain and Operations Management professor. One of the things I teach is “service” and facility layout and design.  This photograph shows how our local Wal*Mart positioned their inventory in the floorspace prior to stocking–blocking access to much of the store (forcing you to walk around) and in one case, keeping you from purchasing their more expensive (and most likely higher margin) electric razors.

*sigh*

The Razors

Recently a writer at the Atlantic Monthly has done the same thing, exploring the 4 myths around religion, and discussing the impact the “Antenna Problem” may or may not have had on the “faithful.”  It’s a good read, but I find the discussions in the comment section even more interesting.

The author of the article includes the video showing a hypothetical exchange between a tech salesman and a customer.  The customer insists that he(?) wants an iPhone.  When the salesperson presents reasons for wanting another phone, the customer insists on an iPhone.  ”It’s has the wifi.”

What intrigues me, and what has me wanting to get my brother’s take on this, isn’t so much the article, or even the video, but the comment thread that has arisen, discussing the video.  One commenter (@therantguy) sees the video as simply portraying the blind fervor and devotion demonstrated by the Apple Faithful, while another sees the video as a testament to the “truth” about Apple-that other salespeople don’t listen, and actually mislead their customers while Apple is all that is true and virtuous.  The discussion goes on for a while, bringing in others as well–and it’s a good read!

So–here’s my question for those that play in the interpretation game:  What can we learn about how we interpret documents (scripture, the Constitution, our Tax Code) by this simple exchange?

For the video, watch this (but be warned, it’s NOT SAFE FOR WORK)

As I understand it, Twitter added “lists” because people wanted a simple way of grouping the people they follow according to some sort of structure that made sense to them.  Tweetdeck had added that capability through “groups” and I had even started using that feature.  I had built groups based on my major categories of interest:  Family. Close (real) friends.  Local people. Educators.  Twitter took that idea, allowed us to create lists through them, and then also offered the option to make the lists “public” and subscribe-able.  People can see your public lists, and if they like them–follow them!

Once Twitter released that option I had actually abandoned the notion of groups and lists.  I wasn’t so sure about what I wanted to use them for anyway.  I have since gone back, adding a private list of just family and friends.

So here is what I am wondering as I peruse the 35 lists that have listed my brother, and the lists that have added me:

Are they all really that different?  And if not, are they a “waste” of time?

In my lists, I see I am listed on a number of Supply Chain Management lists.  And educator lists.  My brother’s lists are understandably predominantly discipline related, and education related.  There are a few others, but those dominate–and that’s the point.  There appears, on a curory look, to be significant overlap on these lists.

The concept of “Wisdom of the Crowds” and “Crowd-sourcing” is that crowds, when gathered together, make better decisions, and are more creative.  Potentially (and grossly oversimplified).   By building lists of people that share common interests we can see the views of others who are thinking about the same things, and get a wide range of perspectives. ²

So here are the “research questions” (or “investigative questions”) that I have:

1.  How many groups have identical or very similar themes? (Like “supply Chain Managers”)

2.  On similar lists, what is the membership overlap?

3.  How much time is spent developing these similar, and perhaps redundant, lists?

4.  Is there a better way to “share” lists, so people aren’t always reinventing the lists (and taking time to do that?)

5.  Is there some psychological need that gets filled by creating one’s own lists, rather than following someone else’s list?  Control? Ownership?

I like the grocery store analogy, but he didn’t  go where I thought he would.

Original Image from http://www.joe-anybody.com/id47.html

I thought he was going to go with the “General Store” analogy where Mr Ike (remember the Waltons?) would be behind the counter. You would go the counter with your mom’s list and he would get everything for you. No real choice in manufacturer of flour, or sugar, or even fabric. You bought what he bought, and brought.

Then we had the advent of the supermarket. You, the consumer, could now peruse from a vast array of similar products, deciding which ones of the myriad choices was right for you. Let’s take my favorite example: tomato paste. You want Heinz? Hunts? Giant store brand? Great Value? You want 4 oz? 8? 16? 32? The killer 64 oz? The assortment just of tomato based products is staggering–yet all choices we have.

Our choices remain limited by that which Walmart, or Giant, or Wegman’s chooses to stock, but (at least in the 2 former cases) they are limited by fiscal and physical constraints, and not some artistic and aesthetic focus.

If you don’t like the choices at one grocery store, you can simply go to another.

Apple is somewhere between these. They aren’t limiting us to only one choice (but oh happy day if we only could be annoyed by one fart app instead of 300!)

Apple however does limit choice. They not only control the store, but they won’t let you go to another store (without forcing you to make ‘unauthorized changes” to your device. Now, I hear the response–”you can go to another store–get a different phone!” But that’s not really the same.

In the analogy of the grocery store I have a device that I use to consume a product (my stomach, and all pertinences attached thereto). I am able to choose between a selection of products that I consume, but the device of consumption stays the same.

In the Apple model, I am forced to forgo a consumption device (one that might have a large number of appealing factors) for the “option” to consume a different assortment of products.

I don’t see why it has to be “either, or.” This Cartesian Anxiety must stop. Tell us that we are “safest” if we shop in the company store. But let us choose (perhaps through an “opt in” feature that won’t cause nightmares with firmware updates) to choose a different store. Let the consumer decide on the risks of consumption, while allowing us to have the same consumption device.

Let us “choose.”

Does Apple not have the “Stomach” for that?

You may know that I am trying to leave Facebook (and if you read my posts, you know I proposed a way to ‘roll your own’ using existing social networking sites.)  The reason I am concerned about Facebook, and wanting to leave, is that I am tired of the constant push and pull.  They push the limits on protecting privacy, we push back, they pull back… They claim they own our photos, we push, they pull back… I am not surprised, though. They don’t view their users as their customers (we aren’t–the advertisers are) but they simply view their users as the generators of content that will drive advertising sales.

The problem is that I am not sure how many really understand the several layers of privacy that could be at risk.

And here is where Moms put their kids at risk.  You know that security question “What is your mother’s maiden name?” Well… with so many women including there maiden name on facebook (“hey–my old friends can find me easier!”) it may actually put their childrens’ identity at risk.¹  I suppose this wouldn’t be a problem, so long as we make sure we don’t connect to our parents/siblings, and so forth.  But we share the information (Maiden name) and the say “oh, here are my kids’ names, too.”

Quickly, let me say I am in no way really trying to blame moms for ANYTHING here.  It’s not the fault of Moms or the kids.   I suspect all of us are in a sense “guilty” here–we don’t think about how easily people can connect the dots on this information.

Part of the problem here is that we don’t fully understand how Facebook shares information.  Apparently, even if you only share your information with your friends, if the friends have their settings open to “everyone” then your information is exposed.

I wish we could trust people. I wish we could trust Facebook.  But in this world we must be cautious.

It at first seemed a rehash of the old story.  As Google’s street mapping cars drive by the apparently record your WIFI address and map it to the GEOLOC (GPS) coordinates to enhance navigation. ¹  But then the story got, well.. interesting.

It turns out that they’ve also been collecting and storing data from those unsecured hotspots.  Anything that was being transmitted during the time those cars were driving by may have been picked up by Google’s software and stored.²

So, as if to prove to people that they should be encrypting their wifi networks, the Google car has been capturing the actual DATA being transmitted.  Now keep in mind, this isn’t just the data that is being sent out over the internet. Oh, no.  This is everything you are doing over your wifi network.

Saving homework to a network drive?

GOT IT.

Moving pictures or music from one computer to another?

GOT IT.

Updating your business’ financial spreadsheets on the network drive?

GOT IT.

But we shouldn’t worry, because Google doesn’t want to do evil, and so they are doing everything they need to do.  They will make adjustments to their software to stop “eavesdropping” on your digital “in home” conversations.  And then, at the end of the article, they tell us this:

Google says it will work with local authorities to show what information was collected and make sure it is disposed of properly.

Yup–have no fear.  Whatever information they have “accidentally” collected will be given to the local authorities to dispose of “properly.”

Honestly, I am more concerned about my financials getting handed around than I am anything else, but does this strike anyone else as… well…. odd?  And remember, you don’t have to be doing something “illegal” to have information that could be embarrassing or personally destructive if  released.  ^{3   4}

Usually the local authorities need a warrant to tap into your phone and data lines.  They certainly need a warrant before they can go into your homes. (Just ask Jason Chen) but what happens if someone “just happens to give them information?”  Can that information be used?  I mean, it essentially has the same weight as “we received a tip from a citizen that…”

Should we be worried?  What are your thoughts?  Big Brother, or a “Tempest in a Teapot?” ⁵

What to do?

How about this–build your own community!  The tools are already here–we just need to come up with a coordinated way to share.

Let’s start with Twitter as the “hub.”  You can use Twitter to keep in touch, and follow your friends.  Of course, it is important to note that your public tweets are just that.  PUBLIC.¹  So what to do?  First, watch what you say (always good advice.)  Second, if you want to add an extra layer of privacy just create a “Blocked” account, and only allow your followers to see what you post. So you can share with your friends what you are doing, and they can share with you.  And let’s not forget the direct, one-on-one messages you can share, or “DMs.”

But that’s just the start.  Do you like sharing your photographs?  Flickr is a much better site for photo storage and sharing anyway. It’s the purpose of Flickr. And in Flickr you can create or join photo groups that are focused on things that interest you, ranging from entertainment groups you might have been in, to people sharing the same interests in photographic subjects or cameras.  In addition, you can make your photos public and visible to everyone, or just to friends, or for family.  You can control the access to your photographs and even control who can download the image or reuse it. On top of all of that, you can even choose to make your photo available to photo services to use and pay you for the use! If you haven’t checked out Flickr, you really should.

And when you add a photo to flickr, and want the world to know about it–tell them on Twitter!

Now maybe you want to share videos.  There are many sites for doing that, as well.  Certainly YouTube is the most well known but Vimeo is making a strong showing as well.  Again, you can share your videos publicly, or share only with friends.  (And Flickr also now supports limited videos, as well!)

This is just the tip of the iceberg.  These three sites (Twitter, Flickr, and YouTube) really address the majority of how people use Facebook–to connect, share conversation, share photos, and share videos.  Why turn over control to Facebook, when you can “roll your own?”

So let us know–how else do you use Facebook, and what other community tools do YOU know that could help wean ourselves off Facebook?

And let’s start with Twitter.  You can find me there as @scmprofessor

Privacy.  PRIVACY.  The RIGHT to PRIVACY.  Do you believe we should have a right to privacy?  Should we expect that our government will allow us to live our lives without surveillance, free from the need to check, to constantly look over our shoulders to see who from the government is watching?

As always the world is full of events occupying our time and driving the news.  And, as is usually the case, each story is presented in isolation.  Rarely does anyone discuss the connectedness of the stories or their implications.  Often, that means little, but occasionally the disconnectedness points to the dissonance in government when agencies pursue their agendas.  Once in a while the opportunity arises from this to view the conflict in “generalizable principles” that drive our government’s behavior.

Yesterday President Obama made a rare selection for the Supreme Court choosing someone who has not sat on the bench. ¹  In the past few decades concomitant with the selection of a nominee we have heard the hue and cry from both sides of the abortion debate.  So far there has been little discussion on this issue. ²   The Washington Post today suggests today that part of the silence is due to the economic issues of the past few years, but hints that the lack of a record on the part of Elena Kagan will cause many to dig back through what record there is.  This in itself could be cause for silence.

As the Post points out the issue of concern to many is her views on the “right to privacy.”  Interestingly, this is the “right” that has been cited as the underpinnings of a woman’s right to choose.  Also, interestingly, opponents point out the glaring absence of the “right” to privacy in the constitution. ³

The Washington Post may be correct–this may well be the sleeper issue of the summer. ⁴

So the right to privacy has been a major underpinning of the “pro-choice” movement.  And so far the government has held that there is a “right to privacy.” The question now is–is that a special right, or a general right?  That is, does this “right to privacy exist only for the arguments surrounding and defending abortion, or is it a fundamental right that is applied to everyone in every walk of life, every day?

Think long and hard about this.  What is the heart of the debate concerning immigration in Arizona?  Is it really racism? Or is it about the right to live a private life, without the intrusion of the government into your private life without cause?  After removing the words “Racism” and “racist” from the discussion, the most vocal arguments so far against the new immigration law in Arizona have centered around the stopping of individuals that law enforcement might believe are here illegally based solely on “their perceived ethnic origin.” So the question really is one of privacy.

Now let’s take that next step–the government actually implying that they are using the tools of high-tech espionage to track down citizens–not for terrorism, or murder, or violent crimes, but for failing to pay $4000 in taxes. ⁵  (See the video below)

Of course, we all know that the state of Pennsylvania doesn’t actually use satellite surveillance and listening devices, and gps tracking to monitor their citizens.⁶  It’s just a commercial. It’s not meant to REALLY intimidate anyone.  It’s just meant to be cute.

Right?  RIGHT?

One author, however, worries that if we view the iPad as the path that Apple would rise up and exert censorship over the content, giving us the Jobs view of the world (much as many criticize Disney for giving us Walt’s sanitized view of how the world is.)  I could see  Apple doing that not only to sanitize content, but also to further whatever political agendas they may have given their apparent arbitrary, capricious and vindictive approaches to what is and isn’t approved.  (political in this sense in the larger meaning, not simply political as in government affairs.)

I mentioned this is an email, and in reply, I was told that we shouldn’t worry about that.  That Apple has demonstrated a willingness to not interfere in educational issues as shown through iTunesU and that Apple would probably never get enough market share for that to happen.

Perhaps.  But that led me to ponder further what really would it take to get digital texts  (or as my brother calls them “educational applications” to move from obscurity to ubiquity–and will proprietary get in the way?

First I wanted to address the interesting  notion that  iTunesU is the model of an Open Apple.  That might be true, but the textbook/educational applications that we are seeing discussed are positioned to be sold through the AppStore model, and  the App Store is a model of a closed Apple.  At times, a VERY closed Apple.   Recently we have seeen Apple exerting control not only on content but the tools to be used in developing that content.But let’s set aside for a moment the problems of if Apple were to control the market, and look at what it would take to get there.
Perhaps my correspondent is correct that Apple cannot garner enough market share to make them (and their iPad) a viable contender and competitor in the textbook space, but then we are left wondering:

• If Apple doesn’t control a significant share of the textbook “space” then what are the options for students?
• What incentive will students have to drop $500+ on a device that only a small fraction of faculty will have as the platform for their texts/instructional materials?

Will Apple work towards open standards so that the books/media will be able to be hosted on a wide range of platforms, or will Apple insist on a proprietary standard, working towards exclusivity for the instructional material they “host” on their platform.  This isn’t simply a red herring tossed out to direct attention from some “Greater Good.”  The fact is that right now students are able to choose from a variety of sources to purchase their texts (and thus a wide range of service/price combinations) and even between new and used books.  Faculty can choose between various textbook publishers/providers, which allows the professor to not only choose the best content, but the best value package for the students.

All that can disappear if one source controls the access to the media, and if there exist competing exclusive and proprietary sources for access to media, then students will be required to purchase not one, but several expensive readers/devices depending on the choices of the faculty member.  Or, alternatively the faculty will be hamstrung, “encouraged” by students or administration to only focus on those source-materials available and the dominant device.

So here we go–what is the decision making process that leads a faculty member to assign a “multi-media resource” as the course “text” rather than a regular textbook? What do you when the students are told that for my ONE class the book is no longer that big expense at $100-200 but rather the iPad becomes the big expense–costing 2-5 times that amount. AND there is no guarantee that any other faculty members will commit to a similar path? And of course the publishers don’t want to reduce the price of the “text” below 50% of the current price AND don’t want to make the “book” available permanently. And don’t forget, most technology has a life of 2-3 years when used regularly. Heavy use, along with ever increasing complexity of the applications/software, may well shorten the lifespan of the product that students must purchase, shifting them from a 1 time outlay to 2, or 3 times in the span of a college career–assuming of course that enough faculty adopt these “books” to make it worth their while.

At a time when the pressures from students AND the federal government is to lower the costs of education (and specifically texts) what professor wants to be the one to step up and insist that students get a high priced device that is designed for obsolescence?

So we are faced with an interesting challenge.  At a time when technology is holding out such promise we find at least one company who has the technical ability to break down the cost walls while simultaneously catapulting the technology of learning well beyond anything we have experienced.  And we find that the same company is tighting the grips on their “ecosystem” arguing that they can control their own little corner of the world.

This is one of those pivotal moments–we can see proprietary walls go up, and little gardens of creative learning spread slowly.  Or we can encourage open architectures that will enable creativity and learning to spread quickly, and widely.

Ubiquity? Or Proprietary? Which way do you think things will go?

NOTE:  Please, after reading through here, share your thoughts to my question that I ask at the end of the post. I crave your inputs and your ideas on this topic of great significance to students, and parents, who buy textbooks)

Underlying my view on digital textbooks is the idea that publishing through a digital medium removes the costs of production, shipping, and other supply chain costs, and thus could significantly reduce the costs of the  texts, resulting in the possibility of a substantial reduction in price to the students.  In addition, I argue that by making the textbooks very reasonably priced students would be more likely to simply “buy new” rather than seek out ways to hack the protections and “steal” books.

Unfortunately it seems the publishers are seeking to do everything they can to dissuade students from making the shift to digital books while appearing to be progressive.

Let me explain:

I have a textbook that I use for my Introduction to Supply Chain and Production Operations course.  The text is Operations Management (10th Edition) by Jay Heizer and Barry Render.  According to Amazon, the text lists new for $198.67 but is available through Amazon for 162.98.  Amazon points out that this is a savings of 18%.  ²

So what would you expect the price to be for a digital version?  $30? $50?  $75?

Try $99.35 — and this isn’t a copy you OWN!  You are essentially leasing it (subscribing to it) for 6 months!

Don’t believe me?  Visit the link, and also check the graphic below (click to see larger image.)

This is just one example of the pricing schema.

So let me ask you this:

• Do you believe a 50% discount off the list price is enough to get you to “purchase” a digital 6 month subscription rather than purchase the text?
• What are your thoughts on the subscription idea versus owning an actual copy of the text?
• What would it take to move YOU to a digital textbook?

And what if that resource is required?

I had the privilege to speak with a representative from a textbook publisher about their new technological advance, designed to help students learn better, and even more, help faculty by automating the grading and evaluation process.  At first blush I was convinced we had a win-win here. Students would be able to learn at their own pace, seeking out knowledge to help them with their problems while simultaneously lifting some of the administrative burden that faculty like least–the grading of homework.  ¹  In the presentation, I was shown how students could not only work through their homework problems, but also click a link to take them directly to the section of the textbook that discusses the approaches needed to solve the homework problem.

While all these solutions are browser based and would work on a wide range of netbook, notebook and desktop computers (Mac, Windows and presumably LINUX based) I was beginning to see just how a digital device such as the Apple iPad could be perfect for such a solution.  The iPad could easily contain all the textbooks a student would have in a semester, could then also assist in the completion not only of the homework but could be instrumental in integrating their understanding of the material with their communications with their classmates and their professor and, given the right writing tools, could be the hub for their homework, email and writing assignments.

Then my thoughts came to a screeching halt when the representative started to talk about prices.

*SIGH*

Access to the homework tool (included in the purchase of a NEW textbook) would cost students $10 if they chose to instead by a book used.  Of course, that would only give them access to the homework assignments.  There was an additional fee ($30 I believe) if they wanted to have the “PLUS” features, including the hyperlinking to the appropriate section of the text.  Of course students could simply purchase the complete digital version, integrating the textbook with the online supplemental materials, and read the books on their computer ²

As I listened, I started hearing the dollar signs tally up quite quickly–and all because of decisions I would make concerning the structure of my class.  Would I require students to complete their homework online?  Would I choose to be considerate of their purse-strings and instead make the online homework an option–requiring me as a faculty member to not only NOT see a time savings but now instead have to manage two separate streams of assignment turn-ins, along with separate grading schema as well?

And what about the students who feel they learn best when they can sit, with a pencil and piece of paper, textbook open before them and their trusty calculator by their side, plugging and chugging their way through to the solutions each problem challenging, then leading to the epiphany they so richly enjoy?

So now I sit here, faced with the interesting challenge–Do I push forward into the technology of pedagogy, and require students to spend more money for digital learning, or do I resist, ironically clinging to paper texts with the twisted ideal of helping students more frugally achieve their learning objective?  Or do I try to chart a course, mandating neither, and potentially creating chaos in the wake? ³

How do we know if it is working?

I have had a simple measure:  Do some (or even any) students use the tools, and when they use them do they feel that they are grasping the material better?

My thought has been that numbers don’t matter as much as outcomes for individuals and if some students find value then these approaches are worth continuing.

What are your thoughts?  Must we have numbers to be considered successful?

Once this hard fought and necessary battle was won, the HOA celebrated their victory, and opened up a Yahoo Group to the community to enhance communications.  Alas, this seems to have brought out not a spirit of friendship and community but one of sniping and backbiting.

Everyone has their own little petty concerns that bother them.  Of course, what seems to bother them the most are what their neighbors are doing with their own property, or with their cars in front of their property.  And of course, all arguments er discussions are brought up with the “greater good” at heart, the greater good being, of course “Property Values.”

Sounds fair, right?

Try this one.  The first comment (and I mean the very first comment) was that, now that the roads have been paved and it is easier to get into your driveway, we need to mandate that everyone parks in the drive and ban parking on the streets in front of their own home.  Oh, and if you have too many cars for the driveway–you need to park in your garage.

The battles have continued, over swimming pools, RVs, pets, fences, and all the various other issues that can annoy neighbors.  But despite all of this, one things remains constant:  no one wants to participate in a Democracy.  They want things to simply be “their way.”

As I mentioned I am renting, so I honestly have “no dog in the hunt.”  I couldn’t care less how things are for the long term.  I just enjoy watching this little corner of America play itself out.  So I have until now just stayed out of the discussions, and watched–and laughed.

This weekend after a rather lengthy back and forth discussion with someone having violated a “24 hour RV parking rule” by 48 hours, I finally offered up my suggestion.  The argument seemed to focus on two things.  First, one group was adamant that “these are the rules” and it doesn’t matter if you like these rules are not, rules are rules and must be followed.  The other group (to summarize) essentially argued that some of these rules are silly and the application of fines and punishments for silly rules is beyond silly.

So I stepped in and suggested that, here in America, it might be a good idea to put the various rules up for a referendum.  Let the community decide as a whole, through a vote, which rules are important and which are worth modifying or discarding.  Then, as we always do in America, live with the will of the people until the next opportunity to change the rules presents itself. {2.  The current rules were simply “handed down” as an edict from the builder when he created the community (remember the builder? Bankrupt and all…) The various members did agree to the rules when they moved in, but are these rules to remain etched in stone for all eternity? ]

Seems simple.  But nooooooo… You can’t change the rules.  The rules are the rules.  And of course, my FAVORITE argument was this one:

“The only people who would want to change the rules are the people who want to break them in the first place.  We shouldn’t give these lawless people a voice!”

SERIOUSLY?  Yes… seriously.  That was the response.  Um. Duh.  People who repeal laws usually do so to allow a behavior that had previously been made illegal.  Remember Prohibition anyone?

I could go on, recounting story after story–the stories are numerous and honestly, I am saving every one of them, hoping some day to turn this dysfunctional microcosm of America into some sort of Erma Bombeck style book.

In the meantime, I would LOVE to hear from each of you–do YOU have any HOA stories you can share?  Horror, humor or happy?

=====

Books are wonderful things. Millenia ago, our predecessors shared their histories, and explained the world around them, through an oral tradition, passing stories down from one generation to another. Over time, these stories were written down, essentially “locking” the stories down on paper. Ever since, books have been a way to disseminate information for thousands of years, and with the advent of the printing press, to do so quickly, and broadly. We can partake in the imaginations of a Tolkien, a Lewis, a Shakespeare, or a Plato. We can read the political thoughts of Aristotle, Marx, and Obama, or the theological insights of Paul, Aquinas and Spong. We can even allow our minds to drift as we read romance novels through the ages, or the horror stories from Beowolf, to Frankenstein, to any Stephen King novel. Each book brings new thoughts, new images, and new imaginings.

In the 21st century we have even more ways to disseminate, and enjoy, the works and thoughts of others. Just as the printing press made paper books available to the masses, we have digital ebooks to take dozens of books with us, to read anywhere. We now also have stepped beyond “books on tape” to truly digital audio books that, when combined with personal media players such as the iPod, enable even those who cannot read to enjoy the panoply of thoughts.

If the printing press was the first revolution, sharing ideas with the literate masses, it was limited in the very requirement for literacy. In order to read, one must be able to read. Thus is its limitation it provided the impetus for literacy as more people sought to embrace the ideas made possible through literature.

This latest revolution both extends and hinders the reach of literature. Certainly, if one defines ‘educated’ and ‘literate’ as being exposed to ideas, then we can see how a more informed, and thus more literate, populace will result from such broad access to reading. And through the efforts of Project Gutenberg many of the classics through the ages are now available to the masses. People with internet access can now enjoy the thoughts of the ages, wherever they can reach the internet. And with the One Laptop per Child initiative, children in developing nations can be exposed to ideas global in scope, and timeless as the ages. And finally, whether one can actually read, or not, the proliferation and easy transportability of digital audio files has opened literature to everyone.

Alas, this great awakening may yet be returned to slumber. In the great confluence of enlightened self-interest we find that several challenges remain for making this the greatest literate population ever.

First, it is possible that, when provided with ample reasons to not learn to read, the population reverts once again to an “oral” tradition. Admittedly this is a different oral tradition. In this “new” tradition, the stories are told, and frozen, and remain accessible to those that can’t read. But in this “new” oral tradition the strengths of the oral tradition, the committing the stories to personal memory, embedding them deep in the social soul, is replaced by committing them to digital memory. The stories are retold, but not necessarily embraced. And perhaps worse, these stories then are so easily accessible as to render the impetus to read almost impotent. ¹

The second great challenge is the rush to protect the “digital rights.” Cory Doctorow, in a This Week in Tech podcast, (42 minutes, 50 seconds in) points out that Audible books, and other electronic book distributors, will not allow for the distribution of digital rights free books. Cory Doctorow actually insisted that his books be distributed without DRM, and audible refused.

So why is this the “second great challenge?” Perhaps the best way to explain the impact of DRM is to ask this set of questions: Have you ever given away a book? Loaned a book? Borrowed one from the library? The way digital rights are currently implemented, you cannot loan out a book that you have already read. You can’t say, as so many of us have, “this is a great book–I will give it to you when I am done.” In fact, the terms of service are such for the Kindle that you can’t sell, it loan it or give it away! If we are to experience the benefits of this greatest age of literacy, we need to allow for information to be shared. I honestly understand the concept of intellectual property (what professor doesn’t?) but I also understand that once we share an idea (and perhaps, get paid for it) the idea not only can enter the mainstream, we should hope that it does!

¹ In fact, this is one area in which I struggle with podcasting for courses. If I make my lectures, notes and answers available as audio podcasts have I disconnected the students even further from the richness that is “the text?”

So now we face  the BIG PROBLEM.

By shifting to a policy where everyone is now to be insured, we open the floodgates of demand (okay, a bit much. But we certainly will allow millions more in.) Demand for services will increase. So it would make sense that prices would increase to balance out the demand (remember Econ 101, all else equal, in the near term an increase in demand will result in an increase in price. In the long term it should result in an increase in supply, as the market responds to the increased demand for the product).

Will we see prices increase? Not for the consumer–they are capped at the Co-pay. And now we are seeing pressures to not raise prices from the supply side (and the insurance companies will be SHOT if they raise rates significantly).

So what happens now? If prices cannot go up, then demand will remain (unrealisticly) high. Unrealistic in that demand is acting free of the market place.

With demand high, and the inability to increase prices we will see no real “benefit” to more providers entering the marketplace.

More to the point, even if we could see more providers enter the market there are significant barriers to entry. Consider the medical field:

1. Doctors must go through extensive training, and then licensing (not to mention the fact that they never really get it right–so must keep “practicing”)

2. medicines must be approved after rigorous testing, and their labs must be approved, and so forth.

3. Various other licensing and authorizing are in place for therapists, assistants, nurses, and the like.

Supply cannot respond quickly, and with a rising demand and supply unable to keep up, and with no pricing mechanism to regulate the demand we will face:

Shortages of service resulting in long waiting lines/delays.

And how do you deal with shortages? Since the market forces are not allowed to work, we are left with the government stepping in, once again, to fix the mess of it’s own making. They will have to “ration” care.

Sorry–it’s a fact. In every nation that has shifted to “socialized” they have faced shortages, lines and rationing.

It’s not something we can “do better.”

It’s economics.

The whole initiative is predicated on a few arguments:

1. Costs (prices) are too high.
2. Insurance companies are “making too much money”
3. Millions of people don’t have access to care
4. The Health Care people are receiving is poor (oh, wait, it’s not about the actual care…)

So let’s tackle this. The basic problem now comes down to a discussion of supply and demand/economics.

As the system currently works we have two sets of perverse incentives fighting against the consumer (and one of these incentives takes place with the willing, yet unknowing, assistance of the patient)

First, the perverse incentives of the patient:

Currently, the “cost of entry” into the health care system is high (monthly “Insurance” rates) but thanks to low, or no, co-pays, the marginal costs of most health care transactions are quite low.

Given the low costs incurred per visit, and the high “sunk” costs incurred to enter the system, the insureds (patients) who HAVE insurance are incented to go to the doctors more frequently, and to go ahead and get the prescriptions (Hey, it’s only $3 copay at Wal*Mart!)

Of course, this is a mirage. The actual costs of each visit and each prescription are borne by the insurance companies, which then have to recover their costs through increased premiums, which of course has everyone screaming that the insurance companies are “gouging” the customers.

On the other hand, we have a set of pricing incentives that also conspire against the consumer. The ‘care providers” are aware that the patient/customer doesn’t see the actual costs–they only pay the co-pay. So given this we have a series of perversions that are at play:

1. Doctors are more able to prescribe tests/medicines, and the like, since they will receive little if any push-back from the patients because of costs. More services with a low marginal cost to the consumer/patient, but a higher total cost, paid by the insurance companies.
2. Insurance companies work to lower their costs by negotiating to pay health care providers a fraction (some value less than 1) of the billable rate. Thus the providers are incented to increase their prices the maintain their revenue stream. This increases the costs once again.

So these two twists to the problem work once again to force the insurance companies to have to raise the rates (really on everyone) to cover the payments they are having to make.

Now–as consumers, we see that we are paying a high “sunk cost” as a monthly fee and, rather than view this as traditional insurance (where I am betting against myself) the consumer wants to try to get at least that benefit back out of the “system” (and is encouraged to do so, by “low co-pays”)

Sadly, the whole mess was brought on by our desire to protect everyone and provide some level planning to health care. The “free market” actually would provide better incentives here, placing limits/governors not only on how much people are willing to spend on services, but the prices that people would have to pay. If service providers want to stay in business then they would be forced to price competitively based on the market, and the market would be making the decisions based on the consumers. As it stands now, with the “same co-pay regardless” the consumer has no indication of value, and the market cannot respond. Viagra is as valued as Interferon and as Motrin.

What to do when everything costs the same?

I am not alone in my expectation that the Health Care (insurance) reform will not improve Health Care (it won’t make bad doctors good ones, for instance) and it won’t improve access since lower prices have that pesky effect of increasing demand–in a field where the barriers to entry for suppliers are significant.

I will say this:  Welcome to the new “Grand Experiment.”  If it succeeds, then by all means celebrate (but could we get a good solid definition of success on which we can all agree?)  But (and this is significant) if it fails, how many will have died as part of the experiment, and will we ever be able to recover?

One final note:  As researchers we have to seek, and get, informed consent from human subjects before we can experiment on them.  Did you get the forms?

I am not writing this as a “hater” or critic of the iPad.  I just would love to see if the demand spiked on the first day and dropped precipitously, or whether the demand over the 21 days prior to shipping stayed relatively constant, or even ramped up as we approached the 3rd of April.

Here’s what I wonder:  people who are early adopters, and the first to get in line and wait for days for a new product, are by all anecdotal evidence I have heard the ones who pre-order, and pre-ordered on the first day they could.  And in the case of my brother, ordered it as soon as the Apple Store made it available.

If my supposition is true, then the demand for pre-ordered items would have been heavily front-loaded.  Conversely,  I would find it quite interesting if demand for the iPad through pre-ordering had any sort of ramping to the demand pattern.  If the demand was increasing, then the big question of the day would be:  Why?

The next question is are the people who would normally stand in line to get the next “really cool product” the same who would want to pre-order right away (and thus reduce or eliminate lines at the stores) or is the psychology of waiting in line for a “cool new product” palpably different from the psychology of “getting” it?

Anyone have any thoughts or insights into this?

I wanted to tackle this for a minute.¹  I would have to agree that the NEXUS is not selling as well as, well, most other smart phones on the market right now, but on the other hand let’s balance the assessment by pointing out a couple things contained in the short post above.

1.  The forecast anticipates selling 1 million units by the end of 2010.   This is actually quite a  significant figure for a phone that really only works best (for now) with T-Mobile.

2.  The Nexus is only “sold directly by Google.”  In fact, let’s be more pointed with this: it’s only sold by Google, through an online purchase.  Imagine if the only way to get an iPhone was through the Apple Store site.  Would they still have sold millions? Yes, undoubtedly, but one cannot discount the tremendous boost Apple received by having their products in the hands of thousands of people nationwide, simultaneously.  Not to mention the tremendous press coverage of the “long lines waiting to get their hands on their first iPhone” that we saw in every news media market.

Now, a million units sold in 1 year is relatively trivial compared to the numbers of even the iPhone 1st generation phone.  That said, consider the deck that Google has elected to stack against itself.

T-Mobile is a good and worthy network, so I am told.  But more often than not, people talk about it as if it is the little sibling of the  ”big 3″ when people talk about their cell-carriers.  I think I can count on one hand (without resorting to binary)  the number of friends and colleagues that use T-Mobile.  Selling a million units for a phone that is, out of the box, tied to a company with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-Mobile_USA is “not too shabby.”  (This compares right now with AT&T having approximately 85 million wireless customers.)  Given the large numbers of people who are locked in to their existing contracts, I don’t see many people switching carriers, especially since they are not afforded the opportunity to “try before they buy.”  (See next point)

Additionally, the decision by Google to only sell the Nexus online, through their website, has to hamstring their sales.  I may like tech, but when it comes to dropping $500 or more on a phone (and/or getting a long term contract) I want to be able to touch it first, see how it feels and responds in my hands, and feel like I was an informed consumer when  I make  my decision.  I suspect I am not alone.  More than once I have driven past our local T-Mobile store thinking that, if only they had a Nexus in the store, I would stop and at least test the waters.  I suspect that, if I could go in to a T-Mobile and not only play with the phone a bit, but talk with them about the affordability of switching from AT&T to T-Mobile, I would make the switch.  And again, I suspect I am not alone.

Finally, early reports of lack-luster customer support by Google has most likely scared off a number of would-be consumers.  Take away the store front/salesperson access, and market your phone on a network that would require me to switch carriers, and I am going to want, nay expect, a rather significant online and “on phone” support structure.   Unfortunately, Google has grown a culture based around offering “free” and “Beta” services.  Expectations of support for “free” services are far lower than expectations when one spends a significant amount of cash.

And make no mistake–$500 is significant.

In the final (as of today) analysis, I would say that 1 million units sold is actually a remarkable number given that Google has left the confines of their “core competency” (which I will describe as creating free and innovative software-based experiences) and ventured in to the world of offering “for sale” hardware products.²  Additionally, they seem to be wanting to “play by the rules” of traditional retailing instead of breaking new ground in the cellphone industry (as was speculated prior to the offering of the Nexus).

What does the future really hold for the Nexus line?  It is now a waiting game, I suppose.  Imagine Google addressing even 1 of the issues above. An expansion to another network (such as a Verizon or AT&T) or even the opening of sales at T-Mobile stores could make a significant difference for the phone.  Or, perhaps they utimately will rewrite the rules for cell-phones, offering free phones to those that actively use Google services, extending the Ad Revenue model to a whole new domain.

Considering the mis-steps one can only conclude that the Nexus succeeds, despite itself.

He is also a self-professed liberal. This is not surprising. He believes that we need to look out for our neighbors, and his view of neighbor is expansive. So understandably (I hop) I found myself pondering if I am missing something. Is there something “great” about liberalism as we know it today? And if it is “great” does that mean conservatism somehow misses the boat?

After much reflection, I realized that we have two problems facing us. First, the liberal ideal of caring for those around you is not only a good one, it’s Biblical. We are called on by Christ to love our neighbors. And Christ didn’t draw any neighborhood boundaries, either. On the other hand, we are faced with an ever-enlarging government that, despite all the best intentions and heartfelt goodwill, never seems to deliver on the “big promises.”

My conclusion? Liberalism doesn’t scale–and it wasn’t ever intended to. For us to love our neighbor we must be in contact with our neighbors. We can care best for those we touch. I suspect this was designed into our nature.

There have been many articles and books written, speeches given, and studies done, identifying that we respond more positively, and give more freely, to concerns closer to home. So we are hard-wired to care for those around us. This “local giving” may not be motivated from a pure heart, but at least we know it happens. Superfreakonomics gives us a perspective on this altruism: ‘Most giving is, as economists call it, impure altruism or warm-glow altruism. You give not only because you want to help but because it makes you look good, or feel good, or perhaps feel less bad.”]

So we, for whatever reasons or motivations, generally want to help our neighbors. Surely that extends to those we cannot see, correct? Well, the authors of the book SuperFreakonomics would perhaps argue no. Not only do they essentially argue that liberalism doesn’t scale, they go a step further and discusses research that indicates that, when given an opportunity, people will not only fail to behave benevolently towards their neighbor, they will in fact, cheat them. But what is most interesting here, is that, in the research they discussed, the cheating occurred most often between people who were not neighbors. “In the data, List found an interesting split: the out-of-town dealers cheated more often than the locals.”

So here is where I believe liberalism, or altruism, fails. When we ask the government to step in and perform altruistic acts, we ask the government to do a few things on our behalf:
1. We want an non-person to demonstrate humanity. We ask that the government “care.”
2. We want the government to make the “right” choices about what and whom to care for. Of course, we find that often that means bringing the “bacon” (or “Pork”) back to our own districts, where we “see the need.”
3. We want the government to do all this, without actually requiring that we pay for it, and simultaneously wanting the government to make sure someone else pays for it (“raise the taxes on the wealthy.”)

So over time, we find that government is called on less to be altruistic on a grand scale, and becomes for nearly all a way to force others to give money to causes and people they otherwise might not support, while simultaneously bringing resources to bear on my own local problems. Government then takes on the roll of proxy for the same local concerns we used to care for ourselves!

This is, of course, simply a blog. I make no pretense of conducting large scale research myself on this topic. I am simply tying together my readings, and my observations of the world around me. It seems to me that most people want to help those close to them, and most when presented with true and compelling need or tragedy, will give. But when we rely on our government to function on our behalf we become disconnected. We no longer have those “feel good” moments that cause us to practice “warm glow altruism.” Government

And then, over time, we stop caring.

Here is a video of the first of the linedances of the night.

Oh–and it’s never too late to donate to THON and the Four Diamonds Fund.

Donations can be sent to:
CV Four Diamonds Fund
Cumberland Valley High School
6746 Carlisle Pike
Mechanicsburg, PA 17050
Attn: Elizabeth Rimpfel

I have written about this all week, and I wanted to take another couple of minutes to remind you, dear reader, why they are doing this.

(Paraphrased from the Four Diamonds site “About us“) CV HS joins many other schools, and Penn State, in helping raise money for the Four Diamonds Fund. This fund was started in 1972 by Charles and Irma Millard soon after their son, Christopher, died of cancer at 14 years of age. They named the fund after a story their son wrote while battling cancer. In that story, he wrote about a knight that had to find the four diamonds of Courage, Wisdom, Honesty, and Strength. You can read his story, by visiting the Four Diamonds Fund site.

The students at Cumberland Valley HS have worked tirelessly through this year raising funds, and they have been doing this for 4 years (according to the Four Diamonds site) and last year, they raised $55,500 for the Four Diamonds Fund–the second largest school mini-thon amount!

Let’s give credit where it’s due. CVHS isn’t alone. Central Dauphin HS (15 yrs running a mini thon) raised $68,612 in 2009. All told, for the 2008-09 school year 38 schools (from elementary schools through HS) raised over 3/4 of a MILLION dollars for the Fund.

Please, consider a donation to CV THON. Visit their website at http://CVSCHOOLS.ORG/THON and go to “Donors” (or, simply Click Here!)

All the schools unite with one hope, one dream, one cause–to stop Childhood cancer. And they do it for one reason: FOR THE KIDS.

So in the spirit of unity, today, I will include a Central Dauphin THON Dodgeball Video.

The THON Team at Cumberland Valley >are not afraid. They have been planning and working, and fund-raising, year round, anticipating their “big event.” They apparently also have an “in” with God. In looking at the weather maps, and they way the storm will swirl about Pennsylvania, it appears our portion of South-Central PA will emerge relatively unscathed and, more importantly, with no school cancellations that would have a negating effect on CV THON.

So I am left with two requests: Pray for “no snow.” And, when it comes to donations, “Pray for Rain.” Pray, that our community will continue to reach out, and touch hundreds of lives through the love and dedication of these high school kids!

I am posting a triple video threat today. First, I wanted to share a video from Penn State’s THON in 2009, entitled “Where are They Now.” A powerful testimony to the love and devotion the THON has, and the impact the Four Diamonds Fund has had on children 10 15, or 20 years after they were diagnosed with pediatric cancer.

The second video shows just home much fun CV THON students have, as they find creative ways to not only raise money For The Kids, but to do it while having fun with each other (This time–dodge-ball.) Check the schedule. They have this Dodge Ball TOURNAMENT scheduled DURING CV THON! According to Matthew, they have about 30 teams — “It’s EPIC.”

Finally, no plea for you, dear readers, to “Pray for Rain” would be complete without including the song from PFR.

FOR THE KIDS!

Where are They Now

DODGEBALL

PFR

…to conquer childhood cancer by assisting children treated at Penn State Hershey Children’s Hospital and their families through superior care, comprehensive support, and innovative research.

Any family with a child being treated for pediatric cancer at Penn StateHershey Children’s Hospital is automatically eligible for support.

But wait-there’s MORE!

Cumberland Valley High School has their THON Dance Marathon this coming weekend.  High school kids couldn’t sit by and watch Penn State students raise all the funds.  They too were moved to help in the fight against childhood cancer.  They too wanted to contribute in not only money, but time and passion.  They too wanted to dance to victory over Pediatric Cancer.

So they will have their THON dance, February 27th-28th, 2010.  Learn more about CV Thon here.  Or see pictures from last year’s CV THON.

You can support CV THON by donating directly to the Four Diamonds Fund.  Just visit their site at: http://www.pennstatehershey.org/web/development/give

Oh, and watch these videos.

Take the time to read about THON, and the Four Diamonds Foundation, and please, donate. Any amount helps. Go visit http://THON.org

And while you are thinking THON, remember, Cumberland Valley HS will be hosting their CV THON this coming weekend–and the proceeds there go to the Four Diamond Foundation as well, visit http://www.cvschools.org/thon

Every year at Penn State the largest student-run philanthropic organization pulls together with the Dance Marathon called THON that culminates a year-long effort at fund raising. The funds raised go to the Four Diamonds Foundation providing support to children with cancer and their families.  From THON.org:

In 1973, a small group of dedicated Penn State students held our first Dance Marathon. That year, 34 dancers participated and raised $2,000. Since then, THON’s presence in the Penn State community has grown exponentially. THON now has 15,000 student volunteers, 700 dancers, and has raised more than $61 million, benefiting The Four Diamonds Fund at Penn State Children’s Hospital.

Last year, THON helped raise 7.4 MILLION dollars for the Four Diamonds Foundation.

To learn more about THON and to make your donation to help fight pediatric cancer, watch the streaming vide, and visit THON.org.

FOR THE KIDS!

Free Videos by Ustream.TV

Enjoy.

But could he have lost his touch? Could Steve Jobs and Apple not only missed it this time, but could they be responsible for bringing down a whole nascent industry with them?

On the heels of the introduction of the Apple iPad (and their announcement that books would cost between $13 and $15) we saw an emboldened Macmillan publishing house pressing their case against Amazon.  For a brief moment Amazon seemed to be fighting the good fight for consumers, and went so far as to ban direct sales of Macmillan books.

Macmillan was simply “acting out” what Steve Jobs told to Walt Mossberg when he said that the prices would end up being the same (between Apple and Amazon), because the publishers are not happy (with Amazon) and are going to pull their books from there.  It appears that Steve Jobs is doing the work of the Publishers, pushing the price points up, rather than down.  Rather than being a champion of the individual, does this make Steve Jobs simply a big business “hack?”

The bottom line here really is that Amazon knew 2 years ago what Steve Jobs should know now. Verso Direct has conducted a book buyers behavioral study/survey, in which they discover that the magic price-point for digital books seems to be right at $9.99.  According to the article “Amazon Flanks…” when Verso presented their study and broke down their findings, they reported that 3 out of 5 people will consider buying an ebook at or below $9.99.  Raise the price, and that drops to 1 out of 5.

The article then goes on to identify the real “winners” as pirates.

Is it possible that, in his rush to kill Amazon, Steve Jobs may have instead spell the death of eBooks?¹

With Apple’s release of the iPad, and their move into eReader book sales through the iBook, some have argued that Apple has just rung the bell, tolling the death of the Kindle.  Others argue that, among other things, the Kindle meets a certain “niche” (just as the iPad serves a niche) and thus will not only survive but thrive.  In fact, an Amazon spokesperson said, in that NY Times article:

Customers can read and sync their Kindle books on the iPhone, iPod Touch, PCs, and soon BlackBerry, Mac and iPad. Kindle is purpose-built for reading. Weighing in at less than 0.64 pounds, Kindle fits comfortably in one hand for hours, has an E Ink display that is easy on the eyes even in bright daylight, two weeks of battery life, and 3G wireless with no monthly fees — all at a $259 price. Kindle editions of New York Times best sellers and most new releases are only $9.99.

This is a key strength of the Kindle –the portability of reading. As I have written before, in several places, a move to ubiquitous reading seems to be the greatest opportunity facing publishers.  Make reading your books, or magazine, tied to the reader, not the device.  With the Kindle publishing/software reader business unit Amazon is heading down that road. I can move from Kindle-enabled device to device, and when I pick up a device, it will automatically sync to where I last was reading in any of the other devices.  This actually makes having several different devices quite attractive, so that I can use the device that is most convenient for the task (or location) at hand.

So that brings us to the “Kindle reading experience” on the iPhone.  I personally like the Kindle app for the iPhone.  In some ways it is superior to the Kindle itself, specifically in how it handles highlighting and notetaking.¹  This makes the iPad a very attractive device to me, as a Kindle reader for those tasks when I want to highlight and take notes, generally for work-related reading.  I can even see Amazon enhancing the app on the iPhone/iPad even further, perhaps blending the Kindle App with Stanza for a better reading experience.

Even the author of the article in the NY Times that put forward “Three Reasons why the iPad WILL kill the Amazon Kindle” has conceded that the Kindle app has significant draw:

Kindle’s store and its reading application for the iPhone are both excellent, simple experiences for purchasing and consuming books. Amazon understands this market better than anyone and could easily sell more books on the iPad than Apple could through its new iTunes bookstore. Amazon also offers an excellent recommendation system, and I can envision some users opting for the Kindle application on their fancy new iPads.

I can actually envision more than “some users” opting for the Kindle application–especially if they are able to develop a similar flashy interface for showing your bookshelf, and helping you “buy” books from Amazon.  Don’t forget–a significant number of people have already heavily invested in the DRM’d (copy protected) books sold  by Amazon, and they will not want to leave that investment behind.  Will they opt then for what will be (most likely) another DRM’d book format?  Say what you will about the fact that the Amazon books aren’t portable, there is some comfort in having all the books you purchased available for download from a single repository.  Avid Kindle readers may not want to leave that behind.

So the question becomes: will Apple now “ban” the Kindle App (and possibly Stanza) for the same reason that it banned other apps, including the Google Voice app?   The reason, as you may recall, was that the app “duplicated functionality” that the phone provided.  Other apps have been rejected (er, “not approved” — sorry) for the same reason.  Clearly, by entering into the eBook sales business they are seeking to directly compete with Amazon in this “space.”

What do YOU think? Will Apple ban the Kindle App in the near future?

A birthday present for our soon to be 6 year old son was being delivered by UPS. Initially their site said (according to my mother-in-law) that it had been delivered on our porch on Thursday. When my wife called UPS on Friday to say that it was not delivered she was told, “Mack Brady called and requested it be returned to sender.” My wife pointed out that Mack Brady was 5 years old and expecting that box to contain lots of LEGOs from his grandparents. He was unlikely to make the call much less request that the package be returned to sender.

It was delivered 5 days (3 business days) later.

I find this experience very interesting as we seek to learn valuable service delivery,  supply chain, and life lessons.

SHIPPER-CARRIER RELATIONSHIPS

First, as a logistician and Supply Chain professional, I am reminded that shippers (the company in this case selling the LEGOs) are often at the mercy of the carrier (in this case UPS.)  They enter into a contract, expecting in good faith that UPS will deliver the package to the customer.  In fact, there is an expectation on the part of the shipper that the carrier will, if necessary, make several attempts before requesting that the customer come to them. ¹  In this case, UPS not only failed to deliver the product on the behalf of the shipper, they then created a rather interesting backstory for why they failed to deliver.

IN TRANSIT VISIBILITY (ITV)

In addition, this story speaks to the importance of accurate tracking of packages.  There are two parts to the tracking issue that confuse me.  First, the fact that the website tracking initially reported delivery to the porch is interesting, since the package was not actually delivered.  ²  Initially, we believe the online tracking to be accurate.  Our whole business operation is based on accuracy in reporting.  The shipper expects the carrier to deliver the package and provide updated information along the way as necessary.  The carriers themselves rely on accurate ITV to know where their drivers and trucks are at any given time, and provide assurance to customers and shippers that they are providing appropriate care for their items.  And finally, ITV provides receivers (in this case my 5 y.o. nephew) a sense of security knowing that, even if a package has not yet arrived, it is safely on it’s way and that the carrier know exactly where it is.

Given the importance of ITV, the systems are designed to ensure and  enhance accuracy through barcode readers and digital signatures.  When these systems fail, and they will, carriers should not respond with finger pointing, or cover-ups, but rather work to understand the cause of the failure and attempt to once again poka-yoke the process.

HONESTY IN SERVICE RECOVERY

The failure of in-transit visibility unfortunately led to the next, and perhaps more disturbing to anyone in this profession, reaction by the carrier’s representative.   As I am sure you are all thinking by now (and as my sister-in-law pointed out to the Customer Service Representative (CSR) from UPS) 5 y.o.s generally don’t ask for their much anticipated birthday presents to be “returned to sender.”  So this strikes me as a serious “CYA” ³ moment.  I suspect that, more often than not, this line works on their customers. ⁴   Now, we can’t know where the decision was made to “adjust” the record like this (or is it “falsify?”)  It could be that the driver mistakenly marked “left on porch” when delivering another package and that, upon arriving back at the distribution center realized he/she still had a package on the truck–and thus covered the tracks.  Or it could be that the CSR, in an effort to deflect blame away from UPS, confabulated on her own?  (I highly doubt this one is the case, but it’s possible.)

Just as “in transit visibility” relies on accurate reporting of information to enhance decision making, so does customer service, and service recovery.  One does not help the business by covering one’s tracks.⁵  Admittedly not every bad experience will result in a blog post such as this one–and that is all the more reason for carriers to be ever vigilant.  If given a choice between carriers, and you have had an experience where a carrier (or anyone, really) has been dishonest in their dealings with you, are you more, or less, likely to choose that carrier?  Decisions are often made on trust–trust that items will be delivered, and trust that firms will make every effort to make good when they don’t.  When one has a negative experience such as this, then one is more likely to perhaps go with a less reliable, or more costly, provider that they can trust.

When faced with our own failures, I learned a valuable lesson from my earliest military mentor, Dave Morris (@nicheguy on twitter.)  You step up, admit your failure, and work to make it right.⁶  I have generally found that at a personal level people respond almost in shock that someone is willing to take responsibility for the own actions, and more often than not, you are provided that second chance.  Firms would do well to create a culture that rewards stepping up, and taking responsibility, rather than making things worse by fostering cover-ups.

When people are honest with you about their failures and their successes, you are more likely to trust them.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

I am not calling for a boycott of UPS or any carrier.  I am simply pointing out that future decisions are based on past experiences, and negative experiences carry more weight that positive ones. An old military aphorism seems appropriate here: “One oh, Sh*t wipes out a thousand ‘atta-boys’!”  Being able to “blame” people only goes so far, but being willing to take the blame certainly is better than attempting to blame the customers themselves.

We will never know the true genesis of the tale delivered in lieu of the package, but what we can know is this–UPS as an entity ends up taking the hit.

Share your thoughts–am I too harsh on UPS for this?

My wife is an insulin dependent diabetic, and has been using the Medtronic “pump” for several years now.  In addition, she has the “continuous glucose monitoring” (CGM) sensors, that talk with the pump, and allow her to get information far more quickly about changes in her glucose levels.  ¹

As part of that treatment regimen she has to order supplies on a regular basis.  Of course, these supplies are only available from the manufacturer.   Our insurance company picks up the tab for much of the supply cost, and as part of the typical healthcare regimen, we pay our portion of the bill as well.  I typically call  Medtronic, or at least their billing contractor, and make the payment over the phone with a credit card.

In December I called, and quickly dispatched with the task, paying the balance owed on the bill, and writing down the confirmation number.  Then, in January, we received another bill, for the next set of supplies received, and I called back.  This time, they told me I owed for the new supplies, and that I still owed the (now late) payment for the prior supplies.

Here is where things could have gone terribly wrong, with accusations, recriminations, and the like being passed back and forth.  But instead, things went terribly RIGHT. (um… is that possible?)

I dug around, and found my copy of the previous bill, with the confirmation number written on there (in traditional, Air Force “Memo for Record” fashion.  Old habits die hard.)  I read the customer service representative the number, and she looked it up.  And then she gasped! “I was the person who took the payment!”

She immediately sprang into action, verifying that they had, indeed, taken my call on that day, and that I had indeed paid my bill.  She went to her supervisor whom I was told was “as we speak” taking the paperwork to the accounting office to straighten them out.  We then proceeded to take care of the rest of the business, and process the payment for the balance owed.

At the end of the call, I asked if she wouldn’t mind sharing her name with me, just in case I had any other issues.  She was very gracious and agreed to that.

So, Esther, thank you for your gracious and attentive support to your customers.  It is very appreciated!

His writing seems to make us say, instead “Look at yourself…. what are you?”

I am pleased that I have come across his blog (a direct result of his strong defense of Brit Hume against the attacks of those who seem to hate Christians, and Christianity.)  I would encourage any of you that want to be challenged in your thinking, whether you disagree or agree with his positions, to read him regularly.

I have been pondering for a while the use of the eBooks (and specifically the Kindle) in Academia.  Ever since I considered purchasing my first eReader (the Sony eReader 505) I have found the convenience of having several books at my finger tips, without weighing me down, to be the most obvious benefit.  That said, I believe there are many others, and some which can result in the elusive “win-win” situations for producers and consumers alike.

• Affordability of textbooks
• Desk Reference/Review copies
• Physical size/weight relief
• notetaking and highlighting

Need to rethink old views:

• why see “a page”?
• how do I “flip” through a book?
• what is the focus/purpose of an “illustration”?
• are there other ways to “illustrate”?
• How do we do “citations?”

Challenges:

• How to compare two separated pages (i.e., pages 57, and 106) (side by side?)

Issues I want to see if they have added/changed:

• Highlighting:  does the menu appear next to where I clicked? How is that interface changed?
• can we move/sync highlights/notes between devices?

Have you given much thought to the changes we can see with Digital Textbooks?  What are your thoughts? Please share them in the comments.

One post in particular caught my eye. It contains all that I like. It contains religion.  Music.  Argument.  And an opportunity for me to comment. *smile*

In particular he was continuing a discussion about what I would call Garrison Keillor’s defense of Christian Christmas.  So I commented.  Below is my comment, in full:

Chris,

As you know I often say (and write) that all too often Christians want to be Christians, but prefer to be known simply as ‘-ians”

They like all the trappings of the Church.  The fellowship. The candles.  The music (and in your church’s case–the robes and perhaps incense.)

But they don’t like all that comes with it.

• A call to holiness
• A recognition of sin that separates Man from God
• or worse, a denial of Sin as defined by God, and replaced by Sin as defined by Man
• And, even worse, a rewriting of the Bible to keep all they like, but dispense with the pesky God

So that brings us to the Christmas holiday.  I have not been one to join in the rants that condemn those who replace Christ with an X. (Partly because I know the larger history, and partly because, well–it doesn’t seem very Christian.)  I also don’t get all riled up about a Nativity Scene being banned from the public square.

I do get concerned when, instead, Churches (perhaps I should use the lower case “c”) instead work to ban them from our hearts.

The Nativity isn’t the miracle of a poor homeless child (ht to your previous entry)  being visited by rich folk, or poor folk, or animals.  It isn’t about any of us visiting him doing anything for him.

It’s about God.  Visiting us.  Despite our Sin as GOD defines it, th.

And alas, just as it was 2000 years ago, humanity chooses to ignore his real message, and turn him into our own definition of Messiah.

*sigh*

My brother has extended the ongoing discussion about anonymous and pseudonymous blogging yet again in his recent blog entry.

His conclusion got me thinking that perhaps there is more here than simply academics hiding behind anonymity or pseudonimity.  He wrote:

This is leading me to the growing conviction that academics should not blog anonymously. If we truly believe in the dissemination and  examination of ideas then we should also be willing to own up to our ideas. There is some risk, but we are living in an age and country² with tremendous protections. To you believe what you are saying? Then say it clearly and be willing to defend your views in the light of day.

As Chris mentions, as academics we are about the dissemination and examination of ideas.  This brings me back to the notion of the “double blind peer review.” The double blind process is in place to ensure that our ideas aren’t accepted, or rejected, out of hand simply by the history of the author, but rather measured by our adherence to rigorous methodologies and that our conclusions are supported by the literature, the data and the proper analysis. Through this “blind review” process we attempt to avoid both the Halo and the Horns effect. (see the great repository of knowledge, Wikipedia) Of course, once accepted for publication, the anonymity is removed, and we are allowed to heap praise, or criticism, on the person(s) who wrote the brilliance/drivel.

Perhaps a greater criticism of academics blogging is that, in addition to the anonymity, we tend to also stop writing as academics. Blogging seems to be a place where writers go to bloviate (to borrow from Bill O’Reilly) but not to provide much in the way of supporting documentation.

When academics blog, we tend to stop conducting and reporting on the review of extant literature. We stop providing supporting citations. (despite the ease with which we can do that in html.) We don’t discuss and defend our methodologies. And worst of all, we get defensive when our (often unsupported) ideas are challenged.

In short–we stop being academics.

Your thoughts?

Interesting. Chris and I have talked about this before, and there are many echoes here of past conversations.

I too like the idea of work clothes, and honestly, one could extend it to include different work clothes for different tasks. Or, from my background, different uniforms. There was the BDU (cammies) for more utility or warfighting activities, the “blues” for office work, and of course, the service dress for formal functions. But I continue perhaps too far down this path…

I have three blogs/web presences. I have a “professional” service one where I am focused on Supply Chain and Logistics issues. That is the main address, and the one I even use for my (non-Penn State) email. You can see that at http://sctoday.net . I then have a more “catch all” blog (the first one I ever had, actually) where I put my more broad thinking posts. Politics. Tech. Recipes for Crepes. It’s all there at http://theprofessornotes.com and then finally, I have the one I do with my son, where we focus more on the things in our lives together (and mostly focused on him. That’s aptly named “http://fathersonchats.com” because we were originally not only blogging but podcasting as well.

My approach was not so much to have separate “identities” but rather to have venues that were appropriate for the topics at hand. In part I was thinking about the audience. The readers/listeners at the more professional site would have little interest in my personal life. And we found that people listening/reading at the Father and Sons Chat were interested in those activities, and not some of my other ramblings. That said, my Professor Notes does serve the role as “catch all” and in that blog I am less concerned with my audience than I am with just sharing “thoughts.”

That said, I have felt that, regardless of my “online attire” it was never appropriate to be “in my PJs.” For me, that meant I protected the identity of my kids (perhaps overly so) until they were old enough to be part of that decision–and I erred on the side of over protective. For a long time, we would mention our first names, but when we were just running our two blogs I kept our last name unmentioned. (Not ‘hidden’ just not shared.) I have generally moderated my posts at all sites. I have at times written posts where the ideas might offend or challenge, but I have worked hard to not write anything that would cause one to ignore the message because of the words. Sometimes I have failed, but maintaining public decorum has always been a concern. Anyway, my thoughts.

So there you have it.  Go check out the post on Chris’ blog, and read the other comments as well.

So for those that have been listening to our podcast Real Tech for Real People, we have talked quite a bit about the numbers of people that don’t have high speed (broadband) internet access.  We have been reporting the numbers we had previously read that had anywhere from 40-45% of the population does not have access.

Okay, I am confused. FCC says 96% of households have, or have access to, broadband.

“No less than 96 percent of households either subscribe to or have access to broadband service, according to an F.C.C. task force, which presented a status report to the commission last month.” (see commission report here)

The article reports that the task force goes on to report that:

• median speed is 3 megabit/second ¹
• 1/3 of households “choose” to not subscribe

The seem to be dumbfounded that so many households would choose to not get high-speed internet.

“The most interesting question here is the one that the F.C.C. can’t answer: Why have 33 percent of American households that have access to broadband elected not to subscribe? The reasons “are not well understood,” the report says. A survey focusing on the nonadopters is under way.” (see Pew survey for breakdown of demographics)

The astute reader will note a few things here:

• 33% of “households” does not equal %33 of population.
• “have access to” is not clearly defined.  Does this mean “can drive to Panera?” Or are sitting under a satellite?
• The assumption that these households “elect” ( or choose) to not subscribe is a poor assumption
• There exists a Pew survey (see link above) that actually gives strong hints as to why they don’t have it–so why aren’t they “well understood”?

I have sat through many presentations where the demographics have been dissected ad nauseum, along with conclusions!  Usually it revolves around the high cost of delivery of low quality service to rural areas, $50-$80/month for .5, to 1.5 megbit/second.  Think about that.  If you pay $50 for FIOS for 15 mb/sec service, you are paying the same price for 30 TIMES more speed/capability than the same price for satellite internet, without the latency (lag) issues associated with satellite.  And the satellite internet puts a 17 GB download/month cap on your use! Oh, and with FIOS you can also get TV service, and phone service.

Of course, there are other issues as well, including the fact that some segments of the population prefer to live their “first life” rather than a “Second Life” interacting in a real rather than a virtual world.

But I cannot get past the simple, obvious fact that “access” that is over-priced and under-capable is not really access at all, but political double-speak.

Do you know people without a “broadband subscription” (let’s say, for this discussion, broadband at home)?  Why do you think they have “elected” not to subscribe? Or if they have told you–please share!

Tell me–what do YOU think?  I would like to share your thoughts in our next Podcast that we record Tuesday night, 20 October 2009.

Now, I won’t make any bones about it–I am not attending all of them.  Heck, I am trying my best to attend the few that I think I can get the most from for either Supply Chain discussions, or (yes, surprise) Social Networking analysis.

Why Social Networking? Setting aside for the moment that I think it is simply “cool” I am also quite interested in what we can collectively learn from these networks.  But apparently my interest is not the same as the interest of those doing the research.

Each and every presentation I have attended has focused on the math.  How many connections are there?  How often do those connections share something?  Can we come up with a measure that shows the diffusion of (music/pictures/videos/ideas)? Or, to put it in the language of the Operations Researchers and the Management Science folks, they are “interested in the connections between nodes.”

I think we are missing a golden opportunity here.  I am not interested in the connections, but the content and the context of the information being diffused, shared or otherwise “networked.”  I think there is much we can learn if we can somehow take this Great Discussion and somehow contextualize the chats.

Let me explain:  I was enjoying reading the Twitter stream for Penn State’s Teaching and Learning with Technology Symposium back in March 2009. They were using the hashtag #TLT09 so we could easily mark, and track, comments made about, for and at the Symposium.  There were quite a lot of great ideas bouncing back and forth as some reported on what was being said in the sessions, others commented on those thoughts, and still others added new ideas into the stream that otherwise would have been lost.  Mixed in was the occasional “I need to get a bagel” or “This reminds me, I need to update my blog.”

All in all hundreds, if not thousands, of “tweets” were created during the event.  The ETS folks at Penn State created a “word cloud” from the Tweeting, so we could quickly see which words were being used the most, and thus we could get a sense of what the major thought drivers were throughout the day.  But I didn’t think that was enough.  I wasn’t just interested in the content I was interested in the context.

So I started thinking about what it was that I was seeking.  I would love a tool that we could point to a #stream (a stream based on a hashtag, like #TLT09 or #INFORMS09 ) and let a tool go through, analyzing the hundreds or thousands of tweets, and then tell us not only what was said, but what relationships existed between the words.  BLOG might be the number one word, but a collection of words such as “ereader” and “kindle” and “Digital textbooks” and “ebooks” may as a group have dominated the discussion.  And inside that group we may find that themes emerged, such as “ease of use” or “notetaking” or “portability.”

So here I am, at a “meeting” where over 3 thousand presentations are being given, and I have yet to find anyone here that is interested in the content or, more importantly, the context of the network.  When I have asked a few people about the topic, their response is unfortunately typical:

“That’s too hard. The data is hard to access.  We don’t know how to do that yet.”

I am not sure I buy that, but then again, if it was simple, I suppose I would have already done it.

So let me put out the call to anyone that knows a “Quant Jock” (quantitative analyst) that would like to tackle this problem with me, please, contact me.  I am ready to go!

The purpose of social networks is to be social, sharing ideas, let explore our content and our context, that all of us may grow!

What ultimately caught my eye, though was the argument, buried deep in the article, that for such a pervasive and deadly action to be occurring  so frequently (the article reports “at any given moment the drivers of 812,000 cars are in mid-conversation on the nation’s highways”) we are not seeing a comparable increase in accidents/deaths.

What Does It Take to Get Texting Off Roads? (Wash Post)

“Given those findings and vast cellphone use, the experts are puzzled by the fact that overall crash rates haven’t increased dramatically, too. Without statistics to show that, persuading drivers — and legislators — not to use cellphones becomes more problematic, even considering the current impact.

“If it’s not causing additional crashes, then banning it isn’t going to reduce crashes,” Lund said. “The risk of talking on a cellphone is real, but it’s entirely possible that it’s replacing some other risky behavior.”"

I am not seeking to defend (or condemn) texting while driving in this blog post.  I am, however, wondering when we are going to see the return to objective analysis of data.  Wasn’t that what the new Administration was going to bring?  A removal of political motivations from science, and a return to objectivity?

Just a thought.

Want to hear my thoughts more fully on this, and other tech topics that “Real People” have to deal with?  Come listen, as Tony Pittman and I discuss Real Tech for Real People–a weekly podcast talking about tech where we all live.  (Don’t have iTunes?  Go listen at Tony’s site: Get The Next___)

While this research had been dismissed by many (including my Daughter’s petrogeology professor) the work continues.  In a recent article in Science Daily titled “Fossils From Animals And Plants Are Not Necessary For Crude Oil And Natural Gas, Swedish Researchers Find” the argument is once again made.  Reading from the article:

According to Vladimir Kutcherov, the findings are a clear indication that the oil supply is not about to end, which researchers and experts in the field have long feared.

He adds that there is no way that fossil oil, with the help of gravity or other forces, could have seeped down to a depth of 10.5 kilometers in the state of Texas, for example, which is rich in oil deposits. As Vladimir Kutcherov sees it, this is further proof, alongside his own research findings, of the genesis of these energy sources – that they can be created in other ways than via fossils. This has long been a matter of lively discussion among scientists.

“There is no doubt that our research proves that crude oil and natural gas are generated without the involvement of fossils. All types of bedrock can serve as reservoirs of oil,” says Vladimir Kutcherov, who adds that this is true of land areas that have not yet been prospected for these energy sources.

Some of this is rather disconcerting.  For those that abhor the ICE (Internal Combustion Engine) the thought that we might someday run out of petroleum was at least some small solace. Alas, we apparently now won’t.

One of the more interesting points about their research is that they believe they can now more precisely pinpoint where to find petroleum deposits based not on where they believe dinosaurs and other prehistoric life existed but rather based on the geologic fissures.  Using this approach they believe they can improve the accuracy of drilling from 20 to 70%.

I do  have one small gripe: I don’t think they can say (as they do in the article) that the findings are revolutionary.  The findings support theories that have been around for quite a while.  Perhaps these finding will have the effect of moving abiogenesis from being the “Rodney Dangerfield” of geologic science, and start to get real “Respect.”

A “Tipping Point” perhaps?

nb: I find this arena to be quite interesting from a “philosophy of science” perspective, as the “conventional” science has long dismissed this alternative view as “crack-pot” science.  Much of our understanding of energy consumption has been based on this being a “non-renewable” resource.  Perhaps that assumption is mistaken? Thomas Kuhn’s paradigm shift “in the wild?”

I must admit, I had somewhat of a knee-jerk reaction to that story.  I have always been resistant to people bringing up accusations of -isms when criticizing the actions of others.  That holds true for racism, sexism, and naziism to name just a few.¹

One comment of Williams’ that really stood out to me was when he said:

WILLIAMS: Well, there was an undercurrent, but in recent days the episode with Congressman Joe Wilson of South Carolina shouting out, You lie, as Obama was speaking to the joint session has really exacerbated that anxiety, and it’s led to this notion that there is disrespect, even condescension, in the way that Obama is being treated as compared to any other president of the United States.

I found myself thinking that this isn’t so much a disprespect directed at the President because he is black, but rather a further manifestation of what I believe we have been seeing ever since the “me” generation of the 70s.  Once we were told that WE were important, and that in a relativistic society *I* am the most important person in *my* life, it was only a matter of time until that level of narcissism pervaded every aspect of society.  We have been seeing it for years in talk radio and talking-head television shows when one person just shouts louder and louder, denying the other the basic right to be heard.  Why? Because what you have to say isn’t important because it gets in the way of what *I* want to say.

Rabbi Hirschfield, in his article “Why Joe (and Kanye and Serena) Won’t Apologize” from today’s Washington Post, points out that Wilson’s outburst is a symptom of something greater.

Over the past seven days, we have been treated to obnoxious outbursts by leading figures not only in politics, but in sports and pop culture as well. In addition to the heckle heard round the world issued by Rep. Wilson, there was the verbal attack launched by Serena Williams against a line judge at the U.S. Open, and the boorish behavior displayed by rapper and music producer Kanye West when he grabbed the microphone from award winner Taylor Swift at MTV’s Video Music Awards.

All of these stories are rooted in the same basic fact: speakers who think it’s all about them. And if it isn’t about them, they seem to think it must be about some other individual who is even more important than they are. Apparently though, it’s beyond any of the offenders’ ability to appreciate that civility is about all of us.

So while others were stunned, shocked, or outraged, I was not surprised by Wilson’s outburst, any more than I am surprised at the outbursts of any other public, or private, figure that chooses to elevate themselves over all others.  Look around.   We have been hearing reports of teens killing each other over sneakers. A cheerleader mom taking a “contract” out on her daughter’s rival.  Once we start seeing achieving our happiness as “all important” and achieving our goals in life as the most important aspect, it is little wonder we as a society start to devolve into a society of rudeness, and violence.  It is this propensity to devolve into violence then that has me concurring with Juan Williams when he says:

And it’s also then, I think, led to lots of discussion of whether or not there’s a greater chance of Obama being physically attacked, assaulted. This was heightened, of course, by people who were bringing guns to some of the August and other tea party events, you know, to express opposition to President Obama’s policies.

But let me be clear–I certainly believe there are some people who are opposed to Barrack Obama simply because of the color of his skin.  I cannot personally understand that, but I do know they exist.  But I think this cuts deeper.  It is my opinion that, when confronted with views in opposition to one’s own (either from the left, or the right) people have a tendency to view themselves as correct, and superior.  And once they step across that line, they believe they can justify any words, any action.

Perhaps I need to rethink my resistance to all charges of -isms.  If the Rabbi is right, then we do have a problem, and it is “Narcissism.”

^1. Of course in instances where one wears a white sheet, a swastika, and so forth you will get no argument from me.  I am not blind!

Listen, join in, and let us know how you use technology, and what you would like us to talk about each week.  We are already lining up guest speakers, so tell us who you want to hear!

If the other link doesn’t work, listen here

As you know, I am a critic of airlines and their (lack of) customer service.  But usually my response is to blog, or perhaps ocassionally call or write an email hoping to have someone at least feel guilt.  But this–this actually takes the cake.

When an airline breaks a guitar, and even admits they were at fault, you would think they would make good.  But no.  So the artists, Sons of Maxwell, dealt with it the only way they know how–in song:

So I promised the last person to finally say no to compensation (Ms. Irlweg) that I would write and produce three songs about my experience with United Airlines and make videos for each to be viewed online by anyone in the world.

I wouldn’t ever mishandle a guitar after this–especially if I was “Ms. Irlweg” the woman who finally said no.

So here you go.

That said, the uses mentioned for the tablet are what surprised me the most.  HD Video/media.  Gaming. Umm…

So far, that sounds like an iPod Touch or iPhone on steroids.  Don’t get me wrong–I like my iPhone.  I use it every day.  And if you go to the podcast my son and I do at Father Son Chats you can listen to us talk about some of our favorite apps.

I just don’t think that is why people buy netbooks.

When I talk to people who are buying, or wanting to buy, a netbook, they are seeking a small, lightweight computer to do their lightweight computing tasks.  For them that means being able to type out rather lengthy emails, update documents and spreadsheets, and oh by the way, also to web browse.  Only a few of the folks I talk with say their desire is to watch videos or movies on a smaller device. (And of those, they typically have wanted to watch DVDs–even after I told them they could get the files digitally.)

That said, let me really go out on a limb here with some predictions:

1.  The Apple slate computer will receive thousands and thousands of digital pages of commentary.

2.  Mac/Apple Podcasts (specifically Mac Break Weekly) will break with their coverage of all iPhone all the time, to sing the praises of this device, and wonder how their life had any meaning prior to Jobs revealing this device.

3.  Apple Mac OSX owners will line up immediately to purchase them. (Demonstrating that there still exists a segment of the population that has not been taxed sufficiently to pay for the new Health Care Initiatives in this “bad economy.”)

4.  The tablet will sell well.  Not as well as the iPhone, since people don’t have the argument “well I needed a new phone anyway” argument, but it will sell reasonably well.

5.  Netbooks will still sell quite nicely, as will the HP and Dell notebook computers.

Oh, and I will want one.

I am reminded of the old BASF motto “They don’t make the things we use, they make the things we use better.”  That fits Google Voice to a “T.”

I have read over the past few months many articles warning that Skype (and even the cell phone) is doomed, and that Google Voice will replace it.  Most (like How Google Voice can kill Skype ) simply miss the point.  Google Voice is not a phone service.  It is not VOIP.  Google Voice connects existing phone numbers through a Universal number.  But it does not actually make the call for you through the internet.

Skype, as a VOIP (or Voice Over Internet Protocol) actually makes the call through the internet.  I use a computer (which may be  a desktop, a notebook/netbook, or even a cell phone that has WiFi) to make the call.  And yes, Skype lets me receive calls by allowing me to “purchase” a SkypeIn number, and allows me through SkypeOut to call real numbers.  But it is still VOIP.  I am calling from a computer, using the internet to make the call.

Google Voice doesn’t do that (although Google Talk might someday fill that gap).  Google Voice lets me route calls to and from my existing phones using my existing service providers.  Therefore, I can send an receive calls using my cell phone and AT&T, my work phone through Verizon, my home phone (again, Verizon) and yes, even my “SkypeIn” phone number.  But it, in and of itself, isn’t providing the call.

So I ask you–why can’t these “techy people” seem to figure this out?

NB:  Google has added voice and video chat to gMail, which does target Skype.  And because I can can send and receive SMS through a web interface, I can step away from certain aspects of my cellphone (at the loss of portability).  But at it’s heart Google Voice is still more of a turbo charging kit for your phone use than a replacement.

This can make for a very interesting future.  I can imagine a very fluid world with digital books, using much of the technology already existing.  Let’s discuss briefly the existing tech (in the Kindle) and the look at how we can imagine a new reading world.

Ease of Delivery First, the Kindle allows the purchase of books through the Sprint cellular network (a service Amazon has called “Whispernet.“)  Books are delivered relatively quickly (in my experience in less than a minute) and are ready to read.  I actually ordered, and was reading, a book for our Sunday School class before the sign up sheet to order the hard copy of the book even made it to my row.  So here we have the first component to the future.

Fluid Movement Between Devices For those readers that are unaware, Amazon has released a Kindle app for the iPhone that lets users read Kindle books on their phone.  As with any book that you read, when one goes from one device to another (or pick up a different copy of the same book) one must search for where they left off.  A different copy means no obvious book marks.  Amazon makes this simple–they synchronize where you were in one device when you pick up the other.  It tells you that you have read further ahead, and asks if you want to move to that spot.  Pretty “cool” in my book.

Devices for Different Settings As noted above, the Kindle is no longer just the “device” but it is the operating and reading application.  One can not only read on the “Kindle” that you purchase through Amazon (see the link on the right column of this page) but you can choose two different size Kindles.  In addition, you can also read using the free application for the iPhone.   As you move through the day, you can read using the devices that best fit your lifstyle at that time.

Currently books, magazines and papers are sent to “Devices” and are thus tied to the device.  You can move easily between those devices, but cannot pick up a different device.  But imagine a different world.

Imagine a world where the books,magazines and papers are associated with the person rather than the device.  As you move through the day, you pick up a “Whispernet capable” device (iPhone, Kindle, or something new) and “log in” to the Kindle.  You are presented with a list of items you have purchased, and you select which one you want to read.  Quietly, and quickly, the book or paper is downloaded to that device, and it picks up right where you left off when you were last reading.  In this way, you are able to read your books, without being tied to a device.

But what could this mean?

• Libraries can have “digital reading rooms” where people (especially students) can sign out a device, log on, and read their books simply, and easily.
• One could have several devices in the house and work place, shared between family members or co-workers.  Just grab the closest device, log on, and start reading.
• With the digital voice technology (available in the Kindle2) we can even imagine a device that, when we log on, will read to us as we drive.  Satellite Radio replaced by books!

Reading can become what we do, when we want to, not when we remember to bring our books, or our devices.

The possibilities seem almost endless.  How could you imagine this world?

Part of my argument hinged on the elimination of the resale market in large part due to the robust DRM (copy protection) afforded by the digital books.  Unfortunately, when I presented this argument a few weeks ago, someone pointed me to a site that shared the (convoluted) steps necessary to break the DRM on the Kindle.  So much for secure. ¹

This forced me to think a bit further.

In this post, I hope to make a case for reasonably priced digital textbooks in an era of “cracked DRM” that can still result in a win-win.

If students can copy textbooks and share them, will they?  Perhaps I have a more optimistic view of the world, but I think that, when given a choice to do the right thing, students will.  That is, if they think they are being treated as adults, and not being unjustly charged.  Let me explain.

I believe that students will buy the textbooks rather than steal them, if the books are affordable.  and by affordable I mean, as one student put it when asked on Twitter “@ steep discount.”  Probably $30 for a textbook that in print sells for $150.  Remember from my previous post that publishers aren’t selling to every student as it is.  Capturing a significantly larger piece of the market, semester over semester, will result in significant revenue increases–without any additional overhead or variable costs.

I also believe that students will buy a reasonably priced textbook if, along with the book, they receive other types of “digital” support.  That support will be available, but may require them to have a “licensed” copy of the book.  Simple enough.  Your digital reader has a serial number/PID, so the licensed copy can access additional licensed material.   The additional materials could include podcasts, video lectures, or video/audio tutorials on working through homework problems.

I also believe students will pay for books, because the system supports the buying of books.  Loans cover tuition and expenses, to include books. Parents buy books.  My students have reminded me that there is a significant amount of “outside” money that comes their way for book purchases.  But that alone won’t be enough to get them to buy the books. What will?

How about providing a way for students to continue to “resell” their books?  Another common criticism from students is that they get pennies on the dollar when they go back to resell the book.  They are more incensed when they see the mark-up the bookstore then places on the book they sold back!² Students currently fight back by selling (and buying) their used books on sites such as half.com, a used book online marketplace.

I think that a technological solution to book resales, that allows the students to transfer digital ownership to another student, will result in more students buying legitimate copies.  Why? In the paragraph above I mention that students get “outside” money for book purchases.  More than a few students pointed out to me that, at the end of the semester, they sell those book back and that money then becomes “theirs.”  A few call it “Beer money” but I am sure there are other uses as well.  Given that this is digital, this doesn’t have to be seen as a competitor to the publisher, but rather as another opportunity for the publisher to “add value.”

Imagine this:  the publisher, who controls the DRM accounts, sets up a clearing house where the student who purchased the book can make the book (and the license to read/use that book) available for resale, setting the sale price themselves.  At the end of the sale, the seller essentially will turn over the digital rights to the book to the new purchaser.  This is half.com made simpler.  There are no shipping costs.  The transfer can be automatic and nearly instantaneous.  And if the publisher manages the site, the publisher can charge a “reasonable” handling fee, just like half.com.  And we know students are willing to pay it–because they already do!

So, in summary, the hacking of the DRM doesn’t have to spell the doom of affordable digital textbooks.  Despite what RIAA and the MPAA may say, we aren’t all criminals.  When provided with affordable content, and a reasonable way to re-sell the content when the semester is over, students will continue to buy books from the publishers, and the publishers can continue to make revenue–even in the resale market!

Win! Win! Win!

¹ For the record, I tried it, and it works.  I broke the protection of a book I bought, and read it in another device that I own. After that, I deleted them.

² (For example, a $180 book was “bought back” at $15. Resold at $80. Yes, that is an extreme example, but it is a true one!)

My good friend and Colleague Dr Swartz has since asked the age old question–”What were the results!?”

Well, I am here to tell you (and I will be assisted by the rather cool graphics generated by Google as part of their Google Forms functionality.)

As of this date, we have had 100 responses.  When asked if they watched Hulu 65% said yes, while 35% have not.

When asked the “demographic” questions, we learned picked up some other interesting “tid bits.”

For instance when asked , “Are you a student” we learned that:

And that the respondents came from all the areas where we “advertised” the survey:

But here is where it gets interesting.  When we started looking at correlation between questions, it became apparent that the majority of Hulu watchers are students (both grad and undergrad) but what was really interesting is that nearly 100% of the “non-students” who went to the survey from Facebook did NOT watch Hulu (and from the comments it appears most had not heard of Hulu.) I suspect (but can’t prove, since we didn’t ask many more questions) that those people who are out of college, and away from convenient access to high speed internet, are less likely to know about, and use, these sorts of tools.  In addition, and this is important, I suspect that it is NOT a function of simply “age” since grad students do watch Hulu when they have time, but is rather a function of ready access.  Remember, these are people we “know” and thus the non-students are most likely our peers, people our age who are no longer tied to the University networks.

I suspect that it is NOT a function of simply “age”

I am curious if we were to ask people of all ages, and all walks of life, if we would see an “age” split or if the suspicion that it is related to access would hold.  It is this sort of “digging” just below the surface that I really found interesting.  It might even be worth further study as we continue to have discussions about who uses technology.

Anyway, here’s the results–let me know what YOU think of the outcomes.  And if you decide to conduct any surveys let us know, we will gladly help get the work out!

When making a choice between two options, only consider what’s going to happen in the future, not which investments you’ve made in the past. The past investments are over, lost, gone forever. They are irrelevant to the future.

He (quite properly) deals with the monetary aspect of the sunk cost (it is called a “cost” after all). In his final example he points to the sign in the photograph on his blog, and reminds the reader that, regardless of the cost of the sign, having the largest word on the sign spelled correctly is, as they would say in the Visa commercial, “Priceless.”

But another point worthy of consideration is the emotional investment.  Quite often we fail to let go of efforts gone awry for emotional reasons.  How often have you been so wrapped up in a project that you haven’t been able to step back, take a deep breath, and see the “forest for the trees”?

When we are engaged in projects we need to be able to step back, as an outside observer for advice, and change.  We need to be able to realize that, no matter how vested we feel about a project, no matter how emotionally entangled we are, it is time to ignore the “sunk costs” of emotional investment and cut the ties.

Am I arguing that we should always just “walk away?”  Not necessarily.  If the “outcome” you want to achieve is still worth achieving then strive for that outcome.  But don’t continue to spend time heading down a fruitless path.  Don’t walk down a road heading away from your destination, simply because you have paid for that road, either emotionally or with cash.

Move on. Chart a new course.

“I had to hold my nose, and vote for Specter.  Now I have to do neither.”

Why vote for him, you say? Well, years ago, when I was sitting on the knee of (well, on the floor, looking up at) my Grandfather, I asked him why we should support the Maryland US Senator Charles “Mac” Mathias, since he was about as liberal as the (then) junior Senator from Maryland, Paul Sarbanes.  He explained that “he may be a monster, but he’s our monster.”  A rather cynical view, but at the time (late 1970s, and the heart of the “Carter Economic Disaster” the likes of which we STILL haven’t seen since) it was clear that if Mathias lost the primary the democrat candidate would most likely win the seat, reducing the numbers of Republicans below the line allowing for a filibuster.  So keeping that number was important, if only for the greater good.

So, I learned the lesson well, and followed the logic.  When necessary, I have voted for a candidate I didn’t like “all that much” because of the greater good.

I most likely would have again.  But now, thanks to Senator Specter’s decision to return to the Democrat Party, I am free once again to vote conscience.

I am now only left with one question:  how will our good friend over at “Pressing the Flesh” respond?  Will he welcome this lost sheep into the Democrat fold after all these years, or will he actively campaign against that former Republican?  I await his post!

In reading her post, however, I find that while I agree that when it comes to “how” content is delivered a “professor is a scribe” may be correct, I believe that is unfortunately a rather narrow view of the role of the professor.

Back when the printing presses were gaining ascendancy, they replaced the scribe, because they were doing what the scribe was doing–copying someone’s words for others to read.  Scribes had to be worried, since printing presses ostensibly would make fewer *random* errors than scribes would. (That said, the printing presses could easily replicate the same error by the hundreds, and now millions.)

The people who at the time should have (and probably were) most excited by this revolution were the authors.  Those people who spent time thinking, researching, and writing the texts that were now being made available at a far faster rate.

Professors are not mere scribes.  Professors are experts in their field of study, who are contributing to that body of knowledge through that research, and then share that “research informed knowledge” with the world.  One way they share that knowledge is through publications, another through presentations and talks, and finally (and perhaps most importantly) professors share it by educating the next generation.

So professors are not scribes.

Who should be worried that they can be considered scribes?  Instructors.  Those people hired to teach materials developed by someone else, without having a rigorous, peer reviewed research stream of their own.  They are simply vessels through which others speak.  THAT can be easily replaced by well-designed technology.

That said, professors are certainly worried.  Rightly so.  Not that they will be replaced, but that people seem to think they can be.

As I have written before, I thoroughly enjoyed reading Andrew Keen‘s book “Cult of the Amateur.”  He argues that experts are essentially being pushed out of the arena and replaced by those whom I will call the “dabblers.”  These are people that some would say “know enough to be dangerous” but are not well-versed in the detailed specifics to be experts, and therefore unable to deal with the nuances.  In fact professors, as an integral part of their earning their terminal degree, learn the research methods necessary to truly understand the data they are viewing.  Regardless of whether one is a Hebrew Literature scholar or a theoretical physicist, the opinions of the Professor are informed by their understanding of how to interpret their data. Without such a background all interpretations are considered valid, and truth becomes subjective.

I am anything but a technophobe, but I am concerned that, as we start touting the role of youtube, facebook, twitter, and Wikipedia as ways for students to share their knowledge about materials, we fail the students.  We allow them to elevate their views, their perspectives, and their understanding of the material while simultaneously dev0lving the role of professor as mentor, guide and expert.

Let’s all work to enable better ways of helping students grasp material, but please, let’s not make the mistake of thinking that professors are “just scribes.”

Interestingly, I had apparently just missed all the media outlets that covered it, including the Wall Street Journal.  When discussing this video in the context of the rest of the videos they wrote:

The video about The Veteran is similar to the others, in that all depict abnormal behavior by young people who probably are normal, but are immature or temporarily impaired. But the characters in the other videos are all completely generic, with no distinguishing characteristics other than their sex. Only The Veteran is fleshed out enough even to be a stereotype.

The obvious objection to the depiction of The Veteran is that there is no reason to think that veterans are more prone than anyone else to lash out angrily, blaming others for their own failings. If anything, one would think that the rigors of military training and deployment would leave them more mature, at least in this regard.

Herein lies, I believe, the problem.

The video does seem to call out the “veteran” as the miscreant.  The reality is something quite different, however.  In the video, a student expresses a strong opinion, and raises his voice apparently in anger, although one could argue it is out of frustration.  At the end of the video he even “threatens” the instructor.  But not with violence.  He threatens to get her fired for what he perceives is a bias against veterans based on her anti-war comments expressed in class.

So here is the stereotype–a young, female and liberal professor, subconciously demonstrating a bias against a returning veteran.  In addition, because she knows he is a veteran having returned from Iraq, she attributes his rather benign actions to some sort of predisposition to violence, and one could perhaps argue over-reacts.

Interestingly the Wall Street Journal sees it in much the same light, although again focused on the stereotyping of the veteran when they write:

But The Veteran’s status as a veteran is relevant to the video’s story, inasmuch as he believes the instructor is treating him unfairly because he is a veteran. This lends another dimension to Maggie Kwok’s speculation about the reaction if the character were depicted as a member of an ethnic or sexual minority.

What if the student in the video were black and accused the instructor of racial discrimination? Would this be depicted, as it is in this video, as if the charge was absurd on its face? Would the student’s threat to have the (presumably untenured) instructor “fired” come across as an empty one, the way it does in the actual video? And if the department chairman in the opening exchange identified the student by asking, “Oh, the black guy?,” would that not be seen–with some justification–as bolstering the charge of discrimination?

Perhaps the most telling part about it is that no one saw the stereotyping of the veteran when the video was first done, and perhaps more telling, the University still doesn’t seem to see the portrayal of the instructor as in any way deserving comment.

Unfortunately, this video seems to gloss over two very real facts.  First, our biases affect the way we view others.  If we have a deep-seated bias against the military, and the war, then it may well spill over into how we view those who participated in it.  And of course, those on the right are just as guilty of this bias–we can easily caricature those “pinko-commie, Birkenstock wearing liberals” and assume we know why they say something, and thus hear something completely different from what they say.

But the second, and perhaps more important, fact, is that soldiers, sailors, marines, and airman are returning from the  war suffering from post traumatic stress disorder.  We need to find good, solid ways of preparing our faculty, staff and friends for those times when these veterans need more than to be “controlled” but cared for, loved, and nurtured back to a healthy life.

I would like to see someone come out and remind faculty that we need to guard against our own prejudices.  Don’t let our own views of how certain people might act result in coloring our interpretation of how they are acting.  And let’s once again let our compassion rule not only our politics, but our daily personal interactions.

So watch the video, and tell me–what bias do you see here?

Enjoy!

Jason

First thank you for all your newsletters and emails that you share with the world.  As a business professor at Penn State, I find it refreshing and useful to see a business person not only being successful and touting their success, but sharing the inner-workings of their decision processes.  Certainly this most recent email with the Twitter/$500K explanation is great to show students how to actually conduct an analysis for a business decision.

I did want to answer your three questions, and then as for what amounts to a “favor” from you (to someone you don’t know.)

First, the questions:

1. Am I crazy, or crazy like fox?

Crazy?  Well I would say not–but if the choice is simply either/or, then crazy like a fox.  I actually believe you are far from crazy.  You have conducted a detailed analysis of the situation, evaluated what history has shown, and made a deliberate and informed decision.  All decisions have risk, but it appears you have worked to limit the risk (or at least understand it.)

2. What’s the value of a Twitter follower?

This one, honestly, is a “it depends on the follower.”  Of course, you have accounted for the “it depends” piece by eliminating group after group, and working down to just how many out of a million followers with be “valuable.”  I have found that followers, AND following, are quite valuable for the ways I use Twitter–and I use Twitter in different ways for different groups.  I use Twitter to connect with at least 3 (sometimes overlapping) groups.  First, there are the “supply chain” professionals actively engaged in my profession and field of study.  Then there are the educators, specifically those that are using technology to reach students.  Finally, there is the geo-specific group of folks here in Central PA, that I reach out and touch to stay connected with my community.  ed: (Of course there always exists that 3rd group–actual friends and family!)

Each has value, but in different ways.  Can I monetize this? Perhaps–but that’s not quite what I am about in a direct sense.  Although I would like to think that, as we all improve our skill sets, learning from one another, we all enhance our earnings, potential and kinetic (to steal from Physics).

3. What’s the value of of being one of “The Suggested?”

This is an interesting one.  I think being one of “The Suggested” is great in your type of area, where you are offering services that are of value to nearly the full range of Twitter users.  I suspect if I were to show up on the list, I would end up with a large number of followers with whom I have little in common, and that “twitter-stream” would cloud the engagement with the communities I have worked to develop.
This discussion is actually what I like most about Twitter–it allows us to develop our own communities, meeting nearly an infinite set of needs and desires truly providing a platform for community.  The communities are no longer bound by time, or space, and can grow organically as people connect with what is of interest to them.

The “Requests”

//**requests deleted–for I hope obvious reasons**//

Thanks for perhaps reading this far down–I realize your time is far more valuable than mine.

Best wishes.

While I haven’t heard back from Mr Calacanis I wanted to at least share these thoughts with you, my reader.

S

One of Reagan’s favorite stories concerned a man who goes to the Soviet bureau of transportation to order an automobile. He is informed that he will have to put down his money now, but there is a 10-year wait. The man fills out all the various forms, has them processed through the various agencies, and finally he gets to the last agency. He pays them his money and they say, ‘Come back in 10 years and get your car.’ He asks, ‘Morning or afternoon?’ The man in the agency says, ‘We’re talking about 10 years from now. What difference does it make?’ He replies, ‘The plumber is coming in the morning.’

Thanks, Historynet.com for making this available to us.

I have to wonder–are we heading down the road not only to socialism (which most people thought Barack would bring) but also towards the miserable life we saw in the Soviet Union?  As rumors are starting to circulate that the White House is forcing the CEO of GM to step down, and putting further direct guidance attached to the loans the government is providing. one cannot help but wonder who in the White House has the background, and the skills, necessary to make decisions–business decisions–to dictate how a major auto manufacturer should operate.

Don’t misunderstand me–I am in favor of accountability for those who spend government dollars.  I believe that when the government loans money there should be a viable plan in place to demonstrate that the money will be repaid.  I just am not convinced that government is best suited to manage business.  Certainly not “private” business.

I am left to wonder if the government has not only exceeeded their authority, but exceeded their ability.

Yesterday many apparently acknowledged their own inability to do anything significant by jointly doing something silly–turning off all their lights for an hour, during “Earth Hour.” I made a few comments about it last night to family, and was told that it was all fodder for my blog.  In fact, these actions (designed to be done at night, so presumably everyone else can see what good citizens we are) remind me of the Pharisee and the tax collector (Luke 18:9-14).

Let’s, for a moment, consider the value in simply helping those in need.  We can wait for the government to institute a program, identify people that have a need, hope those people will learn about the program, seek help, and receive it in a timely manner.

Or–we can act, and help our brother and sister in need, when in need, directly. And even better, we can do it anonymously so that no one need feel awkward or indebted to a friend, colleague, boss or employee.

There is a new website that helps facilitate just this very thing.  Giving Anonymously has as it’s mission the task of enabling people helping people.

As they say on their site:

We are a non-profit organization facilitating generosity between people.

We are not the ‘charity’ you are! Look around your community, your neighbors, friends and family. Do you see anyone in need? If so, give to them. You can give anonymously. We’ll send them a check, and you’ll get an email with a voice file of them thanking you. But they won’t know who you are! How cool is this!

The Goal

Our goal is to enable and encourage you to be your own charity, and for you to give anonymously to those around you in need.

Sure, you could give money to us and expect us to find those in need. But then your neighbor, Bill, who had to quit his job because he’s sick and now can’t pay the bills or adequately feed his family, will not be helped.

Do you know people who could use a helping hand, and you would like to help, but don’t want, or need, the credit?  Do you have a friend that:

• Had their work hours cut, and they can’t make ends meet?
• Is struggling with chemotherapy for cancer and perhaps simply needs a manicure/pedicure to feel good about themselves?
• Has a child with an illness and cannot deal with the mounting medical bills?
• You would just like to give a hand to?

If so this is the site for you!

They will charge a $2.50 and additional 2.5% handling fee, but considering they will be handling the delivery, and even accepting, on your behalf, an audio thank-you note, it’s a small price (and hey, it keeps others employed in this tough time!)

I commend the site to you, and encourage all of us to take actions that are substantive and meaningful–and perhaps actually make a real, immediate difference in people’s lives.

DISCLAIMER:  As of this writing, I have not yet used this service, and cannot vouch that it isn’t simply a scam.  If anyone knows anything more about the service, please contact me. –Steve

One of the thoughts that he makes it that is harder and harder to know when we are being sold to, and when we are just being “talked” to.  Is that Youtube video truly an amateur sharing a moment and a thought?

Today someone on twitter shared a link from YouTube that is a video of a “spontaneous” event filmed at a train station, for a T-Mobile commercial.  In this commercial music starts playing, and the crowd starts dancing… at first a few, then a few more, and then almost everyone.

I would assume they had a few people “seed” the crowd to get them started.  It might even be a LOT of people were “seeded” in the crowd.

But I wondered–are we so easily manipulated that we can be pulled into a commercial for a mobile phone company in real life?

(UPDATE: see below for an update on this.)

Anyway, enjoy the clip!

(And, if you get a chance, go support my son and his effort to get to water polo camp!)

(UPDATE: well it turns out it was apparently ALL choreographed. Hm. That means that while it was a openly sold as a commercial, they manipulated the audience into thinking it was like a “flash mob” event. Hmmmmm)

Usually they point to the entry of celebrities to the Twitterverse as the beginning of the demise.  For a while, @theRealDvorak predicted that Britney Spears would bring down Twitter.  Then it was other “stars.”

Well, some of this is true.  The massive number of followers that Leo and Dvorak have are dwarfed by Obama’s twitter following. As well as the numbers put up by other greats like @bobbyllew and @brentSpiner (again, my two favorite TV androids–just WHY Google hasn’t contacted them to sell their G1 I don’t know.)  Twitter left the hands of the “Techies” and became mainstream.  Somehow, this is what would make it “jump the shark.”

I  have to respectfully disagree.

What makes twitter “work” is that while many will follow what I will call “vanity twitterers” twitter has as its heart, its soul, the development of personal communities and networks.  One connects with people that have interests in common.

For me, I have really three distinct “twitter” communities.  I am a Supply Chain guy, and want to connect with other professionals in that arena (it’s why my twitter name is @SCMProfessor).  I am also a professor (another part of that name) and so I am interested in connecting with educators, especially those that are innovative and using technology in helping people learn and understand the world around them. Like @ChrisChampion, @MisterLamb and @Dsalvucci.  I also like connecting with “real people” living real lives. Much of that comes from getting to know those in the first two groups.  Some is connecting with people I already knew, and some simply comes from finding other areas of interest where we intersect (location, politics, food, and so forth.)

Twitter’s ability to connect small pockets of people from around the globe, and allow us to develop digital relationships, is what keeps Twitter moving forward.  Sure, we may follow some “vanity twitterers” but that is like watching “Entertainment Tonight.”  It’s a fun diversion.

Relationships are what moves us forward–and relationships are what powers Twitter.

View the animation, and then please, come back here and share your thoughts.  Do you see this as a potential? Why, or why not?

nb: I had originally posted a link to this well done Flash production back in 2006.  Because it gives “future  history” (that is, presents things as fact that at the time had not yet occured) the timeline is somewhat muddied.  I can certainly say it was produced before May of 2006.

A few months ago I was commenting that Google’s new browser, Chrome, looked interesting, but alas couldn’t be used by Mac users.  I was quickly corrected, as one pointed out that they can run MS Vista on their Mac, and then use that browser.

Here’s the conundrum:

If you are running Vista is it still a Mac?

The argument seems to be yes, since the hardware is the computer, then the Apple Mac computer is the hardware.

I would accept that a “true Mac” is the combination of the hardware with the software, but the introduction of running Vista (or XP) on the Apple hardware and still calling it a Mac makes murky the water.

Now, with the ability to run the Apple Mac OSX operating system on a number of other Intel based machines, and on a number of netbooks we face a new question:

“If a computer running Vista is still a Mac because the hardware is Apple’s, then is a non-Apple machine, running OSX not a Mac?”

So should I stop saying I use Vista, and start saying I use “HP” or “Dell” or “homebuilt” or…?

I am left with another comparison to religion, and thus the title to this post.  Just as we can talk about a “cultural Christian” or a “cultural Jew” (someone connected through the heritage but not through religious or spiritual beliefs) and we talk about the spiritual or observant adherents to those faiths, can we make the same statement about Macs?

Are there “Cultural Macs” (those connected through the heritage that is hardware and logo) and “Observant” or “spiritual” Macs, that have the indwelling of the holy OSX code?

Banks are in trouble because they loaned out money to people that are having a hard time paying them back.  That’s mortgages, and credit cards, and car loans, and… well you get the point.

So the government gives money to the banks.  OUR money to the banks.  Money from the people that are having a hard time paying the bills.

As I see it, this results in taxpayers (you know, those of us giving the money to the Government to use “wisely” on our behalf) owing two debts instead of one.  I have the original debt that I have a hard time paying, and now I have this NEW debt that my government has assumed on my behalf.  Thanks, Government.  You’re a peach.

What would I have done?  Well, given that “let things work themselves out without government meddling ” isn’t a good idea (apparently) I would have said “hmm…. let’s give the money to the people that owe the money.  Let them pay the banks back, so the banks get the capital they need, and we don’t drown our populace in debt.”

Imagine that.  The government supporting the banks through helping the people the government is really here to help–THE PEOPLE!

Thankfully, we have people like Jon Stewart on our side.  Unfortunately, the government doesn’t listen.

But you should.  Get a cup of coffee and take a 10 minute break from work and watch.

I wanted to take a few minutes to write about ways to address the challenges of these three points.

I have commented on twitter (@SCMProfessor) that I don’t like the push to be “followed” but not to follow back.  Leo LaPorte, and many others, talk in their podcasts about how many people follow them, and either in jest or with serious intent, talk about wanting more followers.  There I find myself usually asking “why?”

Of course, people like Barack Obama, @LeoLaPorte, and my two personal favorites @BrentSpiner  and @bobbyll (two of the best TV androids around!) serve a role as thought leaders.  But what about the rest of  us? Should we want to be folllowed by millions and not follow back?

I admit, I enjoy watching the following numbers go up.  It is in some sense a boost to the ego.  But I also feel it is important to follow back.  If we are to be part of a “community” then that community should encourage discourse and exchange.  We should want to follow the people that follow us, so that we can learn from them.  @TheRealDvorak (John C Dvorak) actually was doing this.  He would follow back.  He would engage.  Of course, leading the way in following back is Scoble (@thescobleizer) who follows 70K people, and is followed by 65K.  He engages!

Here’s my suggestions for engagement on Twitter.

1. First, when someone follows you (and they aren’t a scam-bot) follow back.
2. Don’t block people you disagree with–engage, and learn.  Neither of you will likely change, but both can grow.
3. Seek out experts in your field on Twitter, and acknoweldge them
4. Ask questions!  A true community should be willing to help one another, which leads to;
5. Answer questions!  When someone asks for help, and if you are qualified, respond, and finally;
6. Engage people at the personal level.

I have tried, in thinking through these suggestions, to address Keen’s legitimate concerns regarding Web 2.0.

First and foremost if we make this conversational and if we are willing to follow and engage with people whom we disagree, we may find that while ideologies separate us, we can be friends.  And through it all we may learn that the “I” is not as important as the “we.”

Second, by seeking out, and acknowledging, experts in a our fields, we help to quell the cacaophony of amateurs, and reinforce the importance of depth.  This approach also helps build sub-communities in Twitter where practitioners (for instance in my fields of education, and supply chain) can grow and share and learn.

Finally, by engaging in these social networking communities of practice we open doors for further growth and development of knowledge.  The professional benefit of Twitter can be that it answers questions to immediate needs, and opens doors for further (monetarily rewarding)

Take a minutes, and contribute to the community. Leave a comment, and if you are on Twitter, leave your twitter info!

First, “I”  matter the most. In this new world we are all equally important, and apparently all have an equal right to be heard.  Unfortunately, in our rush to be heard we forget that we should also listen.  We are rushing to be heard, and ultimately result in simply asserting our right to speak.   In discussing an event he attended, he writes

“Everyone was simultaneously broadcasting  themselves, but nobody was listening. Out of this  anarchy, it suddenly became clear that what was  governing the infinite monkeys now inputting away on  the Internet was the law of digital Darwinism, the  survival of the loudest and most opinionated. Under  these rules, the only way to intellectually prevail is by  infinite filibustering.”

He then goes on to write

“The information business is  being transformed by the Internet into the sheer noise of a  hundred million bloggers all simultaneously talking about  themselves. “

So what?  What’s wrong with everyone writing about themselves?    His point is a bit more than simply we are producing too much noise.  When we do take time to read, and to listen, we are no longer availing ourselves of the filters of expertise.  We are starting to read and value uninformed, and ignorant, analysis over the informed and educated.  When we no longer look to experts for opinions on lofty and heady subjects we lose the ability to truly learn, and instead replace that with a sense of knowing and not a reality of knowing.

Second, from this drift away from the works of experts to amateurs, he argues that facts and truth are no longer immutable.

Again, he writes:

As Marshall Poe observed in the September 2006 issue of the  Atlantic:  We tend to think of truth as something that resides in  the world. The fact that two plus two equals four is  written in the stars…. But Wikipedia suggests a  different theory of truth. Just think about the way we  learn what words mean…. The community decides that  two plus two equals four the same way it decides what  an apple is: by consensus. Yes, that means that if the  community changes its mind and decides that two plus  two equals five, then two plus two does equal five. The  community isn’t likely to do such an absurd or useless  thing, but it has the ability.

What’s even more dangerous here than just the self-absorbed cacophony is that this new cult of the amateur actually elevates opinion to the same level as educated fact. Once we believe a few hours of exposure to a topic makes us “as good as” an expert, we substitute our knowledge for real knowledge.

I was listening to an ETS Talk podcast from Cole Camplese and his group at Penn State University — University Park.  They were attending a conference and Cole was mentioning the great work done by Michael Wesch and his students at Kansas State University.  In the discussion Cole talks about the change from the focus on the Professor, with 200+ hours of advanced coursework, to the “wisdom of the crowd.”  When they added up the experiences of the professor, and  his classes, they “discovered” that collectively they have over 24000 credit hours of study, and global experiences with humanitarian, military, and personal experiences, including collectively 24 years of military service in Iraq.  As if, somehow, having all that “introductory level experience” in any way compares to the depth of research, study and experience of the experts.  For example,

• If 100 students each took 8 credit hours of Calculus do those 800 hours somehow equate to a Math Professor who has taken 100 credit hours of advanced math?  (Let’s ignore the simple fact that most probably earned a C, and likely received a B.)
• Do  the 24 years of collective experience in Iraq in the military (most likely served by 24 junior enlisted troops serving in frontline positions) mean that they collectively are as good as the General who has served in varied posts for 24 years?

What bothers me here is not that we quickly accept these assertions without much reflection–it’s that some, in reading my two bullets above, may actually agree that they are in some way equivalent!  That is what Keen is speaking to when he argues we are losing the value of the experts.

The third point of Keen’s that speaks to me is when he argues that our efforts at creating, and embracing, the democratization of information actually is harming the creation of new knowledge. As he writes,

…a radically  democratic culture is hardly conducive to scholarship or to  the creation of wisdom. The reality is that we now live in a  highly specialized society, where excellence is rewarded and  where professionals receive years of training to properly do  their jobs, whether as doctors or journalists, environmental  scientists or clothing designers. In The Wealth of Nations,  economist Adam Smith reminds us that specialization and  division of labor is, in fact, the most revolutionary  achievement of capitalism:  The greatest improvement in the productive powers of  labour, and the greater part of the skill, dexterity, and  judgment with which it is any where directed, or  applied, seem to have been the effects of labour.

Keen goes on to argue that our tearing down of the existing structure for vetting information, and our apparent wilingness to go to other less reliable sources, results in the diminution of resources to further develop the skills necessary for true knowledge creation.   Some talk about this as being the “new economy” but imagine an economy based on not paying for what you receive.

Scary, right?

As I said, I am working through Keen’s book, and find it interesting and challenging.  Of course, I am writing about this on my own blog.  I even acknowledge that for me the writing is as much to help me think through things (listen to myself talk) as it is for anyone else.

But perhaps there is another view.  Perhaps we can transform the transmit only world into one where true engagement can take place.

Stay tuned–and in the meantime, take part in the engagement right here!  Leave your thoughts in the comment section.  Let’s actually “talk” rather than just read.

Hulu appeared “sorrowful” but apparently couldn’t convince their content providers that content is meant to be viewed.

What is most odd (and disturbing) is that Hulu has not only not shared which content providers strong-armed them, but they have also not share any rationale for why these content providers wanted Boxee stopped.  Remember, it was just streaming to a “full screen” shows exactly as they would be viewed on your computer.  The only real difference is that I am more comfortable and watching (in my case) on a larger screen.

I left a comment on Hulu’s site:

Okay–I too bought an Apple TV specifically to watch Hulu (and CBS) on my TV. I even made the decision to canceling cable TV.

Of course let me say that, while I thought Hulu was cool, I didn’t watch on my computer.  Sorry–the chair isn’t comfortable for WORK, why sit in it for pleasure?

So what has this decision done for me?  Made me realize that perhaps I watch too much TV.

Fox.  NBC.  Any other providers.

HEAR THIS:  I will not watch you on Hulu.  AND I will not be going back to Network TV to watch you either.

Bu-bye!

Do I expect anything close to the response we saw from Facebook?  Nope.  Of course not.  The old media establishment is far too entrenched to let something like viewers get in the way of their decisions.

But this does once again bring to the fore the discussion questions:

1. Who are the customers for a business (such as hulu)?
2. Do you have responsibilities to your users/viewers if they are not directly paying you?
3. Are “advertisers” really the customer since they are paying directly?
4. How does one measure the fact that viewers/users are the indirect sources of revenue since they are the target of the advertisers?

Any and all thoughts are appreciated.

You will recall they resell government reports to you for which you have already paid as a taxpayer.  They do this, and provide no remuneration to the authors, even when those authors were not government employees. Well, that said, they pride themselves on “speedy and courteous service” which I suppose is a good thing.

I had to chuckle though.  I went to view their contact information, and saw this note at the bottom:

Please note that our phone numbers have changed unexpectedly due to serious incompetence and hostility towards customers by Verizon. We apologize for the inconvenience and would encourage others to try to avoid doing business with Verizon and other companies that take such a hostile attitude toward customers. We pride ourselves on treating customers much better.

I had to step back, and say “wow.” I understand we all have our customer service problems.  And many of us will write about them publicly.  Usually on blogs, or if we are journalists, in our editorial pages and commentaries.  But this is quite an unusual step.  They are, as a business, calling out Verizon.

I can imagine conversations about Verizon’s bad treatment of customers when one gets home from work.  Or perhaps sharing it in my Service Operations Management class, where we dissect business service experiences to better learn.  Perhaps even sharing stories over a beer at a restaurant, or party.

But on your business website?

So let me ask you, dear reader, the following questions:

1.  Would you put something like this on your professional business site?

2.  Do you believe that Storming Media was without blame in the issue?

3.  How would you have handled this?

According to this story in the New York Times, Facebook has once again made a change, angered their users, and then have to backtrack.

===========

The word choices are interesting.  Facebook talks about the “feedback” they received.  How about: canceled accounts, deleted files, and angry emails.  I suppose that’s “feedback.”

What is really interesting though is that they have reverted back to the old TOS “…while we resolve the issues that people have raised.”  Just what does that mean?  Does that mean they will not go back? They will more clearly state that they will only keep material that is cross-linked to other people’s accounts? Or does it mean that they will try again when no one is looking?

Given that I asked the question about “Outcome Focused Performance” a few posts back, I can’t help but wonder what “outcome” Facebook (the corporation) has in mind with their decisions.  Obviously every business has financial success as their goal, but that is usually achieved through a mix of product, service, and value that attracts customers.

Facebook doesn’t really generate revenue directly from the users.  We pay no fee to join, no monthly account maintenance fee, and no data storage fee.  One could argue they have no obligation to us, and that there is no “contract” since no money changes hands.  Therefore they should be able to do whatever they wish.  The revenue that Facebook generates is a direct result of our being there, but is derived from our presence, and our activity.  Given this, Facebook’s action in changing the TOS could be viewed as a business simply hoping to extend their opportunities for revenue through the users.

Of course, I think they are losing sight of one important fact–we are guests.  Now, some would remind us that guests should “behave themselves” when in someone else’s house.  True enough.

But Facebook should remember that they need to be gracious hosts.

====

n.b.:The link identified in the article excerpt above is here.

It was interesting.  I went to the story that went with the photograph (you see it has the Telegraph below it.)  The story didn’t actually have that photograph.  But the photo was available on their site at this location, and is in larger for here:

For most of you art afficianados out there, you will (hopefully) draw parallels to religious iconography through the ages.  How often have we seen Jesus the Christ, and the Saints, and other “Holy People” portrayed with halos?

Accident?  Subtle message?
Either way, it was off the Google news page half way through writing this.

While I have no problem with them using the material I make publicly available while I make it available I am incensed that they are now extending their claims, unilaterally and retroactively, to all my material for all time.

In protest, I have emailed Facebook and told them I reject their new TOS, I have deleted my photos, and changed my profile photo to a PROTEST, and hereby grant YOU, the reader, license to reuse this graphic as YOUR profile photo.  All I ask is that you comment on here that you are using it.

So-go to the comments, and let us know your story!

Many callers talked about how we need to raise the gas taxes, not only to provide funds to repair the highways, but to get people to learn to conserve, and to support alternative fuels. In fact several callers felt we needed a tax “floor” implemented immediately.  A “tax floor” would mean that if the price of gas dropped below a threshold (most said $3/gallon) then the price would stay at $3, and the government would scarf up the difference.  In that way, the government would reap the “windfall profits” of low prices (instead of the consumer).  (see my past discussions regarding windfall profits here.)

Interestingly, if the price rises and falls in part due to fluctuations in demand (and demand changes relative to price) would the price charged ever get much below three, if the gas stations knew they would have to just “give” that to the government?

So I want to know, what is YOUR opinion about gas taxes?  Are you in favor of a higher gas tax?

Look forward to your answers.

Dear UE Local 1110 Members,

I empathize with your plight, I really do. But I wonder if you thought through all of this.

The company, your company, just didn’t have the money. They couldn’t pay you. As they say, you can’t get blood from a turnip. They were unable to secure the loan that would be necessary to keep their business going, and to pay you.

They really had no choice. They had to close.

Bank of America determined that a company that only had 3 days of reserves was not a good candidate for a loan. They chose not to “throw good money after bad” and denied the loan request.

In response, you… sat down?

As a result, BoA has now given a “loan” to your company. A loan that they will most likely use to give you what you have demanded, and then they will in all likelihood still close. Just after 60 days.

So you won. You have forced BoA to give a loan to a company that by every indication has no intention of paying it back. A company that in all likelihood will be declaring bankruptcy in less than 60 days.

Assuming that the BoA “bailout” was used to fund this, all you have done is take money from your fellow tax-payers (and presumably yourselves, once you regain employment.)

So where, again, was the victory here?

Having just made made my estimated tax payment (late, yet again, I know…) was reading through the IRS 1040 ES tax pamphlet, and came across a list of list of expiring tax benefits.  I have (using the power of the Jing Project!) excerpted from that document that list:

Why would I list this?  Well, I find it quite interesting that, as part of the Democrats efforts to eliminate Bush’s “tax cuts for the rich” they are letting these evil tax cuts die.  You know the ones..  That credit for encouraging energy efficiency?  Oh, and that pesky credit for research (darn those tax-evading scientists!)¹

Interestingly, despite his obvious leftist leanings, Dean Dad hasn’t commented on the expiration of the tax benefit called “Tuition and fees deduction.”  He also hasn’t commented on the loss of the educator deduction from the AGI.  I wonder why?

So my question for you, dear readers is this:  Why were these tax cuts/benefits evil, and how do they only help the rich?

¹ Interestingly, several of the podcasts I have listened to lately have applauded the Obama election, and talked about the expectation that the floodgates of funding will be swinging wide. Hmm… at the same time that we remove the tax credit for conducting research? Apparently (and I just surmise here) the only “good science” is that which is directly funded by the government.  Ahh, yes, suckling…

What I thought was really interesting was this description about the author:

“Helmut Beierbeck has a science background and a strong interest in all scientific aspects of health, nutrition, medicine, weight loss, or any other topic related to wellness.” (emphasis added)

What does “has a scientific background” mean?  Sounds quite vague to me.  English major who took more than the minimum courses for a BA in LA?  One (or both) parents were scientists? He can spell science?  Knows Bill Nye?

But I suppose I should listen to him.  He has the “Background.”

Reminds me of that old Public Radio show, “Ask Dr Science” where they botch science, but he has cred.  Why? “I have a Master’s Degree–IN SCIENCE!”

The only real difference is, Ask Dr Science is intended to be funny.  NaturalNews just is…

The Democrats have, for a very long time, (read, 4 years) been running around claiming that the Bush Administration, and the Republicans, are running a “politics of fear” only able to be re-elected when the American people are “afraid.”  Well it sure looks to me like the Democrats are doing the same thing.  Oh, they aren’t trying to make us afraid of terrorists.  They are making us fear the economy.  Fear a loss of jobs.  Fear each other.  Take, for instance, this comment from Obama’s acceptance speech:

Tonight, more Americans are out of work and more are working harder for less. More of you have lost your homes and even more are watching your home values plummet. More of you have cars you can’t afford to drive, credit card bills you can’t afford to pay, and tuition that’s beyond your reach.

I am sure you see it.  We should be afraid of what may happen to us if we don’t elect Obama.  In fact, the whole first third of his speech (and of every speech) was designed to instill fear into our hearts.

Hey–I am not saying it isn’t a great style.  It works.  It is a formula for speech-writing that has been shown through the ages to be successful.

It is also a speech designed to highlight one party, and their vision of the future, in comparison to another.  I believe we call that “being partisan.”  I don’t think anyone faults Obama and the Democrats for being partisan.  After all, it was a “Democrat Party Convention” after all.  But what is surprising was the criticism put foward by the Obama camp as read in the Mercury News:

Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton called the speech “well-delivered, but written by George Bush’s speech writer and sounds exactly like the same divisive partisan attacks we’ve heard from George Bush for the last eight years.”

Hmm.  partisan attacks?  Let’s see… what could those be?

Because next week, in Minnesota, the same party that brought you two terms of George Bush and Dick Cheney will ask this country for a third.

For over two decades, he’s subscribed to that old, discredited Republican philosophy – give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else.

You see, we Democrats have a very different measure of what constitutes progress in this country.

The speech goes on and on with these sorts of dichotomies. They (the Republicans) don’t care about, want to hurt you, only want to help their cronies.. but WE (the Democrats) care about you, and are willing to do what it takes to help you.

That, my Fellow Americans. Is partisan divisiveness. Don’t complain that Republicans do that, when you did it the week before.

Take the GE commercials, for instance.  They have laid out clearly, in several commercials, how they are actively engaged in alternative energy projects.  GM touting their lower consumption and hybrid and electric vehicles.  Boeing and their lighter and less fuel consuming aircraft.  The list goes on.

As I see it, they are telling us the things that are already going on. Steps that are being done today, based on research and development conducted for at least the past 8 years (and more likely 20-30 years.)  Clearly, we are seeing today the fruits of labor and investments made in the past decades.

On the other hand, we have Obama’s commercial.  In his commercial (hey, he approved it!) he points out that the hands that do many every day things can also things to put in place alternative energy programs.  Like wind power. Alternative fuel cars.  Solar power. All noble thoughts.  And he is right, our hands can do those things.  In fact, as evidenced by not just the other ads, but our own experience (and the fact that the video used shows locations already doing these things).

So just what will Obama bring to the table? How will he enable our hands? Hmmm?

It seems to me that the Democrats are the ones playing off the fears of the American public.  Not the fear of terrorists, but fear of energy failures.  And they are promising…. um… wait, I had the memo right here…

Oh, yeah. Change.

Now, if we could just hear what that change is, and how it will be different.

I’m still waiting.

One more thing:  the last time this was done, under Carter, the expected revenues just didn’t materialize.  According to the report published in 2006 by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), “The $80 billion in gross revenues generated by the WPT between 1980 and 1988 was significantly less than the $393 billion projected. Due to the deductibility of the WPT against the income tax, cumulative net WPT revenues were about $38 billion, significantly less than the $175 billion projected.”

That got me thinking.  What people are really saying is not that they want to tax “windfall profits” (defined at the Financial Dictionary as “A sudden unexpected profit uncontrolled by the profiting party.”) but rather people are upset that the oil companies are making money by charging the consumer a higher price than they used to. Yup.  It apparently is unfair to charge a price that the market will bear.

Hillary Clinton, on May 1st is quoted as saying “The oil companies have made out like bandits, and there is no basis for them to have these huge profits.”

That said, I started to look around and see what other companies are earning these sort of “obscene” profits, during what has been described by Obama as “a recession, or worse.” So, first, I looked at the percentage profits earned by Exxon the most-oft used target of opportunity by the left.  For that past three years, Exxon has earned between 9 and 10 % profits (computed by dividing their “net income” into “total Revenue”–all data from http://finance.yahoo.com the hotlinks on the company names will take you to those pages)

Exxon
Net Income    Total Revenue    ”% Profit”
2005 36130              370680           9.75%
2006 39500              377635         10.46%
2007 40610              404552         10.04%

So, that doesn’t seem unreasonable to me, but perhaps I missed something.  Perhaps that 10% return in unmatched by any other company.  So, I decided to look at another company.  Yes, I had a biased selection.  I chose Apple, Inc, for two reasons.  First, Apple has had strong success making in-roads into several markets (computers, cell-phones, music), and secondly, because it seems Apple tends to be the computer platform of choice by those on the left. 

Well, it turns out Apple has performed comparably to Exxon in the first two years, while beginning to signficantly outperform Exxon in 2007.

Apple
Net Income    Total Revenue    “% Profit”
2005 1335                  13931           9.58%
2006 1989                   19315         10.30%
2007 3496                   24006         14.56%

Now, it was pointed out to me that people don’t need and iPhone, or an iPod, or even a Mac, so that comparison is flawed.  People apparently do need to consume gasoline however (I point to my previous discussion about the gas tax for why many do not need, or even consume, gasoline.)  I conceded this point.  I would, however, argue that computers have become ubiquitous, and no operating system is more prevalent than Microsoft’s Windows. So, it makes sense to look at Microsoft’s profits.

Microsoft
Net Income    Total Revenue    “% Profit”
2005 12254                39788           30.80%
2006 12599                44282           28.45%
2007 14065                51122           27.51%

Amazing.  If Exxon’s 10% profit is evil, I can only imagine what must be thought about Microsoft.

But, in all fairness, this doesn’t tell the most recent story. I can hear your critique now “but the oil prices only started really ramping up last fall, and didn’t really approach $4/gallon until the Spring 2008.”  Good point.  So what happens if we look at the quarterly numbers for these three companies, instead? (there will be some missing data, since not all companies report on the same dates.)

Exxon Apple Microsoft
6/30/2007 10.43%                          22.70%
9/30/2007 9.20%      14.54%         31.17%
12/31/2007 10.00%     16.46%         28.76%
3/31/2008 9.32%     13.91%         30.36%
6/28/2008 14.36%

So, even when Exxon was under attack from Senators Clinton and Obama, their quarterly earnings, though large, were still smaller than either Apple’s or Microsoft’s as a percent profit.  (And remember, if their total revenues were much larger than Apple’s so were there costs.)

The question then is:

Are we upset that oil, as Senator Clinton said ‘have made out like bandits, and … have these huge profits.”  Or are we upset at the price we must pay, and we lash out, without reason, at the oil companies because they are the most visible target?

——————————————————————————

n.b.: While I started this analysis back in May, It turns out the Wall Street Journal has recently undertaken a similar analysis, and arrived at similar conclusions, at least with respect to Exxon’s obscene profits of 10%.  They compared industries:

If that’s what constitutes windfall profits, most of corporate America would qualify. Take aerospace or machinery — both 8.2% in 2007. Chemicals had an average margin of 12.7%. Computers: 13.7%. Electronics and appliances: 14.5%. Pharmaceuticals (18.4%) and beverages and tobacco (19.1%) round out the Census Bureau’s industry rankings. The latter two double the returns of Big Oil, though of course government has already became a tacit shareholder in Big Tobacco through the various legal settlements that guarantee a revenue stream for years to come.

I had to chuckle.  Really.  Remember way back when, when I wrote that the iPhone was a bit over-priced, in my opinion?  It was funny at the time, really, considering that Scott Bourne, over at The Apple Phone Show was talking about how great a deal it was, to get an 8gb phone for $599.  He even bought, I heard recently, 11 phones at that price.

The iPhone has gone through one price reduction, and even lower prices with the introduction of the new “iPhone 3G” model.  So do we applaud the new affordability of the iPhone?  Well, some do. Others, however, choose to attack AT&T for making the iPhone “more expensive.”  And not just any “others.”  Scott Bourne himself!

I have been slowly catching up on listening to podcasts, and happened to listen to the Mac Break Weekly number 96, titled “iReady.” In that episode the MBW gang rants against AT&T, led by Scott Bourne, because the data plan has gone from $20/month to $30/month.  Of course, AT&T argues that they are doing this because the data plan now supports 3G, but for some reason, many view this as a sort of “breach of trust.” What’s worse, Leo LaPorte leads the pack in ridiculing AT&T for actually trying to reach people with a video, helping them prepare for purchasing an iPhone.  Seems like a nice, good-faith effort on AT&T’s part, but apparently their hatred of AT&T gets in the way, yet again. (Funny, given my previous past post: AT&T trying to get customers ready to buy iPhones, and then Apple slow-rolls the delivery of units to AT&T stores…)

It turns out that over at “The Apple Phone Show” in their podcast #61 the APS gang ranted again about the evil AT&T.  It turns out their hatred of AT&T is because AT&T is treating the iPhone as a cell phone.  Seriously.  Here’s the quote:  “The worst news is that it’s almost as if the iPhone is some sort of cellular telephone.” Gasp!

Why do they think AT&T is evil here?  two reasons.  The APS and MBW folks (generally the same gang) are upset that the SMS (text messaging) plans are sold separately, and that to get the “push” features for the business world they will have to pay an additional $15/month.  Well, honestly, that’s no different than other customers with smart-phones.  Have you looked at the additional fees charged to support the Blackberry?  That’s really the only other “push” platform out there.

Despite all of this, there remains a voice of reason among the Mac/Apple-fandom crowd.  Andy Ihnatko, owner of the Celestial Waste of Bandwidth, did his own analysis and found that the AT&T pricing plans are reasonable.  His analysis is that the 3G iPhone plan is comparable to other plans for other 3G phones.

I would agree with him, but then extend the point.  In my case, the data plan (without the “corporate push” for email) was costing me $40/month.  By switching to the iPhone, I reduced my plan by $10 each month–a savings of $240 over the life of the two year contract.  (Imagine my surprise, when I realized this means I almost paid for the  16gb phone simply through data-plan savings!)

So let’s take a look at the text messaging.  Sure, I might be upset at losing the “free” 200 txt messages. If that was all I used.  but honestly, with AT&T I have found that the “unlimited family plan” for $30/month is quite economical.

Sure, it’s easy to rant about how evil AT&T is.  After all, we have hated the phone company ever since they sent refunds back paid in postage stamps.  But let’s be honest here.  Apple iPhone fans seem to want to be treated as “Special” somehow.

iPhone owners aren’t “special.”  Trust me.  I am one.  A happy iPhone owner who has realized that sometimes a good deal exists, even with AT&T.

Order Fulfillment

Apparently, though, I was one of the lucky few.  According to one source close to AT&T, Apple fills the purchase orders for the Apple Stores first, and then fills the ones for the AT&T stores.  On top of that, they will be satisfying the AT&T direct-fulfillment orders first, before sending any to the AT&T stores for general (walk-in) sales.

This is an interesting situation, because it is a conflict with selling one product through two different distribution channels.  Apple has two retail distribution channels–the AT&T channel, and the Apple channel (and admittedly, but have online and storefront channels.)  Apple will sell phones through both, but I suspect they sell to AT&T at a “wholesale” price, and they sell through their stores at the higher retail price.  (Yes, I realize there is the AT&T subsidy involved.)  It is understandable that a manufacturer would prefer to sell their product at a higher rate of return through their own channels.

Of course, this approach isn’t without problems.  The fact that the Apple Stores have iPhones in stock, and the AT&T stores do not, leaves customers (especially the Apple-fan types) being hyper-critical of AT&T while applauding how good Apple is at satisfying demand.  Really?  Not that hard, when you control the stock.

You see, according to my source, Apple provided up to 10 times as many iPhones to their stores as they did to the AT&T stores.  And, as mentioned above, they are still sending iPhones to Apple Stores for store-front sales, while they are forcing AT&T customers into a 21 day wait for their “direct fulfillment” orders.

So who is to blame?  Wrong question, really. I hate the “blame game.”

But–I do believe we must acknowledge that the end result is because of Apple’s decisions, and NOT AT&Ts’.

(see next post for part 2)

What a story.  The LA Times has reported that Obama’s political positions are moving more centrist, looking more and more like John McCain every day.

The picture on the LA Times is even designed to evoke a sense of “sameness.” (see below) [EDITOR NOTE:  The LA Times has apparently removed the photograph showing Obama and McCain in similar active poses, although the story is still online.  No comment as to why.]

I understand that politicians often have to be politicians (you know, change their positions with the wind to stroke their egos through elections).

My question is simply this:

Can McCain now claim that he has held the centrist position the whole time, and that Obama is pandering?

Spock enters, ready to present new evidence on behalf of his Captain: the suspected tampering of the computer system. Without any real evidence to back up the claim, Spock insists that aside from himself and the Captain, only Mr. Finney had the knowledge and clearance to alter the computer logs and he believes Finney is still aboard the Enterprise. Kirk’s lawyer asks the trial to reconvene aboard the Enterprise to see proof of the defense’s new theory. The prosecution objects to the new request, stating the computer files are proof enough of Kirk’s guilt. The court overrules when Cogley states that a man’s guilt can not be proven by a machine, since machines can make mistakes. The court seems to agree.

Jump ahead 40 years, and we find from the New York Times that apparently the image of the four missiles being launched by Iran was photoshop’d.  The most benign argument is that they launched fewer than four missiles.  The image from the NYT shows where the “clone” tool was apparently used.

One could easily use this as another example of the news media failing to conduct due-diligence before running a photograph.  I would argue that, in this case, the process worked.  They ran a photo from a news agency, and when they discovered what appears to be intentional deception, reported it.

I would only hope that the biggest lesson learned here is to question images delivered by a state-controlled news agency.

I haven’t been to Vegas in years, and when I was there, it was only for a lay-over at the airport.  Now after reading Wil’s description of Star Trek: The Experience at the Hilton, I find myself wishing I had one more chance to go.  (I can’t help but wonder if the thought to visit crossed my brother’s mind during his recent whirlwind tour of Vegas.)  Of course his description of the experience is amazing, and comes from the perspective of one who has been “there” and longed for “there” to perhaps have been real.  But what is most touching is when he writes

I have an epiphany.

Until this moment, all I have been able to remember is the pain that came with Star Trek. I’d forgotten the joy.

I suspect that every fan has a story of how Star Trek touched them.  Only no story in quite so special a way.

Oh, and if you want to follow Wil Wheaton, he is on Twitter as wilw.

The nugget, the lede, the important issue that is rapidly being buried here is that when I walk out to my driveway in the morning and pick up my nicely rubber-banded and bagged print newspaper, there is no one else out there in bathrobes to join me.

No one.

I am the only house for BLOCKS that gets the daily newspaper.

Where are people getting their news, then?

What a GREAT question!  I haven’t subscribed to a “local paper” for a very long time.  I don’t subscribe to one here in Harrisburg, although I do like the Patriot-News.  (and I do like the reporting by Daniel Victor!  see  him at twitter)   I didn’t subscribe to one in Dayton, either.  I can’t remember if I ever subscribed to one in State College.

For me, the question is simple, but the answer is complex. It’s not as simple as “I can get all my news online,” although I obviously can, since I linked to the Patriot-News.  I also receive the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post delivered to my Kindle. (without advertising.)

So why don’t I get a local paper?  Honestly, I haven’t had a whole lot of faith in the ability of local reporters to get the story “right.”  I wrote in a comment back on DaSilva’s blog

After service in the Armed Forces for 20 years, and a few other jobs along the way, I have noticed how what “really happened” and what is reported are often quite different. Sometimes with serious consequences. Most often, it is because the reporter was not familiar with the actual organization/technology/operation on which they reported.

I have found that this is not limited to stories of complex military and political issues.  When I am familiar with the story I read, I find errors in fact that just “get in the way.”  Swimmers’ times are reported incorrectly.  Swimmers names are wrong.  Analysis of budget figures are done so poorly as to give “back of envelope” math a bad name.  Sometimes they are just written in a way that makes me have to re-read it a few times to figure out what they meant.  For instance, in today’s Partriot-News one reporter writes “Pennsylvania has 36 fairs — four more than 200 years old.”  (My confusion is the count of the number of fairs, followed by “four more than…”  This had me thinking something else was numbered at 32.  Until I realized that the reporter meant “four of them over 200 years old.”  Trivial, but it makes the point.)

All in all, I find that my faith in the local reporters’ ability to “report” is challenged.  I am not quite sure what to believe.

This is compounded further by the apparent need for reporters to view themselves as activists.  They often inject their own editorial comments into the stories.  Often they are simply the introduction of an adjective or some other description that I am sure the reporter intended to make the story interesting, but unfortunately also tends to tilt the story.  Just check out the way the same story (use Google News) can be reported by different newspapers to see the ways they perhaps unintentionally spin the story.

All that said, I do stay up on the news. In fact, I use Google News quite a lot.  I use RSS feeds (and am really liking the new Adobe Air app, Snackr, which selects, and scrolls. random headlines from my feeds list.)

So my question for you is: where do you get your news?

Done laughing yet?

Let’s set aside for a brief moment the apocryphal stories we have all heard, and seen in TV dramas, of reporters lying, cheating, and quite simply doing anything to get the story.  The simple fact is blogs aren’t news reporters.  They are many, many things.

Admittedly this idea gets lost on journalists, since many of their news-agencies are now hosting “blogs.”  Just head on over to the Wall Street Journal and you will find, on the right hand side, a spot for blogs. (See graphic)

Go visit any other major newspaper (The Washington Post, Houston Chronicle, and others) and you will see the same thing–a commitment to being “relevant” with the tech world by hosting blogs on their websites.  Does this mean blogging is “journalism”?  So should all bloggers be “journalists?”

I think they all miss the boat by assuming that blogs are limited by what they want them to be.  Journalists/reporters see blogs as reporting (and then are upset with they don’t meet their “standards.”)  Others view a blog as a place where they can write about their own personal views on things from diapers, to politics, to religion.  Still others find the blog as a nice way to share about their experiences and foibles in the work place, and these blogs will be as varied as the occupations and professions they hold.  Still others use their blog to show videos, share, images, or host podcasts.

Really the only thing that we can say about blogs is that they enable one/a few/many to share what they want with any audience that chooses to visit.  Generally, blogs are open to the general public to visit (a distinction I draw between blogs and online diary sites.)  And usually, blogs have comment sections available for the visitor to share their views, creating a multi-way conversation.  It is this opportunity for conversation that separates blogs from so many other “one way” forms of communication.

Blogging allows us to engage in conversation with a wide range of people from diverse views, locations, and professions.  We should welcome the opportunity to expose ourselves to so many views, rather than insist that bloggers meet one view of “reporting”, or limit comments to only those that agree with our views.

Tip of the hat to Jessica DaSliva.  (on Twitter as @jdasliva) She unknowingly spurred my post by her honest blogging about the changes at the Tampa Tribune.

In addition, Obama’s attacks McCain’s proposal to offer a $300M prize for battery development

“to improve battery technology for full commercial development of plug-in hybrid and fully electric automobiles” to leapfrog currently available batteries and would have to build “more than one” advanced battery at 30 percent of current costs.

(In fact, in that same article Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Lansing, is quoted as saying “We don’t need a game show,” which, while making a great sound bite, seems to ignore the tremendous innovation currently seen through the use of prizes even at government expense, such as the X-Prize.  See here, here, here, and here.)

In several other stories we see the McCain has proposed immediate, near, mid and long term solutions.  Generally speaking, what Obama is calling gimmicks, we call a strategy.  He is working to alleviate (or at least reduce) the immediate pain at the pump, while seeking to ameliorate the overall energy situation through investing, and rewarding, innovation.

Obama’s plan?  Well, he really doesn’t seem to have a targeted one.  He supports a second round of stimulus tax rebates.  He also supports taxing “big oil” for making their record profits (which, by the way, are a far lower percentage of revenue than the much beloved Apple Inc.  If you don’t trust me, just challenge me.  I did the math…)  He also has called for higher fuel efficiency standards to double fuel economy by 2027!  (is that a near term solution?) And he supports alternative sources, such as solar, wind, and biofuels.

So does this add up to a coherent strategic plan that addresses the immediate needs, as well as the mid- to long-term needs?  What does Obama himself have to say about this:

Obama admitted that his own plan will not immediately affect gas prices but said his proposal for a second stimulus package will offer overall financial relief. “I wish I could wave a magic wand and make gas prices go down, but I can’t,” he said. “What I can do – and what I will do – is push for a second stimulus package that will send out another round of rebate checks to the American people.”

So, what is Obama’s plan for today?  He and McCain seem to agree on the long-term.  And the need for change.  But Senator Obama, do we really have 10 to 20 years to wait?

So, readers, I ask this.  If you were putting together a comprehensive strategy, what would be your:

• immediate term solution for lowering the price at the pumps today
• near/mid term solution for keeping costs down
• long term solution for weaning Americans off a dependence not just on foreign oil, but oil.

Hello, Gurulib.com! 

At Gurulib you can enter books from a web interface, which moves you away from a specific OS, and allows for that whole “open community sharing” idea.  This free site not only lets you enter books into the online database by scanning the ISBN (or entering by hand, or searching on the title, or… you get the hint.)  It also allows you to share, if you wish, your library with others.  Both virtually (a “hey, check out what I like to read” sort of sharing) or literally, by allowing others to request to borrow a book, and allowing for a real exchange.  This is another great way to have some “social networks” that connects people with like interests, and enables you to share those interests.

But that’s not all.  How about entering other things.  Videos.  Games.  Software packages. Yup, you can do that too!  You can even put the items on different shelves.  Some actually create virtual shelves that mimic their real ones making physical search and retrieval possible.  Others create “different” linkages that make sense for their arrangement.

As I mentioned, it works right off their website.  If you have a webcam that can be focused to within a few inches, it will use a flash plugin to read your ISBN/UPC codes right from the page.  Heck, you can even send a photo of an ISBN using a cellphone, and it will scan that and include it in your “Wishlist.”  Imagine that, you are at a library or a bookstore, and see a few books you are interested in.  You snap a shot, send it to the site, and when you get home you can read reviews and order from Amazon.com directly (most likely saving a significant amount of money as well!)

So what sort of other magic does this site do?  Well, once you enter the book ISBN (or title) the site then uses that to pull down all the information available (usually from Amazon) for that item, and includes that.  This means that you have access to reviews, summaries, and even current “used prices” for these items.  Hey–it even will tell you what your library was worth new, and used!  Care to learn how much money you have spent on DVDs, or how much you could get in that “get rich quick” liquidation?

I could go on forever, but let me just mention one other “cool” feature.  You can build a wishlist right there on the site, and your friends and family can work off of there for those big “gift giving” events.  (You know the ones.. that come around every year… and you always have to ask for a list…)  Just put those items right into the wishlist and there you have it. In fact, you can order right from the wishlist using Amazon.com (I suspect that is the way http://gurulib.com is able to remain a free resource–they make money by providing us with this great way to purchase more cool things–similiar to my amazon ads here on this blog.)

I have loaded many, many items already.  I love the site.  Go check it out–and find my library.

And, lest you think it is just a graphics problem, the download filename is:

UPDATE:

It seems to (inconsistently) show the right links. To download directly, go to:

http://mozilla.ussg.indiana.edu/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/3.0/win32/en-US/Firefox%20Setup%203.0.exe

So, when I wrote that that the babyboomers were the ones “who argued to ‘never trust anyone over 30.’ Seems they now are being asked to ‘eat their own dogfood’” I may have been mistaken. You see, Dean Dad was essentially arguing that the current crop of Adminstrators need to move along (ref his first line “Reason #456 we need to hire the next generation of administrators”). Thus I felt that asking them (the boomers) to move along and get out of the way, was essentially reminding them not to trust anyone their own age.
But the question I have is whether it is “eating your own dog food.” It certainly is “having to take your own medicine.” And perhaps it is asking for one to “follow one’s own advice.” But is it the same as using your own product?

I argue that in this context it is. You see, Dean Dad is talking about how a service organization is run. Services are different from “goods” in that there is no tangible asset, nothing to, well, eat. So one must stretch the metaphor a bit. But in this case, I believe it works, since one is being asked to follow the management principles they at one time preached. To continue down the road of “old saws” one could say for the Boomers their “Chickens have come home to roost.”

Perhaps it is time for Boomers to acknowledge that they were wrong about something. And for the Gen X’ers to realize that their parents aren’t always wrong–and perhaps should be allowed to continue to work, and lead.

For instance, one blogger, in response to the various news stories, asks “ Surely I’m not the only one who sees the irony in this.”

Again, the regular reader of this blog may remember, I wrote at the time of the relief operations following Katrina, about the barriers that hindered the relief effort. While many chose to cast FEMA and specifically, President Bush, as evil characters, they have unfortunately confused politics with reality–and unfortunately this actually hinders real progress.

First, let me state that there were some political barriers to getting relief into the city of New Orleans. Alas, the politicians that hindered the operations were the Mayor of the city, and the Governor of New Orleans. I will leave it to my brother to add the specifics. Of course these were rather insignificant barriers, compared to some of the others.

The most important barrier to providing relief operations was the storm itself. People seem to forget that our usual “quick response” forces (the Air Force) couldn’t get into the airport for a few days because the runway was still under water. I hope it comes as no surprise that you can’t land cargo planes in water. Additionally, the storm blocked and destroyed the major roads used to move into the city. So even if resupply could have made it to the airport, there was no way to move it from the ramp, to downtown. Trucks from outside the area couldn’t move in either until the roads were cleared. Finally, ports were also damaged, so ships could not quickly move in. Once the physical barriers were removed, there were other problems.

Not all barriers to success were physical. There were problems with FEMA, and other disaster response organizations. Bureaucracy does at times get in the way. There were points of confusion centered around command and control. The local authorities did not want to relinquish their control, despite the fact that the operation was regional not local.

So, to get to the point of this post, we need to learn the important lessons from Katrina. The lesson is not that President Bush was a bad President, or that he willfully chose to withhold relief (as the comparison to the Myanmar tragedy would imply.) The true lessons are in how to plan for, and execute, relief operations. If we don’t learn those lessons then we will never leave the realm of political name-calling–condemning thousands more Americans when the next tragedy strikes.

To answer that question, I have this post. But this post is the first in what may be a long series about moving new-media social networking disruptive technologies out of the echo-chamber.

I found myself at a conference this weekend arguing for the importance of social networks and, at the end of it, I realized the challenge we face is taking social networking and new media out of the hands of the techno-saavy, and put these tools, “embed” them, if you will, into the lives of the every day practitioner.

So what do I mean by practitioners? What practice do you think of when I write that? Doctors? Lawyers? Bartenders? How about almost anybody that does something. Now, in my specific instance I was first thinking of researchers, and then extended that to a discussion about connecting textbook authors to their customers (both faculty and students!) The lesson I am taking from this however is that this goes further. We need to take the various lessons of social networking and apply them where we are.

So for this first post of the series, let me share the discussion about researchers. I sat on a panel discussing how to get research (and funding) from the “public sector.” Once we reminded the audience that the public sector includes more than just the Federal Government, we talked about the various ways of “finding” the requests for proposal, and we even talked about the importance of “contacts.” One of my colleagues even jokingly commented that “once you can fake sincerity you have it made!”

Then it hit me–it’s really about developing social networks!

I first asked how many in the audience were using Linked-in or some other social networking tool. Not surprisingly, less than 10% in the room were members, and of those who weren’t literally NONE had even heard of it. I then used that as an example of how one can build networks (professional social networks) with people who not only have similar interests, but hopefully a network of people who sincerely want to help others succeed.

And what was the big secret I brought to them? No secret, really, but just something that I think has often been lost in these communities. As I mentioned in my talk on Social Networks the success lies in the development of relationships. These relationships are best when everyone brings something of value. If one wants to succeed, then develop these networks, and ensure that you are a “giver.” if you honestly seek to help those in your network, you will find that others will come to you, and often come to you with funding.

I ended up recommending a very good, very easy reading book, Love is the Killer App. This book talks about the importance of sincere sincerity, and the importance of truly putting others well being ahead of your own. What I really like about the book is his emphasis on improving yourself so that you have something of value to offer. It’s about being ready to give, not being ready to take. Now, some would say it is the application of the Golden Rule, others would say it’s just Karma, but the reality is you will find that caring about others, and helping them make the important connections in life, really does work–for them and for you!

So far, there’s nothing “new media” here. Stand by for other posts. In the meantime, please, share with us how you have successfully made “the connection” with people.

I would like to think I am rather “tech saavy.” I do podcasts. I run two WordPress blogs and a content management site (go visit Supply Chain Innovations Today!) but I have to say, online meetings are frustrating simply and completely because of the techonlogy.

It seems that I end up spending more time configuring, reconfiguring, and tweaking, than I do having the meeting. I just went through 20 minutes of set up and troubleshooting so that eLluminate would work–and now I wonder if any time I change any of my configuration I will have to go through it again. And changing my configuration can mean something as simple as “rebooting the machine” or opening another audio using program.

But online meetings save time, allowing us to be more “productive” right? Perhaps, but perhaps not!

I know how to drive. For regular (face to face) meetings I show up with a pad of paper, and am ready to go. I am able to use my car time to prepare my thoughts, and/or listen to podcasts, and as one commenter wrote at Cole’s blog, if I take public transportation I can catch up on reading, be it RSS feeds, blogs, or books. (Gotta love the Sony eReader!) So instead of getting frustrated with technology, I am being productive.

I long for the day when I can tell my computer “I want a meeting with Cole and Dean Brady (go visit his blog) and I want to share a powerpoint, while working on a word document” and it will turn on all the right software, connect to the right addresses, and let me focus on participating and taking notes (using my pad of paper, of course!) Ideally, one of us should be able to just say “make into podcast” and it will take the whole meeting (which it dutifully, already recorded) and send it to an appropriate RSS feed! (Dave Winer, are you listening??)

Let’s go back to the car for a moment. While I can’t (yet) tell it where I want to go, and have it take me there, I don’t have to tweak it to get it moving. I get in, I buckle my seatbelt (you all do that, right?) start the car, and drive. I may talk to the GPS (see–cool!) and let it talk back (again, analog, human interaction.) I don’t have to tweak the spark plugs, adjust the carburetor, align the tires. For the most part, if I have done routine maintenance, it is ready to go!

Bottom Line: Tech should make things easier–and the tech stuff should be opaque (decidedly not transparent] since I don’t want to even have to KNOW what is going on with the tech.

For the four years preceding Reagan (better known as the “Carter Years”) there was a deficit run each and every year. Reagan did not inherit a Balanced budget. Not even close. I always thought it an interesting bit of history that prior to 1999, the last “balanced budget was in 1969, and that was only after “using” the Social Security surplus to balance the books.

Just thought you might want to know.

And now, having dispensed with that myth, let’s look at some other economic indicators from the Carter Era.

In addition, Reagan started with double digit inflation (12.5% for 1980), double digit interest rates (the federal reserve, or PRIME was at 13.35 in 1980), and unemployment was at a more “reasonable” 7.1% level.

So, since Drew opened this, let’s take a look, shall we, at how our current “bad economy” compares to the one Jimmy Carter handed to Reagan.

Inflation:12.5% Carter, 4.1% Bush

Prime Interest Rates: 13.35% Carter, 5.02% Bush (and have dropped more since the final ’07 figures)

Unemployment: 7.1% Carter, 4.6% Bush

So. what lessons can we draw from this? Well, certainly we can learn that we should check facts before making statements like “Just like Reagan, Bush II has taken a balanced budget and screwed it up.”

But we should also learn from this that we should place our current economic situation in historical perspective. While we are flirting with a recession (defined as 2 consecutive quarters of “negative growth” in the GDP), we have, by many measures a strong economy. Some would argue that it is built on a deck of cards, and that all these indicators are simply castles in the sand. Perhaps. Or perhaps economies always have troubles, and challenges, and growing and declining markets.

Perhaps we have had it so good, for so long, that we lose sight of how good we still are doing today, compared to even 30 years ago.

The Ad: Narrator: Who has what it takes to really bring change? To finally take on the special interests — not take their money. Who made the right judgment about opposing the war and had the courage and character to speak honestly about it. And who in times of challenge will unite us — not use fear and calculation to divide us.

Special interests are evil. They are to be reviled. They are to be stopped. And politicians certainly shouldn’t take their money. I would suspect if asked, politicians would say they certainly would not welcome endorsements from special interests. But what, exactly, are special interests?

According to one source from Princeton, special interests are “an individual or group who are concerned with some particular part of the economy and who try to influence legislators or bureaucrats to act in their favor.” Webster’s similarly defines it as “a person or group seeking to influence legislative or government policy to further often narrowly defined interests.”

With so many politicians pushing for the removal of special interests, we are left asking “Who are special interests?”

Obviously “Big Oil” qualifies. So does the “Military Industrial Complex.” Evil, well orchestrated special interests. But how about another list? The next list is a group of “special interests” fitting the definitions above. They all have a specific agenda they are putting forward, seeking to influence political outcomes. Yet, the favor of this collection seems to be curried by the politicans (some more than others depending on your political leanings.)

• World Wildlife Fund
• The Sierra Club
• United Auto Workers
• National Education Association
• AARP
• Air Force Association
• Military Officers Association of America

Obviously the list could go on and on. The reality is the “special interests” that Obama, and Clinton(s) speak about are those that oppose their own views. Those special interest groups must be stopped. Must be silenced. Must be controlled.

Apparently the view is that “The groups with which I agree cannot possibly be “special interest” groups. Special Interest groups are evil.” Yes, I am putting words in people’s mouths, but ask yourself this: if legislation was passed to remove ALL influence of any group from the halls of national, state, and local legislators, would you feel represented?

So a couple questions for you then:

1. Should “special interests” be stopped?
2. Should “select” special interests (SI’s) be stopped?
3. If select SI’s, how do we determine which ones are “good” and which are “evil”?
4. Can we do #3 without making it a “left/right” political battle?

Finally, I leave you with this thought. “Special Interests” are the cause of the failure of the system. Corrupt politicians who accept bribes, and promises and campaign money are the problem. Sure we can try to stop organizations from officially giving money. But as we have seen with the various analyses of the Obama and Clinton donators the money will still come in from individuals all supporting a candidate with views they support. In fact, Clinton(s) recently acknowledged (as reported by CBS) the fine line between these

“There has been a lot of back and forth about oil companies in this campaign, and I’ve got to admit that when I first saw that ad that my opponent ran saying that he didn’t take money from oil companies, I thought nobody takes money from oil companies. It’s been illegal for a hundred years,” Clinton said, pointing out that federal candidates aren’t allowed to take corporate donations.

“Well the fact is he didn’t take money from oil companies, but you can, and we do, take money from people who work for oil companies, they’re Americans, they can contribute, so we both do that,” Clinton admitted.

Let’s all remember that special interests are really simply communities of people with specific interests. Odds are quite good that, whether we realize it or not, we either are members of, or at least support the goals of, a few special interest groups ourselves.

Don’t give in to the rhetoric. Don’t believe the spin.

It struck me today that “tax day” is perfectly placed for politicians.  Far enough ahead of election day that we forget the pain, and far enough after election day that we aren’t thinking about the pain quite yet.

Coincidence?

In Paris, Monday, dozens of protesters jostled with police so persistently that officials were forced several times to make an unprecedented decision to extinguish the flame and halt the procession.

According to CNN, protesters “pierced the thick security bubble surrounding the torchbearers, at times getting their hands on the torch itself.”  Of course, CNN makes no mention of what impact this had on the torchbearer.

Here’s my confusion. In an effort to protest mistreatment of Tibetans by the Chinese government, protesters are reported to have attacked “the torch.” Note to words from the Guardian, “it was buffeted.” Only later in the article do they mention that the torch’s handlers, the runners, had to be protected “behind a phalanx of police and Chinese security guards provided by Beijing.”

Generally, the discussion, and the protests, seem to forget that the “torch” was carried by people. These people, while at times Chinese, were simply carrying a torch that has been a time-honored Olympic symbol since Adolph Hitler’s Germany started the tradition in 1936.

Is it right to protest the mistreatment of Tibetans at the hands of the oppressive communist Chinese government, by attacking runners simply wanting to be part of a 72 year old tradition?

I find out today, quite by accident (someone with the Army found my blog, searching for Randi Rhodes photos) that Randi Rhodes has been “Kicked off Air America for Foul Mouthed Tirade.”

Gee–what a surprise.
I am going to break another one of my rules, and include the report by Jim Roberts here. I only ask that you honor his warning, before going to watch the video.

By Jim Roberts
Apr 3, 2008

It’s not easy being a shock jock, especially in the political arena. Randi Rhodes who last made news last October when she took a nasty spill outside of a bar and it was later blamed on a vast right wing conspiracy by another host on the Air America network has been kicked off the airwaves for ripping into Hillary Clinton and with some sort of a foul mouthed tirade.

Randi Rhodes Kicked off Air America for Foul Mouthed Tirade

She also ripped on Geraldine Ferraro as well dubbing her as “David Duke in Drag”. Rhodes went on the tirade and it was captured on video and she calls everyone that disagrees with her or supports Hillary Clinton a “Whore”. many are comparing her to Jeremiah Wright and are calling it another hate filled rant by yet another Obama supporter.

***

She really ripped into Clinton dropping the F bomb and other nasty comments all the while lashing a little quasi-praise on former New York governor Eliot Spitzer for dropping big bucks on call girls. She even drags Angelina Jolie into the mix as well. It was a sad effort, and another embarrassment for Barack Obama.

The video is here and it contains vulgar language so be warned. Perhaps we can get Randi Rhodes and the Reverend Jeremiah Wright a joint podium and allow them to praise Obama. It is unclear how long she will be suspended for, but the Air America network did release a statement saying she is off the air and has been suspended.

After reading all this, I at times wonder if I should add a category tag for “crack pots.”

I don’t know about you, but I think this was a bit inconsiderate. It’s one thing to put everyone out and call a (trivial, no more than 3 day) strike. But it’s another to, at the 11th hour, cancel the strike, and tell everyone that they are expected to report “as normal” the next day.

One would think that they would have the courtesy to at least “let them off” for a day.

So a revision of winners and losers.  The BIG LOSERS here are the students, and the parents.  But then again, we knew that one going in.

Do you think the teachers will be lenient if homework isn’t done?

If this were a real  strike, then they would emerge the winner. But with a 3 day strike cap, there are only losers.

I say “if this were a real strike” because since the  state has apparently put a 3 day time limit on the strike, the teachers have simply extended the school year.  Barring a “work slow-down/stoppage” or a “sick-out” by the teachers, there will be no real impact other than extending the school year.

Knowing that the strike will end in three days, the school board must simply wait.  At the end of three days, I can imagine the school board starting the next meeting with “Did you enjoy your vacation? Do you have anything else? Are you willing to accept our contract now?”

And before I wrap up, I wanted to remind everyone that the biggest losers are the parents, and students.  The local media has been reporting many “personal impact” stories. Parents are upset because they have had to scramble for childcare.  In the local paper, the Patriot-News, one mother is quoted as saying

“I’m angry about the strike,” said Amy Lavarto, whose three children go to Sporting Hill Elementary School. “I only make minimum wage, and I have to work. I will have to find day care for my children, which is an expense I don’t need.”

While more poignantly, a father expresses his distress over the crisis exacerbated by the teachers’ strike

Jim Perry is to drive his wife to a Philadelphia hospital for brain surgery Thursday morning.

He couldn’t care less about the contract fight between the Cumberland Valley teachers and school board. He doesn’t have time to read their proposals. He doesn’t have the luxury of considering whether Thursday’s planned teachers strike seems justified.

Whatever. Perry said he just needs school to stay open.

“The timing is horrible for me all the way around,” said Perry, whose sons attend Silver Spring Elementary and Eagle View Middle schools.

So, we have parents as losers.

As you all probably know, the Cumberland Valley Education Association was forced to initiate a teacher strike.  It is with great disappointment that I have to announce that I can not work with our outstanding children until a contract has been accepted.  To the best of my efforts I encourage all our young student-athletes to fight for what is right and fair.  That is simply all that I am currently attempting and asking for.

Regardless of my opinion concerning the merits of the strike, I am concerned at the tone put forward in the email.  There is a complete lack of acceptance of responsibility for the actions of the teachers, coming from a teacher!  The CVEA (union) was not “forced” to initiate the strike.  The union chose to reject the latest offer.  Perhaps a correct decision, but a decision on their part.  The union then chose to strike.

Also, since it is up to the coaches and advisors to decide whether or not to continue with their sporting activities, The coach could work with the players.  The school board in the “media alert” specifically wrote “Continuance of athletic events and extracurricular activities are at the discretion of coaches and advisors.” He chooses not to, instead choosing to honor the strike and the picket line.

I understand supporting one’s union.  I really do.  I just ask that we all accept that our actions are a result of our choices that we make.

Stand up.

Take ownership of your own decisions.

THAT is perhaps the best lesson we can teach our kids during times like these.

What have the teachers offered as compromise? From all reports, the teachers’ union has simply dug in their heels, and tried to convince the populace that the school board is failing to give them a pay raise.

Who wins, and who loses on a strike?

THE WINNERS:

Teachers think they will win, obviously. They have nothing to lose. They strike, they come back and teach, and even if they now accept the latest offer they get their full 9 months of pay (with a bonus check–remember the retroactive bit?)

The school board may or may not meet the (un-reported) demands of the teacher’s union. But regardless, the school board doesn’t “lose” anything.

THE LOSERS:

The students. They lose, because they have a loss of continuity in their education plan. They lose because for months now, teachers have been fostering a “hostile learning environment” keeping the students (and parents) wondering if, in 48 hours, there would be a strike. On top of that, at least one teacher told his students that, if there was a strike, he would be sending a “work packet” home for them to complete during the strike. In addition, they lose because any plans they may have had for a summer (including summer jobs, to help them earn money for, among other things, college) have to be adjusted.

The parents: For those parents of young children that work, there will be an increased cost either through lost wages, or increased childcare costs. What about those parents that can’t afford the additional costs of childcare? Well–they can just stay home from work, right? So for a few, the choice is either pay for more childcare, or lose income. Additionally, parents may have had plans for summer “break.” Imagine a job where you have to request time off for vacation, and schedule it in advance. You know those jobs–the ones where you work 12 months a year?

The taxpayers: Regardless of the final outcome, it is guaranteed that taxpayers will be paying teachers more money to teach. This is a burden that taxpayers are willing to reasonably carry to provide a good education for the children in the community. I suspect though that taxpayers are keenly aware of what is reasonable, and what is unreasonable. It would seem to me at least that unreasonable is a teachers’ union that fails to negotiate. Of course, a “double whammy” exists for the parents, here. They have the burden of increased child-care costs, only to be rewarded with an (undoubtedly) increased tax burden.

One final thought: The teachers don’t “lose” anything here. There is no cost to them for striking. In most strikes, the unions have to balance the near-term lost wages with the long term gains. They must also consider the lost good-will with their customers who may well choose to go elsewhere with their shopping dollars. In this case, students are required, by law, to attend school. The teachers will come back and teach the remaining class days–and get paid for a full year (did I mention the “bonus check” due to retroactive pay?) The teachers essentially get to hold everyone (especially students) hostage–to achieve not a “fair” contract, but one that is “over the top.”

The Teachers Union. Unreasonable. Uncompromising. Unsupportable.

Let’s start with the credibility.  I wondered about the credibility of the author of the article. So I read the credentials listed at the end of the article “Mike Whitney lives in Washington state. He can be reached at fergiewhitney@msn.com” He lives in Washington STATE! Yes–of course, How could I miss that credential! I should listen/pay attention to him. (And does anyone else find it, um… odd, that Mike’s email address is “FERGIE?”)

Now, I would like to take a brief moment to encourage everyone to do something called “research.” You may recall, as regular readers to this site, that I often encourage one to practice academic and intellectual honesty. Stop. Check the data. Question the sources. Challenge the techniques.

First, and most simply, I found that clicking on the source link for the article (http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney/02222008.html) results in a “connection timed out” error. (as of 2/25/08, 1118hr EST) That could mean that everyone is going there and resulted in the site being overloaded, or it could mean that the article on the site has been “pulled.” Either way, the credibility of the source is now questioned. Especially since the main site, Counterpunch.org is also returning a “connection has timed out” error.

Second: There are statements that should be easily verifiable in the article. For instance, the author (Mike? Fergie?) writes: “The $330 billion ARS market has dried up overnight pushing up rates as high as 20 per cent on some bonds…” which is quite a bit of news! Did anyone see this high bond rate reported? Can anyone find a news source that reported this? I would think that, if Fergie/Mike was able to find the information, then it should be “findable” right? I am not saying that the information isn’t there–but I am wondering why sources aren’t given.

Now, actually, it wasn’t that hard to do. I did find this snippet:

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, for instance, is paying $390,000 in interest this week on one $100 million bond that cost just over $83,000 last week, before a failed auction pushed the rate on the bonds to 20 percent from 4.2 percent.

Now, I also found numerous other sites that actually state, verbatim, what Mike/Fergie wrote. For instance, the Free Market News reports:

The credit storm which began in July when two Bear Stearns hedge funds were forced to liquidate, has continued to intensify. Last week the noose tightened around auction-rate securities, a little-known part of the market that requires short-term funding to set rates for long-term municipal bonds. The $330 billion ARS market has dried up overnight pushing up rates as high as 20 per cent on some bonds — a new benchmark for short term debt.

That should count, right? Well, one might think so, except it really is a summary of the article written by Mike/Fergie, and points back to the (unavailable) site. Move along. Nothing to see here.

And, while I could continue, I will end with this: given that the document written by Mike/Fergie is posted on a website, and created for electronic distribution, he/she should have taken the time to provide links to the actual sources for his/her information. “Good” bloggers at least hold themselves to that standard. Heck, even bad/poor bloggers (like good ol’ Eric over at A Liberal Dose) link to sources where they get the information they then distort. This may well be a maelstrom that consumes all in the fiery demise of the world economy. But then again, without sources (reputable or otherwise) this is simply another pundit, among the many, touting gloom and doom.

That said, enjoy the following clip from YouTube and Saturday Night Live.

Apparently, there is an on-going debate amongst biblical scholars (minimalists, and maximalists) concerning whether one can accept the historicity of biblical texts. As I understand it, the maximalists argue that barring evidence to the contrary the historicity of biblical texts should be accepted as fact. The minimalists instead argue that without additional evidence those texts are to be viewed as “not true” and thus not trusted.

That’s all well and good.  Except for one thing. According to my brother, they then proceed to tell you what they think “really” happened.  So maximalists (according to the minimalists) make the fatal error of believing documents contemporary  to the time under study, while the minimalists are able to, through some other means, discover the “real truth” with testimony.

Magic…

Of course, as part of the on-going discourse Dr Jim West decides to critique the “contemporary text” which my brother wrote, and create his own (mis) interpretation of what was written. He then goes on to address the error of my brother’s interpretation of my brother’s own writing.  Interesting.

So, let me ask you, dear Reader, how do you (knowing my brother writes, on his own blog) interpret my brother’s line:

Dr. Jim West (I am a doctor as well, just not a “real” doctor, as my grandmother will tell you) calls this an “impossible impossibility” and says that you cannot prove a negative.

So, in this case, what struck me as interesting, is that we have a microcosm of exactly what the debate is about.  The text seemed, clear, and we were even provided the author’s own statement of intent.  And yet, a minimalist chooses to tell us what “it really meant.”

At the end of the day, I found myself wondering how we are able to communicate at all, if such a simple sentence is so easily misunderstood.

I am unable to listen to my favorite drive-time AM talk radio anymore. I know you’re all crying for me. It seems like my (heretofore arguably semi-rational) talkbots are downloading their RNC talking points again, and the message is “John McCain is the Republican Candidate, Everebody Get In Goosestep err Lockstep err I mean Line!”

Now I don’t have a dog in this fight at all. As a card-carrying Civil Libertarian, I only get mildly interested in RepubliCrat (DemmiCan?) follies when our interests overlap (social issues for D’s, economic for R’s generally).

However- the argument from the bullies on the right now seems to be “We Need To Support McCain Because Otherwise We Will Get Hillary.” In various forms- the message is if you don’t support McCain, you are supporting ClintAma. BarIllary? What-ev.

Now a few years back (when I was doing my cypherin’ on coal shovels by candlelight) I took a class in rhetoric. I vaguely remember something about the logical fallacy called “The False Dilemma.” Sound familiar?

The underlying, unspoken assumption of the Bullies on the Right is that McCain would actually stand a ghost of a chance against Hillary Nation. Or the OpraBamicans. So therefore, all good soldiers of conservatism must abandon their principles, hold their noses, and line up behind McCain in order to not “throw their votes away and put HillAma in office.”

So- here we all are on September 5th, 2008. The “Dream Ticket” of McCain-Whoever has now taken up the battle standard and marches off into the meat grinder . . . then what? Will McMaverick enjoy the benefit of the free ride he has been getting so far once he goes up against a “true” progressive? Keating 5, Keating 5, hmmm . . . voting record, voting record, hmmm . . . old white guy, old white guy, hmmm . . . war pig, war pig, hmmm . . . do you think the MSM will let McCain’s and Hillary’s stench factor cancel each other out, and focus on “The Issues?” Not likely.

McCain is a pinata in a Louisville Slugger factory, he just doesn’t know it yet.

The “national polls” showing McCain competitive against Barillary in a head to head matchup (taken today) are a phantom. Give the MSM a couple of months to proctologize over John McCain and it will be a BLOWOUT.

You heard it here first.

So for my on again/off again friends on “The Right:” you can die with your swords in your hand or your [male genitalia] in your hand . . . choose wisely!*

Scorch

*apologies to my USMC friends for stealing part of their culture to make this point

Welcome, Steve!

Academics of all people should remember that the plural of anecdote is not data.

I find this to be a humorous, and in some way, interesting quote. I also find myself “engaging” with the quote in ways that I didn’t expect. This statement challenges really two fundamental concepts–that of anecdote, and of data. When does a collection of anecdotes step out of a collection of “stories” and actually add up to real, actionable data?

Data is, at the most broad, a collection of anecdotal evidence that builds a case over time. In fact, case-study analysis is simply a rigorous approach to gathering anecdotal evidence. Yes, you are limited in the amount of pure statistical analysis that can be accomplished through the gathering of anecdotal evidence, but anecdotes bring a richness to the data that one cannot get through simple “number crunching.”

In addition, an anecdote could be considered a data point of one. And sometimes “one” is all you need. How many times should a car not start before you suspect a problem? How many space shuttles do we need to blow up before we learn about O-rings? If one is seeking to improve service, enhance quality, or improve a reputation, then every negative “anecdote” is a story of failure–failure that must be controlled, corrected, and eliminated.

On the other hand, anecdotes of success should be plentiful, and instructive, if they help one overcome the failures in the other negative anecdotes. Anecdotes about repeated success help in that they demonstrate that success can be achieved, and perhaps can be “replicated” with appropriate processes.

Let’s look at one example. In a blog written by one of my students, he struggles with poor customer service from (stand by for stereotype) “the cable guy.” At the end of the day, the cable guy dragged mud over the carpets, cut two holes in the wall (only needing one) and then had to leave so couldn’t repair the damage to the wall.

The best part about the entire story was, the installer had to be at another appointment and couldn’t fix the hole in my wall. I asked what he was going to do about the wall and he gave me some putty and a sponge and explained how to fix it. He then gave me my $80 installation bill and was on his merry way.

Is it any wonder this customer was upset?

Comcast (as Wesley points out) “wants to be perceived as the leader in cable services.” If one seeks to deliver a high quality service, error free, on-time, every time, then a single story of failure is a failure. In fact, what the Comcast blog posting points out is that a service provider, Comcast, is failing in key aspects of the delivery of that service.

The Fitzsimmons’ write, in their book Service Management that reputation is often a key dimension to the provision of a service. They write:

The uncertainty that is associated with the selection of a service provider often is resolved by talking with others about their experiences before a decision is made. Unlike a product, a poor service experience cannot be exchanged or returned for a different model.

So the “take away” here is that for an individual about to make a decision an anecdote is “data.” And as negative experiences begin to collect, the weight of these anecdotes can tarnish (perhaps irretrievably) the reputation of an organization, or a person.

So, does the simple statement “the plural of anecdote is not data” hold true? I think not. Cute, but alas, wrong.

In reading through the comments, one thing has struck me. Many accuse the evangelicals of “brain washing” these kids, and the old canard makes its way back once again with a few arguing that children should not be exposed to religion until they are old enough to think for themselves. Ahhh, yes. And at what age do we believe that to be?

I am not being flippant here. The question that comes to mind, for me, is when do we stop teaching our children only how to read, write, and do math, and instead instill in them the tools necessary for critical thinking?

Is that at age 3, when they start asking the “why” questions? Is that not their first attempts at seeking to critically explain the world around them?

Is it at age 8, when they have started school, and are now beginning to see that not everyone looks the same, dresses the same, or likes the same foods?

Is it at age 12, as they enter puberty, and notice that boys and girls are different? As they begin to grapple with the changes in their bodies (or wonder why their’s hasn’t changed yet?)

Perhaps it is 16, when we tell them they are now old enough to drive a car, or 18 when they can vote and join the military, or 21 when society says we can now trust you with alcohol?

Perhaps it is not so far fetched to assume that religion can play a role in all aspects of growth. That it isn’t a bad thing for children to grow up with the sense of worth that comes from knowing that you were created, and that God loves you in a perfect way that your imperfect parents cannot.

Perhaps it is not a bad thing for children, at all ages, to question, and challenge, the accepted views of the world, to say “maybe evolution isn’t the best explanation for the world around me.”

Maybe we should focus more on instilling and developing critical thinking skills in our children and less time “protecting” them from having to think critically.

Lynn write about finding a newspaper from 1949, and realizing that writing has changed, and she encourages us to change as well:

The same is true of business writing. The language we use and the way we format documents are different. Yet I often get worried email complaining that writers no longer use the language, style, structure, and punctuation people learned in school.

Here is my answer: Get over it! This is not 1949–it’s nearly 2008. Embrace the differences. Accept “Hey” as an email greeting without cringing. Learn to like avatars in place of photos on web sites. (I’m working on this one.) Stop saying “The way I was taught in school . . .” Enjoy the new year.

I cannot say I wholeheartedly agree with her, but I certainly agree in large measure!  I think we walk a fine line between writing with standards that communicates effectively, and allowing our colleagues and our friends to find ways to express themselves.

Let’s all learn to at least “get along” and ensure we communicate–effectively!

I would like you all to think, just for a minute, about some of the other conveniences we enjoy. For instance, in State College, PA there is once again “to the door” delivery of milk. Yes, the milkman is back, at least in that town. I applaud the desire to purchase locally raised eggs and dairy products, perhaps even without the assistance of chemical hormone supplements. I just question whether the “to the door” delivery is actually, as their website insists, an “environmentally-sensible solution to your essential grocery needs.”

Now, before you go insisting that “there goes that prof again…” let me ask you to consider a few things:

• Do you go to the store more frequently simply to get milk, eggs, and other dairy products?
• Is your private automobile more, or less, fuel efficient than the truck used to deliver the dairy?
• Are you actually ordering the more natural, and organic, choices or are you simply buying the same Schneider milk from a different source?

I look forward to perhaps seeing some of your thoughts here, so please, share your answers to these questions with all of us!

The theory of abiogenic petroleum origin holds that natural petroleum was formed from deep carbon deposits, perhaps dating to theformation of the Earth. The ubiquity of hydrocarbons in the solar system is taken as evidence that there may be a great deal more petroleum on Earth than commonly thought, and that petroleum may originate from carbon-bearing fluids which migrate upward from the mantle.

The theory thus challenges the view that petroleum products are “fossil fuels” created over millions of years by the decaying of dinosaurs and ancient pre-historic plant life. It argues that petroleum may be a renewable resource that flows up from the magma. In fact, it is a theory that has had a recent resurgence to popularity with the release of the book “The Deep Hot Biosphere” by Thomas Gold.

Why do I bring this up? First, my daughter is a geology major, and so I have renewed interest in all things “rock.” Even more recently, I have been reading the book “Omnivore’s Dilemma” in which the author, Pollan, constantly refers to the use of “fossil fuels” in the production of food. It struck me, after reading this over, and over again, that he has “bought in” to the traditional view completely. He rarely if ever refers to this as “petroleum products.” I have since noticed that the use of the term “fossil fuel” is quite prevalent in the media–far more so than the non-value statement petroleum.

I am sure this seems silly, but to me it is significant. By labeling this “fossil fuel” rather than “petroleum products” the authors are passing scientific judgment–that this is the way the oil is created. Not simply what type of product it is. It appears to me that by using “fossil fuel” as a phrase, people are trying to convey far more than simply a discussion about the pre-historic source of our fuel.

Now when would fossil fuel be a more appropriate word to use? When discussing coal, for instance.

I am not convinced that oil is produced through abiogenic processes, but I am convinced that there is still healthy debate concerning the topic.

I obviously asked what the legal basis was for that decision, since having already read through the appropriate legal documents (Title 15) I had not read anything in the law that would preclude it.  I was told it was “in the state code.”

“Oh? Could you give me a reference?”

“Hold on, sir.  Yes–go to our website and search for ‘Title 15.’”

“Thanks–could you tell me what paragraph in Title 15? I have already read through it and didn’t see anything that would preclude it.”

“Sir, we are not a legal research library.”

I started to argue, again saying I had already read through the title, and if she was going to give an answer she should be able to support it, but I gave up.  They won.

Honestly, I was not too pleased, since I was given the “it’s on the website” answer.  What really frustrated me the most though was that I was given a <B>definitive</B> answer (or is it declarative?) but they could not provide any support for their answer.

Should we push for legislation that would require government officials (especially those working answer lines, like the DMV and the IRS) to be able to support their answers?  If their answers will actually impact our behavior, our lifestyles, and perhaps our income taxes, shouldn’t we be given the source information, if requested?

Let me know your thoughts on this.

Prof

But that’s not what this post is about. The other blog that I frequent in the one written by the Community College Dean. He posts nearly every weekday, and while I have often found myself quite frustrated by his own admittedly liberal bias, I still read on. Which brings me to a regular topic of discussion on his blog–the role of adjuncts at Universities, Colleges, and Community Colleges.

In the most recent post Dean Dad (his psuedonym) discusses the possible states of nature that could arise if adjuncts form unions and enter in to collective bargaining agreements. He has regularly bought in to the notion that adjuncts aren’t paid enough, and that it is unfair to adjuncts that they cannot earn a living wage in that role. In addition, many of his readers talk about adjunct positions as a sort of training ground. He wrote back in May 2007 comparing AAA Baseball and students, and faculty. It is a good read, and I commend it to you. In that article, he writes that in baseball AAA teams are a place to learn one’s trade before moving on to the “big league.” He then notes that this analogy is a good one for students wrapping up their 2 years at the community college, but that he “loathe it applied to faculty.” He points out (rightly) that graduate school is, in itself, the minor leagues. (I would argue that so is the tenure process.) He writes that “To add the expectation of years of adjuncting and chair-pleasing before even getting a shot at a full-time job – effectively, yet another level of apprenticeship — strikes me as adding insult to injury.”

Ahh, what about the fact that the analogy is flawed on its face? AAA ball *is* about development. Adjuncting isn’t. As I have written here before, an ‘adjunct’ should be serving the college/university as an additional job to that which they already have. They aren’t there as some sort of “developmental pool.” It is this trend away from adjuncts working a fulltime outside job, and bringing that experience into the classroom, that I personally believe has cheapened the role of adjunct.

I am not sure if there is an appropriate sporting analogy. I mean, softball leagues would be my first thought. You aren’t doing “ball” as your job, but you do it because you love it (or you love beer.) Of course, you don’t bring all that professional “cred” that adjuncts bring to the classroom. Perhaps the best analogy is that of swim coach. Most often the coach was a good to great swimmer themselves when they were younger. They have been there. They have done that. They have the “Cred” that the young swimmers need. They almost all have full time jobs, though (and in my experience almost all have been teachers.) Only a few, the truly “gifted,” go on to be those swim coaches that get to coach full time, for college or national teams. Do you hear Swim Coaches complain that they have to coach for 3 or 4 different teams, and never get that shot at being the “big team” coach? Nope. They know–they UNDERSTAND– that their role is different. Yup. I like this analogy.

*note: editorial changes/additions since first posted 10 Oct 07

=============================

DC Velocity has published a great article pointing out the way in which logistics (and by extension, supply chain management) comes through time and time again–and occasionally with a high profile effort. In this case, the author writes about the logistics efforts that were essential to the successful roll-out of the latest, and final, Harry Potter book.

I mention the author, Peter Bradley, focuses on the logistics necessary to deliver 12 million books in quantities large (and small) around the globe for a single, timed, opening. This of course goes beyond a simple planning and execution initiative. It required coordination, as Bradley mentions, between the publisher, and a network of transportation providers (carriers.) He writes:

Scholastic’s success was no act of magic. Rather, it was a carefully planned and executed distribution effort that required close collaboration among members of the company’s logistics team and a core group of carriers.

Planning for the rollout began in January, even before Scholastic had the finished manuscript. Internally at Scholastic, the project would require tight coordination among members of the logistics staff and their colleagues in sales, purchasing, customer service, and manufacturing. Yablin points to Ed Swart, director of operations, and Francine Colaneri, vice president of manufacturing and procurement, as key partners and team members.

The close collaboration also extended to Scholastic’s logistics partners: J.B. Hunt, Combined Express, Yellow Transportation, and ActivAir. J.B. Hunt, one of the nation’s largest truckload carriers, moved the majority of the books—all but about a million of the copies. Hunt operated in partnership with Combined Express, a Bensalem, Pa. based logistics and trucking company that specializes in publishing and retail shipping. Yellow Transportation, a major LTL carrier, handled domestic LTL shipments. ActivAir, an international forwarder that specializes in book and magazine distribution, managed international shipments to 32 destinations in 29 countries.

I would like to point out that contemporary to this initiative was the release of the much-touted iPhone. That release required a delivery between 4 and 6 pm local time, for a store opening of 6 in the evening. Another opportunity for logistics to shine.

Let’s not lose sight of the importance of collaboration across the supply chain for both of these products. In both cases, there was a line in the sand–a promised delivery date for large scale release. Satisfactorily meeting these dates required not only a close coordination of “in house” production but also coordination among all the suppliers that provide key elements to your product. In the case of the iPhone, there are many components that make up the phone, from numerous suppliers. According to their analysis (as reported in RFDesign)these suppliers include: South Korea’s Samsung (The processor core), German-based Infineon (providing the RF and broadband functions), and National Semiconductor (a single chip.) In addition, the most exciting part of the iPhone, the multi-touch screen, has many providers:

It is believed by iSuppli that the supplier for the touchscreen module in the model torn down by iSuppli was Balda, with its partner TPK Holding. It is believed by iSuppli that the iPhone LCD display itself is multi-sourced through Epson Imaging Devices, Sharp and Toshiba Matsushita Display Technology. The cost of the LCD used in the iPhone is estimated at $24.50, representing 9.8% of the 8 Gbyte version’s costs. source: RFDesign http://rfdesign.com/rfic/iphone-isuppli-components-0712/

Coordinating such a complex, and global, supply chain and ensuring pinpoint accuracy in delivery (both spatial and temporal) shows how a collaborative supply chain can truly deliver.

At the end, he writes that it will be a great memory for when he “won’t know anything, and she’ll greet me with a roll of the eyes and a contemptuous ‘Da-a-ad.’”

I am quite fortunate.  Perhaps I am simply blessed with great short term memory, but my kids have never truly treated me that way.  We had a great time when they were little, and while at times I am reminded I am not needed as often, they still make time for Dad, and for Mom.

Go read Dean Dad’s post.  Enjoy it.  Tell him you heard about him from here.  And go–make your own great memories with YOUR kids.

(and, if you want to learn a bit more about my relationship with my son, go check out our blog  and podcast, at the Father Son Chats.)

Thankfully, others have taken on this task.  Specifically, Seth Godin (you know, the “All Marketers are Liars” author! and blog) has identified several ways that Apple could have differentiated their product, making people “happy” to have paid 33% more for the same product.  As he puts it, “The key is to not give price protection to early buyers (that’s unsustainable as a business model) but to make them feel more exclusive, not less.”

Godin’s ideas include:

• Free exclusive ringtones, commissioned from Bob Dylan and U2, only available to the people who already had a phone. (This is my favorite because it announces to your friends–every time the phone rings–that you got in early).
• Free pass to get to the head of the line next time a new hot product comes out.
• Ability to buy a specially colored iPod, or an iPod with limited edition music that no one else can buy.

Neat–and as he points out, they wouldn’t have cost Apple $20 Million in profit.

I think it is time for another look at that old friend of Economists and students in Econ 101, the “Demand Curve” and the slightly more complex notion of “Price Discrimination.”

To catch up, you undoubtedly recall that the demand curve essentially shows that, as prices decrease, demand will increase for a product. This is shown in the following graph:

Thus we can expect Steve Jobs is correct in saying that they did this to increase sales before the Christmas season. In fact, lowering the price should increase the sales, assuming that there is elasticity in the pricing and demand curve. Remember, elasticity is the degree to which quantity changes with a change in price. The more elastic, the greater the change (steeper the slope of the curve.)

Now, there is this other notion of “price discrimination.” Price discrimination, or “Yield Management,” is the practice of charging different customers a different price for the same product. The notion is really quite simple. As we saw in the Demand Curve, a few people are willing to pay a high price for a product. A few more would be willing to be a lower price, and so on. In the charts that follow, one can see how, by targeting different customers at different prices points, one can increase total revenue.

The first chart shows the revenue generated if one were to charge a single price. You can see that above the “box” is the revenue that is essentially lost due to customers getting a “good deal.” They would have paid more, but are most likely happy that they were able to pay less. Of course, to the right of the “box” is revenue lost because customers felt the price was not at a point where they could make a purchase.

This next chart shows, notionally, what would happen to revenue if a business were able to successfully segment the market, and provide 6 different price-points. As you can see a far greater area under the curve is colored in, showing a significantly greater amount of revenue.

By identifying these customers, and finding ways to segment the market, a business can capture more revenue by charging higher prices to those willing to pay those prices. Ideally, businesses would like to charge a different price for every customer, targeting the maximum price they are willing to pay. That level of price discrimination would ensure that every customer felt they were receiving a “fair” deal, while removing even the smallest gaps between revenue and the demand curve. This is rare, although an argument could be made that we see this in online auctions and in car sales with negotiations.

Realistically, we do see price discrimination in our daily lives. Customers can find the “same” available for different prices, simply by shopping at different stores. What makes people pay more? A sense that they are receiving something additional for the increased costs. We are perhaps most familiar with this practice in the airline industry, where yield management has gone from art to science. We pay more for a first class ticket (obvious difference in treatment, although you still arrive at the same destination.) But customers also pay a higher price for the privilege of changing travel arrangements, or for the ability to purchase tickets at the last minute. Alternatively, the airlines are able to ensure full planes by offering a select (and scientifically computed) number of seats at lower prices. Travelers must purchase these tickets within certain guidelines, but more tickets are sold (and seats filled), because they are able to capture those people who could otherwise (perhaps) not afford to travel.

If you look around, you can find other instances as well. Coffee is more expensive depending on whether a coffee shop has the right “feel.” Clothing is more expensive when purchased at “higher end” stores.

What is critical here is the ability to segment your customers, and by doing so, create barriers to transfer. This can be accomplished in many ways to include rules ( in the airline and cellphone industries), controlling information (automobile industry), perception of enhanced service (coffee shops and boutiques) and through geography (different shopping “districts.”)

So what does all this have to do with Apple?

I am glad you asked. I believe Apple made a “good call.” They sought to capture as many people in the high end of the Demand Curve as possible. The problem (if you believe that sales may have been trailing off in August) is that the demographic may have been smaller than they anticipated, or they all reacted more quickly purchasing en masse early on. This then left a potentially large amount of sales untapped. This is essentially what Steve Jobs was talking about when he kept referring to capturing the holiday sales. They want to increase sales and to do that, they must change the price point. This slides them down and to the right along the demand curve.

I suggest that Apple was trying to practice what I will call “temporal price discrimination.” They were hoping to capture the “big spenders” early, and then move down the curve, capturing sales from those who could not, or would not, spend at the higher price points. Unfortunately Steve Jobs misjudged the timing. The group that purchased the iPhones at the higher prices were not satisfied to say that 30 to 60 days of use of an iPhone was sufficient differentiation in their minds to have paid a higher price. For many, one could argue it wasn’t worth $100 to $200 per month to have a cool phone.

So, Apple failed to take the necessary steps to successfully practice price discrimination. They failed to differentiate and segment their customers in a significant and substantial way. They did try to create barriers. They were going to limit the number of people that could “switch”¹ to the lower price by putting a time window on when you could get your money back. But customers, apparently in droves, pressured Apple early and often. Jobs responded within 36 hours, offering in store credit (among other reported compensations.)

All in all, I think this has been an interesting time. I have only given a cursory look at the economics involved, and there are far more details I left out (did I forget to mention marginal costs?)  Also, I am sure there are many other factors and pressures that influenced Apple’s initial decision, and some may even include a pending shift in the demand curve itself. (If new technology makes customers feel this iPhone Gen 1 is “obsolete” then the whole demand curve might shift to the left…) Perhaps we shall revisit this topic…

¹ Ironic that, eh? Apple trying to stop people from switching?

Nope.

According to the IRS Publication 523, “Loss on sale.  If the amount realized is less than the adjusted basis, the difference is a loss. A loss on the sale of your main home cannot be deducted.”

The Federal Government has given help over the past few years allowing an exemption for gains on the sale of the main home/residence.  This was intended to help ease the tax burden as the values of homes skyrocketed, and allow for the  keeping of that equity on which so many had come to rely.

Unfortunately, the same “benefit” does not extend to a tax break when we have a “loss” on a home.  Obviously, when all the housing property values were increasing we were not as concerned about the possible tax implications of a loss.  In fact, I suspect few people realized that we could not claim a loss on our homes on our income taxes.

I propose the following legislative action:

• Introduce legislation allowing for the deduction off the income taxes of a “loss” on the sale of a main home.
• Make it “emergency legislation” enacted for this tax year, and only temporary, to carry through the next two to four years of the depressed housing market.

The way I see it, this approach is consistent with the logic of not taxing the gain.  If we as a nation seek to minimize the tax impact of home ownership, and in fact encourage home ownership, then it makes sense to not tax the gain on the sale of your private, main home.  It would also then follow that one should receive a “break” on taxes if that home ownership resulted in a loss on the sale.   Removing concerns such as the concern for a profit, or a loss, frees up buyers and sellers allowing them to make decisions to sell a home without an expectation of severe negative impacts at a later date.

There are far more economic benefits to my modest proposal.  For instance, it allows someone who had to take a loss (most likely forced by pending foreclosure, or a move) to more easily move into another home.

I would encourage you to submit your own positive impacts as comments here, and if you support this idea, please write to YOUR congressperson.  You can find them at this link.

Now, without any further ado, the excerpt:

Q: Very good. (It didn’t fit the rhythm, and anyway they get the picture.) How would you react to the idea that a psychological trait, one intimately linked to the higher mental functions, is highly heritable?

A: With suspicion and unease, naturally.

Q: It’s strongly correlated with educational achievement, class and race.

A: Worse and worse.

Q: Basically nothing that happens after early adolescence makes an impact on it; before that it’s also correlated with diet.

A: Do you work at the Heritage Foundation? Such things cannot be.

Q: What if I told you the trait was accent?

A: I’m sorry?

Q (in a transparently fake California accent): When you, like, say words differently than other people? who speak, like, the same language? because that’s how you, you know, learned to say them from people around you?

A: Do you have a point to make, or are you just yanking my chain?

Q: Would you agree that accent has all the characteristics I just described?

A: Higher cognitive functions — heritable — class and race — not plastic after adolesence — correlation with diet, hah! — I guess I must.

Q: But would you say that there is any genetic or even congenital component to accent?

A: Not really. Obviously, some congenital conditions, like deafness or defects of the vocal chords, make it hard to impossible to acquire any accent. And I can imagine, though I don’t know of anything, that there might be very specific mutations which make it hard to hear a distinction between a given pair of sounds, or easier to learn a specific distinction. But, in general, no, there is no non-trivial genetic component to accent.

Q: Then why were you worried that I was about to start channeling Arthur Jensen?

A: Because those are the sorts of claims usually trotted out by people who want to claim that something is innate, un-plastic, and usually invidiously distributed; sometimes there is a “sadly” to the claims of group inferiority, and sometimes, I think, that “sadly” is even genuine.

– The Professor

Do us a favor and go DIGG it as well! (You may have to create an account–it’s free!)

Well, I thought I was losing my mind, but after several months of staring at the floorboards in the bathroom, I finally said to my wife and son, “well, I may be crazy, but has anyone else ever seen, in the floorboards of the bathroom–”

And my son interjected “The face of Jesus!?”

Had me wondering. I mean, if the Virgin Mary can appear in a piece of toast, whose to say Jesus wouldn’t want to appear in a hardwood floor? Besides, one would expect the wood to have a longer “shelf” life than toasted bread!

Well, yes, that is exactly what I thought it was as well. What do you all think? (click on the image to see a larger view)

Do you think this is a “sign”? Perhaps it helps the sale value of the house! A pilgrimage?

The Prof

So why do I bring this up today? What takes me back to this well one more time? Well, having visited him today, I was surprised to see what seemed like real reporting. (Hey, he has a journalism degree–it could happen!) I saw no citations, no links, and it wasn’t simply a cut and paste job. He wrote a rather lengthy piece about a new battlefield robot, Binky.

The remote-controlled, plush mechanical champion, called “Binky”, is soft on the exterior, but contains a titanium-alloy endoskeletal frame, making it tough enough for the battlefield.

It was an interesting piece. And it turns out, a fabricated piece. Oh not completely out of whole cloth mind you. It’s based on a real story from the New Scientist Magazine website. In that story they write about a robot that honestly will rescue fallen soldiers. And it does have a cutsie name–it’s called BEAR.

A remote-controlled robot that will rescue injured or abducted soldiers, without putting the lives of their comrades at risk, is being developed for the US army. The 1.8-metre-tall Battlefield Extraction-Assist Robot (Bear) will be able to travel over bumpy terrain and squeeze through doorways while carrying an injured soldier in its arms.

That’s alright. I realize it was his attempt at humor. And perhaps even in some way satire. I would have liked him to have given something of a hat tip to the Magazine though. The closest he came was referring to “News Scientist” when he wrote:

Binky, an acronym for Battleready Industrial Neo-Kevlar Yeoman, is part of the Pentagon’s next-generation “Mechanical Myrmidons”, destined for Afghanistan and Iraq, according to News Scientist.

I am beginning to feel the fool. All this time I was thinking this “New Patriot” was writing serious pieces expressing honest opinions about politics, the war in Iraq, and President Bush. Apparently I misunderstood. He is really writing fanciful stories about what the news could have said, but didn’t. That does explain why it seemed to me he was misquoting sources. He wasn’t. He was writing comedy. True satire. Making stuff up! (UNC must be SO proud of him! His skills at fabricating news are about ready for Prime Time. You hear that, New York Times? Stephen Colbert?)

So, let’s go over the stories that he recently covered that apparently he “didn’t quite mean.”

• The war in Iraq is lost. Apparently not. If my “new” understanding of his writings are correct, this is meant to show how we are really “winning.”
• Neo-cons want to limit freedoms. Now see, he really didn’t mean that. By actually writing what he did, he is trying to point out that conservatives don’t censor. Hey, if they did, could he actually write that stuff?
• Problems with firing the Attorneys? Naw, he was writing satire again, pointing out how this is so like what the Clintons did with their firings. Remember those?

So, in the words of America’s great President, Ronald Reagan, “There you go again…”

“When you make the finding yourself – even if you’re the last person on Earth to see the light – you’ll never forget it.” Carl Sagan

First, I want to recommend that you go read about the $30,000 toothbrush. Okay, so the toothbrush itself didn’t cost that much, but failing to fulfill a simple promise (you know the one “if you forgot a basic toiletry item we will bring one right up to you!”) resulted in a very expensive negative consequence.¹ There you will also find my comments on what a company should do to turn this whole thing around.

Second, I wanted to point out that you can see what I am finding interesting by looking for my tags at http://del.icio.us. If you don’t want to go there on your own, just click on the del.icio.us information on the bottom right of this blog.

Third, I would encourage many of you to not only write to me, but please, let’s start some conversations here! I appreciate the emails (Thanks, Ryan!) but much of what you guys write would be interesting to all. So Mike, Ryan, and the rest of you–engage!  Also, if you like the podcasts, and want to contribute or be a “guest contributor” let me know.  I can set up a telephone “interview!”

Finally, some tidbits of interest:

• iPhone release date June 29th. Any of you getting one?
• HTC Announces their new “touch phone”
• Hugo Chavez, Poster Child of the Anti-War left,^2. is facing uprisings and chastisement for shutting down the free press. And the US Liberals say BUSH is against Free Speech?  What TV or radio stations has he shut down?  Or better yet–do you know of any blogs the Bush White House has shutdown?
• In case you missed it, Fred Thompson is moving towards running for President.  So far he is my guy and apparently many others.  Hey, he OWNED Michael Moore. You gotta love THAT (and hat tip to John C. Dvorak, of http://dvorak.org/blog.)

Well, there you have em.  A few tidbits.  Let me know what you think!

The Professor

^1. An interesting aside: Just a few weeks ago, I stopped at a hotel because I was just too tired to continue. I didn’t have a toothbrush. I called. I was told to come down to the desk to pick it up. So, in my case I would have gotten the free toothbrush, but it wasn’t as convenient as the promise on the card. At least the Hampton Inn hotel is honest. Their card says “Come down to the desk to pick up…”

^2. And going back to that reference from the left, Fleshy then wrote “the reputation and influence of the United States has been reduced to nothing more than that of a common street bully.” Hmmm… Isn’t a Bully someone who forces you to do something you don’t want to do? Sounds more like Chavez than Bush.

As you may recall, I wrote that teens today are social animals, and not that different from the teens of the past that used ice cream parlours, soda counters, and the mall as their means of socializing. In fact,in his presentation at the Penn State Teaching and Learning with Technology 2007 Symposium, Lee Rainie mentioned that in fact most youth today don’t write, or network, or create, for the world to consume.  He believes most do it for their friends, and their small connected groups.

Unfortunately, many of today’s youth are engaged in translating their analog life pursuits into digital ones without necessarily understanding the potentially broad audience.  Many stories have been written in various business journals about companies “googling” prospective employees, or checking their facebook and myspace.com pages.  And the young job-seekers  being surprised when they are confronted with what they themselves posted for the world!  This was made more clear to me in recent discussions over at the Community College Dean’s blog.  On his blog in his “ask an administrator” feature, he was specifically asked (among other things) about whether a Department Chair should reveal that they have found, and are reading, pseudonymous postings by several grad students.  The Chair was actually concerned that the students might feel they are being spied upon!  Is it spying if you write for all the world to read?

(SIDE QUESTION) Question:  Are today’s youth truly “tech saavy” if they don’t understand the world-wide nature of the World Wide Web?

So where do I take this post?  Is this simply a rehash of old thoughts?  No–that would be silly.  I ran across another blog entry over at “Own Your Own Brand!” In this post the author talks about how Mom was significantly networked in her own “social setting” of Small Town USA.  It’s a great story, and I don’t want to re-tell it here.  Honestly, I think you all will enjoy reading it, so go check it out.

There are great lessons the writer draws from this though–lessons that I think perhaps can be applied to our activities both in the “digital space” as well as in our “real” space.  To summarize the points:

• Secrets don’t last long
• Connected is better than disconnected
• Truthful consistency is the best policy

Now imagine if we encouraged everyone in their personal “flesh and blood” activities, and their zero-and-one life, to remember these three things.

Mom is linked.  And so are we.

We start with my theory that by offering multiple operating systems (Ubuntu Linux, Windows XP and Vista) Dell is working to position themselves to sell Apple’s OS-X.

Other things we talk about:

• Does Apple have a quality problem with their Mac Books?
• The Zoom H2 Microphone/Recorder is about ready to be released. according to Inside Home Recording
• The Hitachi Projectors PJTX100 available from B&H Photo
• We love buying audio equipment from BSW – Ask for Justin!
• We do recommend clicking through Scott Bourne’s blog for an online BSW Audio discount.
• TWIT’s tip off to the The Google Toolbar and Webhistory “stalker”
• Linda Ronstadt: You know she dated Jerry Brown right?
• Dvorak.org/blog’s discussions…
  • iPod cheating in school? But I have already written about this!
  • Jet Engine Farts
• Bed Time…

My decision, as you could guess, was based on the largely pragmatic issue of $3/gal gasoline. I enjoy my 2003 Hyundai Santa Fe but the fuel efficiency just isn’t there. I looked at the monthly cost of gasoline at 19 mpg, and decided that I could do better.

I decided that I wanted a Honda hybrid. I own a Honda Pilot that we love, and I have a couple friends who have owned Honda hybrids and they love them for all the reasons a person loves a Honda. Reliability. Design. “Feel.” So there I was, I wanted a Honda. In fact, I had arrived at the clear decision to get an Accord hybrid. I liked the style of the car, it was a spacious sedan, and at 38 mpg, it would be half the fuel cost of my existing Santa Fe. On top of all that, I could get it with Navigation and XM Radio built in! So off I went, dutifully to the local Honda dealer, to inquire about the Accord.

I met my new salesman friend Aldo on the lot, and I quickly told him I wanted a hybrid. He commented that it made sense to want 50 mpg rather than 19. 50?! What was he talking about? The best the Accord could get was 38, I thought. He told me the Civic is rated at about 50 mpg, and that he had a used on one the lot that actually had Navigation and XM factory installed! (And I didn’t think you could even GET a Civic with those features!) I was reluctant. After all it is a smaller car. So I test drove a new one, and the used one. Handled nicely. Actually spacious inside. I had recently rented a Dodge Caliber and thought that car was comfortable, and the Civic was even more so. Of course, I appreciate that the engine itself is (apparently) a cleaner burning engine than one would get with a traditional engine getting 50 mpg. I think it has something to do with the 2 sparkplugs for each cylinder, and the use of the electic motor to augment that gas engine when more power is required.

It was a matter of checking the numbers at that point, building spreadsheets, and calling my bank. The numbers were clear. With my high mileage driving patterns and costs of gasoline around $2.75/gallon, the money saved in gasoline cost avoidance would actually pay off 2/3 of the car each month. Not too shabby. The table below shows the cost savings up to 5o mpg, assuming gas prices ranging from $2/gallon up to $3.20 a gallon. I started with the baseline of 18 mpg (my current car) and this table is the difference between the fuel cost at 18 mpg and the lower costs with a higher fuel efficiency. As you can see, at $2.75 a gallon, even if I only get 42 mpg (I am told a solid estimate for city and highway mileage–and the average mpg for the used car I just bought!) there is a cost avoidance of $218.25 month (I based this on a low estimate of 2500 miles driven each month. Yes, a low estimate, given my driving history.)

The numbers were clear. By the next morning I was on the door at the dealer negotiating for my first “certified Used Car” from a dealer. I haven’t driven it much, but so far I enjoy the vehicle. It handles nicely, and has sufficient pep when I need to get up to speed quickly or avoid those crazy drivers who fail to heed the Car Talk brothers’ advice, and end up ‘driving like my brother.’

So there you have it. I am now an environmentally conscious conservative consumer, focused on saving money, while saving the environment one tankful at a time.

Obviously, Congress needs to play politics. It’s what they do. But they need to stop playing politics with the lives, and the livelihood of the Men and Women who (the case of servicemembers) are putting their lives at risk to defend our freedoms. I encourage all of you to let your representatives know that you support our troops! Tell Congress that it’s their turn to “step up” and behave responsibly.

I am intrigued by this phrase, the “digital Native.” It implies somehow that these youth are themselves involved with the “digital” nature of things. Honestly, I don’t think people realize what it means anymore to be “digital.” For instance, one blog author recently wrote:

“I killed the CD collection years ago and have been living in a digital music ecosystem since my iPods’ storage capacities started to match my old analog collection.”

Does anyone else see that there is no distinction between “CD Collection” and being “digital?” I, for one, made the switch to digital coding and storage of my music when I made the switch to CDs. They are digital. I still listen to my music in analog however. Whether on an iPod, CD, or “digital XM radio.” In fact, we have seen in the past 40 years a move from talking to computers in a “digital” fashion through programming in “machine code” to first creating computer “languages” that move more to human language and thought (Fortran, C++, etc), and now to developing interfaces for computers such as WordPress, iTunes, and others than make the computer more “human friendly” rather than making us more “digital.”

And here lies my point: This generation isn’t any more “digital” than any other. Humanity is inherently “analog.” We see things in analog, we hear in analog, and despite efforts to compare our brains to computers, we apparently think in analog. This “digital generation” is still engaged in all the things that youth of every generation have found to occupy their time.

One of the thoughts defining how the world has changed is that youth today are able to interact in “social computing spaces” such as MySpace and FaceBook. Is that really different from past generations? Some seem to think that, because teens are now relating from a keyboard, that this is somehow “different” and imbues these youth with something perhaps even “magical” that we have to learn to tap.

I would argue that teens, being human, are social animals. Today they use Web 2.0 tools. In the 90′s it was AOL Chat rooms (digital, I realize). Before that teens hung out at the mall (70′s and 80′s), Soda Shops (50′s) and Ice Cream Parlours (20′s and 30′s). Prior to that, despite long distances that separated the youth in our agrarian societies, they found time for “barn dances” and other social events. People of all ages and through all ages have wanted to be “together” and socialize with other people. That hasn’t changed.

“But wait” you may say, “now the youth are sharing and communicating in a very global way with people they have never met.” Yes, that is true. Of course, back in the days of what I call “web 0.0″ people did the same with pen-pals and the use of postal services. People even solicited inputs from strangers by putting messages in bottles, attaching cards to balloon launches, and perhaps dozens of other creative ways of reaching out in very tactile ways to a world one didn’t even know.

But are our youth any more “global” than they were before? While Lee Rainie and Bryan Alexander talked about the global nature of this new communication, Lee did point out that most of the communication today is between small groups.  In response to a question I posed from the floor he pointed out that most “content creators” create for a small group, and believe that their work will only be viewed by a select few.  Some even control that group by limiting access to their “friends.”

So here is my bottom line :

Kids today aren’t any different than we were, or our parents were.  Technology is more pervasive simply because smart people have made digital into a more “analog” experience.  Perhaps we need to stop emoting over the technology, and focus again on people rather than process.

I understand the compulsion to keep the family updated. Lately I have chosen to do that through phone calls and emails (with attachments.) Again, back in the day, I remember rationing long distance calls because of the extortionist rates charged. But now we have all you can talk rates. I also hated to send attachments to emails, since everyone was on a VERY slow dial-up (yes, I remember acoustic couplers, and 300 baud… not kbaud, BAUD…) So many folks of late have high speed connections that it appears attachments are no longer a problem. So… private communications it is!

Now, I will say, I have chosen to not give my kids a say in how much exposure they have on the web (until recently). But for me the discussion was 180 out of phase with most of the discussions here. I told my kids that I actually would not allow them to post photos or personal information on the web (or other various manifestations of “the net.”)

As I say, that has changed recently, since they are now older. One is now an adult. Another is quite close… and the third.. well he can take care of himself. I still exercise veto authority over those that are minors, but have allowed more freedom for them to make such decisions as they transition to adult-hood, and the assumption of the responsibility for their actions.

I hope my thoughts here in some way contribute to the discussion.

Regular readers will remember that I have had “issues” with the lack of care exercised by my fellow bloggers on the left when it comes to reporting the facts. In the past, I have challenged the blogging from “A Liberal Dose” when the author mis-represented the facts as reported in the stories he cited. What first drew my attention to that blog was his gross mis-representation of desertions as a “flood” following the start of the Iraq war.

Now, I find that another of my favorite liberal friends not only perpetuates the mis-representation that the Bush tax cuts only helped the richest Americans, but uses a nearly 2 1/2 year old news story to support the claim. I wrote at the time that the democrats had failed to actually read the report before launching their scathing media attack. If you visit my blog entry, you will find my analysis not of the news stories that failed to actually get the story straight, but rather my analysis of the actual CBO report. One key point:

Now, that being said, you would think that the total change in share of the tax burden, or as the CBO report puts it, the total share of the “Individual Income Tax LIabilities” would decrease by a greater rate. But we see that is not the case. According to their report, those people in the top 20% of earners (highest quintile) actually show an increase in the share of the liability for most years, and there are only three years (2006-2008) when the tax share decreases at all for those in the top 1%. On the other hand, those in the bottom 60% of earners show a decrease in the total share of income tax burden every year. EVERY year.

The bottom line when one looks at the tax report is that everyone that pays income taxes received the benefits of the tax cuts. If you paid taxes, at the end of the day, you paid less after the Bush tax cuts than before.

Over at Pressing the Flesh “fleshy” writes:

Three things are clear, however: most Americans didn’t receive any real form of tax relief from Bush’s cherished tax cuts to begin with – those cuts only rewarded those with the highest incomes.

Hopefully you, dear students, have now learned that the assertion is false. The cuts rewarded everyone.

As always, I recommend you refer to the original source documents. Don’t trust the media, and don’t trust ax-grinding bloggers. Not even me.

Until next time…

I recommend it as a possible clarion call for where this world may end up, when we leave behind rigor in journalism, and begin to allow opinions and attitudes drive our “news” rather than relying on facts and legitimate analysis.

As Google has now pointed out on their own site, this is a result of “Google bombing.” Here is Google’s explanation:

By using a practice called googlebombing, however, determined pranksters can occasionally produce odd results. In this case, a number of webmasters use the phrases [failure] and [miserable failure] to describe and link to President Bush’s website, thus pushing it to the top of searches for those phrases.

Google then goes on to explain that they don’t manually edit or change the search results, even though it appears it is a result of people Google has labeled as “pranksters.” In fact Google writes: “but we’re also reluctant to alter our results by hand in order to prevent such items from showing up. Pranks like this may be distracting to some, but they don’t affect the overall quality of our search service, whose objectivity, as always, remains the core of our mission.”

So we have pranksters that have fun with this. Rabid liberals get another chance to poke fun at President Bush, continuing their on-going “hit and run” strategies of poking fun at the President without ever having to provide or engage in, any “serious” discussion of the issues. And I am sure that if Google had been as pervasive in the 1990s rabid Conservatives would have had some fun with search words and President Clinton (I will leave those to your imagination!)
But does “google bombing” really not “affect the quality… objectivity… the core of our mission?” In this case, politics is such a “hot button topic” that such bizarre outcomes are immediately questioned and the “truth” comes out. But perhaps there are instances where a persistent attack on other topics could have a more insidious effect. For instance, Ryan Schultz documented an incident where a googlebomb was used to point to anti-semitic sites when the word “jew” was searched.

At another site (Stone Court) a liberal steps up the rhetoric, and advocates google-bombing because it can be used to represent a pro-abortionist point of view. That blogger calls it “bombing for choice. Note for this to work, these “bombers” are using this to influence people who are conducting legitimate searches. This is done to effect outcomes, and not to make a cheap political joke. Other sites actually advocate such attacks, including against Verisign (and another against Verisign), or scientologists controlling their message, and then a more light-hearted one, where a man wants to be the most famous David Gallagher on the net.

How hard would it be to accomplish this? According to one site “Empirical results indicate that it does not take a large number of websites to achieve a Googlebomb. The effect has been achieved with only a handful of dedicated weblogs.”

I haven’t given much attention to “Google Bombing” before. Perhaps it is because I am tired of cheap political shots that seem to serve as a liberal’s way of dealing with important issues. Or perhaps worse, I haven’t given it thought because it is so insidious. Perhaps I never noticed it, even when it was displayed on my screen in search after search, because the successful searchers, like “bombers for choice” are actually working to influence outcomes. And ironically, such influence is usually seen to reduce choice.

So let me join MetaTalk and go on record as condeming google bombing. Oh, heck, let the infantile political stuff continue. Sure, it’s funny. But Google–do something to stop such influence. Google bombing does far more harm to the results than you apparently are willing to accept. Your results are no longer objective.

First, the pricing news. The new device, sold exclusively through Cingular and Apple, will sell for $499 for a 4 gig model, and $599 for the 8 gig model. Note that $499 is quite close to what I thought would be “too expensive.” And therein lies the conversation we had.

My brother said that this price point makes sense since this is competing with the Blackberry and the latest Treo. I said then, and still argue, that it is a bit overpriced. A rather reasonable disagreement, until he told me that I didn’t understand what this product is. That I was somehow “missing it.”

Interesting. A little history here. I owned an Apple Newton when the second edition Newton MP110 came out. Even bought a close out “original” MP100 for my wife. I understood that there was a certain attraction to having a hand-held device that not only could keep your calendar for you, but functioned as a notepad and was programmable. I even bought a modem for it, and wow’d colleagues in the mid -90′s with my ability to grab a phone line and email back to the office during business meetings, and check my email for replies, without needing a large computer. (NOTE this was before wireless, and ubiquitous cell phones, or text messaging… think how far we have come in just 10 years!) That Newton retailed for around $1000.

When Apple killed it, so did much of my interest in that sort of technology, until the Handspring Visor made its debut. I was intrigued again by the opportunities that such a device, with the touted “springboard,” could offer. Here was a “Palm based” device that allowed hardware add-ons. Including, they promised, a PHONE. And just as promised, Sprint sold the first cell-phone attachment that plugged in to the PDA, creating a “convergence” device. Yes, it was pricey. The phone attachment sold for $250, and obviously that was on top of the original purchase price of the Handspring Visor.

After that, I went for the Treo 300, Handspring’s “all in one” cellphone and PDA convergence device. Again, pricey. Again, I was sold on the features, the fact that everything was working together, and I only had to carry one device. Heck, I even bought one for my wife, who also enjoyed those features.

After that, though, I found myself wanting the flexibility that I could have with separate devices. Cell phones were shrinking, stand-alone PDAs were becoming far more capable, and the “smart phones” were getting way too pricey.

“Too pricey?” you may ask, “isn’t it more expensive to buy each item separately?” Why, yes it is. And certainly this was a “personal” lifestyle choice. For me, I felt it was a better decision to be able to have the flexibility to upgrade each component as my needs or requirements for that technology changed, rather than wait for the next “all in one” to come out to meet all my needs.

I have gone with “all in one” printer/scanner/copier/fax machines. Mostly because they are so cheap, er affordable, right now. One can buy a low end HP PSC (no fax) for about $50 at Wal*Mart right now! Low price makes convergence VERY attractive.

So, all this is to say, I am not new to the concept of “convergence” and “convergent technologies.” I believe I understand what Apple’s new product offers, and I have to agree, it is light years beyond most convergent devices out there. I have traditionally been what is often labeled an “early adopter.” (Perhaps, at times, I would even fit in the “Innovators” category defined in one marketing textbook¹ as “Venturesome, higher educated, use multiple information sources.”)

So what’s my thought on this? Why do I think it is overpriced?

I am not sure that this product, though very attractive and done with the typical Apple attention to style and flare, can be seen as highly innovative and “cutting edge” in any market. And the fact that they are “moderately” priced for the smart phone market seems to indicate that Apple sees this as well. There is no real opportunity for them to capitalize on the higher margins that a truly innovative product can have when they have a market segment all their own for a while. Blackberry and Treo have enjoyed those margins.

And there it is. I don’t think (yes, my opinion) Apple can compete in the smartphone/Blackberry market. RIM has their product firmly entrenched in the big markets. Remember the discussion about the patent infringement suits? Many talking heads pointed out that the US Government would never allow the Blackberry network to be “turned off.” Too many Generals, Senators, Congressman, and senior civilian employees are dependent on that device. And it’s not just the government that has become quite reliant on the RIM handheld device. Businesses have bought into the server architecture required to support the RIM system, and that sort of investment is not easily tossed aside.
And just how different is this product from the new Blackjack that is all the rage? (selling for $199–well below the new Apple price point!) Yes, there are some marginal improvements, but what makes it a better “smart phone?”

Now, let us suppose that Apple’s new product is seen as a major competitor to the existing products. What is their response most likely to be? In the near term, perhaps they lower their prices. In the long term?

Now, ask yourself–has Apple made its name as a producer of products used in the business world, and bought in quantity by corporations? It seems to me that Apple by and large has been the “Guerilla warfare” product, sold to the person not to the corporation. Usually sold to someone who “thinks different.” (or was that the Amiga? LOL)

I realize this is a “smart phone.” But it’s not “just that.” It really is viewed by and large as an extension of the iPod into the cellphone business. When I listen to most of the techie podcasts they all start from the premise of essentially “what if we added a phone to the iPod?”

So let’s look at it this way. Rather than say it’s a smartphone with an MP3 player let’s instead view it as the most popular line of MP3 players, with a smartphone inside. Immediately we see the product differentiated from all the other smartphones out there. Every other smartphone line has started with the smart phone being a productivity device, and then added to it “Hey, look–we are an MP3 player too!” Effective? Perhaps. But still a productivity device.

If we define the product in this way, as the most popular MP3 player, with a smartphone, then we reach a different demographic. We reach those who enjoy their music, and have enjoyed the iPod, and most likely also enjoy their cellphone. What demographic does that sound like to you? High powered, on the go businessmen and women? (yes, in part…) How about the young High School, College, and recent College graduate demographic? The Gen Y’ers. Those that by and large have developed their own soundtrack to this motion picture called life.

All that said, I still think the price points they had established for their high end iPods make sense. These are “Nanos” with smartphone features added. An 8 gb Nano runs (today) for $249. Is the phone feature worth another $350?

Don’t get me wrong. Apple will sell tens if not hundreds of thousands of these. They will make money. This variant of the iPod will continue to float the company with the greatest contribution in real dollars to the profit margin.
So, perhaps my brother is right. Perhaps I don’t “get it.” But then again, maybe the comparison to the $600 BlackBerry and Treos are not the right comparison. If Apple hopes to dominate another market segment then perhaps they need to define a new market. Apple needs to remember they make products consumers love, and are willing to pay “consumer” prices to get.
¹ Marketing, 7th Edition by Kerin, Berkowitz, Hartley, and Rudelius

First, I have to say I admire the creativity involved, and the artistic ability of the professor, Dr Phillips. The graphics are, to my mind, superb, and reflect the hand of a highly skilled artisan. Check out this explanation of grading. Lovely work!

Second, I believe creativity in and out of the classroom helps the students better grasp the material, and stay engaged. I don’t know about you, but when I find something to be interesting I usually stay with it longer than I do with something boring, tedious, or just down-right painful.

Alas, the point: I found it difficult to actually make heads-or-tails out of the syllabus. Perhaps I am just too comfortable with structure. Perhaps I am too captive to the traditional language of the syllabus. But I couldn’t figure out at times what the specific requirements are for the course. In the graphic above, as a student I will know how points are earned, but I have no idea how many points are required for a given grade.

Sometimes things are even more vague. For instance:

In this clip (perhaps not too readable—sorry about that!) for week nine the syllabus suggests we “ask the owl” about whether a paper is due. Hmmmm… Is that clear and concise?

Now, lest I rush hastily to judgment, I thought perhaps this ol’ guy should check with a younger, more hip crowd. So I did. I asked my daughter’s boyfriend who is not only a college student, but a huge cartoon/comic fan, what he thought of the comic syllabus. I even handed it to him (printed out) with great enthusiasm, saying something like “hey, check out this cool syllabus! Whatcha think?”

His comments were similar to mine, with just a few added points.

1. “So, what do I have to DO in this class?”

2. “What do I have to do to get an A? B? I don’t see that listed anywhere?”

(and my favorite!)

3. “I hope he (the professor -ed) printed these out and handed them out in class. I would sure hate to waste all my ink on this.”

So there ya have it. Innovation is cute, but not necessarily effective. I am curious what other innovative things you, dear readers, have come across. Let me know, either in comments, or by email!
CAVEAT: We all understood that his syllabus is unique to his class, and perhaps at his school they all understand what expectations are for grades.

“Now let’s compare that to what the Democrats actually have planned. In 2004 they wanted “timely and deliberate dispensation of the work of the Congress” and argued that “Bills should be developed following full hearings, open subcommittee and committee markups, with appropriate referrals to other committees. Members should have at least 24 hours to examine a bill prior to consideration at the subcommittee level.” Now let’s compare that to the what my friends at Downsize DC are calling the “legislative orgy” planned for the first 100 hours of the new session.Not a single bill they will consider has gone through a committee or subcommittee hearing.

Not a single minute of testimony has been heard by the relevant subcommittees and committees on whether there is a need for them, what the possible positive and negative results are, and so forth. The Democratic rationalization for this is that some of the bills were proposed in the last session and had plenty of discussion then. But those committees no longer exist, nor do many of the members on them. There are 52 new members of the House, most of them Democrats.

The notion of a Congress ramming through a whole bunch of legislation in a short period of time should be a concern to us all. Remember, that’s exactly what happened at the end of the last session of Congress, which is how we ended up with the online gambling bill slipped in to a port reform bill and passed without a vote. It’s how we end up with lots of bad legislation that no one has bothered to read, and it’s how we end up with hidden provisions in them that are dangerous.”

This blog goes on to point out that when Gingrich sought to push through significant legislation in the first 100 days of their control of the House, the Democrats argued that it was not enough time to adequately consider the legislation. Pot? Kettle? similar color?
Of course, the most simple defense of this tactic is “The Republicans did it, so we will too” playing out in the school-yard called Congress. But as my friend the “Flesh Presser” pointed out during the discussion about Foley, this approach is similar to that of a three year old.¹ And, as he pointed out, inappropriate.

I recommend every reader go check out both the blogs I referenced Dispatches from the Culture Wars, and also Fleshy’s pressing the flesh blog. Alas, you won’t see any more comments from me on fleshy’s blog. Apparently a sauce good for the gander is less tasty when it is your own goose being cooked.
The Professor
¹ It is important to point out that his assertion, directed at me, was because he failed to “get my point” which was not a defense of Foley, but rather a scathing rebuke of how the Democrats had handled a similar issue in 1983.

Given this definition, it seems somehow “right” that a non-word wins as Word of the Year. It’s got that “gut feel” to it that says it should win. Heck, that it must win. Forget that it isn’t a word, or that it is (according to the same Wiki definition) simply a recasting in Colbert fashion, a concept Orwell described in his creation of the word “bellyfeel.”

Ahh, well.

I had to respond, since some of them are funny (but he actually believes them to be true) and some just factually, and historically, wrong.

My reply is listed below.

Let me cut to the bottom line here: One should not cast one party as being “corrupt” when your house is made of very brittle glass.

================

Fleshy wrote:

” Sorry you found the list skewed and inflammatory. I’d be… well… I’d be amused more than anything else… to listen to you try to defend or refute any of the issues on that list? Go ahead… defend Foley, Haggard, Rumsfeld, DeLay, Abramoff, Taft, Frist, Burns, Duke Cunningham, Bob Ney, Gibbons… need I go on?”

Actually, I wouldn’t need to refute most of them. Just publish a list of names on the Dem side that are just as guilty. It’s interesting. Apparently Democrats are able to either imagine themselves pristine, or else excuse their own failing because they never claimed to be anything otherwise.

But honestly, if you think a vote for a Republican is a vote of “hate (of) the military” then I would ask how many years of service you put in… And why you would think that John Kerry is somehow now to be seen as a Republican.

But if you wish… here we go:

1. ACLU–rarely seen as a conservative organization, has been opposed to any and all censorship over the years. As you may recall, stories about whether these sorts of things should be publicly available have been around for many many years (read, at least 30) and typically it’s the ACLU that defends a person’s right to speak, even in publishing these sorts of things (There was a funny episode from Barney Miller in the 70s with this very issue.)

2. “Stay the course” Hmmm… and the alternative is? I believe I DO support Bush’s view that we can’t just pull out and leave Iraq to implode. And I believe we need a to get out when the goals are met, and not when a date/time is met.

3. So, you think the President KNEW the pastor was doing this at the time? Now THAT would be quite a story! Are you suggesting that conservatives need to actually conduct an in-depth check into the sex lives of all their advisors? Hmmmm… Is that what the Democrats do?

4. Cover our ass with a Child Predator? (are you sure this doesn’t fit more with item 3?) Hmmm… last time I checked, FOLEY was gone, and Studds stayed in for another 13 years. Remember, Studds actually had SEX with a minor, and was left in office, while Foley only exchanged emails and IMs. (THE POINT: Dems are just as guilty…)

5. Hate the military? Give me a f’ing break. Talk to a military member or 500 before going to THIS one…

6. “Say literally anything“–like this list? Again, lying isn’t uniquely Republican. And distorting the facts with witty (or not so witty) sound bites seems to be your favorite style…

7. Beat up a questioner? For example, arresting a protester who voices an opposing view to the President at a rally? Oh wait–that was Clinton’s Secret Service that did that…

8. “Laws are for Other people” hmmm… Isn’t that the logic that got that senator from NJ elected when Torricelli had to withdraw? I commented on this on my blog back in 2004–pointing out that the Dems actually argued that some things are TOO IMPORTANT for rules… I wrote: “If you remember the US elections in 2002, the Democratic Candidate for the US Senate seat for New Jersey withdrew from the race inside the window allowed by law to find a replacement candidate. Simple enough. In fact, one would think more simple a decision than sporting rules–just abide by the law. But that was too obvious a solution. Somewhere in our convoluted world, we decided that the “law” was too constricting. The Democrats went to court, not to challenge an illegal action by their opponent, but rather to seek justification for their desire to break the law.”

In fact, this particular point of yours seems to be one that is more readly “owned” by the Dems than the Republicans, but if you would prefer, I would call this one a draw…

9. Pay their mistresses to be quiet? Hmmm… is this a Kennedy reference? Gary Hart? (Remember the good ship “Monkey Business?”) Again–not uniquely Republican, but if you insist…

10. And since in this one, you actually ended it with “in your life” perhaps I should appeal to age… and remind you all of Jim Wright… Tip O’Neill, Ted Kennedy… John Glenn and the Keating 5… I think the Dems in the 70s and 80s are quite corrupt… and hypocrital… (and given the large number of viable Democrats running on largely Conservative platforms, like Ford Jr… one has to wonder if there is a new style of Hypocrisy on the horizon!)

I did find it interesting that your list of names supporting your points are mostly gone or outgoing Republicans. They misbehave–they are gone. My list of examples includes people that are left to remain in office, despite transgression after transgression.

Perhaps I can sum this up best by saying When Republicans are bad, they are gone… when Democrats are bad, they are re-elected. Perhaps it’s just because we expected more from Republicans, and never deluded ourselves about the ethics or morality of the Democrats.

First, let me say that apparently the Democrats weren’t too impressed either, because this plan doesn’t seem to have received much press-time. One would think that, if it was actually their plan for moving our nation forward, they would be advertising it a tad more.

In this podcast, I tackle the Democrats “plan for progress” which I find weak in it’s “planni-ness” (to steal from Colbert). It actually says that “We will protect Americans at home and lead the world by telling the truth to our troops, our
citizens and our allies.” Why do I single this one out here? Because it is the penultimate example of it not being a “plan” but rather rhetoric. Tell me… what steps follow the “truth telling” that will lead to a stable government in Iraq? What then will we do to bring the troops home, while ensuring that the US is no longer a target for terrorists? Will the radical islamists hear our “truth” and suddenly, in classis SNL style, say “Oh… never mind…” (Thanks Gilda–rest in peace!)

The bottom line conclusion that I reach is that it is all about the bottom line. When you read through what they have in their plan, they want to do many vague things, while at the same time “reducing the deficit.” Last time I checked, you can only increase spending, and decrease debt, by increasing revenue. And for the government, increasing revenue means raising your taxes, and raising them by more than they increase the spending.

Conclusion? Hang on to your wallets, you’re in for a bumpy ride.

Give a listen, and let me know what you think. Comment here, and perhaps we can even get some sort of debate going on. And be sure to give a read to ol’ Fleshy at the pressingtheflesh blog. It was his suggestion “Every time that someone states that Democrats “don’t have a plan,” mention these six points.” that had me actually checking out what sort of plan the Dems could come up with.

So if you want to hear my thoughts about these fans, go ahead and listen.  And don’t forget–there is a special place for Usher #257.

Thanks to my brother for this comic posted to his blog.  If you haven’t already visited him, go check out his blog at targuman.org/blog.

I hope you enjoy the podcast, and remember, you can always get this podcast through an iTunes subscription by going to The Podcast Link.

I would also recommend you visit some of the other site we talk about.

• twit.tv
• Revision3.com
• segway.com
• The Newton Source – The essential Newton Reference
• TUAW – The Unofficial Apple Weblog
• Steve Kemper, author of “Code Named Ginger”

Let us know what you think, and how far YOU made it through the podcast before you quit.

While I believe that, if there is such a thing as absolute moral values, and those are based on scripture, then it is clear that homosexual activity is morally wrong. I also believe, however, that in these cases it would be wrong to actually legislate against them (and somewhat problematic–I know I don’t want to be involved on the stake out in these cases!)

I have come, over time, to nominally support the notion of gay marriage. I have been for too long a victim of the “marriage penalty” when it comes to tax structures. While I have seen two incomes, stacked one on the other, resulting in higher and higher taxation, I have seen homosexual couples enjoy the freedom to claim two sets of income. Now admittedly I have been able to have benefits for my spouse, and my children, that have often been denied to homosexual couples. But once those couples started to receive the benefits of the union, without the taxation of the union, my view began to shift.

It seems to me that the Boston Globe is taking the correct approach on this issue. Benefits, and taxation, should apply only to married couples. In this case, if you are married, then you can receive benefits–and you must pay taxes.

As a fiscal conservative I believe this is the most prudent action–let’s welcome all married couples into the “marriage penalty” world that is the federal tax structure. Perhaps the deficit will be decreased.

So there you have it. I approve of Gay (and Lesbian) Marriage, simply because it hasn’t been fair to heterosexuals to not allow it.

I have sat on this one for a while. Another left-leaning blog that I frequent, “Pressing the Flesh”, has had several postings singing the praises of Al Gore’s latest theatrical success. One of the implicit arguments seeming to be that as the movie rakes in the dollars, the revenues are seen as votes of support for Gore, and his agenda. Of course, this has two effects. First, it ignores the fact that movie goers typically like a horror flick, and second that by arguing that box office sales equates to support, it keeps people like me away.

All this aside, we could have lengthy discussions about global warming and the impact of mankind on such an event. The debate is stifled though, by statements from media sources such as Earth and Sky radio show, where they state “The result is a warming climate -which no reputable scientist disputes anymore.” By making such a statement. (In all fairness, they backed off of on their website by saying “You’re right. We should not have said “no reputable scientist disagrees.” That is an incorrect statement and too strong a statement. We apologize. We should have said that the vast majority of climate scientists believe that global warming is real and caused by humans.” )

Here’s the problem, however. There are vast numbers of scientists, most with bachelor’s and Master’s degrees, and some with PhDs, that have come out supporting the notion that science has shown that mankind has caused global warming. But then there are those senior scientists, the chaired, full professors at major universities, that are essentially pulling on the reins. They aren’t saying that there isn’t climate change, and they aren’t saying that it might be a warming trend. They are saying that to make a causal conclusion (and thus infer we can “stop” the change) is imprudent.

For instance, Richard S. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT. I think we can all agree that MIT is a reputable science and engineering university, and that being a full professor in Atmospheric Science qualifies one to speak on the topic of climate change. In fact, being a Chaired Professor shows that the university believes him to have demonstrated expert knowledge in the area.

This being said, consider the opinion piece he has written for the Wall Street Journal. In this piece he tackles the assertion from Al Gore that “the debate in the scientific community is over.” Professor Lindzen points out that the debate is far from over. He lists the various bits of data that are mis-represented, mis-understood, or ignored by the “non-scientists” as they seek to achieve policy. What is most striking about this opinion article is that the Professor strikes a tone of balance, and reason. Perhaps this is the tone that should be brought back into the discussion?

Let’s reward scientists for good science, and not seek out those whose findings are the most scary, shocking, or sensational.

The Professor.

Today seemed like as good a day as any to write about something that has been slowly gnawing, nay, chewing at me, for a while. It seems appropriate today, on the 5th of July, the day following another successful return to flight for the Shuttle program.

Many (whom I now call “bashists”–those whose rage against President Bush is so great they see no good in his actions, bashing all that he says or does; a response to calling supporters “apologists” but I digress…) Many have called for a timeline for the removal of US forces from Iraq. Most of Congress have seen the error in such an action, although the Bush detractors have taken it upon themselves to continually argue that there “is no plan.” The notion that there is no plan is humorous, since not only has there been a plan, the general outline of the plan has been around since our war against Saddam began. I am sure you, kind reader, recall that the President talked about rebuilding Iraq, re-establishing a government with free and open elections, and ensuring that the new government would be strong enough to survive. That has been the plan all along.

That leads me to this conclusion: We should stop debating the red herring of “time lines” and start discussing “event lines.” It seems clear to me that we will withdraw our troops upon satisfactory completion of certain events. We can develop estimates of when those events will occur, and those estimates may be rooted in optimism, pessimism or realism, but they remain estimates. It seems to me that in many areas of life we live on “event lines” rather than time-lines.

• College. One graduates from college upon successfully completing the requirements for the degree.
  
• High School. Again, when the requirements are completed (although some seem to argue that holding kids to standards is somehow demeaning.)
  
• Marriage. When one finds a mate (although the sitcom “Friends” had their gang with “Back ups” in case they reach the timeline before the event-line.)

Even more time-critical events have an “event line” associated with them. Most noteable is the Shuttle launch. Yes, the shuttle has a “countdown” and they have the “launch windows” but those timelines are event constrained. There exists a long sequence of events that must occur before a Space Shuttle (Space Transportation System) can be launched. When those events are not reached, but can be overcome quickly, NASA puts a “Hold” on the countdown. If it seems to NASA that they cannot satisfy the event requirement, they then “scrub” the mission and reschedule the launch. The satisfactory completion of the mission is more important than meeting an arbitrary timeline. Of course, when meeting a timeline becomes more important than meeting the “event line” we see catastrophic results.

So let’s learn our lessons from the hard-earned lessons from NASA. We cannot simply set a “date certain” for the withdrawal of troops in something as complex as the situation in Iraq. Pick on this administration all you want (Rage on, you Bashists) but it is prudent to trust your military leaders on the ground. It is wise to see that a sequence of events has occurred. It is foolishiness to say pick a date, and point to that as success.

Interestingly though, they must not really believe it, because the left is looking forward to the next elections. Apparently they don’t even believe their own rhetoric. For some reason, they hold two contradictory views. The first view is that elections are not fair, and the outcomes are “pre-determined.” The other view? That we can change things by getting out the vote, and voting for change.
Hmmm… are they simply stupid? While that would be a satisfying conclusion, I am not convinced of that. For a long time now I have held the view that accusations and charges are more reflective of the attitudes and behaviors of the people making them than the subject of the accusations. People see the world through their own lenses, and do not easily see alternative explanations. Or to put it another way “Bush must have lied–how else could you explain what is happening?!”

So here is MY theory (admittedly filtered through my lens–I understand I too am captive to my own paradigm). Keep the news story out there that Democracy is threatened. Let people know that our nation has been “stolen” as have elections. Convince people that they have to take action NOW to take back our government–and you can do that by getting out and voting for liberals. So, create fear, carefully drawing lines connecting unrelated information in a compelling story that implies connections, and get people to react to it.
Yup, that’s my theory, and I am sticking to it. Liberals are trying to “steal” elections the old fashioned way. Lying and scaring the electorate. Popularizing crazy conspiracy theories. Making people feel fear, rage, and hopelessness. And then, getting people to vote for them based on irrational fear.

I could be wrong. But it makes for a good story, and seems as plausible as any other.

Okay, so now we are told that virtually everything that travels over the US communication network gets shunted to the NSA. Now, I am a bit concerned about this, as I am sure most Americans are, and I want to get your opinions about this. How do you feel about the NSA sorting through billions and billions of emails and texts a day? Do you feel it is a blatant violation of your rights, or do you believe that they can’t be doing too much with the data, or they would have to hire every person in the nation to evaluate it?

I can hear now the cries that this is another example of the Bush Administration’s blatant disregard for personal freedoms. Hey, it *might* be true, but there have been concerns about the NSA’s listening techniques long before this Bush Administration. Does no one remember the book “Puzzle Palace?”

Anyway–let me (and the other readers) know what you think about this topic!

Okay, so they have a monster rabbit terrorizing England. No, it doesn’t have big nasty teeth, at least none that will chew up knights and spit them out. Perhaps they will have to use the “holy Handgrenade” with the requisite reading of the rules.

SERIOUS POINT: I love the photograph. It is a photo of a giant rabbit. Makes one think at first glance that perhaps THIS is the rabbit–until one reads the caption: “German rabbit breeder Karl Szmolinsky presents his giant male breeding rabbit ‘Robert’ in Eberswalde, eastern…” Hmmm…

Alright, already, I realize many of you are saying “yes, you SHOULD read the caption.” But do you not also think that, since so often we skim stories quickly to get a sense of the news, that news sources have a responsibility to reduce the possibility for misleading the public?

The Prof

Many of you remember him as SecDef, and his significant increases in defense spending under President Reagan, but most will not remember the job that earned him the nickname “Cap the Knife.”

The floor is now open for guesses/answers.

The Prof(f)

Okay, time for me to rant about Randi… LOL. I recommend you go watch this video show from CSPAN where Randi is interviewed on Q&A. within the first10 minutes of the show, they play a clip where she had “fought” with Janet Parshall. Randi thinks it is a “big thing” that President Bush suspended the “Davis-Bacon Act of 1931.” In fact, Randi brings this up as an example of Bush “lying.” Now, I am not sure of the connection between the suspension of the Act, and lying, but I am sure of one thing–this was not without precedent. As the quote below from the “CRS Report for Congress” regarding the suspension points out, the Act has been suspended several times. Admittedly, most suspensions were by Republicans, but only the suspension by Roosevelt was identified as “administrative convenience.”

The act has been suspended explicitly on four separate occasions. (a) In 1934,
President Franklin Roosevelt suspended the act in what appears to have been for
administrative convenience associated with New Deal legislation. It was restored to
full strength in less than 30 days with few people, seemingly, aware of the
suspension. (b) In 1971, President Richard Nixon suspended the act as part of a
campaign intended to quell inflationary pressures that affected the construction
industry. In just over four weeks, the act was reinstated, the President moving on to
different approaches to the problem. (c) In 1992, in the wake of Hurricanes Andrew
and Iniki, President George H. W. Bush suspended the act in order to render
reconstruction and clean-up in Florida and the Gulf Coast and in Hawaii more
efficient. The impact of the suspension is unclear for the act was suspended on
October 14, 1992, just days prior to the 1992 election. President William Clinton
restored the Act on March 6, 1993. And, (d) on September 8, 2005, President George
W. Bush suspended the act in order to render more efficient reconstruction and cleanup
of Florida and the Gulf Coast in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. The act may also
have been suspended during World War II as part of the generalized emergency.

Yesterday, I wrote about the way technology has been used by individuals to create a virtual community of “The Diaspora.” Of course, many will recognize this as a decentralized, or distributed, network. There exists no central clearinghouse for information, except for those pockets of friends that have the ability to develop lists, and then farm them back out to friends and family.

The Washington Post’s story identifies another need–connecting those who are not connected, because they were unable to flee. For many reasons (all of which will be debated and discussed over the months to come) large numbers of people were unable to evacuate the city of New Orleans. They are effectively cut off from communications, even when located in what was called at the time, the refuge “of last resort.” The challenge? Who should be tasked to pull together these groups, collect the information about the survivors, and those that did not, and get the word out? Historically, that has been the role of the American Red Cross–a role fulfilled through the use of paper, pens, and pencils, and lots of sweat equity. Now they are tasked with finding highly technical means of doing this very thing.

The question that is being worked through is actually one tackled by many a business course. “How does one define oneself?” If the Red Cross views themselves as a provider of relief and comfort, but not technological services, then is their organization prepared to handle such a request? Should the Red Cross be in this business, or should they partner with another organization that perhaps would be better suited for these sorts of technical challenges?

And most importantly, should there be only one organization/firm/business to tackle and coordinate the technical challenges?

These are heady times for technology. This isn’t about the “internet bubble” of the late 1990s. It isn’t about technology stocks making people wealthy. We now see technology being used to ameliorate the wounds of our brothers and sisters. Technology with heart.

The Professor

An addendum:

I have rarely spoken here about my research, but now is perhaps a time for me to speak. I have supervised several research efforts looking at the way we provide support to humanitarian relief operations. While much of it has focused on general command and control type issues, perhaps the most interesting one was a paper that tried to develop a centralized checklist for the NGOs to use to coordinate logistics/supply chain support. Imagine, 30 or 40 different organizations, each trying to get their materials and their people into the ravaged areas, hindered by few/no roads, limited airport access (ramp space is precious–especially if you also have to host a “tent city”) and each optimizing their loads for their cargo, not for the overall cargo required to go in to a disaster area. Quite a challenge.

The problem? These organizations either cannot, or will not, work together. And none can or will take direction from the US Government. Wow–imagine trying to corral these cats…

This story from CBS is an Interesting commentary.

What surprises me more than anything else though, is that it is another example of politicians fleeing from thoughtful analysis for fear that the American populace will condemn them for holding a view that seems contrary.

Outsourcing has been portrayed lately as another example of a Bush Administration seeking the well being of corporations, to the detriment of the “working class families.” In fact, the Kerry campaign is pointing out quite consistently that we have a large number of jobs that have “moved” overseas. The fact is, most business professors will tell you that the globalization of the economy, and the “outsourcing” as it is so popularly described, has helped fuel the economic growth seen throughout the 90s. Yes, the 90s–that era of Clinton growth so touted by Democrats.

It is the ability to find, and leverage, comparative advantage, I commend http://internationalecon.com/v1.0/ch40/40c000.html as a good discussion of comparative advantage.

It is unfortunate that we find ourselves once again seeking to protect jobs that have become uncompetitive rather than encourage people to be re-educated, or at a minimum retrained, to do jobs in which we ourselves have a competitive advantage. Of course, educating America is a herculean effort, and given that those charged with that very task, educating America, have consistently allied themselves with a particular party, and a particular agenda, it is a task we won’t see tackled any time soon.

This is the problem with much of the discussion from the politicians. Because things seem, as that academic link says, to be counterintuitive, or worse, to be without heart, we distance ourselves from it, no matter how truthful.

Homework for today is quite simple: Read the link, and answer this thought question: How would you educate America on those issues that seem on the face counterintuitive, but if accepted would greatly improve our lot as a nation? Submit your thoughts, as a comment on this blog!

I was making my way through the various news stories on Yahoo, and reading the various postings that the Yahoo-fans post as comments to stories. In my ramblings, I came across the linked comment from a user that stated:

“BTW….REAL Texans CAN’T STAND BUSH!”

Amazingly, we seem to again define ourselves as a “real” something, by adherence to a strict dogma.

So, being a “Real Texan” is not a function of citizenship? Then I suppose being a “real American” means something more than being a “citizen of the USA?”

I thought it was the liberals that were angry that the republicans supposedly accused them of not being “real” Americans because they didn’t support the President in everything. At what point can we at least agree that being a “real” something has to do with the attributes that make one “that thing?”

For instance, in many discussions I have had with people from various (nominally) Christian denominations, I am told that an adherence to the teachings of Jesus, in general terms, are important (but not necessary) but that any belief that he is “Christ” (Messiah, Chosen One, God) are not necessary, and in fact, only cause harm. This has led me to conclude that people with these views are not “Real Christians” but rather are “Real -ians.” When one chooses to remove Christ from His Church, then one should have the decency to remove Christ from the name, wouldn’t you think? And yet, these same people get a certain sense of “righteous indignation” when you question whether they actually are “Christians” or just “-ians.”

For me, membership in something, and thus being a “Real” anything, is a function of meeting the requirements of that group. If you choose to deny the teachings of your Church, then you should no longer be able to describe yourself as a member of that Church. If you do not accept the divinity of Christ, and the concept of a Sacrificial atonement, then you are not a Christian–simple enough. If you do, but you cannot accept the authority of the Pope over the Church, and believe that you have the right to decide what is right and wrong for you separate from the authority of the Church, then perhaps you are not a “Real Catholic.”

It really comes down to another shift in societal thinking. I wrote previously about the common urge to dispel with rules when they become inconvenient. If the situation seems important enough, let’s just set that rule of law aside, for now. We can always enforce it later, right?

Apparently this thinking extends to our inate desire to belong to a group, but an unwillingness to accept the responsibilities that go along with membership. Even worse, it has been twisted to allow us to not only redefine the definition of membership in a way that distorts the meaning of the organization, but then we use this new, twisted meaning, to attempt to exclude others. In an attempt to be inclusive, we become exclusive, seeking to denegrate those who are “different.”

Amazing isn’t it. Tolerance, and acceptance, have been twisted by those who espouse it to allow intolerance and exclusion.

Perhaps nothing really has changed after all. It still is about the selfish qualities of human nature.

In the Olympics we see discussions about whether the Korean gymnast should also be given the gold medal, since he was “wronged” by the judges. Of course, that glosses over the fact that the gymnast should have looked to see that his degree of difficulty was what he expected. It’s what the US team had done prior to the team all-around. Remember, the US team was upset that their high bar routines were downgraded, and that was before they ever mounted the device. Also the Korean coaches missed their opportunity to protest, instead protesting after the competition was final, and the medals awarded.

These rules are put in place with the intent of ensuring a fair, or even, opportunity for competition. Errors can be expected, since judges are also human, and thus other rules are put in place for protesting a decision. These rules are placed in recognition that one cannot wait to protest, because of the turmoil that will create.

Unfortunately, the Olympics are just the latest venue to face an assault on rules. If you remember the US elections in 2002, the Democratic Candidate for the US Senate seat for New Jersey withdrew from the race inside the window allowed by law to find a replacement candidate. Simple enough. In fact, one would think more simple a decision than sporting rules–just abide by the law. But that was too obvious a solution. Somewhere in our convoluted world, we decided that the “law” was too constricting. The Democrats went to court, not to challenge an illegal action by their opponent, but rather to seek justification for their desire to break the law.

This of course ignores another reason for laws: to provide a rational, reasoned response before a crisis, so that the “heat of the moment” doesn’t force an unfair decision. Unfortunately, even our courts are allowing the “heat of the moment” to hold sway. Decisions that should be clear and simple are twisted, distorted beyond recognition.

We even saw this mentality with the Clinton impeachment. When Senator after Senator stood up and said that what he did was wrong, and perhaps even a violation of the law, but could not bring themselves to vote for impeachment, they allowed the emotional tug of the moment to command the reason of the law.

Worse yet, defenders of Clinton were heard to say that, while what he did was bad, his “bad” was outweighed by his “good” and that we should give him a “pass” on any rules or laws he may have broken.

It’s not that the Law is wrong. It’s not that the rule is bad. It’s that “these circumstances” demand we suspend the law, or ignore the rule.

The most grievous example is found not in an instance of when the courts set aside the rule, but in the criticism when the courts abide by the rule of law. Commentators from the left continue to refer to President Bush as the “President Select” because of the decision of the US Supreme Court. Alas, if one steps past the emotions of the moment, what one finds is that all the Supreme Court said was “no, you cannot set aside the rule of law.” Since when is the Supreme Court “wrong” to uphold the law? When your side loses, apparently.

Which brings us back to the Olympics. Some venues followed the rules. In Breaststroke, Piersol believed another swimmer was executing an illegal turn in the event. He brought it to the attention of the judges, and the officials ruled that they could do nothing about it since they did not observe the infraction. Fair enough. He accepted that. When Piersol swam the backstroke a judge ruled that his turn was illegal. The US Coaches protested immediately, following the rules for the protest. The officials followed their protocols, and overturned the decision, on technicality some would say, but a correct decision none the less.

The rules, when followed, ensure fairness. The law provides structure. And the US Swimmers and Gymnasts proved that they are class acts. Perhaps they deserve gold fever.

Imagine: A Gold Medal for sportsmanship.

Go USA!

Ever wonder why school levies always seem to fail, and yet school taxes always seem to go up, and never go down? It’s simple– the levies keep coming back, and coming back, until they pass. It is interesting, the levies lose, and lose, and lose, but then, due to low turn out, or bad weather, or just a weird turn of events, the levy passes, often by a number of votes that can be counted on one hand. And that settles it.

I first noticed this rather odd turn of events in St Louis, where they were trying to pass a referendum to allow riverboat gambling. The referendum failed during every election for over two years, and at every defeat those supporting the referendum vowed to bring it back again. Once the levy passed, they proudly declared “this has been settled once and for all.”

So, what makes it “once and for all” when one side wins, and not another? I think it is because those that are pushing for these issues are quick to try to shut down further debate. In fact, they often use draconian tactics to make their point.

One of my favorite responses from a school district, when their levy failed, was to not only take away busing, but then add insult to injury by coming out and announcing that if any children are injured by having to walk to school, that the fault would lay with the taxpayers who were “too cheap” to pass a levy. Yup–rather than find waste in their budget (and there was a large administrative staff that could have been cut) they went for the jugular, playing roullette with the lives of children for the sake of money.

Another school district said they would have to eliminate the advanced placement and honors classes. When pressed, they said they wouldn’t fired any teachers. Why not? Because they still had full classroom loads of students. So, this was another effort to lower the education of students, simply to “blackmail” the community into paying higher taxes.

So what would my solution be, for school districts? Let me say, my suggestions are focused not on how to defeat, or repeal, the levies, but rather on how school districts could do better without them. These suggestions at times may require a rethinking of what “public education” means, but that isn’t an insurmountable obstacle.

First, make students buy their own textbooks. College students have to do it, so why not public school students? I hear the screams now “but what about poor families that cannot afford the books?” Simple: we help them. If you are below a certain income level, then you get “free” books. If you aren’t, then you can also economize by purchasing used books, and then selling them back, just like the college model. The books in public schools now are often used for several years in a row. Requiring the purchase of the books would perhaps result in students taking better care of the books, since parents will have a direct financial stake in the care of the books.

Second, continue to require students to pay to play. Participating in sporting events and teams at taxpayers expense shouldn’t be viewed as a “right” of students. They should be required to take physical education classes, and that should be community funded, but anything beyond that should be seen as “above and beyond.”

Third, permits for parking (at local High Schools) should be purchased. This would perhaps reduce congestion (price it high enough so many would choose not to drive) and also help subsidize the busing system.

Fourth, identify any additional “above and beyond” programs, and charge fees that are appropriate for sustaining the program. If it is an event with spectators, then charge an appropriate fee for that program, and have that money go directly to support that program. Any money generated by a program should be used directly, and not subsidized a “lesser interest” program.

One quick aside on this point: If taxpayers subsidize a program, such as the football team, they should be allowed to attend for free. They already paid for it–they should get to see it!

One of these days, I want to see people insist that a referendum that passed be brought back just one more time. after 4 defeats, to finally win and declare final victory seems “odd.” How about “best two out of three.” Think we could convince people to go for that?

Don’t forget, the midterm exam is coming. Leave your homework in a pile on the desk on your way out, and make sure your name is on your work.

Wow!! Here I was preparing to write a blog about how both sides can present “true” facts (yes, I realize the humor in that…) and still hold opposing views.

It turns out that the Democrats chose to distort the facts anyway. Why would they do that? Because the facts from the CBO report show that everyone–yes everyone benefited from the tax cuts. In fact, refer to my previous discussion about why the tax cuts were a good idea to help recover from the slowing economy that Clinton passed on to Bush.

So, let’s start with the distortions. According to the Democrats, as reported in the Yahoo/Reuters news story, The CBO report shows that “the top 1 percent, with incomes averaging $1.2 million per year, will receive an average tax cut of $78,460 this year, and have seen their share of the total tax burden fall roughly 2 percentage points to 20.1 percent.” While this is most likely “accurate reporting” (that is, the Democrats did say this) it’s not actually to be found in the data of the CBO report. In fact, if you look at Table 3 of the report (use the link above, and read this for yourself) you will find that the share of “Total Tax Liabilities” for the top 1% of the population hits 21.2% by 2010, when the tax laws sunset (that is, revert back to the higher tax rates of 2000.)

So first, the Democrats actually understate the tax burden by 1 full percentage point. Not “even” a rounding error mistake. But what’s worse, they are arguing that it is “not fair” in some measure that 1% of the population is only paying 21% of the taxes. Read that again, slowly. 1% of the population is only paying 21% of the taxes. Let that sink in. That’s apparently too low, according to the Democrats.

Wow.

As if that isn’t enough, Table 4 actually is more “telling” since it presents the differences in tax Rates and liabilities. Yes, the tax rates for the top 1% dropped by a greater percentage. Could that be due to the fact that we are taxing them at a much higher rate to begin with? Remember, the more money you earn after you hit the highest tax rate, the greater percentage of your income you pay at that rate. If today, you happen to earn one dollar over the line, pushing you into the highest tax bracket, you will pay that rate–but only on one dollar. On the other hand, if you earn 1 million dollars over the line, you pay that higher rate for that total amount. So the total effective tax rate for a person one dollar over the line is far lower (given that the vast weight of the rate is the lower tax rates) than the rate for the person one million over who, for all practical purposes, earned all their income at the higher rate.

Now, that being said, you would think that the total change in share of the tax burden, or as the CBO report puts it, the total share of the “Individual Income Tax LIabilities” would decrease by a greater rate. But we see that is not the case. According to their report, those people in the top 20% of earners (highest quintile) actually show an increase in the share of the liability for most years, and there are only three years (2006-2008) when the tax share decreases at all for those in the top 1%. On the other hand, those in the bottom 60% of earners show a decrease in the total share of income tax burden every year. EVERY year.

Please, Democrats, let’s be intellectually honest here. Present the facts. The facts being simply this–The tax cuts put more money back in everyones’ hands, and at the same time did maintain the progressive tax structure that you believe is so important.

The other fact is even more insidious. Most people won’t go read the report, and the CBO won’t engage in political debates, so they won’t correct you.

But I will. And hopefully so will others.

Your homework today? Find truth. Seek truth. Live Truth.

I, of course, am not convinced of this.

For instance, I struggle with trying to identify “core values or beliefs.” I am frustrated by the constant repetition that the Democrats will unify, while the Republicans are divisive. Michael Medved was clear on his show Tuesday, when he pointed out the nation is divided, and that is seen in the political parties, and not the other way around.

Let me ask (yet another rhetorical) question. What makes the Democrats believe that they can “unify” the nation? The division isn’t simply one group liking one person and disliking another. We have at the heart of the dispute disagreements that are fundamental. While we all want the same overt outcomes (success for people, healthcare, jobs) how we view people, and thus how we believe our nation can best achieve these goals, are vastly different.

This is made manifest in just listening to the personalities on Air America, especially their morning shows. One morning they commented that they don’t disrespect, or hate, Christians, and then, literally in the next breath, they made fun of these people who “actually believe” these things. Now, how they can’t see the blatant hypocrisy in that statement, I don’t know. Another interesting aspect of the division is when Janeane Garafolo commented that George Bush “actually said the verdict is still out on Evolution” and continued to deride his Christian beliefs. The true irony came when she said essentially that it is terrible that “Bush doesn’t believe in Evolution.” Heck, is it belief, or something else?

See, the debate is fundamental. This isn’t about parties, and divisive politics. It’s about vastly different world views, irreconcilable world views.

So honestly, how can EITHER party truly consider themselves uniters? Even Clinton, who saw himself as a great uniter, never was able to earn even 50% of the popular vote, in either election.

The only way I can see, is to win the election, and then pretend that no one disagrees with you, and that your mandate is complete–the very view the Democrats have accused the Bush Administration for taking.

The exam is next week–I hope you are studying.

My Brother points out the problem that Churches are facing with the new “Hate Speech” laws that are hitting the books. I of course, found it quite interesting that the Canadian law allows for “religious Hatespeech.” Go figure–they liberal elements of society are willing to protect the Church, but not willing to accept that perhaps they are pushing the definition of “hate” a bit too far.

I have for many years been opposed to “enhanced” punishment for hate crimes. Why? Am I an insensitive, unfeeling person? No–actually quite the reverse. I think if an action against another person is bad enough to be labeled a crime, then the punishment should be equally severe, regardless of race, or gender, or any other bias. Who cares why you beat someone up? Who cares why you killed someone? You did it, and you should receive the severest of punishments.

Perhaps this is my personal bias, having been on the receiving end of a bully’s pummelling more than once. It sure would aggravate me that “100 pound weakling” is not a protected class, unless I happened to also be a homosexual.

That being said, one would think I would want equal treatment of people who spew hate through words. Actually, I do–I want them to be treated just as anyone else, who spews any type of speech, hate speech, or loving speech. I don’t buy into the liberal view that sticks, stones, AND words hurt me.

This nation was built on, among other things, the notion that the free exchange of ideas is to the benefit of all. The First Amendment protects all political speech, which unfortunately for some at times is painful. In the article my brother cites, is the following:

“Soren Andersson, president of a Swedish federation for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights, said religious freedom is never a reason to offend people.”

Are we to make it illegal to use words that, as we see above “offend people?” Who is to determine where this line is drawn? Certainly today’s political discourse in the US should qualify as offending many. The “Left” has regularly announced the affront they feel whenever Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, and Sean Hannity speak. I for one have chosen listening to Janeane Garafolo as my personal Cardio-vascular exercise regimen. President Bush has been virulently attacked by Move-On dot org for many months now. These are “offensive” words to some, and in fact I would say many–but it is this discourse that makes America great!

Should we now cave in to those who wish to make it illegal to speak your mind? To share ideas, no matter how offensive?

How soon is it, until defending the offensive is in itself “indefensible?”

Place your homework on the desk, face down.

Now, usually I don’t spend TOO much time thinking about such things, except these days accusations are flying that people are not “Patriots.” What truly strikes me as “interesting” is the radio-ical left (Al Franken, Janeane Garafalo, and the like) essentially standing indignant that “the radical right” is calling them unpatriotic. (And, alas, I have no direct citations
here either–just weak old-dude memory.) Unfortunately, I dont’ remember anyone actually accusing anyone of being “unpatriotic” and the only use of “Unamerican” I remember since the McCarthy era was Theresa Kerry’s use a week and a half ago, which she conveniently forgot that she had even said.

So what does it mean to be “American” and what does it mean to be “Patriotic?” Should this even matter?

Perhaps we are all missing the bigger picture. Yes, our nation was attacked, and yes we are deeply divided from the election in 2000. Unfortunately, we as a nation are so conditioned to place blame rather than fix problems, that we cannot be satisfied to put our shoulders to the grindstone, and just “fix things.” What do I mean by this, by this notion that we “need” to place blame? This is an even deeper problem.

As a nation we feel “someone must pay” when something happens. We see this in the highly litigious nature of our world, where everyone has the right to “sue” when they are offended, or affronted, or hurt. Why? Because “someone” must pay. In many instances that is perfectly fine–if I company knowingly sells a product that, when used as intended will potentially harm the careful consumer, they should pay for that act. People, and corporations, should be accountable for their decisions and their actions.

It’s when this need for accountability spills over into holding people accountable for the actions of others that I have problems. The Columbine shootings are one example of the larger pathology. When the people who commit evil, such as the two boys in Columbine and the terrorists on the airplanes from 9/11/2001, kill themselves in the process, we seem to somehow feel “cheated.” “We” are unable to exact revenge, to punish, and thus we start to look elsewhere for someone to “make pay” for this. Quite often I hear “someone must pay for…” and then we seek to find someone, anyone, that we can blame. Perhaps it is some deep psychological need for this elusive “closure” that people feel they need. I am not sure, but I do know it takes time, energy, and resources away from those things which could make a difference. For instance, the 9/11 Commission has spent millions of dollars to find what we all really knew. Terrorists were directly responsible. Our government was not prepared for such an event, and the benign neglect spanned several administrations.

Wow–no wonder President Bush didn’t want to have the Commission. I suspect he knew that we would all learn what we all already knew–and it would distract attention away from the things that mattered.

So how does this tie to Patriotism? Simply because people on all sides, in a frenetic effort to “assign blame” have a tendency to assign motives as well.

1. President Bush wasn’t opposing the Commission because he understood that they would find nothing new, but was rather participating in a vast cover-up. This hypothesis has even been put forward in part by Michael Moore, and others, who assert Bush knew about the effort for 9/11 and passively participated in the conspiracy.
2. The War in Iraq was “obviously” all about the oil–just ask Janeane Garafalo. Forget that the supposed benefits of “having the oil” haven’t been seen. Forget the fact that even the 9/11 Commission concluded that there were ties between Al Qaeda and Saddam (although not in the planning/execution of the event.) Forget that millions of people were tortured and killed by Saddam, and that we have seen the liberation of a people who for 30 years lived under tyrannical rule. Those are just inconvenient facts. The war was certainly all about the oil.
3. Michael Moore hates America–certainly this is clear because he made a movie that attacked the President through a twisting of the facts, and resequencing or ignoring key issues. Yes, I am defending Michael Moore–in the sense that I believe he honest is acting out of love of country in making his movie.

You see, by definition, according to The American Heritage Dictionary a Patriot is “One who loves, supports, and defends one’s country.” We might not agree with their methods. In fact, we might not agree on what the country should be doing, or even how it looks, but we all want to see Her defended. Michael Moore’s vision of what America should be disagrees with mine. I actually believe his vision is harmful, but I understand that he is acting out of a love for what America can become.

Patriotism may be lacking in America. There are probably not enough people willing to stand up, support, and make sacrifices for America. But we should, even while disagreeing strongly, acknowledge and praise those Americans who are willing to take a stand for what they believe America can be, even if that vision is at odds with our own.

Are there any questions? If not, class is dismissed.

=================

One little side note I discovered while researching this. The title “PATRIOT Act of 2001″ is actually an acronym. It is “Provide Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001.” And we don’t think congress is creative.

I am getting tired of the anger about Bush. I am not “angry” about the anger. Tired. Geez, get OVER it. So now, because the President maintained his composure, and chose to not panic a classroom of children, he gets chastised by his opponent–the same opponent who insisted that they would take no cheap shots, and won’t make it personal? I have never understood the logic that says that demonstrating a “sense of urgency” is important. It’s not if you LOOK like you are urgent, it is do you respond with an understanding of the sense of urgency of the matter at hand.

So I am left with these questions: What if Bush had rushed outside, determined, if not panicked? What decisions could he have made in those 7 minutes that would have changed anything? Both towers had been hit, the Pentagon plane was fast inbound, and no one knew about the plane in PA. Could he have found them using some magical system on Air Force One? Would he have been able to ground all the other planes faster than they did? Would the terrorists have obeyed a “land immediately” order? Seriously–what COULD he have done?

Now that I have that out of the way–what else is news?