Posted on | May 19, 2014 | 1 Comment
I posted the following tweets to Twitter conversation regarding the telcos wanting to prioritize access on the Internet and the FCC’s deliberation. I got a response from FCC Chief Information Officer David A. Bray. I thought the discourse made for an interesting read for those interested.
this isn’t an end all be all conversation on the issue and neither I nor David Bray have the power to decide. Ideally, together we all have that power by letting the FCC know what side of the issue we stand on. Senator Al Franken called this fight “the free-speech issue of our time“. He’s not the only one weighing in either, Netflix, Amazon.com, and Reddit co-founder Alexis Ohanian among others.
It may even be a moot point because unless the ISP’s are classified as common carriers the FCC may not be able to do anything at all because the courts already ruled in favor of the telcos.
“Sure, the proposal may ask if so-called fast lanes should be banned outright, but Wheeler is already well aware of the answer: Unless ISPs start being classified as common carriers (i.e. services that are legally required to cater to all), the FCC doesn’t have the legal authority to do so even if they wanted to. It’s like asking if we should have world peace; the answer’s obvious, and there’s absolutely nothing he can do about it.” – gizmodo.com The FCC Thinks We’re All Idiots
It still doesn’t sit well with me that FCC chairman Tom Wheeler was a lobbyist for the cable companies previously. Even worse, he was appointed by President Obama to head the FCC even though Candidate Obama promised to protect Net Neutrality. Hopefully, letters, comments, and phone calls to the FCC directly and even creative protest methods will get the word to them that Net Neutrality needs to be protected.
Our conversation went like this.
Posted on | March 30, 2014 | 2 Comments
Businessman and investor, Kevin O’Leary, mostly known for starring in Shark Tank in America and Dragon’s Den in his home country of Canada, was interviewed on CNN by Erin Burnett’s Out Front. This appearance took place towards the end of February but this video clip of Kevin advocating for less government regulation and against the minimum wage increase has experienced a resurgence on the Internet lately.
Kevin, Kevin, Kevin. I was going to let this pass without a comment but it just kept popping up. There are many faults with Kevin’s logic here. I’m surprised Erin Burnett didn’t push back a bit harder, especially on misleading ideas like the 1% paying taxes at a 38% tax rate while the middle class only pay 12% on average. Most of us who were paying attention during all the presidential campaigning for the 2008 and 2012 elections are familiar with this misleading bit of lip service. More than likely those reading this pay a higher tax percentage than Mr. Wonderful does; ask Mr. Warren “There’s only three people on the planet richer than me” Buffet and Politifact. So there’s no need to go into that.
What’s come under barrages of scrutiny is now being defended in the soundest way we have ever seen. The argument against the “1%” has always been a major issue every since the exposure of activists years ago. Rarely has a person of the “1%” ever gone to great lengths to defend their side and what they believe. – conservativepost.com After His Response, CNN Immediately Regretted Asking Kevin O’Leary The ‘1%’ Question
Yup, it sure does sound good at times. Kevin speaks well and he’s confident in what he delivers, which is why some people believe these cons. It’s how politicians get us to vote for them even though they continue to show us that they will lie during the campaign just to get in office. “Confidence” is where “con” comes from in this sense; a “con man” is literally a “confidence man”. I’m not suggesting that the grinning Canadian is a pulling a con, I think he actually believes what he’s saying. It’s how you get a better deal.
A few things bug me though that people like O’Leary keep trying to push on people. He remarks early on about the “vilification of the 1%”; that misnomer really grinds my gears. People using this line of talk are trying to further this idea of a war on the rich for being rich. Kevin O’Leary is an entrepreneur investor who worked his way up to the about $300 million net worth he has today. I don’t demonize him for that achievement, nor do I think most American’s hate him or other monetarily successful people for their net worth specifically. It’s not necessarily the fact that the 1% have astronomical bank accounts that have people calling them out, it’s what they are doing with it, how they are taking advantage of others and the system, and how they are stepping on people to increase that wealth. This is America, we love people to be successful. Being successful is apart of our tagline. “Live the American Dream” is right up there with “I’m Lovin’ It”, “Built Ford Tough”, and “Just Do It” for most influential slogans. The 1% aren’t being vilified for being successful they are being criticized for being dicks. The wealth gap has always been here, sure, but it’s never been this wide. It’s not just a massive disparity by accident either, it’s taken a constant sustained effort of an impressive amount of greed and entitlement to get it to these levels. We’re talking about super human levels of douchebaggery here. It’s hard work.
The Job Creators. These guys love this. It’s like their preferred weapon. Again though, it’s misleading. And again, we heard a crap ton about this during the debates about extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. They needed those cuts to create jobs even though they had those cuts all along yet hadn’t created them. The problem with O’Leary’s attempt at putting the job creation ideology in a solitary box is that it tries to make people believe that a job alone is the cure-all. He doesn’t say “living wage job creators”. Just jobs. I can be a job creator right now if I offered 100 people $1 a month to do something for me. Boom, I just created one hundred jobs. But, those workers can’t live on that, they can’t even buy a candy bar these days from that wage in America. I just created jobs though, so you’re logic means nothing here peasant!
The response will be, “The market won’t allow it because someone will pay them higher for the same thing and take your workers.” That would always be true if there were more jobs than people and those jobs paid living wages. The number of people far exceed the number of available jobs the Kevin O’Leary’s of the world create. So in terms that O’Leary would understand, supply is less than demand. This will never change so the market correction idea is bogus and they know it. Supply is always going to be a premium commodity when the product is jobs. So in my extremely ludicrous $1 a month wage scenario the market won’t step in to force my price higher because even if every single job available was filled, there would still be people looking for work. If someone gets desperate enough they will take that price. And I could sit there knowing I could pay $2 a month and it wouldn’t affect me at all but never you mind, I need all the extra I can get; I don’t have enough cars yet.
People don’t get a job just for the sake of having a job. People get jobs to make an income, to provide for themselves and their families. I’m sure I can come up with any number of jobs to be done around the house but no one will want them if I’m not paying. This steadfast delivery of the talking point “we can create more jobs” also carries with it an unsaid “and you should be happy to get what we give you” with it. Listen again when people start saying it. The idea sounds great on the surface and the defenders pit the middle class, small business owners, liberals, conservatives, and everyone against one another while they laugh all the way to the bank.
Now I’m not saying a minimum wage increase will solve all the problems either; even though as Burnett pointed out it will raise many out of poverty. I’m also not diminishing the importance of business or the jobs they create. I am challenging the ideas that O’Leary and those that think like him put forth in regards to how they use “job creator” as a multi-pass as a reason to allow them to operate with impunity. I suspect that business will just pass along the minimum wage increase to the customers and eventually the spread will be the same as it is now prompting a need for another increase. It’s like how the cost of living keeps going up. Or they’ll see it as the customers now having more income so they can increase their prices to get that extra 1ooth percent of profit they missed, because business operates like it’s never seen a bell curve or taken a basic economics class. O’Leary said we have a “growth” problem. We aren’t growing as fast as we should. Should is a wishful term. Nothing grows forever except maybe stupidity. Limited resources, limited currency, limited customers does not equal unlimited growth. Sustainability is what lasts forever. Look “sustain” is right there in the word. You can fake continued growth by cutting costs, shipping jobs overseas, reducing benefits, streamlining production, or firing workers which will allow you to operate at the same high profit margin and pay out those inflated large salaries and bonuses but you can’t get infinity out of the finite.
It isn’t robbing the rich to give to the poor when you are correcting injustices that you’ve been committing just because you have been committing them so long it feels like it’s normal and how it’s supposed to be. But it is robbing the poor to use your power, money, and influence to make sure the poor stay poor. You’re company looks after a handful of people, while the government has to look after the welfare of hundreds of millions. You alone are not before them. Let’s not forget that the reason regulations came about in the first place is because the industries were taking advantage of the workers. The abuses of power, control, and influence is what put the yolk on the necks of business. Ironically, it’s the abuses committed by the 1% that brought about the regulations that make it more difficult for the small business that the 1% keep trying to stand behind as a reason to have regulatory rules loosened. And people are buying it lock, stock, and barrel. Of course, too much regulation can make it impossible for those wishing for a fair share to do anything but too little makes it possible for those wishing for everyone’s share to do everything.
Shhh, use your inside voice Kevin.
Posted on | February 9, 2014 | 1 Comment
Well it seems good conscience and public outrage may have won out over Capitalism. The so-called “celebrity boxing” match between the killer from Florida and rapper DMX has been cancelled. Is this a precedent? I think this might be a precedent. Maybe, just maybe, if we try we could make this part of the culture. I’m a dreamer. Anyway, in these few and far between moments we should rejoice. The promoter Damon Feldman tweeted the news.
Done with George Zimmerman if you had a major payday sitting in front of you , I know no one else would walk away like I did ***Next!!
— Damon Feldman (@hollywoodbox11) February 9, 2014
I made the right decision I could of made big $$$ but I would rather be happy
— Damon Feldman (@hollywoodbox11) February 9, 2014
That’s good to hear. Feldman has been fielding questions and comments like crazy on his Twitter account since the announcement of the match. Unfortunately he’s right, it would have been a big payday for him. That’s part of the problem. No matter how many finger waggers are out there, or how disgusting it would be to put Zimmerman on TV in any capacity that doesn’t involve him going to jail, people would still pay to watch. Those that don’t find the faux-watchman a slug while still holding on to the false comforting notion that the young man he killed was a thug would no doubt be sitting in front of the television waiting for the round one bell. Even some of those that find the event distasteful would be glued to their set to see degrading train wreck unfold. Then, following the fight, the cable news talk shows would be out in full force replaying clips while commentating. That’s not Feldman’s fault.
I want everyone to know this is all entertainment that’s all
— Damon Feldman (@hollywoodbox11) February 7, 2014
Entertainment. What is it? Can we commodify everything as entertainment? From the Roman coliseums to broadcasting the vitriolic dogma of political agendas, entertainment has always been a go to excuse to avoid taking responsibility for what is being put on display. It’s not Feldman’s fault that people want to see it but the responsibility is on him and those involved regarding it’s promotion and profit from it. Just because you can, doesn’t always mean you should. Science, I’m also looking at you!
We should all do a bit of a gut check. When the first news of potential fight broke there were all kinds of people entertaining the idea of seeing the bad guy get his comeuppance. I saw the news feeds, message board posts, Twitter responses, and Facebook shares.
Thankfully it seems public pressure won out over potential profit. It doesn’t happen often. Whether or not it was stopped because of pressure, or people came to their senses, or because Damon Feldman realized that this much controversy may net him a big payday now but hurt his business and brand in the long run, let’s be happy it has been stopped.
George Zimmerman is not a celebrity and should never be regarded as one nor associated with an event that has celebrity in the title. This guy has become infamous for killing a teenage boy and threatening lady friends with firearms. So he is ready for the ring and has been trained in MMA yet his excuse for shooting Trayvon Martin was self-defense because he was in fear for his life? This doesn’t belong on television and he doesn’t belong in any spotlight that isn’t coming from a police helicopter or a prison guard tower.
So let’s give a slow-clap for public push back against the fight and for the decision to end this fiasco.
Just don’t clap to enthusiastically. Remember, at one point this was a thing. A real thing. And you were probably, briefly, interested.
Posted on | November 1, 2013 | No Comments
The age of Os X Mavericks has begun. With the new operating system, Apple has updated or downgraded, depending on who you ask, their productivity suite, iWork. Apple citizens are not happy. The iWork suite of applications contains Pages for word processing and layout design, Numbers for spreadsheets, and Keynote for presentations. These applications competed directly with Microsoft’s Office for the attention of Apple desktop computer users. It’s iOS version battled it out in the smartphone arena. The desktop application hasn’t seen a major update since the release of iWork ’09. So the new release was a welcome announcement to users. Even more exciting was that Apple was making the new version free to new users. There was dancing in the street until people actually got a copy of the latest iWork software.
“…the company ended up removing a large number of features from the OS X edition of the suite, with both Pages and Numbers boasting fewer capabilities and a general lack of support for automation and scripting.” – macworld.com Power loss: Reactions to the new iWork for OS X
Apple has done this before. Even under Steve Jobs’ watch. When Apple moved from the robust iMovie 6 HD to iMovie ’08 there were many features missing from the previous version. Users raised such a ruckus that Apple eventually relented and put iMovie 6 HD on their website as a free download.
Apple’s Quicktime player has been stripped as well. Quicktime lost it’s pro capabilities upon the “update” from Quicktime 7 to Quicktime X in 2009. Several OS X iterations later and those pro options haven’t been returned.
Who can forget the move from Final Cut Pro to the new Final Cut Pro X? Aside from the radical new redesign the newer version of Apple’s video editing software was missing a lot of things from it’s predecessors. In this case though, many features have since been restored in subsequent updates.
Apple has never been afraid of overturning the apple cart. They did it with the introduction to OS X, they did it with the introduction of the Intel chips, and of course Final Cut Pro X. In those cases they did so in order to move things forward and the decisions have worked well. Apple is making the
iWork suite cross compatible with all the iterations spanning desktop, mobile, and web. Dumbing down the desktop version to the level of the mobile platform seems opposite of what they should have done. Apple seems to be, yet again, going for the larger user base which would be that of iOS. I, for one, don’t want to iOS on my desktop. They are two different worlds. Any serious productivity isn’t being done on an iPad or tablet. You’d think that upgrading the iOS versions to the level of the desktop would make everyone happy. Who knows though, Apple may have a larger plan that will justify their actions.
The big issue is Apple’s air of pretentiousness when it comes to doing such things. iWork is missing many features that users have come to rely on and that are pretty standard in other productivity applications and there hasn’t been a word of explanation from Apple headquarters about why. When they introduced the updated suite and its new features in their presentation there was no mention of things missing. At the very least give users a heads up upon introduction. An explanation when they are losing their collective minds would also be the polite thing to do.
Learning that the 500 page book you’ve just completed and designed isn’t completely compatible with the new Pages after you’ve installed the update isn’t something you want to find out when you click Open. Or that once it’s opened you are missing functions you need that you had in the previous version causing you to have to reinstall (real scenario and if it’s happened to you there are ways to restore your old iWork documents). There’s a growing list of things missing in the new Pages word processor in a thread that has been viewed over 28,000 times on the Apple forums called; “Why does Apple get rid of so many useful features in new pages?“
My point is, it’s a matter of respect for those that support what you do. At least let them know what is happening. Staying silent and providing no answers to their questions is pretentious and quite douchey. It’s even worse for a company like Apple that receives fierce brand loyalty from the people who use their products.
Posted on | October 4, 2013 | 14 Comments
There is a puzzle plaguing the very fabric of sanity on Facebook and the rest of social media. The debate over the answer rages on. For those here only looking for the answer, scroll down below the quote box. If you want to try to solve it first, stop reading now.
Solve if you are Genius!
The answer is 3. If your timelines or feeds are like mine you have no doubt seen this puzzle. Another form of this quiz adds “9=72″ in the list of statements and replaces the cartoon Einstein with Calvin from the Calvin and Hobbes comic strip. Responses range from potential answers of 3, 6, 9, 14 and 42 (referring to The Hitchhiker’s Guide To The Galaxy) to long debates and explanations of how they arrived at their answer. Most people agree on 6. An Internet search has yet to turn up the source of the problem. Apparently one iteration of this puzzle image has over 25,000 retweets on Twitter and over 16 million Twitpic views. It is a defining question of our generation!
As I stated above, the answer is 3. The reason is because the preceding statements are false statements to make you think there is a pattern to mislead you. 9 never equals 72, 8 never equals 56, and so on. 3 never equals anything other than 3. The problem doesn’t set up a premise by saying “If these statements are true then what does 3 equal?” It just presents you with incorrect answers and in an effort to solve the problem we look for a pattern. It’s similar to the kid’s word joke that leads you to the wrong answer so everyone can laugh at you.
What do you do at a green light……..
Raise your hand if reading that you thought “stop” when of course the answer is “go”. It’s the same with the math problem, you are expecting to follow the pattern instead of paying attention to what you are being asked. It’s misdirection, magicians rely on it. Neil Strauss, author of The Game, demonstrates this idea using 3 coins.
Looking over the discussions, responses, and reasoning going on in these threads to try to make the answer be anything other than 3 and defending their own rationalizations, I realized it was sort of a mirror to the way we think. Even when presented with the logical answer we many times will ignore the logic, facts, and truths and argue the incorrect point we believe. We see this all the time. It reminds me of pretty much every political argument that has ever taken place. Even when presented with facts that counter their reality people will emotionally cling to the false belief or point and argue it until they are hoarse. It is something we all have done at one time or another.
Mitt Romney’s recent presidential campaign was famously guilty of this.
Mitt Romney’s campaign said on Tuesday that its ads attacking President Obama’s waiver policy on welfare have been its most effective to date. And while the spots have been roundly criticized as lacking any factual basis, the campaign said it didn’t really care.
“We’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers,” Romney pollster Neil Newhouse said at a panel organized by ABC News.
This is a different standard than the one Romney himself has held up for the election-season ad wars. Reacting to attacks by a pro-Obama super PAC, Romney recently told a radio station that “in the past, when people pointed out that something was inaccurate, why, campaigns pulled the ad.” huffingtonpost.com Mitt Romney Campaign: We Will Not ‘Be Dictated By Fact-Checkers’
The point is, sometimes we need to take a step back, assess the situation and question what it is we are arguing and be open to the possibility that might be incorrect.
For example, this whole post could be me doing exactly what I observed others doing in defense of their answers. I could be incorrect about the answer being 3 but I’m not.
Because I’m genius.
« go back — keep looking »