Old World Wishy-Washy

April 16, 2012 by 1 Comment

Mrs Wishy-WashyAs The New World of Technology, led on the device side by Apple products, continues to replace the Old World of Technology, it has become harder for established technology experts to downplay the iPhone and iPad. In fact, while it was nearly “standard operating procedure” for technology experts to try to dismiss Apple’s products over the last few years, it now is starting to make them look like they have their heads buried in the sand. How else would you describe someone who continues to deny what seems so obvious to the rest of the world? Therefore it is not surprising to see more articles being written by Old World experts starting to begrudgingly accept Apple’s iOS platform (iPhone and iPad) as a major player in the marketplace. Still, it seems old habits are hard to break, as this article from Paul Thurrott shows.

The article starts off showing that the author actually seems to get what the iPad has done to the technology industry. He understands that the new iPad is going to present a tricky problem for the upcoming Windows 8 and associated hardware manufacturers. And then he does something almost unheard of – he actually acknowledges that he was wrong about downplaying the iPad 2 years ago. He makes a point about how the iPad is all the computer most people need and better than any PC for them. However, even when doing this, he claims that NO ONE saw this coming. “No one credible anyway,” in his own words. Seriously? So instead of simply acknowledging that he was wrong, he has to pretend that it was impossible to foresee the success of the iPad and so dismisses anyone who did predict this.

At this point, let me stray off-topic for just moment – hey Paul, from me to you personally, you can suck it and your definition of credibility – OK, I’m better now.

The majority of the rest of the article goes in depth about technical details of high resolution display technology, how Microsoft and PC hardware vendors have bungled this technology, and how the new iPad’s Retina Display is a huge win for Apple at this time. I won’t bore you with those details, other than to say that the content of this article is for the most part dealing with how superior the iPad is at this time. Which then makes his finish to the article all the more surprising.

He starts to give some arguments about how devices that will run the upcoming Windows 8 operating system will be more versatile than the iPad, and lists off several technical features that potentially could be possible, such as docking stations and ports. In effect he lists features that are commonly associated with laptops. Additionally he states, “all of these machines can run powerful desktop applications, not just the Playskool stuff we see on iPads …” He then quickly asserts that businesses will prefer Windows 8 by a wide margin, just like they prefer Windows over Macs today for the claimed reasons of versatility, manageability, and IT administrator familiarity. To quote him, “Windows 8 will destroy the iPad in the enterprise. There won’t be any contest at all.” He then finishes his article by stating that Windows 8 will earn its spot at the table with iPads, reiterating an earlier comment that he believes the future of computing will be a split between Windows, Android, and Apple.

It’s pretty easy to see what he’s doing here. He can no longer keep his head in the sand about the New World of Technology, but he also doesn’t want to admit that the Old World is ending and alienate himself from his audience of Old World professionals. He flip-flops between the superiority of the iPad, his claim that Windows 8 will be better – at least for business, and then weakly predicts that the future will be a mix of various technologies. That’s understandable as he has made his living writing about Old World technology. But is he really doing anyone any favors? Mr. Thurrot is making the same mistake many Old World thinkers do when looking at the near future of technology. They still think that the market is going to be driven by the “techies” who care about such things as number of ports, gigahertz, and other esoteric technology features. They also still think business technology is going to be driven by a top-down mentality where the IT departments make the standards and forces them down to the end-users.

No, one of the hallmarks of the New World of Technology is that of simplification and ease-of-use. iPhones and iPads are not hugely successful because they have a multitude of ports or are marketed on things like gigahertz and how much they “kick ass”. In fact, many will argue it is the lack of such complexities as one of the driving factors behind their success. Apple’s devices are world-changing because they simply empower their users, not confound them with technology mumbo-jumbo. That is the secret to Apple’s success and everyone else is just trying to superficially copy Apple’s hardware and software look-and-feel. To quote Yoda, “that is why you fail”.

Because Apple has successfully conquered the consumer market, the other concept that most Old Worlders miss is that of bottom-up or grassroots technology in the business world. No longer are the words of the IT department being taken as gospel. On the contrary, employees are demanding their companies support their technology of choice, which is most often Apple devices such as the iPhone and iPad. It was one thing when it was a single user here or there with a Macintosh computer as was the case in the past. IT departments could largely ignore Mac users. But the mass of people who own iPhones and iPads (and increasingly Macs!) are overwhelming IT departments. Especially when many of those users are high-level executives! To highlight this fact, a term has been coined, Bring Your Own Device, to describe this growing trend.

Plus, I must wonder how well the author has explored the multitude of business applications available for the iOS platform. In making his “Playskool” comment, he clearly shows that he doesn’t understand how many businesses have leveraged Apple’s devices to massively increase their productivity. When one of the largest companies in the world, General Electric, is making extensive us of the iOS platform, I think that gives some credibility to its usefulness in a business environment. Wouldn’t you agree, Mr. Thurrot, great guru of all that is credible? Business technology is about a lot more than Microsoft Office and it might help to realize that.

Many Old World thinkers like to put the business and the consumer markets into their own little bubbles, pretending that they are completely separate and there is little relation to the two. Perhaps in the Old World this was true in practice, but the New World of Technology is changing the industry across the board. It is a simple as this: in the New World of Technology, consumers feel empowered to make their own technology decisions and they are taking this empowerment to the workplace. If IT professionals don’t train themselves in New World technologies, they will be replaced by those that do.

Maybe the future of technology won’t be dominated by Apple, but I know what it certainly will be dominated by – New World thinking. As long as Apple is the only personal computer company that is creating products grounded in the rules of the New World of Technology, it will be the only personal computer company to flourish. No, Apple’s technology won’t kill all other technologies, just like Microsoft (as much as it tried) didn’t kill all their competitors, but only Apple is setting the expectation for the way future technologies should work. Any technologies that do not conform to the ease of use, reliability, and empowerment that Apple has set the standard for will quickly be dismissed as the Old World technologies they are.

Old Worlders, let me put you on notice: the time of being wishy-washy is over. Man up and acknowledge that there is a bigger world than ports and gigahertz or fade away with the Old World technologies that you so dearly cling to.

Filed Under: Technology

Al Gore Invented the Internet; HP Invented Angry Birds

April 15, 2012 by Leave a Comment

Peter VesterbackaI stumbled upon a video titled, “HP Startup Case Study: Angry Birds, Rovio Mobile Ltd.” The description states in part, “Born out of a mobile game development competition sponsored by HP, the story of Rovio provides one case study of the role HP has played with successful startups.”

Sounds good, right? It reads like HP was integral in the success of the company behind Angry Birds and this video will tell that story. But upon watching the video, it turns out HP actually did very little for the company. Peter Vesterbacka, the current Chief Marketing Officer of Rovio, was an HP employee who in 2003 organized a competition to build the best possible mobile multiplayer game. This was done to spur developer interest in the first smartphones, of which HP was a player in that very young market. The winners of the competition later came to Vesterbacka for advice and they all ended up forming the company which eventually developed the game Angry Birds. Yes, the HP-sponsored competition did bring together the people who eventually developed the most successful mobile game in history – but that’s pretty much the extent of HP’s involvement.

The delicious irony is that the success of Angry Birds had nothing to do with HP’s involvement in the smartphone market. It was only because of Apple’s iPhone was the technology available and the market created that made the enormous popularity of Angry Birds possible. The same Apple iPhone that blew up the Old World of smartphones and made HP a virtually insignificant player in the smartphone market of today.

Vesterbacka himself admits that without Angry Birds, Rovio would likely no longer exist. Which is basically saying that Apple had more to do with the success of the company than HP did. How’s THAT for a case study!?

Filed Under: Technology

You’ve Got to be Bold to Say That

April 14, 2012 by Leave a Comment

Meridith Valiando BlackberryThere is a commercial on TV for the BlackBerry Bold phone where the main subject claims she gets a thousand e-mails a day and then “boldly” proclaims, “try writing a thousand e-mails on a touch screen”. The absurdity of writing a thousand e-mails a day on anything, much less a phone, has been thoroughly dissected already. But I found her statement to be especially ironic, considering that some BlackBerry phones have been released with touch screens in the past – really poorly implemented touch screens!

I’ve been using messaging devices since the original BlackBerry, the 950, back around the year 2000/2001. I’ve used or tested a multitude of PDAs and smartphones since that time. I have a lot of experience with various hard key and touch screen interfaces. I myself was an advocate of hard buttons and was very concerned about the original iPhone interface. But 4 years after the introduction of the iPhone, I find that there is little functional difference between the various BlackBerry hard-button keyboards and the iPhone touch screen keyboard. It really comes down to practice and user experience. I’ve seen people cranking out text messages with one hand on an iPhone. I’ve also seen people rapidly tapping away on a BlackBerry. Bottom line, attempting to downplay the iPhone by attacking their touch screen interface is a pretty desperate play by BlackBerry, not to mention ineffective. And by doing so in such an absurd manner that invites easy criticism, it calls into question their credibility.

Try typing a thousand e-mails on a touch screen? Sure, no problem. Unless it is on a BlackBerry touch screen!

 

 

 

Filed Under: Technology

Commerce Clause Run Amok

April 14, 2012 by 7 Comments

Commerce ClauseI was recently asked, “in your view, may Congress regulate the public airwaves or is that beyond the scope of the so-called Commerce Clause?” This question was in reference to the power of the federal government to regulate interstate commerce, given that radio and TV broadcasts are interstate in nature. I started to respond to this question, but then decided it would be much better to write an article covering this, as it brings up a whole slew of issues. The interstate commerce clause is actually a very relevant topic right now with the “Obamacare” law being debated in the Supreme Court, which makes writing this article all the more timely.

In general, my answer to any question about the federal government’s authority always begins by reviewing the powers enumerated in the Constitution (Article I, Section 8; or any applicable amendment). Is such power explicitly given to congress? If not, then the answer is no, they do not have that authority. This process is supported by the 10th Amendment, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” So let’s look at the question using this process.

The first question that needs to be answered is how to classify the “airwaves”. Are they commerce or are they communication? Obviously, this answer will skew the discussion, so let’s explore both scenarios.

Let’s first take the viewpoint that radio transmissions (whether this is commercial radio, TV, HAM, shortwave, etc.) are primarily forms of communication. Obviously, the founders could not have imagined radio-based broadcasting, so we can’t look for that specifically in the Constitution. However we do find that there is no mention of regulating any form of communication in the enumerated powers or amendments. So we must first accept the idea that the founders did not want communication to be regulated by the federal government. And this idea is supported by the first amendment, where the freedom of speech and the press (which is the closest thing to broadcasting of the time) were specifically protected. So from the viewpoint of communications, the answer is clearly that the federal government can not regulate radio and TV broadcasts.

Next, we consider if the “airwaves” are a form of commerce. Without going into too much detail, I think it is quite a stretch to say that the transmission of radio signals is primarily a form of commerce. For purposes of this discussion, the only real evidence needed is that the “airwaves” can be used for private communication where no commerce is involved at all. But in the strict sense of regulating interstate commerce, ignoring for the moment the spirit of limited government inherent in the Constitution, maybe the federal government could regulate only those transmissions where commerce was being transacted, but no more. And they could only regulate the commerce being transacted, not the underlying technology. But even this very limited allowance of regulation would open a whole can of worms as to what exactly defines the commerce. For example, if I’m listening to the radio, am I engaging in commerce with the radio station? I’m not sending them any money so how is that commerce? If it’s not commerce, then how can it be regulated? Does the simple fact that commerce exists “somewhere” in the operation of a radio or TV station give the government the power to regulate everything around that commerce? If so, that’s a very slippery slope, because commerce exists in almost everything – in effect we could say that there is nothing out of the reach of federal regulation because commerce touches everything.

It shouldn’t be shocking that many people do in fact think that nothing is out of the reach of federal regulation. The country has become acclimated to a multitude of government regulations and programs, many of which use the interstate commerce clause as the basis for government authority – predictably creating the very slippery slope scenario that I reference above. But what if we don’t ignore the spirit of limited government in the Constitution and re-examine if the interstate commerce clause does in fact give the federal government the authority commonly claimed? We should start by reading the clause as written in the Constitution, “To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes”

Any discussion of the interstate commerce clause must revolve around the basic question: can congress regulate commerce itself, or only the mechanisms of commerce among the states? The whole of the commerce clause begins by giving the federal government the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, which is to say they can do things like impose tariffs, create import regulations, etc. In other words, they can regulate the mechanisms of foreign commerce. It would be ludicrous to think that this clause gives the United States government the authority to regulate businesses in foreign countries. Continuing in the same clause, they are given power to regulate commerce “among the several states”. Would it not be rational to conclude that in a clause giving power to regulate the mechanisms of commerce with foreign nations, the same clause would also apply similar power to the mechanisms of commerce among the states – not an overarching power to regulate commerce itself?

I would also argue that if this clause were in fact meant to give the federal government the power to regulate people and business, that purpose and those powers would be more explicitly and clearly enumerated, probably in a clause all of its own. The founders were very concerned with the possibility that the Constitution would be construed in ways to expand government power beyond what was enumerated. The entire process that culminated in the Bill of Rights was in very large part due to these concerns. The founders and states were very fearful of big government and making the leap from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution caused worry that it would create a federal government with too much power. It is easy to see the spirit of the Constitution was about explicitly defining and limiting the power of the federal government. So does it make sense that a clause would be included that gives the federal government carte blanche to regulate business in any way it sees fit? It is no leap of faith to say that the founders had no intention of the federal government getting involved in regulating business. What faster route to oppression than a government that can manipulate and control the economy of a country?

It is often argued that the reason for giving the federal government the power to regulate commerce “among the several states” was so that the states would not create trade restrictions among themselves. By taking this power away from the states, an interstate “free trade zone” would be created, heading off potential conflict between the states as well as encouraging interstate commerce. It was not intended to give the federal government the power to regulate the economy. This argument is bolstered by the fact that it wasn’t until Roosevelt’s New Deal that the interstate commerce clause was extensively used as the basis for far-reaching federal law. Had the interstate commerce clause been intended for overall economic regulation, why did it take nearly 150 years for this power to be exercised (abused?) to the level it has for the last 80?

Obviously, the federal government regulates the “airwaves” almost completely today, as well as enforcing volumes of law and regulations in other areas of commerce and society. Let’s not fall into the trap of assuming that just because they are doing it today, that they are doing it legally, or that they SHOULD be doing it. This is why I have put the word “airwaves” in quotes throughout. What exactly are “airwaves” and what makes them “public?” These are definitions that the government has created, which conveniently seems to support their rationale for regulating radio transmissions. But the reality is that the government has no authority to control the “airwaves,” as I and many others have shown.

Faced with this idea, often the next argument rationalized is that regulation of the airwaves is something that the federal government should do, and is in our best interest anyway. To the contrary, it is entirely possible and likely that free enterprise would have solved the challenges of radio communication independent of government regulation, and would have done it much more efficiently and fairly than the FCC. We just need to look at the regulatory-free rise of the personal computer and the Internet for evidence that things like this can happen. But regardless, the argument is largely irrelevant if government regulation violates the Constitution – unless one is advocating ignoring the Constitution, which is the slipperiest of all the slopes.

Any discussion about the interstate commerce clause introduces a host of difficult considerations for many people, as it has so often been used as the basis for federal regulations for the last 80 years. Could the government have been so wrong? Does it continue to be wrong? It is almost too much to comprehend. In order to productively discuss the commerce clause, we must be open to the idea that the possibility exists that government has applied this clause incorrectly to justify past legislation. I’m not asking that you agree that the government has been wrong – just that the possibility exists. Because if you open your mind to this possibility, you also open your mind to the possibility that they may be wrong in the future.

Filed Under: Liberty, Technology

A Republican Form of Government

March 31, 2012 by 1 Comment

Democracy - Two Wolves and a SheepA couple of months ago, I had the TV on watching coverage of the primaries and caucuses that were occurring that day. After the Minnesota primary was essentially over, Ron Paul gave a speech (skip to about 7:06 in this video) where he said something utterly astonishing for a politician, “… those laws have to be repealed if we want to live in a true republic.” I about stood up in amazement. A republic? If we are to believe just about every other politician out there (i.e. big government politician), we live in a democracy. Otherwise, why are our troops being sent to kill and die “to make the world safe for democracy” or to “spread democracy”? Seriously, when was the last time you heard any politician (besides Ron Paul, Rand Paul, or any self-proclaimed libertarian) say anything about a republic? Democracy, democracy, democracy is all we ever hear. And it is usually combined with the tragic misapplication of the word “freedom”.

Are you ready for something truly astounding? The word democracy is NOT in the United States Constitution. Nor is it in the Declaration of Independence, just to cover that document too. The only mention of any form of government in the Constitution is in Article IV Section 4, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government …” Why is this so important?

To be accurate, the government of the United States, as defined by the Constitution, is a “constitutional republic,” or to be more accurate, a “constitutionally limited republic”. This means that the power of government is to be limited to the scope defined to it in the constitution. At least, that is what was intended. The practical nature of the federal government today is far from limited, but that only makes my point. The key difference between a constitutional republic and a democracy is that in a democracy, the majority rules. In other words, might makes right. Or to put it another way, mob rules. Rights are not protected nor guaranteed because the power of government is not bound. Whatever decision comes up to a vote, the side with the most votes (i.e. the side with the most power and influence) wins regardless of how that infringes upon the rights of the minority. I don’t know about you, but this doesn’t sound like a free society to me. So why do big government politicians spout the word democracy as if it is synonymous with freedom? Maybe it’s because they don’t know any better. Or maybe it’s because that’s what they want you to think.

The problem with embracing the idea of democracy as a form of government is that it creates an “us vs. them” mentality. In order to get my way, I must stop someone else from getting their way. Every decision comes down to yes or no. Right or wrong. Winner takes all. There is no room for coexistence or cooperation. However, in a truly free society, most decisions are left up to individuals. Free people can make their own choices for their own lives, as long as those decisions don’t infringe on others. Free people are free to coexist and cooperate. It is a win/win mentality as compared to the win/lose of a democracy.

In a government that has unlimited powers, it is in the politicians’ best interest to create a win/lose mentality. It boosts their importance because their votes hold power over people’s lives. It creates job security to stir up controversy and bring up issues to vote for because it attracts money and power. In a truly free society, politicians are of very little consequence. Their sphere of influence is very limited so they do not attract much thought. But in a system where the government has excessive influence over people’s lives, politicians hold the keys to the kingdom. And they know that the people and organizations with money and power will want to influence their votes. By trumpeting the idea that our country is a democracy and all things should be decided by what the majority believes, the big government politicians have managed to subvert our constitutionally limited republic into a government of virtually unlimited power. A government where a small group of individuals have enormous power and influence. A government where these same set of individuals are the ones who define the pubic discourse of the day. It’s like the fox guarding the hen house. Or, as the graphic says, two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner.

So the next time you hear a big government politician talking about democracy, remember, they think of themselves as one of the wolves and they are looking at you as either the other wolf or the sheep. The question is, do you see yourself as a wolf, a sheep … or a free person?

Filed Under: Liberty

Hell Hath No Fury …

March 30, 2012 by Leave a Comment

Xena is AngryOne of the biggest stories of the year has been the Komen Foundation/Planned Parenthood uproar that I wrote about earlier. This situation was closely followed by the Obamacare/Catholics/Contraception commotion, which I also wrote about. It is this second circumstance that spun off a third controversy, namely the ruckus created when Rush Limbaugh called a woman attending college a slut.

While I could care very little about the Rush Limbaugh situation, I comment on it because it continues what seems to be a recurring theme on my still-young blog: Don’t piss off women.

It doesn’t seem to matter what your political persuasion is, or even if your organization stands for women. If you do anything that seems to infringe on the rights, or even besmirch the honor of women in general, you better be ready for a fight. Perhaps I’m just noticing it more lately, but while various women’s groups have always existed, it just seems that “female power” has been ramped up to a furious level lately. Which is one reason why I wrote the article about Dr. Pepper 10 and the power of women in this New World of Technology.

What do you think? Are women uniting more now than ever in history? Could it have something to do with the power of social media?

Filed Under: Life

It’s Women Stupid, Part 2

March 30, 2012 by Leave a Comment

Dr Pepper 10 Men AdI wrote an article recently about Dr. Pepper 10 committing brand suicide by advertising they are not for women. I received a good response from someone I know that works in the ad industry who argued that the Dr. Pepper commercial was in fact brilliant. I thought I’d take the time to respond to the points made.

The first point was that Dr. Pepper 10 ad could attract men to buy it because the message was calling for men to man-up. I can see this idea. Perhaps some men will buy into that. But since we’re talking about diet soda, if this was the message intended, then I think it is a fairly desperate reach. Diet soda is just not very manly. But at least Dr. Pepper is trying. However, I still think that most soda is purchased for consumption in the home and that is where it will hurt Dr. Pepper if women aren’t buying it.

The second point is that Dr. Pepper is using reverse psychology. They’re betting that women will want to buy it because they are being told they can’t have it. Again, this could turn out to be true. But if this is Dr. Pepper’s strategy, it has just as much a chance of backfiring as it does working. My gut tells me that most women just don’t fall for this type of advertising. Telling someone they can’t have something I think is much more likely to work on kids and men. Side note – what does that say about us men?!

The final point is that the commercial is designed to get us talking about the product. Obviously, I must agree! If anything, this ad campaign has stirred up quite a bit of controversy among women and much has been written about it. I just wonder once the buzz dies down if the product be able to stand on its own. Or if my assertion that Dr. Pepper is shooting themselves in the foot will hold up. I guess we’ll all see!

Filed Under: Life

Trending Towards Dictatorship

March 15, 2012 by Leave a Comment

Liberty Under AttackTake a quick read of the articles linked below. But if you’d prefer, I’ve quoted the relevant passages as well.

President Obama Signed the National Defense Authorization Act – Now What? – Forbes, January 2, 2012

The National Defense Authorization Act greatly expands the power and scope of the federal government to fight the War on Terror, including codifying into law the indefinite detention of terrorism suspects without trial. Under the new law the US military has the power to carry out domestic anti-terrorism operations on US soil.

“The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it,” the president said in a statement. “I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists.”

Holder: US Can Legally Kill Americans In Terror Groups – MSNBC.com, March 5, 2012

The Fifth Amendment provides that no one can be “deprived of life” without due process of law. But that due process, [Attorney General] Holder said, doesn’t necessarily come from a court.

“Due process and judicial process are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security. The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process,” the attorney general said.

“Few things are as dangerous to American liberty as the proposition that the government should be able to kill citizens anywhere in the world on the basis of legal standards and evidence that are never submitted to a court, either before or after the fact,” said Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project.

Obama Administration Shreds Constitution, Says it Can Wage War Unconditionally  – PolicyMic.com, March 9, 2012

Sen. Jeff Sessions: “Do you think that you can act without Congress to initiate a no-fly zone in Syria, without Congressional approval?”

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta: “Again, our goal would be to seek international permission and we would come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this. Whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress, I think those are issues we would have to discuss as we decide what to do here.”

Obama Signs Anti-Protest Trespass Bill – RT.com, March 10, 2012

Only days after clearing Congress, US President Barack Obama signed his name to H.R. 347 on Thursday, officially making it a federal offense to cause a disturbance at certain political events — essentially criminalizing protest in the States.

Under H.R. 347, which has more commonly been labeled the Trespass Bill by Congress, knowingly entering a restricted area that is under the jurisdiction of Secret Service protection can garner an arrest. The law is actually only a slight change to earlier legislation that made it an offense to knowingly and willfully commit such a crime. Under the Trespass Bill’s latest language chance, however, someone could end up in law enforcement custody for entering an area that they don’t realize is Secret Service protected and “engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct” or “impede[s] or disrupt[s] the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions.”

Now, let’s get one thing clear from the start. I’m not an Obama-basher. I have no personal issue with Obama. I see him simply as simply another in a long line of big government politicians. If anything, these articles support the fact that big-government politicians on both sides of the aisle and in all branches of government are complicit in this series of events that are undermining our freedoms. Obama just happens to be the big-government president du jour.

With that out of the way, let’s see the trend here:

1) Under the NDAA the government can detain terrorism “suspects” without trial. Even Obama felt it necessary to say that he has serious reservations with the law. However, it seems his reservations weren’t serious enough to carry out his Constitutional responsibility to veto the bill and he signed it anyway.

2) The Attorney General claims that the executive branch can act as judge, jury, and executioner, redefining what “due process” has meant for the last 223 years.

3) The Secretary of Defense claims that the executive branch can commit our troops to war without getting permission from congress, as required by the Constitution, and can rather seek “international permission”.

4) HR 347 basically makes it illegal to protest in any area the government deems illegal to do so, in obvious contempt of the First Amendment of the Constitution, which states “Congress shall make no law … prohibiting the … right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

If it isn’t clear already, let me spell it out. In less than 3 months, the government has passed laws or given explanations for actions that appear to completely usurp the checks and balances written into the Constitution. In essence, the executive branch is saying, “we can do whatever we feel like and don’t try to argue.” I’m not sure about you, but that sounds more like a dictatorship and less like a republic to me. However, most people will say that these trespasses aren’t all that big of a deal because the government needs to do these things to fight the “war” on terror. But the fallacy of this line of thinking is almost too obvious.

The whole reason for the checks and balances is to protect the people from government abuses. It doesn’t matter if the current excuse is terrorism. By allowing the executive branch to define or redefine the interpretations of law AND carry out the enforcement of those interprettions, it leaves the door wide open for the government to use any excuse to have complete control over any person they wish. And if they can have complete power over any individual, they can have complete control over groups of people. And if they can control groups of people, well, it’s not too far-fetched to imagine they can manipulate the entire country.

As it stands, if we choose to ignore the unconstitutionality of these laws and actions, the executive branch can at this time define anyone as a terror suspect and detain them indefinitely without a trial. Or it can simply kill them with justifications that they can keep completely secret. And it can send our troops out to kill and be killed at its own whims or the wishes of foreign governments – all without the approval of the congress and the people. And if you don’t like any of this, you better make sure you aren’t protesting anywhere near “government business” or you could be arrested … perhaps indefinitely … or simply just assassinated after executive “due process”.

Filed Under: Liberty

iPhone Envy

March 15, 2012 by 1 Comment

A TV commercial from US Cellular has a woman saying, “I don’t need a phone that does more. I need a phone company that does more.” The first time I saw that commercial, my reaction was, “yeah, US Cellular, just keep telling yourself that.” But I thought about it a little more and I figured they really can’t say much else when they aren’t carrying the iPhone.

For all the hype about raw sales figures that show more Android phones being sold than Apple iPhones, it seems that carriers just can’t wait to sell the iPhone. Why is there such a seeming contradiction? One reason perhaps is that many raw sales figures take into account free and half-price phone giveaways, skewing the reality of demand. It could also be the fact that only AT&T could sell the iPhone before February of last year – and even though Verizon got the phone in February, it wasn’t until October that sales really ramped up with the latest iPhone release plus Sprint’s entry into the iPhone market. But those facts are only a small part of the story. The overwhelming motivation for carriers to sell the iPhone is those that don’t are losing customers to those that do. But don’t take it from me. The “have-not” carriers are not mincing words when it comes to this fact.

Sprint CEO Dan Hesse told CNN Money back in October that prior to Sprint getting the iPhone, the number 1 reason customers were leaving Sprint was because it didn’t sell the iPhone. Count me and my wife in on those figures. In June of 2009, after being with Sprint for 10 years and having no real issues with their service, we had no choice but to switch to AT&T to get the iPhone. Hesse also had the following quotes: “Apple is arguably the best global brand in the tech space.” “Do you want to be with them or bet against them?” “Our expectation is this [the iPhone] will be the most profitable device we’ve sold. We expect this to be quite accretive to our cash flow over time.”

T-Mobile CEO Philipp Humm said recently, “Not carrying the iPhone led to a significant increase in contract deactivations in the fourth quarter of 2011.” He also stated that T-Mobile will invest $4 billion to modernize its network so that the carrier will “be compatible with a broader range of devices, including the iPhone.”

It’s no wonder T-Mobile is so hot-to-trot to get the iPhone. For everything that Sprint said in October, the proof in in the pudding. Sprint announced in February that after getting the iPhone, they had their biggest customer base growth in six years, its average revenue per user rose by the highest rate in wireless industry history, and they posted their best-ever rate of lost customers. Sprint also stated that 40% of the company’s iPhone sales went to new Sprint customers. I wonder where those new customers came from? I’m sure some from AT&T and Verizon, but I wonder how many also came at the expense of T-Mobile … and US Cellular?

US Cellular claims that they actually turned down the opportunity to carry the iPhone because it didn’t make financial sense. So I guess their move is to differentiate their network. The question is does it matter? How much better does a carrier need to be for a customer to choose it over another carrier – especially when they are making the choice between an iPhone or none. It’s to be seen, but US Cellular just reported their subscriber base shrank from 6.07  to 5.89 million last year.

For what it’s worth, I think US Cellular is doing an excellent job marketing the differentiation of their network. Most of their commercials are simple to understand and make a clear point of their claims. They are also rolling out innovative service packages and incentives for their customers. I’ve thought to myself that IF all else were equal I would certainly entertain switching to US Cellular. But that “IF” is an iPhone-sized “IF” and it makes all the difference in the world.

Filed Under: Technology

It’s Women, Stupid!

March 3, 2012 by 3 Comments
Dr. Pepper 10

Hi! I just killed any chance this product had! Catchphrase!

Over the last couple of months, I’ve seen an ad on TV for Dr. Pepper 10, where they literally come out and say that their drink is not for women. “You can keep the romantic comedies and lady drinks. We’re good.” Assuming they continue with this marketing campaign for the life of the product, who wants to start taking bets how soon this soda gets pulled from the shelves or rebranded?

With the exception of some obvious examples that are truly only for men, you take your product’s life into your own hands when you attempt to market it as “not for women”. It’s no secret that women make the majority of buying decisions in this country, especially when it comes to food. Hey Dr. Pepper! Who do you think is bringing the soda home that men drink? Epic fail in 3 … 2 … 1…

But I could really give a flying flip about soda. You might as well be mainlining sugar or drinking anti-freeze, but I digress. So let’s bring this topic around to something that I do care about.

A lot of tech pundits still to this day are dumbfounded as to how Apple’s products such as the iPhone, iPad, and Mac have come to dominate the tech industry. To me, it’s fairly obvious. Most so-called “experts” still live in the “Old World of Technology”, where tech specs such as processor speed, screen size, quantity and variety of ports, support of every possible bleeding edge platform or protocol, and any number of other fairly trivial “features” are what define good technology. They have failed to grasp that the rest of the world has embraced the “New World of Technology” which is defined by products and services that are not only powerful, but also easy-to-use, reliable (wow is reliability important), and above all are empowering to the end-user. Yet interwoven into the rise of the New World of Technology (and it’s not just Apple) is an oh-so-subtle, yet completely game-changing phenomenon. One that is actually so obvious once it is noticed, I’m truly surprised more hasn’t been written about it. The world of technology has changed forever for one simple reason – It’s Women, Stupid!

Yes, I hate to break it to you guards of the Old World of Technology (i.e. men that have been into or working with technology for the last 30 or more years), but women have crashed our party and there’s no going back. Fittingly, it is women that have opened the proverbial Pandora’s box. And I’m not talking about the Pandora Radio service and app – although that is ironically one example of a New World technology that women are gravitating to – but I digress once again. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist (or should I say a computer engineer) to see that where most women didn’t carry smartphones, they do now. Where women didn’t spend a lot of time on computers, they ignited and now power the spread of social media. Where women didn’t buy a lot of software, they now are pouring money into apps. The world has changed, gentlemen, but instead of fighting it, I say embrace it. In this case, Pandora’s box didn’t contain the evils of the world, but rather the future of technology. And seriously, what party couldn’t use more women?

To the women of the world, on behalf of the entire technology industry, I say welcome! But first let me apologize for shutting you out for so long. I know it’s cliche, but it wasn’t you, it was us. We simply didn’t make products and services that appealed to women – to most of the world, actually. That was our fault. But we’ve entered the New World of Technology and we’re glad you’re not only along for the ride, but helping us drive forward. Please, pay no attention to the Dr. Peppers of the world, wherever they may appear. They’ll figure it out, eventually.

Filed Under: Life, Technology
« Previous Page
Next Page »