Digital Dyanmic

The real cost of living

2013-06-15T05:40:00.000-07:00

I've been thinking about the price of things and the money it takes to buy them and I've made an obvious but as far as I can tell unrecognized connection.

It's said that the value of the U.S. dollar has been declining for years. Go over to the Dollar Times inflation calculator (I have it bookmarked) and see for yourself.

As I've played around with it I've happened upon an interesting anomaly. It appears that sometime around 1942 the value of the U.S. Dollar started declining steadily. This was almost a decade after FDR decided that gold was only useful for jewelry. 1942 was the first full year of the U.S. involvement in World War 2 so considering the economy was on a wartime footing it makes sense that the consumer economy was going to take a hit. That's what happens when you actually try to pay for the wars you engage in.

What's strange is that it's a trend that's never stopped. It leveled off for awhile during the "Great Recession of 2008" but continued its decline shortly after. Most economists will tell you the only reason it didn't plunge further was due to government intervention and a lack of economic activity in general.

Look, economic babble aside, the truth is that your buying power is continuously eroded over time and there's nothing you can do about it.

Regardless of your political affiliation or whether you care that the money in your pocket has been based on little more than good intentions (Fiat currency) for the past 4 decades the problem is self evident. With apologies to Thomas Jefferson, the "rights " held self-evident have been little more than political marketing for the past century.

After all, even if it's worth less, it just feels good to have a million of something even if it only has the buying power of your kid's lunch money in a few years.

So if our money is worthless, why do we accept the excuse for higher prices being higher costs of production?

Does that sound like a stupid question? Then you're probably a stupid person.

Sorry, but you were probably already chewing on the arm of your chair by now anyway...

What's really stupid is that we accept the fact that our money is worth less which naturally makes things cost more but don't give a second thought to how badly we're getting ripped off.

Let's go back to our Inflation calculator and stick in some numbers. Say $40,000 which was a decent salary in 1985. In fact it was a great salary and in 2013 dollars you could buy $87,217 worth of stuff.

In little more than a generation our money has lost more than half its buying power. Yet our wages are still based on those same 1985 numbers. Somewhere, somebody in HR or accounting thinks that $40,000 will still let you buy a house, feed your family and save a few bucks for a rainy day.

It's perfectly acceptable to raise prices to compensate for a currency with declining value. It's only fair to charge more if it takes more money to produce the same item.

So how is it that demanding fair compensation for slowly killing your soul in some cloth covered cubicle suddenly makes you unreasonable?

If everyone is getting what they need then everyone should be happy, right?

Thing is, very few of us are and the only relief we get are sound bites and token gestures from politicians crafted to quell the uproar till the next news cycle.

It's the reason why politicians don't like to run on their records anymore and instead choose to act like bullies in a schoolyard.

It's not about rich versus poor or conservative versus liberal economics. It's about expecting blood from a stone. It's simple, if your money is worth less you have to have more of it just to maintain your standard of living. A cost of living raise isn't a luxury it's a fact of life when you live in an unpredictable economy.

I don't buy the big business wailing over minimum wage increases either. If you can't afford to pay for the resources you need to conduct business then you don't know how to run your business. It's exploitation, nothing less.

In fact, because business has gotten away with economic indentured servitude for half a century they've actually hurt themselves. It's not the rich who keep the GM's, Chrysler's and Maytags in business. It's the average Joe sitting in the morning commute 5 days a week. If he can't buy your goods you're out of business.

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

Why do we accept this? If the value of our money is based on good faith and that faith has been violated then why do we continue to accept the whole premise to start with?

I've often said that the oil companies can charge whatever they want for a gallon of gas just so long as everyone's wages are adjusted to compensate. Charge $20 a gallon for all I care, just make sure the average income is in the six figure range.

If it costs you that much to deliver the product then I should be able to meet that demand from the rewards of my labor. Anything else is economic opportunism on the backs of labor.

In the end , most of us have ended up living one check away from financial ruin while the Suze Orman's of the world chide us for spending our meager resources too frivolously. I know your heart's in the right place Suze but your understanding of economic theory borders on fantasy.

Until the slow slide from employment to indentured servitude stops in the developed world we need to stop blaming ourselves for all the economic ills and personal financial woes.

We need to demand that wages reflect the world we live in now, not the one our grandparents knew. It's not unreasonable unless you sit in the executive suites counting the millions you steal from your employees every day you don't pay a wage based on what used to be called "the cost of living"

Friends it's simple. the rich are getting richer not because they're smarter or luckier than us. They're getting richer because they're benefitting from the fact that you're not getting paid what you're worth.

If you think I'm wrong, well, I can guarantee you're not worried about feeding your kids next month.

Think about it.

Tablets on the rise as laptops fall

2013-05-29T11:32:00.000-07:00

Article first published as Tablets on the Rise as Laptops Fall on Technorati.

Here we go again.

The San Jose Mercury news is reporting that IDC (Intl. Data Corp) predicts 2013 will bring more bad news for the PC. The de facto barometer of consumer markets has revised its latest estimate for yearly PC sales downward. What was expected to be a 1.3% decline has now been projected to be more like 7.8%.

The blame is placed squarely on an increase in tablet sales. With 229.3 million expected this year IDC has gone so far as to predict tablet sales to outpace the entirety of the PC market by 2015.

Unfortunately, the news is both obvious and misplaced.

Comparing sales of the Galaxy Note to a laptop is akin to comparing a fine wine to a 44 ounce fountain drink.

Tablets are consumer devices more on par with their Smartphone cousins than any laptop. In a market sense they are disposable. Conversely, laptops and the PC market in general operate on a much longer replacement cycle. It's not uncommon, for example, for the average tech savvy consumer to purchase 2 tablets during the lifespan of one laptop.

These days nobody would seriously consider paying upwards of $1000 for a laptop just to browse the web and check their email when a $300 tablet will do. It's a given that such mundane mobility tasks have been ceded to the smart device market.

As such, the decline of PC market share is to be expected but isn't quite the death knell the tech punditry keeps drumming on about. Rather it's a realignment of markets defined by their functionality instead of their volume and that's as it should be.

A Surface Pro is not a competitor to any IPAD even though both claim a tablet form factor. Their purposes are distinct and so are their customers.

In a sense, the cheap, underpowered laptop of yesterday is the progenitor of today's tablet which now occupies it's place in the market. A classic case of technological evolution and natural selection if ever there was one.

WalMart's a dirty word...

2013-05-25T15:38:00.001-07:00

A funny thing happened while I was writing a Newegg.com product review...

I know WalMart has a bad reputation but I didn't know it was this bad...

Click the Images for a larger view.

Cord Cutting or A La' Carte, in the End it's All the Same

2013-05-13T07:30:00.000-07:00

Article first published as Cord Cutting or A La' Carte, in the End it's All the Same on Technorati.

Last week Senator John McCain (R-AZ) took to the Senate floor with a proposal that seeks to lower your cable TV bill. His proposal is to allow anyone who has cable or satellite television service to do something previously unheard of in the industry. That is, only pay for what they want to watch.

A belief shared by McCain's colleague across the aisle, Senator Jay Rocefeller (D- VA)

"...rather than being able to pick smaller packages or choose the channels they want, consumers are still forced to purchase larger and larger packages of channels no matter how few they actually watch. This says to me that the market isn't working."

The Senate Commerce committee is scheduled to take up McCain's bill in a hearing on Tuesday (5-14.)

McCain's assertion is based on a solid premise. Look at any cable or satellite TV provider and you find that all their programming is bundled into packages or tiers. The only a la' carte options you have are for the so-called premium stations like HBO or Showtime which by themselves can cost an additional $10 a month or more and in some cases also come as part of a bundle.

Gone are the days of $20/mo basic cable. A subscriber can easily find a bill of $50 or more per month with no premium channels. Add HBO and a few HD channels and that bill is closer to $125.

In the end you ultimately end up subsidizing channels you don't watch. That's because providers negotiate not with HBO or AMC but rather their parent companies like Viacom and Time Warner. It's an all or nothing deal that can cause a disagreement over licensing fees on one channel to affect a dozen others. That's why a tiff between a service like DirectTV and Viacom leaves subscribers with multiple blank channels instead of content.

Cable industry lobbyists are against McCain's proposal claiming it's a "lose-lose" for both customers and providers as evidenced in an official statement from the National Cable and Telecommunications Association.

"As countless studies have demonstrated, subscription bundles offer a wider array of viewing options, increased programming diversity and better value than per channel options,"

Of course that assumes that the "wider array" is something you actually care to watch. Even if you don't, you're going to pay for it anyway and that's the logic of their claimed "win-win."

This is the rationale that's led to cord cutters who've turned primarily to online media sources like NetFlix and Hulu. Unfortunately, legitimate online sources still can only offer a fraction of the content enjoyed by the traditional delivery model. Unless you've got an HBO subscription, for example, you're not going to see "Game of Thrones" on the same day it airs unless you turn to illegitimate sources.

That's due to a reluctance of channel owners like Viacom to embrace online options that would lead to greater consumer choice but a less predictable revenue model. It's flawed logic, however.

If you're a cord cutter it's probably not of any great consequence to you about what happens to pay TV subscription rates but you're going to be affected all the same.

With online bellwethers like YouTube launching paid channels it may seem like online TV options are poised to offer what traditional pay TV won't. If the industry is forced into the a la' carte model, however, online TV will soon end up looking like it's broadcast predecessor.

You may be able to pick and choose from a few sources but likely run headlong into the same bundling schemes as traditional pay TV. That's because the channels don't own the content, their parent company does and it's up to them to decide how it gets distributed.

Add in the more targeted paid online options and soon you'll be paying as much if not more than if you'd never cut that cable. Lest we forget data caps imposed by most Internet providers that could result in a nasty surprise in that bill if you enjoy HD content.

In short, the old guard of broadcast television has nothing to fear as one way or another we'll still end up paying more no matter how we choose to view their content.

Microsoft's new CFO and why Wall Street cares

2013-05-09T15:30:00.002-07:00

Article first published as Microsoft's New CFO and Why Wall Street Cares on Technorati.

Amy Hood, Microsoft's new CFO. It's a name I'm sure nobody knows outside of financial circles. To the executive suites of Microsoft, however, nothing could be further from the truth. After all, her last job was CFO of the business division which just so happens to be the most profitable but the least glamorous.

Let's be honest here, it's unlikely Chairman Ballmer will be leaping across a stage to announce a new server product anytime soon.

If you're a Microsoft shareholder fatigued over an incessant news cycle bent on denouncing Windows 8,however, it's likely you're delighted. Hood not only oversaw the primary cash cow that nobody talks about, she also served as Chief of Staff for the Server and Tools unit.

More than just chief bean counter her job was to set the tone for Wall Street in all things Microsoft Enterprise and she knew from whence she spoke.

Now her job is to do the same thing companywide and she's perfect for it. Microsoft owns the Enterprise for most of the Fortune 500 and that's the story they want to tell. Consumers likely won't care about who's CFO but they don't buy Microsoft shares either.

Let the pundits go on about the botched launch of Windows 8 and an interface only a video poker machine could love. In the end it's the enterprise that will keep Microsoft viable long after Windows 8 is as distant a memory as new formula Coca-Cola.

The disability of a narrow mind

2013-05-04T02:53:00.002-07:00

Anyone who knows me well has heard me utter the phrase, "mediocrity is the standard" more than once and usually with disgust.

So what do I mean by that?

To be blunt, the standard of mediocrity means blundering through life never attempting to do more than the bare minimum. It's a fallback position that many in the working world spend their entire careers operating from.

It usually happens when someone takes a position they may be qualified for but have no real interest in. How such a person can rise to power when a more engaged candidate doesn't is usually indicative of a systematic problem within the organization. In short, everyone up the management chain is similarly disinterested and will protect themselves from discovery.

If one operates under the standard of mediocrity for a long enough period of time they eventually assume that it's the status quo. This is the disability of the narrow mind within the context of employment. Note that racism, elitism and other societal 'isms are similar in that all effectively cripple higher reasoning.

Thus we see the initial stages of the "dominos of disaster" when practitioners of the mediocrity standard run headlong into more engaged individuals.

When confronted with a potential threat to the status quo of mediocrity, the disability becomes readily apparent. It surfaces in confrontational behaviors and rejection of information not contained within their narrow focus even when compatible with stated organizational goals.

In effect, the inability to think "outside the box" regardless of how beneficial the outcome will prevent the afflicted individual from acting reasonably.

If it sounds like a medical or psychological condition it is. In fact it's pathological in an organizational sense.

This is the dilemma that the long term and formerly self employed face when interviewing with afflicted organizations. Candidates with such a backgrounds are considered inferior and suspect regardless of experience, accomplishments or evidence to the contrary.

Take the example of the former self-employed consultant now interviewing for a regular full time position. In this case the candidate may get through HR and lower level managers but find opposition from senior management. Even before the first handshake is extended the candidate is already in a diminished position.

Overcoming the condition is virtually impossible as any concession the candidate asserts is assumed to be suspect if not disingenuous. The only recourse for the candidate is to try to frame their qualifications within the narrow context of the organizational pathology.

At this point it's usually a pointless exercise to proceed any further since the organizational dysfunction curtails higher reasoning and shortens attention spans. This is most blatantly evidenced by repeated questioning about the same topic, yawning and in some cases snoring.

Unfortunately, most organizations suffer the affliction and have even elevated it to a de facto mission statement. It's a common pathogen meaning you're going to encounter a lot of it in the corporate world regardless of your job function.

If you do encounter such an organization (and you will) and still wish to persist in your efforts to join it you can employ the following tactics. Note that they will likely be unsuccessful but more productive than attempting to alert the afflicted to their condition.

· Lie - You can hope they won't check your background and enter the organization with stealth if not outright deception. With the easy access to information and most organizations requiring a formal background check it's likely you won't succeed past the first interview. If the organization is dysfunctional enough, however, they may respond well to a cleverly crafted deception.
· Debate- This tactic will likely have even less of a chance of success than deception but at least you'll be comforted in the knowledge that you were completely truthful. The tactic involves countering objections to your qualifications by crafting your responses to fit the narrow focus of the afflicted organization. For example, when confronted with a concern about work ethic especially if your career consists primarily of self employment try this. Assert the merits of personal responsibility and client satisfaction necessary to run a successful small business. It also wouldn't hurt to mention that you're a firm believer in trickle-down economics and would jump at the chance to be standing on the bottom rung with awaiting arms outstretched. Keep in mind, however, that afflicted organizations and their management have limited capability to engage in higher reasoning so keep your responses short and at roughly the 6th grade level.
· Violence - Only useful if the prospects of arrest and incarceration hold no fear for you.
· Submission - In short, be an apologist for your entire career and essentially "throw yourself on the mercy of the court." In a severely afflicted organization with candidates less qualified than yourself this may be the most effective tactic. Be aware, however, that should you secure the position you will likely find it unfulfilling. Still, the knowledge that mediocre performance is the status quo may eventually make your stay more tolerable. Beware the danger of becoming infected with the Disability of the Narrow mind, however, as it will alter you on a cellular level. Then again, once infected you will likely become anesthetized to its ill effects and become blissfully unaware of it. This is especially true if the position offers a good prescription drug program.
· Defiance - This is similar to the Violence option above except the authorities aren't involved. It's not so much a display of emotional outbursts as an attempt to make the hiring manager feel stupid. The desired outcome of this tactic is to temporarily shock management out of their disability by forcing undeniable logic on them. Your ultimate goal is to convince the hiring manager that you are the change needed to further organizational goals. Unfortunately, this tactic has only been shown to work in the movie Office Space.

In short, afflicted organizations should be avoided if at all possible. Otherwise damage to your career and possibly your psyche could result.

The good old days.

2013-05-03T18:25:00.004-07:00

Vintage Atari Computers and peripherals

I've been rummaging around the house and I came upon a box.

Nothing uniquely special about it but when I opened it I found the contents magical.

It contained a collection of memories in the form of some old Atari computers. I'm not talking about an old 2600 or a Jaguar but rather a collection of those old 8 bit wonders from the late 70's and early 80's. They have names like 800, 130XE and 800XL.

I look on them with the same reverence someone a few decades younger may look on a Nintendo 64 or their first Mac. They represent a time when technology couldn't come close to our imagination but we tried anyway.

I think those of my age are far more fortunate, however. If you grew up in the late 70's and early 80's and had any interest in computers then you understand what I mean. I've been privileged to witness the evolution of personal computers from little more than a novelty to an invaluable tool.

Strange how things have come full circle in the so-called "post-PC" era of tablets and the Smartphone. To listen to the pundits you'd think we were on the verge of personal computers becoming a novelty again.

To some extent they're right. There's not much mystery to computers anymore and I doubt anyone will ever look upon their laptop with the same nostalgia I feel for that box full of Atari's.

When I was growing up I was aware that I was in the midst of a sea change. When I was small there were no electronic games or home computers. The few that existed were crude and more expensive than any suburban middle class parent could justify.

Childhood was occupied by exploring the world contained within a few square blocks of my house. Friends, adventures and fun were all very much real. No virtualization allowed aside from what came from my own imagination.

Atari 410 Recorder

When I got a little older I found myself in the middle of an explosion of technology. The first hand held games soon gave way to the first game consoles and finally my box of Atari memories.

It was nothing short of amazing. Turn on the power switch and I could play a game or if I had the patience, I could write my own.

I remember spending hours entering hundreds of lines of code from a magazine article knowing that one mistyped character could make it all for naught.

Looking back now, I was a data entry clerk at 12 and didn't even know it.

By today's standards using such dinosaurs was a tedious and laborious affair. Hours of work could be lost seemingly without reason. Cassette tapes and later floppy disks made for a poor archive with more than a few hours of feverish work lost because of them. "Save now and save often" became a mantra.

I doubt today's teenagers would tolerate the shortcomings of early home computers for long. Maybe that's where I learned the patience that I rarely see in those that came after me. Today's world is geared toward instant gratification. Even those of modest means can instantly satisfy a whim with an Internet connected device. A feat that would take me weeks in my youth if it was possible at all.

Things moved quickly and before you knew it technology was advancing at an exponential pace. The novelty was wearing off but it was still an exciting time. The first modems allowed us to reach out to those similarly enamored. The BBS or Bulletin Board System was the precursor to the Internet most evident in the millions of online forums that exist to this day.

Atari 130XE

It seemed every corner had a computer store and its aisles contained the stuff of dreams. Computers, Software and periodicals about them seemed to be everywhere.

Technology itself was the entertainment medium. Just standing in the middle of a Federated Department store or a Radio Shack was better than a ticket to Star Wars with a free pizza.

Even movies and television reflected the culture. Tron was revolutionary for its visual style. Wargames made millions of parents nervous about their kid's computing habits. Both films showed how technology had moved out of the dusty confines of universities and corporations and into popular culture.

By the time the 90's came around the idea of personal computing was no longer in the hands of hobbyists or tinkerers. They were as commonplace as traffic during rush hour.

Suddenly the computer store on the corner closed replaced by Supermarket-sized electronics stores like CompUSA and Circuit City. Technology had become commoditized, outsourced and disposable.

Computers weren't fun anymore, they were just tools. Cold instruments hailed as revolutionizing a workforce. In reality, performing the same mundane tasks as their ancestors: pen and paper, abacus and calculator.

Instead of being a catalyst to our imagination, computers and technology in general rarely rise above the menial anymore. Smarter, faster but with no imagination there is no substance.

A faster computer can calculate your spreadsheet in seconds. A faster Internet connection can connect you to anything the online world can offer assuming there's anything worth seeing.

Atari 800XL

Technology isn't the catalyst for change I'd hoped for in my youth. It's little more than a new means to do the same old crap and that's the real tragedy.

Which makes my little box of memories all the more special.

I think I'll keep it.

Your Hard drive is a snitch

2013-04-25T15:37:00.001-07:00

Article first published as Your Hard Drive is a Snitch on Technorati.

About a year ago a case involving a Colorado woman , Ramona Fricosu, made tech news when the judge overseeing a mortgage fraud case forced her to decrypt her hard drive. Apparently the prosecution was tipped off that the drive contained incriminating evidence that only she could provide access to.

The Internet went wild when it seemed the 5th amendment had apparently gone out the window. Now before you go running off to Wikipedia, it's the one that says you don't have to incriminate yourself in a court case against you.

This week we had another example of the 5th amendment running headlong into an encrypted hard drive but this time things went a little differently. It seems Judge William E. Callahan wasn't going to force a defendant in a child pornography case to decrypt several of his hard drives.

The judge wrote, "ordering Feldman to decrypt the storage devices would be in violation of his Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination."

The difference between the two cases seems like nothing more than semantics but there was one critical difference. In the Fricosu case, investigators had prior information that the contents of her hard drive contained evidence. In this week's case, investigators were only guessing when it came to the contents of the defendant's multiple hard drives.

If you've ever watched Law and Order or CSI with any regularity you've probably seen at least one episode where the bad guy's lawyer tells the cops, "You're on a fishing expedition." It usually comes up when the defendants lawyer discovers that the police have no proof and are trying to trick the bad guy into incriminating himself.

That's exactly what was going on in Judge Callahan's court this week and the lesson learned was simple. If you've got something to hide don't tell anyone what it is or where it's located. Otherwise, don't bother encrypting your hard drives.

For some, this week's ruling may seem like nothing more than a question of semantics and to some extent it is. Then again, that's what the entire legal profession is built upon. Most criminal law deals with the concept of "intent" and intent is all about semantics.

While the possibility that an accused child pornographer may evade justice due to a technicality we can't forget the importance OF that technicality.

The 5th amendment ensures that anyone who accuses you of breaking the law has the burden of proof. It's the foundation of "Innocent until proven guilty" and law enforcement shouldn't be allowed to take shortcuts because it's convenient.

Defiance, not so much

2013-04-16T01:30:00.002-07:00

If you've been waiting for a TV series that looks like the redheaded stepchild of a trist between Babylon 5 and Halo then I may have something that fits the bill.

Monday April 15th saw the premiere of Defiance on the SYFY network following on the heels of the companion video game of the same name that launched 2 weeks earlier. It's set in a near future where the Earth is besieged by bad guy aliens plunging the world into a Mad Max style post apocalyptic landscape with a few familiar features like a battered St. Louis' gateway arch thrown in for realism.

There's a few other alien races besides the big ugly bad guy aliens that live alongside the human survivors in a somewhat tenuous allegiance. After all, the old adage of the enemy of my enemy and such and such applies here. Thus we're presented with yet another Sci-Fi story using aliens and a post apocalyptic world as a metaphor for the human condition.

The video game is supposed to follow the storyline of the television series albeit in another location and is designed from the onset to be an MMO. That means graphics are passable at best but acceptable if you buy into the whole media convergence thing that SYFY is trying to push with Defiance.

From the 2 hour pilot it appears we're going to spend a lot of time watching a multitude of antagonists scheming toward their own ends. Somewhere toward the end of the episode, however, everyone will put aside their differences and come together in one giant Kumbaya moment . The result of which will be to repel yet another invasion by the big, ugly bad guy aliens that look like escapees from MechWarrior and an fantasy RPG.

During scenes depicting vistas in space or Aliens on the march the trademark SYFY production values shone through. By that I mean cheap. They looked like scenes out of a video game and considering the tie-in with Trion's game it's really no surprise that there's some cross-pollination.

The most interesting thing about the whole franchise is trying to figure out whether the game supports the television series or vice versa. From what I see it's the latter as the whole premise is tired and has been done better. The only thing that makes Defiance different is the overt tie in with a video game.

The characters have no more depth than any other NPC in a video game in spite of how hard the writers try to make us care about them. There's not a lot of room for plot development either unless they start getting wonky and unearth the Starship Enterprise under the Lincoln Memorial or something like that.

I mean c'mon, let's face it, your plot is going to boil down to 4 things.

1. Racial tension (Babylon 5 copycat)

2. Exploring relationships between characters (kinda tough when they're basically just NPC's)

2. Finding the big super uber weapon to get rid of all those pesky big bad guy aliens

3. Beating up on the big bad ugly aliens

I sincerely hope that Syfy isn't pinning their hopes on the fact that the series has a companion video game. Cable stations have been doing companion web apps for a few years with series like Breaking Bad. Thing is, apps don't make a bad series good and neither will a video game.

By this time next year I doubt we'll remember Defiance in the same way we remember Babylon 5 or Star Trek the Next Generation if we remember it at all.

Your Anonymity is showing

2013-04-15T19:15:00.000-07:00

There is no anonymity, at least not on the Internet. Or at least that's how Google and Facebook want it. It's likely that just like me you have multiple Google accounts and now the parent company of anything that matters on the Internet wants to you to come clean.

Log into YouTube and you're constantly prodded to use your real name on your YouTube channel. Want to log in using your channel alias? Forget it, they want the email address you used to sign up with. Just like Facebook, Google Plus doesn't allow aliases either. In fact they want more information than I provided the bank to finance my car.

Want to start a Facebook page for your business? Be prepared to provide everything short of your articles of incorporation and 5 years of tax returns to do it.

Contingent on using any of these services is the requirement to reveal more information about yourself than anyone should be comfortable with. Thing is, for most, it's no big deal. For the generations that came after mine it's nothing to "Broadcast Yourself" for all the world to see. As some have found, to their own peril when that party video posted to your Facebook page gets in front of a potential employer.

It's gotten so easy to lay ourselves bare (in some cases literally) that many don't even think about the consequences of our cavalier attitude toward online privacy. That is, until something happens that makes you regret clicking "I Agree" to the 10000 word terms of service.

It's not simply a question of privacy, for the most part that's gone if you leave your house. It's a question of giving away the power of your own predestination. I have no doubt that being a private investigator is no longer as lucrative as it once was. What used to take them weeks is offered up freely under the guise of being "social"

Just ask the unfaithful spouse who found out just how much power they'd given away when their Facebook exploits were admitted as evidence in the legal proceedings that followed.

You may feel that it's a good thing that it's harder for those with something to hide to retreat behind anonymity. Well Mr. Public Parts, we all have something to hide even if we haven't broken any laws. Nobody should demand we reveal it just to be online.

What happens, for example, when an author can no longer write under a pen name? What about the corporate whistle blower exposed by a change in some online service's privacy policy? Should they have to sacrifice a career because an entire industry can now blackball them for it?

If you're Jeff Jarvis I suppose everything's a Public Part so it shouldn't matter what gets revealed. In the real world where people can't afford to have their every action judged it becomes a problem. I'm not in favor of the merging of private and public and stay off of services like Facebook and increasingly Google because of it.

Now, I may be running contrary to the Internet punditry proclaiming the glories of the new social construct that's arisen out of our constant connectivity in what I'm about to say.

In short, I think it's Bull.

I'd rather not be sitting in a job interview at 40 years of age having to explain something stupid I did in my teens to a potential employer. It'd be nice if the world was populated only by the open minded with no personal agendas but that's just not how it works. Experience has taught me the better parts of human nature rarely come into play in a job interview.

Think about the now common practice of job applicants having to submit to a credit check at the application stage. I usually give them the "I'll show you mine if you show me yours" response in which I agree to allow the check only if I can have the same information from every member of the executive staff and the board.

People usually just think I'm being a wiseacre and look at me as though I should be wearing a straightjacket when they find out I'm being serious. Funny, I feel the same about them.

I think more people need to do that, actually. In fact, I suggest it be the basis of a new movement. A friend of mine is fond of saying corporations will keep pushing the boundaries until someone pushes back. This can be where it starts. After all, nobody has any right to know how timely I pay my debts unless they're loaning me money or I'm in charge of the keys to the bank vault.

It's exactly because of how the world works that we need to retain control of our own personas. Making your new job contingent on a good credit score is just one symptom of the problem.

Look at it this way. Do I really want to find out that my trusted mechanic of decades is a cross dresser on the weekends?

Now I can care less if he is or not but some people might which could have consequences to his livelihood.

The reality is that it's not critical information to know if he's just fixing my car. If you think it is you're just being nosy and bigoted.

That's what I mean by public and private. I don't want to know any more about you than I need to know and what I need to know has limits.

Say my mechanic is going to get married soon, I'd fully expect his potential bride (or groom) may want to know about such things but I don't. If he's installing a supercharger on my Mustang, I could care less about his fashion adventures.

He shouldn't be required to expose that information and I shouldn't have the opportunity to pass any judgment on anything not directly related to him fixing my car.

That also means he should have the freedom to indulge in a private online existence apart from his public one. Being online shouldn't have to mean that you abdicate your right to withhold information people don't need to know about you.

In fact, knowing too much about a person can lead to even more discrimination simply because it becomes easier to apply our own personal biases based on irrelevant information. Even if what we find has nothing to do with why we were interested in the first place the damage is done and our world grows a little colder.

We're all so concerned about safety these days and it's sure to come up whenever someone's abdicating the requirement to vomit up even more private information.

Someone will always bring up the child molester, terrorist or bank robber that might have been stopped if we just had more information about them earlier. Perhaps so but is it worth the whole of humanity living under a microscope to prevent it? At what point does civilized society fall victim to Orwell's "thoughtcrime" ?

The question you have to ask is if everyone's going to eventually be required to lay themselves bare online then who's qualified to sit in ultimate judgment of your actions? You're tried, convicted and sentenced before you even realize you've done something wrong.

That sounds a bit "Minority Report" to me.

The Waiting

2013-04-09T15:39:00.000-07:00

Have a good job? Don't mind getting up early or going the extra mile now and then? Then I can understand why someone who doesn't constantly search the want ads, hit up friends and relatives for leads and find more doors closed than open can regurgitate unkind words on a career forum.

There's a different mindset when things are going right compared to when they're not. If everything's worked out for you it's hard to understand why all these people are whining about no jobs, ageism, abuse, and discrimination.

The times when things are going well can blind us to an uncertain future. Most of us would rather not think about the possibility that things won't always be the same no matter how hard we try. Perhaps the less fortunate have more insight than those who've never experienced real hardship in their lives.

Never forget, there's always more people suffering in the world than not. Remember that callous comment posters, we outnumber you.

To know how truly bad things can get allows you to appreciate how good things are.

It also gives you compassion which is something sorely lacking in contemporary recruiting practices. Resume scanning software, discrimination, job boards full of spammed listings and recruiters more interested in punch lists than ability are just a few of the failings of the "new" way to find work.

Even if you're fortunate enough to navigate this minefield of uncertainty and land a job interview the contest doesn't end there. Often you're left wondering and waiting for weeks, maybe months to hear something, anything about your starring performance.

We're told the wait isn't necessarily their fault. Job interviews are a low priority in an otherwise busy day and depending on what's going on may postpone a decision for weeks. It makes you wonder how much your contribution would really matter when you think of it.

Send a follow up email or letter, make a phone call, do anything to stay in the front of their mind you're told. That's impossible and we know it. Those who've sat on the other side of the interview table more often than not ignore such overtures like spam in their junk email folder.

So we wait and as time passes become more dejected over our prospects. We continue to apply and interview (if we're lucky) but in the end, we just wait.

The problem is real and the cause sits squarely in the lap of a corporate culture that treats the "Human Resource" as little more than cattle. Selected, groomed and ultimately led to slaughter.

It's easy to advise we lost souls of the unemployed to seek alternatives like consulting or a home based business. Hell, I got so tired of this sick game that I went out and actually took their advice and it worked for awhile. Problem is, eventually most of your clients end up in the same boat you are. A vicious circle is revealed. If we help each other we can ultimately help ourselves but we, all of us, have lost our power.

We've lost it to the employer who hires illegal immigrants to avoid paying a fair wage or the corporation abusing H1B visas for the same reason. We've lost it to offshore outsourcing and cheap products produced by laborers in faraway lands where worker's rights and safety are only of marginal concern.

It's good for the bottom line but you, dear reader, are not part of it.

Small businesses are usually made up of dedicated people offering a unique product or service found nowhere else. In the past decade we've seen millions of them fail not because they did anything wrong but rather just the opposite.

They did their jobs too well and found themselves driven out of business by a cheap pale imitation of their offerings. Again, a vicious cycle. If there are fewer small businesses there is less work spread among the now desperate independents that support them as they scrounge for every scrap.

So much for going into business for yourself. Trust me, corporations don't hire anything but other corporations when they need something done. I can guarantee "You.INC" isn't on their list unless you happen to be the only one in your field.

So what do we do? Revolt? How? we can't even afford the bullets.

The only hope, try to be unique and offer something vital but impossible to replicate. That's a tall order but unless you want to just accept the way things are, it's your only hope of rising above the morass of the job hunt.

My final bit of advice, don't spend too much time commenting on the bad advice of headhunter columns. Misery loves company and always travels in groups. Offer something constructive, ignore the moronic comments of the uneducated and move on.

Fixing the lie of "for profit" schools (revised and angrier!)

2013-04-07T18:34:00.004-07:00

After my last article about the lie of for profit schools a friend of mine wrote to me saying that while he agreed with most of my take on the Devry's of the world he couldn't completely agree with it.

Of course this sparked a larger discussion when I saw him a few days later. Briefly, his position was that while for profit schools may be more apt to focus on their bank account than the curriculum it didn't necessarily elevate public universities to Mother Theresa status.

He related a few key points in his argument.

Nobody's forced to attend a post-secondary school.
Non-profit doesn't necessarily mean eligible for sainthood.
Schools aren't completely responsible for the success or failure of a student.

Let's take a look at these...

Yes, education after high school is completely voluntary but I'd argue completely necessary. That is unless you think cashiering at your local fast food joint is a career path. Considering I could barely count change when I graduated from high school, a little extra classroom time was beneficial.

When we're talking about non-profits it's a given that anything touched by humanity is by default corrupted by its ambitions. Even the Bible couldn't escape that truth and neither does a non-profit school.

He pointed to how non-profits may not offer stocks traded on the NYSE but it never stopped them from wasting millions on something other than their stated reason for being. Admittedly, it's hard to frame the building of a new football stadium at "(Insert State here) University" as a catalyst for advancing education.

Still, at least the money went back into advancing something other than a quarterly dividend to some shareholder. I'd also remind you that there are plenty of non-profits that don't have their own football stadium.

His last point goes without saying, we are to at least some degree in control of our own destiny. If in the pursuit of it we're mislead into making a poor decision, however, somebody needs to be held accountable. It's the reason we have the Federal Trade Commission. If you mislead the public about your product expect to pay the consequences. That's the set of rules you have to accept if you're in the "business" of selling education like Oscar Mayer sells hot dogs.

Yes, public universities also suffer the sin of selling unnecessary classes too but they're a damned sight cheaper and at least the credits transfer. Oh yeah, and they're not setting up the curriculum based on a revenue projection.

That's really the crux of the argument. As I said in the last article, if you're going to just sell education as a product then your focus isn't on advancing knowledge. Rather it's advancing your bottom line.

So here's the part where my friend agreed with me.

I hold the belief that any educational institution that operates as a profit entity shouldn't have access to public funds. Yes, I'm suggesting that taxpayer backed student loans and grants shouldn't be given to institutions whose reason for being is the make money.

I see no reason to provide public funding to someone's private venture with virtually no oversight and dubious value to society. It's not unlike the uproar over the AIG bailout or the furor over saving domestic automakers. The difference here is that there's even less oversight of public monies in for-profit schools than there was for the billions we gave to banks and insurance companies.

If your school is in it for the money then put it where your mouth is. The Devry's and ITT's of the world shouldn't be getting the bulk of their revenues from government backed student loans and grants. If they want to offer financing they should be providing it themselves and not passing it on to taxpayers.

That means your education may still cost $50k for a Bachelor's degree but if it doesn't live up to the hype and you go broke because of it at least there's always bankruptcy.

It's not that I'm against private schools or even alternative education, on the contrary. I myself was attracted to ITT Tech and then the University of Phoenix exactly because I didn't want to waste time on classes that had nothing to do with my chosen course of study.

That's been a failing of public universities in the past and it caused a drop in enrollment which ultimately benefitted alternatives like the for-profit schools. A problem, by the way, that's only recently been addressed by many universities adopting a similar program structure to the for-profit schools.

So if the Not for profit schools have been able to adjust their programs to match the profit schools and still be 2 to 4 times cheaper for the same degree then where's the justification for the extra cost?

As much as I may have enjoyed my time at ITT Tech nobody holds that degree in the same regard as say a year of study at M.I.T. So how can you justify charging almost the same money for a year of education at an IVY league school ?

The simple answer goes back to that old marketing adage, Sell benefits not features. Advertising a benefit is essentially selling an intangible product that's almost impossible to challenge. Where features like power windows, cruise control or Air conditioning are tangible. Looking Cool, being admired and improving your station in life are not.

They're the warm fuzzies that you can't quite put your finger on and if you can't define what it is that's motivating you then you can't challenge their value either. Convincing me that I'm going to be just as valuable to the world as an M.I.T. graduate based on a bare bones"heat and serve" boilerplate curriculum is just a lie.

That, my friends, is exactly what for-profit schools are selling. Not the quality of their programs but the promise of improving your condition for a premium price. Whether or not it's justified is entirely subjective but I'd rather not be putting taxpayers on the line for it.

If you're a for-profit school and your programs fail to deliver you still have the taxpayer's money no matter how successful the students are. You've effectively conned the government into supporting your corporate bottom line.

Perhaps it's the biggest con game of all when you can get public money to support private enterprise that by its very nature is set up to only enrich itself.

I mean at least Boeing has to deliver helicopters that don't crash in the desert for the billions they get from the Department of Defense. Where's the accountability for the University of Phoenix and Devry's of the world who take billions in public education money?

Does it make any sense that government financing has turned these schools into multibillion dollar corporations whose only reason for existence is to keep the public money pump primed and flowing? They can't deny it, their "business" model is set up to support a revenue stream no matter how much it degrades the product. It really is that simple. If you're a corporation, you're in it for the money anything else is just marketing.

This actually speaks to the flawed logic of people who believe that government should be run like a business. It just doesn't work simply because where business exists for the enrichment of itself, government exists for the public good (or at least it used to).

Government that exists for the betterment of itself usually has a dictator at the helm and that's not good for anybody.

The logic fits for education as well. Hopefully my point is a bit clearer now.

Where the rich white men go

2013-04-06T14:56:00.000-07:00

It's spring in Palm Beach again and just as has happened for the previous decade Barrett Jackson's parade of rolling dreams is underway.

The differences between the Scottsdale and Florida events are minimal but noticeable. For one thing, you're not going to see any 4.2 million dollar original Batmobiles roll under the palm trees. This is an auction more in line with the well heeled collector looking for a sharp daily driver than a 1 of 1 rarity.

Oh, the feature cars are there but they're mixed in with somebody's 10 year old cast off Mercedes 500 SL. You don't see as many of the heavy hitter bidders at this auction either mostly because the pickings aren't as choice. That 70 Challenger RT is more likely to be a one-off custom than a build sheet matching original.

You do see more examples of Lamborghini's, Ferrari's and the like mostly due to their popularity in the region and of course the concentration of wealth on the Right coast. The mix of offerings reflects a different attitude toward collectible automobiles in the region.

Where a 60's muscle car may bring six figures at Scottsdale the same car could bring much less at the spring event. A smaller consignment pool and more variety has a lot to do with it. At Scottsdale a featured original Hemi 'Cuda will likely have at least a dozen other customs that will benefit from a strong sale.

If it's stuck between a couple of Lamborghini's and Charity customs it will likely suffer unless it's got a very strong provenance. In other words the buyers have to know about it before it ever goes on sale.

Jet powered Semi Trucks aside, the offerings tend to be more practical than whimsical. Emotion plays a much smaller role and the prices reflect that. In short, the event is probably your best bet for getting a reasonable price on a collector vehicle at a Barrett-Jackson auction.

Still, if you can stomach Speed channel's coverage of the event you'll notice many of the lots being sold to the same buyers. Most of which happen to be well heeled old white men that have made Craig Jackson a millionaire in the past 15+ years of his control of the auction.

If Scottsdale is the example of wretched excess and you want to find an example of what the 1% consider a discount store, the Palm Beach event is a good place to start.

The lie of "for profit" schools

2013-04-02T23:16:00.000-07:00

I've had more time than I'd like to watch TV lately which also affords me more time to analyze its content.

For Example, Have you seen the latest Devry university commercial?

It has all the right elements to properly position the "product." Stirring music played at a subtle volume, young adults happily traversing an idyllic campus setting and a resolute spokesman delivering a somber message.

"By 2025 there will be 20 million new jobs and not enough graduates to fill them.." or something like that, forgive me if I paraphrase. I'm sure of this much, the statistic comes from the United States Department of Labor in a March 2012 publication.

What they fail to mention is who or where these jobs are going to be located. In spite of the rhetoric, business is still outsourcing most of its technical work overseas or abusing work visas to suppress wages.

Remember, this is Devry which fancies itself as a "University" now. Perhaps you aren't old enough to remember when they were just a vocational school producing entry level techs to staff the assembly lines of Motorola, Honeywell and the like.

A great foot in the door but nobody was ever going to give you a seat at the CEO's conference room table over it. They were no better than schools like ITT Technical Institute or the Ron Bailey School of Broadcasting.

They claim to be more than that now but they can't hide from their humble beginnings.

In fact the term "diploma mill" was coined because of these types of schools. That was because their programs were usually not accredited by the same governing body as traditional universities. The admission requirements were more relaxed as well so long as you had at least a GED and the ability to pay.

That allowed them flexibility in their curriculums not to mention the ability to commoditize their programs of study but made almost none of the credits transferrable to a regular university program. Needless to say, nobody ever asked about your SAT scores.

In the end you had the equivalent of very expensive vocational training and a piece of paper few took seriously.

Were they diploma mills? That was entirely dependent on the school. Sadly, you often had little more than a slick advertising campaign to judge them by. Most fell by the wayside when the promise fell short of the reality and the law suits starting rolling in.

Your education at any of these institutions would likely be financed by government grants and student loans. The exact composition of which was of no matter because the loan payments would be excessive no matter what the amount owed. Especially true when you could expect to spend the first few years of your career pulling down about as much money as an assistant manager at Mickey D's.

There's no debating the value of a quality education whether it comes from a University or a vocational school. The broadening of your knowledge base will always pay a dividend even if it isn't in the form of a bigger paycheck. It's about having options and the more you have the better off you'll be.

If it sounds like I'm contradicting myself I'm not. I'm a strong proponent of education in all its forms. What I'm not in favor of is the whole concept of a "for profit" school.

Which is why I have a problem with schools like Devry and the University of Phoenix making promises they can't keep.

Going to a "for-profit" school changes the education dynamic. Instead of being about imparting knowledge, it's about selling a product and its value diminishes with every shareholder meeting.

Oh? You didn't realize that Devry was publicly traded corporation? Their ticker symbol is DV on the NYSE. They closed at a bit over $31 a share at this writing. Down a bit since its $60 average a few years ago. So what does a company do when it's revenue numbers are down?

Sell more product of course!

When your product is education and you're charging a premium price for it your angle better be good.

The usual sales pitch is the chance for a better job. Of course they never emphasize that word "chance" unless you can read that tiny type flying by at 60 milliseconds on your TV.

It's all about the "benefits" of their product.

It's no different than a commercial for hot dogs. I mean does anyone really think about just what part of the beef is in "100% pure beef" hot dogs?

Of course not, instead they portray family and friends gathered around the perfect suburban backyard relishing in the perfect summer day with perfectly plump weenies sizzling on the grill.

Trouble is, we're talking about people's futures not weenies.

If your motivation is profit you do whatever you can to protect it. Capitalism has no conscience.

It shows up in the form of overpriced books, obsolete equipment, instructors with questionable qualifications (which is why most are referred to as "facilitators") and an inadequate curriculum. Don't even get me started on the "Financial Aid" department...

The result is a graduating student with tens of thousands in debt and an education that doesn't match what their chosen career demands.

So if we're going to treat education like hot dogs then there should be some recourse when the product doesn't deliver. After all, if you get sick from a bad batch of hot dogs the least you can expect is a refund. Try to get a 50K refund for a useless Bachelor's degree, yeah, good luck with that.

Meanwhile, millions of people have been sold a bill of goods with nothing to show for it but a piece of paper and decades of payments that rival most people's monthly mortgage. The final injustice, those loans are backed by the U.S. government which means you can't get rid of them even if you go broke.

There's only one fix for all of this...

Get rid of the "for profit" schools unless they guarantee placement equal to their advertising. If they refuse then they either need to shut down or be forced to change their ways.

If they complain, remind them that compared to their "product" hot dogs have a better guarantee and that's just bad business.

Twitter Activism: Busybody Backfire

2013-03-26T04:41:00.000-07:00

Adria Richards

By now you probably already know the name Adria Richards. Well at least if you follow the technology press that is. She's the polarizing tweeter who outed a couple of boys behaving badly.

The cliff notes version of the story is that a group of men were sitting behind Richards at the PyCon conference (A conference for Python developers) making dirty jokes laced with sexual innuendo.

Richards was specifically offended by remarks they made in response to a speaker such as "big dongle" and "forking repos" which apparently spurred her into action.

She snapped a photo of the two men with her phone and tweeted it with the following: " Not cool. Jokes about forking repo's in a sexual way and "big" dongles.Right behind me #pycon"

Mind you, they weren't talking to her or at her, in fact they probably didn't even notice she was there. That was until everyone got fired.

The twitterverse went nuts over this. Most of the response was negative as most responses on the Internet are. What doesn't seem to fit is that anyone got fired over this or that it became such a big deal.

There's a part of me that likes to see a busybody get a taste of their own medicine and make no mistake, Richards is a busybody. That she was so determined to ruin someone for behaving like an ass using twitter activism proves that.

People in the tech industry live on the Internet and feel no hesitation in laying open the entirety of their existence for the world to see. That exposes them to a level of vulnerability that old men like me think twice about.

So it should be no surprise that your actions in the virtual world have consequences in the real one. All the parties involved knew that but Richard's decided to be a passive-aggressive activist. She would likely have had a better outcome if she had just turned around and asked them to shut up. Nothing muzzles a man faster than a woman calling him on the carpet.

Should women have to be subjected to lewd and lascivious ramblings? Of course not but it's within your rights to be moron and nobody was talking to or even about Richards.

It seems we're back to the age old problem of how men are different from women. Generally, most men would rather their world was like a weekend trip to Vegas while women would likely prefer something akin to the Lilith Fair.

Unless Homo Sapiens suddenly become hermaphroditic that won't change no matter how much you may

The Accused at Pycon

want it to. It's not an excuse, it's biology.

Richard's job was described as a "Developer Evangelist" I suppose that in this case she took the title in the biblical sense. To that end her tweets ran against her job description of being " to build and strengthen our Developer Community across the globe." A global community isn't always politically correct. Besides, her followers were looking for information about a Python conference not a blow by blow of a couple of idiots.

It's not that she didn't have a right to be offended or to call these bozos out. However, the way she did it was unprofessional and ultimately got her fired for the hate mail that resulted.

Did she deserve it? To some extent yes but I'd draw the line at death and rape threats. Unfortunately, the Internet can be a very violent place populated with uber egos and social retardation. It's not right but it comes with the territory and we all know it.

Was firing the answer? I don't think so. Surely there were other positions she could have been moved into.

Did the knuckle dragging chauvinists (at least they were on that day) deserve to be fired? Probably not but they definitely needed some sensitivity training and maybe some potty training as well since they were obviously immature. I've met plenty of people of both sexes who could use a refresher course in how to conduct themselves in public.

Still, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone", says the bible. Richard's may have been justified in being offended but wrong in her actions especially considering her chosen vocation. If you're getting paid to "evangelize" to a bunch of programmers you'd better understand that your audience may not be as progressive as you are.

It's no different than being a conservative politician who comes out in favor of a liberal agenda. It's a pretty good bet that you're not going to be on team Red much longer.

If you're a guy, chances are you've been those two morons at some point in your life and may have even offended a few people. If you're a woman you've probably witnessed it and wished looks could kill.

Thing is, nobody ever tried to ruin your life over it. People who run around the world seeking to remake it in their own utopian image are called idealists. If they get enough power they're called fascists which is the secret dream of every busybody even if they think their intentions are pure.

Taking the most from the least of us

2013-03-24T22:11:00.000-07:00

These days you'd be excused if you wondered whom your elected representatives were actually representing.

Locked in a battle of ideology where there is no middle ground it's left those with the most to lose in a veritable no-man's land. If you've suffered the fallout you're living a precarious existence subject to the whims of the political machine.

The proof is easy to find.

The long term unemployed have found their benefit periods drastically reduced and with the looming threat of sequester the size of those checks as well.

State run healthcare programs have already been denying benefits to the unmarried or childless and reduced benefits and tightened eligibility for the rest.. Even Planned Parenthood and other providers of women's health services nationwide have seen their public funding evaporate based on nothing more than anti-abortion rhetoric .

While conservatives wage war on social programs, liberals can do little more than act as a backstop even with control of the White House and the Senate. Progressive legislation frequently finds itself gutted in favor of getting something, anything passed through congress no matter how toothless the legislation.

Wall street doesn't seem to care either way. In this battle they may as well be the war profiteers taking full advantage of the spoils. They can literally have their cake and eat it too. Public policy be damned or more likely ignored so long as the shareholders are happy.

It's no doubt they will be.

Give the working man a little more cash and they'll happily feed the economy and fill corporate coffers. Suppress their wages while systematically dismantling a century of labor law and your fortune's made on the backs of a subjugated workforce.

So as ideologies clash and items like tax reform and infrastructure rebuilding give way to naming post offices and the minting of commemorative coins, state governments and big business are taking advantage of the lack of governance.

Look no further for evidence than the state of Arizona now famous for its "Show me your papers" legislation otherwise known as SB1070.

A week ago their state legislature decided that it was just too easy to get unemployment insurance after conservative business leaders found a sympathetic ear at the state capitol. For their trouble they got a measure through the state House and Senate to require applicants to provide written documentation from their former employer of their involuntary dismissal from their jobs.

As written, the measure is so biased against the unemployed that all an employer has to do is not provide the applicant with required documentation and the claim can denied.

Considering funding for the state's unemployment insurance fund comes from employers it's likely the unemployment rate in Arizona will soon drop to 0% in the next 6 months. Whew! budget crisis solved!

Yes, that's sarcasm...

By the way, Arizona has one of the lowest maximum weekly benefit payments in the country at $240 second only to Mississippi. Yeah, the gravy train is over you unemployed slackers .

To hear supporters of the measure you'd believe that getting unemployment insurance in Arizona required nothing more than having a social security number and a pulse. With approximately 75,000 of the state's population of 6.5 million people still on the unemployment rolls (down from 200,0000 in 2010) it's hard to characterize their position as anything but cruel.

The U.S. Department of Labor has already "raised concerns" about the bill's legality under federal law. Oh yeah, and Arizona's official unemployment rate was still at 8% in January.

Here's another one. CVS Pharmacy has decided that they need to keep tabs on their employees vital statistics. Employees covered by the company's health plan are required to provide information such as weight, body fat and other health information or be assessed a $50 per month fee on top of their insurance premiums. In other words CVS employees can comply with this violation of their privacy or pay a penalty.

So if you're collecting unemployment or refuse to submit to employer inquiries about your private health information apparently you're part of the problem. Meanwhile Washington lets it happen.

We're not talking about forcing millionaires to drive down to a homeless shelter and pass out fistfuls of $20 bills. It's about subjugating a population already suffering the ravages of a withering economy and a congress impotent to address their concerns.

In the vacuum that's been left, Wall Street soars and so do the numbers of the less fortunate as they further descend into poverty. They find a social safety net with ever widening gaps and an indignant conservative leadership holding the scissors. Worse, the supposed liberal champions of the downtrodden offer little more than lip service.

Twenty years ago this country was facing similar hurdles but ideology wasn't allowed to completely trump reason. The result may not have pleased everyone but at least allowed things to move forward. Brinksmanship was a threat not a foundation for policymaking.

Actions have consequences, Isaac Newton knew it and apparently so did Matthew, you know the guy from that book Pat Robertson likes to read out of...

"And the king will say to them in reply, ‘Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.’ Matthew25-40

By the way, I'm not religious but that last one makes perfect sense to me...

Just Talkin Tech - Episode 4 No Refunds!

2013-03-18T06:49:00.000-07:00

It's all about the product or rather what really qualifies as one. In this episode we're discussing how software companies can sell you a defective product and you have no recourse but to accept it. It's a casual but spirited conversation where I try to explain the difference between owning something and just having a license to it.

In the end anything you don't own affords you very few rights when it goes wrong. The sad fact is when it comes to a "product" you can't hold in your hand like software code or music (CD's are just a medium BTW) you don't own anything.

Consider your perception

2013-03-14T23:54:00.003-07:00

Perception...

It's an interesting word and about as ambiguous as they come. If you've ever heard the old phrase about "rose colored glasses" then you've got the general idea. Our perceptions color our world and help form our personal biases.

Let's try an example.

Say you're sitting at a table at your favorite lunch spot when a rather large burly man walks through the door. He's dressed in biker gear, has a few tattoos and looks like he's been on the road for days. Other than his appearance he offers no clue to his intentions outside of the possible desire to have lunch.

What's the first thing that comes to your mind? For most it would probably be a little fear followed by a mental note to find a new lunch spot. In the end our opinion probably leans toward a less than favorable view of our hungry friend.

So what if I told you our burly biker guy was actually an esteemed Superior Court judge who happens to be a motorcycle enthusiast...

Your perceptions are affected by societal norms and anything that goes against them causes us alarm. Depending on how conservative or liberal your social views are will have a direct relationship to your world view.

The problem with perception is that it's based on faulty logic. We first apply whatever we accept as societal norms, then our own personal biases and with very little additional information render judgment. And that's where it gets dangerous.

Marketing is all about perception whether it's trying to convince you that Coke tastes better than Pepsi or one political view is superior to another. Create a popular enough advertising campaign and you can effect a change in what society finds acceptable with virtually no credible information to support it.

Remember the Romney presidential campaign and all the rhetoric that swirled around about the "takers?" Into that group went anyone deemed unworthy due to their reliance on public assistance of any kind. The circumstance that landed you in that position was irrelevant, only the perception mattered. For the true believers it was black and white and anything in a gray area was considered black.

Create a label and you're on your way to influencing perception. Repeat the label enough and it gains power even if it contains no substance. So if a message could be crafted to sway public opinion against those branded with your new label you could disenfranchise an entire swath of the population. Especially useful in silencing groups that expose the flaws in your point of view.

Our lives are cluttered with irrelevant noise. Even the news isn't particularly informative anymore since it's become an entertainment medium. Entire nations may be plagued by hunger and disease. Civil rights curtailed by corporate influence and the efforts of many now benefit a privileged few.

Hey, who cares? None of that is as interesting as the latest celebrity gossip or news about an upcoming mobile device. Rampant consumerism and distilled information rule the day. Our perception of normal has been co-opted and corrupted with nonsense and it extends to more than just our consumer habits.

And there's the danger. It's easier to consume than to deliberate, especially with so many seemingly important demands for your attention. We allow someone else's version of reality to dictate our own without even realizing it.

So the next time you make a snap judgment take a moment to really consider where your opinion comes from. You may find a truly uncomfortable truth. One that could alter your perception.

It's about the content

2013-03-04T04:31:00.000-08:00

In this age of digital media the experts will tell you it's all about the content. After almost two decades the novelty of the Internet has worn off and what was revolutionary is now the mundane. Truth be told, nobody promotes themselves as being online anymore, it's just expected that you are.

And it seems everybody is. From your grandmother to multinational corporations the Internet is awash in content. It happened fast, so fast that traditional media can't keep up with the pace. Content is no longer limited to a newspaper on your doorstep, a movie in a theater or a program on television. A fact that the NBC Universals and Disney's of the world can't stand.

In the 80's the advent of the VCR sent the Motion picture industry into a panic with then MPAA president Jack Valenti proclaiming, "Their (VCR manufacturers) only single mission, their primary mission is to copy coyrighted material that belongs to other people."

The late 90's saw the music industry decrying the evils of digital music players. Most notably the case of the RIAA versus DIamond Multimedia. The RIAA asserted that the simple act of copying music to an MP3 player like the Diamond Rio even when restricted to personal use was a violation of copyright. Fortunately the courts found it wasn't but the decision wasn't based on a rapidly outmoded copyright law but rather what comprised a recording device.

Succeeding years found both organizations repeatedly claiming that new consumer friendly technologies threatened the fortunes of the entire entertainment industry.

Of course history shows that it hasn't but not before decades of legislation had weakened consumer rights and made the whole concept of copyright law deliberately ambiguous.

The result is an entertainment industry who views the public first as thieves and second as customers. The concept of "Fair Use" frequently finds itself at odds with the entertainment industry who views any use not explicitly controlled by them as an infringement of copyright.

For the uninitiated the doctrine of Fair Use is not so much a right (at least in the U.S.) as it is a defense when accused of copyright violation. It's basically a four step criteria to measure whether use of copyrighted work is eligible for exemption from copyright law. Generally the rule is that Fair Use applies to non-commercial or educational uses or commercial uses that can be shown to not diminish the original work. There's more than enough room for interpretation, however, and that's frequently decided in favor of the copyright holder.

Which translates to a virtual flip of the coin any time your use of alleged copyrighted material strays into new territory.

For example, upload a family holiday video to YouTube and you could find yourself on the receiving end of a copyright complaint if ol' Blue Eyes(Frank Sinatra) happens to be belting out Silent Night in the background. Even if you make the video private and accessible only to your family and not the general public you can still be considered in violation of copyright.

What's the definition of original content anyway?

You may do a weekly video podcast but if anything in your video displays an element someone claims as copyrighted material you've suddenly lost your right to monetization under YouTube's rules at the least. At the worst you can find your video removed and receive a "copyright strike." Too many of those and YouTube will close your account.

More than just an annoyance the entertainment industry has engaged in legal intimidation in an effort to protect an outdated content model. Is there really a threat to a copyright holder's interest if someone uses a clip from their content in an entirely unrelated work?

What if you just want to make fun of copyrighted but publicly available content? If so is it considered a parody or a satire? Hint: One is covered by "Fair Use" the other isn't. Most people don't even know there's a difference but under copyright law there is.

Even the alleged "New Media" succumbs to the pressure of the old guard. When the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)was signed into law in 1998 savvy ISP's lobbied for some degree of immunity by way of the "safe harbor."

They saw a future rife with litigation for simply operating a medium and wanted no part of it. Safe Harbor holds ISP's and later content hosting services like YouTube harmless in any copyright infringement claim. So long as they don't actively participate in the infringement they get a pass. Unfortunately content creators who run afoul of the DMCA have no such protections and have to rely on Fair Use defenses.

Now a bewildered public is forced to learn about words like "transformative"," derivative" and "Fair Use."

And to think that all you wanted to do was to share a holiday memory with grandma on YouTube.

These are questions we shouldn't have to answer in a creative society. The history of mankind is built upon the creative output of those that came before. Without the wheel, for instance, there would be no automobiles and transportation on the whole would be a very different if not inefficient proposition.

So should someone have patented the concept of a cylindrical object for the purpose of rotating around an axis ? Perhaps but it should never have been expected to exist in perpetuity. If such a patent existed it's entirely possible, for example, that we'd be controlling the direction of our cars with levers instead of that familiar direction control device we know as a steering wheel.

The holder of the patent (or copyright) could prevent any use not explicitly under their control which would include anything that resembled or made reference to the wheel product.

That sounds ridiculous but is exactly what is happening with copyright law now. No reasonable person would deny anyone the right to profit from their efforts . The problem arises when protection of those rights subverts the very innovation that copyright sought to protect.

Even if you never run afoul of someone else's copyright you still suffer the consequences.

Why, for example, in an age of almost instantaneous access to information do we still have artificial limits placed on how we consume media? The entertainment industry would argue that there's a minimum period of time necessary to protect their revenue potential.

That argument ignores the revenue potential afforded by alternate modes of content delivery. A friend of mine recently posed a question to me. He said, " Why do I have to wait months for a new movie to be available somewhere other than a movie theater?"

You know, I have to agree. He brought up the fact that many people have home theater systems that could offer an excellent viewing experience. To me, I'd rather see a new movie in the theater and I'm sure I'm not alone. Nonetheless, I shouldn't be denied the option.

Seeing a movie in a theater is a "premium" experience and I'm willing to pay more for it. However, I'm not willing to support a business model rooted in the middle of the last century to get it. There was a time when the only way to see a first run movie was at a theater. That's hasn't been the case for a decade now. It's not about the technology it's about revenue.

There are very few cases where a 50 year old business model is relevant to contemporary markets but the industry doesn't it see it that way.

In some cases new entertainment content will go straight to online sources like YouTube, direct to DVD or even services like NetFlix. So with alternate delivery mechanisms available do we really need so many theaters?

Should we be limiting our entertainment options based on nothing more than propping up an industry that refuses to respond to a new market dynamic?

I'd rather have a few really great theaters offering a superior experience than a lesser one from a business model that's groaning under its own weight.

Remember we're still talking about restricting content here. In some cases, your content if someone deems it a threat to their copyright. We're also talking about restricting your choices. The least of which is your opportunity to use content any way you wish

I've never been a fan of change for its own sake but when it comes to copyrights I don't have to betray that rule because change desperately needs to happen.

The need for the impractical

2013-02-26T04:41:00.001-08:00

The video is from the last episode of the 2009 season of BBC's Top Gear and it moves me. It's not that I'm particularly taken with the Aston Martin V12 Vantage but rather about why it's important.

Although I don't reflect it much in these pages I am at heart an incurable gearhead. I don't look at the automobile as a mere means of conveyance but rather an expression of the soul.

We live in a world bent on the disposable. Nothing we own is designed to be held, cherished or valued beyond its immediate purpose. Our busy lives cluttered with the trappings of a rudimentary survival leave little room for the seemingly impractical.

I understand the need for the purely practical vehicle but it should hold no higher rank than one that evokes the emotions. We seem to forget that life is a gift meant to be embraced not suffered. The soul needs as much nourishment as the body but its frequently denied.

And we suffer. Our minds trapped in the narrow constraints of our profession. Our relationships never fully realized, our dreams never known. A sad construct reinforced by the demands of the mundane. We tell ourselves that someday we will be able to live our dreams if we just deny ourselves a little longer. The focus is on the destination but sadly we find ourselves unfulfilled when we get there. All the time, all the effort for little more than a brutal survival near our inevitable end.

Practicality has its place but we need to take advantage of all the journey has to offer.

For me, the sight of an early 70's pony car starts my mind racing. Perhaps it's in sad shape. Oxidized paint, a cracked taillight or mismatched wheels, it doesn't matter. My heart doesn't see an impractical jalopy destined for the crusher, I see a cry for rebirth.

And given the opportunity, I'd gladly play midwife...

Yes compared to a hybrid, it will probably swallow fuel like a drunkard swills cheap wine, it will require constant attention like a young child and will never meet the measure of practicality. It doesn't matter. I'll form a connection that feeds my soul and that's its purpose.

Anything can get me from point A to point B.

I want to be conscious of the journey and I want the opportunity to make it to continue on. That can't happen in a Prius.

Much ado about a Tesla

2013-02-19T16:13:00.005-08:00

Article first published as Much Ado About a Tesla on Technorati.

After 2 weeks it seems everyone has an opinion on why New York Times journalist John M Broder had such a disappointing experience with the Tesla Model S. From his original article it appeared that the car of the future wasn't quite ready for primetime in spite of claims to the contrary and 13,000 pre-orders for the model.

Broder's extended test drive was meant to simulate a long distance road trip to measure the practicality of the car with a focus on "future" charging stations. What he found was a vehicle and an infrastructure unprepared for "the real world." A reality underscored by woefully inadequate vehicle support and a mileage range that was overly optimistic at best. Broder wasn't aware, for example, that the Model S batteries could lose most of their charge in cold temperatures. An event Broder experienced during his trip.

Shortly after Broder published his misadventures with the car, Tesla's CEO Elon Musk shot back on the company's blog accusing Broder of improperly operating the car. Musk revealed that the cars detailed data logging showed that Broder appeared to be trying to run the car out of charge and deliberately ignored warning indicators.

Musk appears to believe Broder has it in for the electric car and cited a previous article of his as proof. In Musk's blog he quoted Broder,

"Yet the state of the electric car is dismal, the victim of hyped expectations, technological flops, high costs and a hostile political climate."

Musk again relying on the data logging of the car revealed that Broder had driven the car at the "excessive" speeds of anywhere between 65 and 81 MPH for the majority of the trip with the heater set to 72 F. Which apparently is unreasonable for a long road trip in middle of a New England winter.

What's been lost in the dust-up is a very real truth. The all electric vehicle may be part of our motoring future but it's not exclusive to it. Should Broder have spent a few hours reading the owner's manual and mapped out his route more carefully? Probably, but just as the superior music quality of the CD lost out to the convenience of the MP3, a successful all electric vehicle will need to be easy to operate.

The excuse of failure because "you didn't use it right" doesn't hold any water anymore. The "real" world rarely offers up ideal conditions and consumer products need to be able to cope with that fact. If you claim an average range of 265 miles on a charge but base it on ideal weather and traffic conditions at 50MPH speeds you're not reflecting the "real" world.

After reading Musk's blog entry I can't help but draw similarities between him and Jimmy Fallon's patronizing Saturday Night Live character of Nick Burns, the computer guy.

Still "Not Advertiser Friendly" (update)

2013-02-10T21:18:00.000-08:00

Denied yet again in another round of the YouTube monetization follies I gave the response below when challenged on my "commercial use rights" for the video above. I won't get my 27 cents but at least my response makes me feel better.

"I am me, this is all you see on your little internet TV. That said the only way you can disagree is if you find my content, "not advertiser friendly"

For an example of "Advertiser Friendly" Check the video out below.

Hmm, now this is interesting. I just did that video as a test and you know what? It was monetized immediately! That pretty much proves what it takes to get monetized on YouTube. Either brown nose or have crap content. Nice...

Mail Run?

2013-02-07T10:45:00.003-08:00

Mailed a letter lately?

Yeah, me either except when I need to stuff a bunch of mail into an envelope and send it off to relatives that haven't lived at my address for 3 years. I have to do that because the last time I tried to get a forwarding order for them all the mail, including mine, went to their new address.

It took almost two years to straighten out that mess.

Which really makes me wonder what I've been paying for over the past decade of regular postage rate increases. Since 1991 the cost of a first class stamp has risen 17 cents. Meanwhile, the post office has been reducing hours, cutting staff and playing outsourcer for UPS and FEDEX.

Ok, so we've all heard the jokes about poor service, rude employees and mishandled mail. Almost immediately after the advent of electronic messaging the postal service earned the moniker of "snail mail."

So now comes news less than a month after the latest rate hike that you won't be getting any mail on Saturdays Packages will still be delivered but that's about it. The move is supposed to save some 2 billion dollars but even Postmaster General Donahoe knows it's not enough.

Donahoe's been "officially" claiming Internet messaging and carrier competition is driving down revenue and putting him in the red.

In reality, the reason for the nation's mailman being in such dire straits has nothing to do with business operations. It has to do with an accumulation of 20 Billion in debt since 2006 thanks to a document called the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act.

Regardless of the spin, no amount of cost cutting or employee attrition can offset it.

You've heard of taxation without representation, right?

Well, if the postal service were a real person it would be the poster child for it. You know, just like corporations are people to certain political parties.

Technically, the postal service is not a government agency but a public entity created by the constitution. Only congress has authority over it. Unfortunately, that also makes it a vulnerable to politics. The same kind of politics that have been seeking to privatize more and more public entities like Medicare, Social Security and now the U.S. Postal service.

You see, the problem with the Postal Service has nothing to do with the Internet or competition from other carriers. It has to do with a burden placed on it by congress that mandates that it fully fund pensions for 75 years. No other federal entity under the authority of congress is required to do this. In fact it actually funds pensions for employees that will likely never be hired. Do the math and you'll soon find that an unfair burden has turned a successful business model into a organization starved for resources and failing.

While First class mail has been on the decline, parcel shipments have been on the rise according to Donahoe's own charts. Without the extra burden of an overfunded pension plan there'd be no deficit and no corresponding need to cut anything. And there's the rub.

Donahoe either has no clue about what's wrong with the postal service (unlikely) or he's trying to bluff congress into fixing the real problem. If he is, he runs the risk of turning public opinion against him with fewer service days and higher prices. With a 113th congress much more receptive to the electorate than its predecessor that could spell final doom for the U.S. mail.

You've placed your bet Mr. Postmaster, let's hope you're holding a royal flush.

Sunday's Super large Sportsball Ubergame

2013-02-03T22:45:00.002-08:00

A non-sports fan's guide to Sunday's Super large Sportsball Ubergame

I'm not much of a sports fan. In fact for many professional sports I only have a passing interest in seeing their respective seasons end. That stems primarily from a desire to see the end of the propaganda that accompanies said professional sports when their season is over.

I don't hate sports, I just don't buy into the glorification of them. Hey, these guys get to play a game for a living. Yes it requires training, skill and intelligence to participate but in the end it's just a game. We should all be so lucky, but we aren't.

And so it was with Sunday's major sporting event which shall remain unnamed because last year they sued a bunch of people just for saying its name without permission from the council of elderly rich people who own it.

It had a lot to do with large men repeatedly assaulting each other usually in pursuit of another large man in possession of an oblong shaped object. Possession of said object is paramount in this sporting contest by the way.

As I understand it, the game is divided into 4, 15 minute quarters that for some reason take 3 hours to complete. There is also a lavish performance event in the middle of it where they stop the game and a popular entertainer sings songs with accompanying fanfare. After which they resume the running and assaulting of each other.

The 2013 version of the Super large Sportsball Ubergame took place on February 2nd and involved 2 teams. One team represented a group of black scavenging birds and the other a group of 19th century freelance laborers with pick axes.

During low spots during the game a small group of middle aged men wearing headsets would have heated discussions about what just happened. It's not uncommon for discussions of 30 seconds of the game's proceedings to be discussed for 15 minutes, for example.

Some of these men could also be heard during play of the game when something of interest to them occurs. These men are known as Sportscasters. They're much like the players in that they get paid to talk about professional recreational events without having to take part. Some of their membership includes former game players who have "retired" from participating in these professional recreational activities.

For most of the game it appeared that the team representing birds were very agitated while the team representing the laborers were largely disinterested. Except during the early part of the game after the popular entertainer was done singing or the "second half" as they call it. Perhaps they were motivated by the performance of popular entertainer.

During an opportunity for the laborer team to best the bird team's score, one of the playfield judges dressed in a prison shirt appeared to have a lapse in their judgment. It seems that the decision of the judge in the prison garb disheartened the laborer's team. The effect of which was for the laborer team to stop trying to best the bird team's score. Apparently the effect of the popular entertainer's performance had worn off.

Now admittedly, I could care less and was actually flipping between coverage of this sporting event and reruns of Star Trek: The Next Generation. Still, I saw enough to know that my time was better spent on the reruns. Although even with my limited knowledge I surmised 30 minutes before the game ended that the birds were going to leave the laborer's with excrement on their pick axes.

Luckily, the Star Trek reruns were presented marathon fashion by BBC America proving to be a far better use of the majority of my time. I was also able to gain the most minimal of knowledge so as not to bring harm to myself should devotees of this sport find irritation with my lack of interest.

In short, I can fake it. If you know the score and a few highlighted moments you can keep this sport's devotees postulating on individual player performance for days without fear of having to interject anything except for the occasional head nod.

Mission accomplished.

New Media is older than you think - Part 2

2013-01-29T01:28:00.002-08:00

YouTube is perhaps the most blatant example of the "New Media" hypocrisy. Their motto is "Broadcast Yourself" although it's hard to find on their webpage anymore. Here's their current claimed reason for being...

Founded in February 2005, YouTube allows billions of people to discover, watch and share originally-created videos. YouTube provides a forum for people to connect, inform, and inspire others across the globe and acts as a distribution platform for original content creators and advertisers large and small.

The real truth is that only thing YouTube cares about since the Google acquisition is becoming the Internet equivalent of NBC. They've invested a few million in a Los Angeles production studio called the "Creation Space" supposedly to support the YouTube community. What you find in the small print, however, is that you don't get to use it unless you've been "invited."

To get that golden ticket you need to have at least 300,000 average views with the first crop of "invitees" being closer to a half million or more. Check out the bulk of the channels and you're going to find a lot of crossover from old media interests, entertainment figures and those with a popular following elsewhere.

Sorry guys, your chances of getting in on the new digs is pretty slim with videos of your new kittens produced with Windows Movie Maker.

By the way, a common thread among successful YouTube channels is a partnership agreement with an even larger channel.

Oh yeah, and being a pop star with a record company backing the production of your new "Internet only" video wouldn't hurt either.

So what exactly is this New Media then? A shortcut for old media billionaires to make more money by spending less on production?

Seems that way which means supporting your tiny channel is not their focus. In fact since the Google acquisition, the service has become increasingly hostile to small content creators. The recommendation is to sign up with bigger partners if you want to increase your views.

That means revenue sharing or basically paying the bigger partner a percentage of your monetized views on top of YouTube's normal cut. Kind of like a pyramid scheme. Paying for views, by the way, is something YouTube actively discourages anywhere but partner agreements. They can't turn a profit outside that structure so they make sure you don't either.

The only thing YouTube is nurturing is its own fortunes. Don't expect to get a call to reserve your slot in the "Creation Space" if you're not in the less than 1% of YouTubers able to live off your partner income. It's not going to happen for smaller channels simply because their take isn't lucrative enough for them.

YouTube will reap millions from its relatively paltry investment in facilities and you're going to pay for it with deeper cuts into your monetization. Even if you never get to use it. So much for their philanthropic motives.

Why? Simple, it's a corporate interest and you're just a consumer of their product. Your "partner" status just gives them license to hijack your content for their own ends with minimal benefit for you. So while you spend hours hoping that all that slaving over the perfect upload will go viral, know that YouTube has your back. Well at least so long as they can turn a profit on you. Oh yeah and you don't do anything to threaten the sensibilities of their advertisers or even suggest the possibility of a copyright infringement.

Do either of those and you'll quickly be branded "Not Advertiser Friendly" which at the minimum denies your videos monetization or at worst gets them pulled down.

Sound familiar? It's the same dynamic that got your favorite show kicked off of network TV and drove innovative cable networks like TechTV into the ground.

So dry your tears New Media pundits, it's the same old crap in a new package. Nothing's really changed as the same "old media" gatekeepers are still collecting the tolls.

I'm not trying to discourage anyone from engaging in this "New Media" just don't believe everything you hear about it. It's definitely fun but it's far from free and not as lucrative as it seems so don't quit your day job.

You can start a blog, post hundreds of videos on YouTube and spam all your Facebook friends with them and still not earn a dime. Without the backing of the gatekeepers you may as well post your blogs on telephone poles. Just remember the "New Media" isn't all that new so take it with a grain of salt. Most of the hype you're hearing is the same kind of noise you get from an "Internet Millions" infomercial.