Worst Product Idea for 2007

The Comic Book Store owner from The Simpson's might be tempted to call Palm's new "smart phone companion" the Foleo the "worst product ever". That may be going too far. Worst product of 2007 seems sufficient. Why on Earth anyone would purchase this is beyond me. The Foleo connects wirelessly to your Treo so that you can use a keyboard, have a larger screen and view attachments and emails. Hmmmmm. This sounds familiar. Almost LIKE MY LAPTOP! It'd be one thing if virtually every person who carried a Treo didn't own a laptop and need to carry it around for work. However I'm guessing that cross section is above 95%. Laptops can connect to WiFi and other networks w/ optional cards. They can also EDIT attachments. The whole point of a smart phone is that you don't need your laptop. If I have my laptop out why am I using my BlackBerry (while we're on the subject the Treo is so much worse than the BlackBerry -- just had to throw that in there)? I'm on my BlackBerry mostly when taking out a laptop is inconveniet. Not to mention with the advent of a 3G, HSDPA and EVDO cards that plug into laptops the idea that you'd use you phone as a connection for a laptop like device is absurd. Even more absurd is that it's too big to carry by itself. I'd have to carry in a briefcase right next to my laptop! Seriously, who is going to buy this @ $500? Who would buy this @ $200? I'd actually pay money to not carry this.

Looking at this product reminded me of the famous Seinfeld routine about the Superman Halloween costume that he wore as a kid. Seinfeld recalls that there was a warning on the packaging that stated "do not attempt to fly wearing the Superman costume". He then says, "I'd like to meet the child dumb enough to think that they could fly wearing the Superman costume but smart enough to check for a warning label." I'm sure it's the same kid who would grow up and buy a Foleo.

Unilateral Phase Detractors and Sinusoidal Depleneration

This is a bonus post. It was just too funny to pass up. I wasn't sure just how fake the video was, but a quick Google search (seriously, what would you do without it?) yielded a random thread that discusses an article from a mechanical trade journal in 1945. Further investigation (seriously how awesome is Wikipedia) yield the truth. As you'd expect, it's completely made up. Anyways, just watch the video and soak it up. Bernard Salwen was a genius.

I'm Not a Health Official, but I Have Watched Every Episode of "Gray's Anatomy"

Every once-in-a-while a public poll is released that really gives you a sense of what's going through the heads of your fellow citizens. Unfortunately, almost every time one of those nuggets is released it just makes you shake your head. Everyone has seen at least one poll like this from the number of high school students who can pick out "Europe" on a map to the number of adults who know the name of their Congress person. You see these statistics and you think to yourself "My G-d, these are the people that are electing our leaders (i.e. determining the fate of our nation)?"

A recent AP article explained how the CDC (that's right, the Center for Disease Control) is spending money (and time) working w/ Hollywood (yes, Hollywood) to make sure that TV and Movie scripts accurately portray major public health issues. You have to read about halfway through the article to get to the part that makes you want to break your keyboard over your head:

"CDC officials make time for Hollywood meetings, because they know what’s on screen can be influential. In a 2000 CDC-sponsored survey, more than half of TV viewers said they trust health information on prime-time shows to be accurate, and about one-quarter said prime-time television is one of their top three sources of health information."

This paragraph is nonchalantly placed in the article, but if true it's pretty remarkable (even if it's not completely accurate). Half of the Americans surveyed trust the health information portrayed in a TV (i.e. not a news program -- a fictional show about, say, doctors!). Of those people, half of them list TV programs as one of the top three places they get health information. TOP THREE! Let's see. Where can I get information on my health? Doctors? Health Magazines? Specialty Web Sites (WebMD)? How about "ER"?

Truth be told, the amount that the CDC spends on this is relatively little in comparison to what is probably their total budget. It's a sad state of affairs though when an organization focused on stopping the spread of disease through out our country feels that fictional TV shows are one of the most effective mediums to communicate those messages. And one really hopes that at most a handful of Americans take health lessons from fictional characters playing doctor.

I'll Pay You $3 to Wait in Line for an Hour

Every year Ben and Jerry's does something that drives every economist crazy: they offer a free small ice cream cone to anyone who shows up. On the surface this sounds fantastic: you get something (good ice cream) for free! Nothing is free -- even in those CD deals back in the day you had to pay for shipping (can you imagine paying for CDs?) But back to ice cream -- free! The best word in the English language. Or is it?

The problem, when you offer a good at a price well below it's value is that the demand sky rockets. Ben and Jerry's ice cream is very popular. In a city like Berkeley people will line up for over an hour to get a small ice cream cone. One hour! Think about that. A small cone costs ~$3. On any other day of the week you could walk up to the counter, pay $3 and get a small ice cream cone. Today you had to wait one hour, but you paid nothing. Interestingly I'm sure if if you offered $5 to cut to the front of the line no one would accept it (why would they? they just waited in line for an hour!). Yet for just $3 you could buy that same ice cream cone any other day and not wait at all. To make the situation even more absurd you could even go to the grocery store that very day and for $3 get a whole pint.

It Was Safer on The Battlefield Than in The Camp

Sometimes in life you see statistics that run counter to what our intuition tells us. Jerry Seinfeld in his pre-"Seinfeld" routine has a joke where he says:

"In a recent survey of adult Americans the number 1 fear was public speaking. The number 2 fear was death! Death was the number 2 fear!?!? That means at a funeral people would rather be in the casket than giving the eulogy!"

Many Americans (at least those with a sense of our History) are aware that the Civil War was the bloodiest war in American History (over 600,000 men, and by some estimates as many as 700,000 men died). That's somewhat misleading since it's also the only war where the US fought itself, but the statistic is still no less valid. What many people do not know is that 2/3rds of the deaths (TWO-THIRDS) were from disease! That number does not include deaths from infections resulting from battlefield injuries (those are included in the 1/3rd portion of the deaths). That's remarkable. For all of the carnage in the Civil War (Antietam is still the single bloodiest day in American History -- 3600 Americans lost their lives) disease was more of a problem than anything else.

Of course this isn't anything new. It's really only recently that man has devised ways to kill himself more efficiently than disease. In World War I ~19M people died (that number is almost unfathomable to begin with). It also marked the first time that civilian deaths outnumbered military deaths. However Mother Nature proved to be vastly more deadly. The Spanish Influenza of 1918-1920 killed anywhere from 40M-100M people (2%-5% of the World population!). Unlike many deadly strains of influenzas this one was deadly to young healthy people as well. It killed over 25M people in the first 6 months of the outbreak (in contrast AIDS took 25 years to kill that many people).

Greatest Secret Never Told

I've always thought that the best-kept secret in history (at least the last 100 years) was D-Day. How the Allies were able to fool Hitler with that many people running around the south of England (Operation Fortitude) has to be considered the best example of subterfuge in human history. However, you have to give Apple some credit for being able to hide so many details of the iPhone. Everyone on the planet knew it was coming, but people had to be surprised by the reality of the device (note the stock surge). Look at this article that shows the extent to which Apple hid details for the iPhone.

When you really think about it keeping the iPhone a secret is pretty impressive. Sure the stakes aren't what they were in D-Day (and I still think for the record that Operation Fortitude is still #1 all time), but keeping the iPhone a secret when that many people were trying to find out about it while at the same time you need to communicate to so many 3rd parties is amazing. Making it all the more amazing is that with all of that planning they chose a name that had already been taken! Today it was announced that Cisco is suing Apple for using the name iPhone which is apparently owned by Cisco through their Linksys acquisition. Apparently Apple was trying to hash out a deal with Cisco, but they never signed on the dotted line. Needless to say Jobs didn't like that stop his announcement yesterday, and why should he? What's IP (well, sort of IP) to a company that has tried to pioneer DRM?

My final comment on Apple's version of the iPhone (and it really is cool) is how is it not 3G capable? It's not like 3G isn't available on Cingular (check out the Samsung Blackjack). If you're making a completely cutting-edge phone with lots of really cool technology that is going to drive high speed data downloads wouldn't you want the latest technology for downloading data? This is 2007, not 2005. I wonder if the new models they release in AP and Europe add 3G functionality.

I'm The Opposite of Any Man You've Ever Met

Those words by George Costanza highlight what is possibly one of the best TV episodes ever made -- "The Opposite" episode of Seinfeld. In the episode George realizes that his life isn't where he wants it to be and he decides to start doing the opposite of everything his instincts tell him. This makes for some fantastically funny scenes the best of which is when he "gives it" to George Steinbrenner (voiced by Larry David) for running the Yankees into the ground (hard to believe in 2006 but for about 10 years they were just pathetic). He gets the job on the spot. If you own the Seinfeld Season 5 DVD I highly recommend that you watch that episode (even if you've already seen it) with the commentary on. David and Seinfeld do the commentary and it's hysterical to hear them watch it for the first time in a decade.

Sometimes I feel like (despite all the work I put into something) I'd be better off doing the opposite of whatever it is that I think I should do. As Jerry says, "If every decision you've ever made was wrong then the opposite would have to be right."

This morning I read that Ericsson has decided to acquire Redback Networks, which is just down the road from where I work. I then found that an analyst from RBC had written a report published yesterday morning detailing why Redback wasn't going to be acquired anytime soon and recommended that clients should sell their shares. Literally a half a day later Ericsson snatched-up Redback's shares at a 25% premium to where they were trading earlier in the day! Talk about a bad day for the analyst -- and I'm sure he did a lot of research before making that call.

I wonder if he's ordering a chicken salad on white bread (untoasted) with a side of potato salad and a cup of tea for lunch today...

On the Road Europeans Excel

I'm of the belief that as Americans if we see that someone is clearly
doing something better than us our national duty is to copy it and
make it our own. This is basically the Microsoft approach (except
they make it better), and it has served us well over the years.

Why is it then that we don't copy the two most obviously brilliant
innovations to come from Europe since Led Zepellin showed us Hard
Rock?

For those of you who haven't been to a major European city, you've
never seen the brilliance of the yellow light flash before the light
turns green. The origin of this must be due to the number of people
who drive manual transmissions in Europe. Aside from the coolness
affect (makes you feel like a race car driver) it gives drivers the
equivalent of "on your marks/set" before telling you to "go". The
result is that you don't have to wait nearly as long at a traffic
light for cars to start moving.

The other brilliant innovation that the Europeas have developed is
really a custom, and it would stun any American driver (especially one
from California) -- slower cars stay to the right (except in the UK
where they stay to the left, but the idea is the same)! Why is it
that people in the US will almost randomly select a speed and lane in
which to travel? Not only do Europeans really respect this concept
(and it really opens up a road, especially two lane highways which are
plentful there) they go one step further: if you're passing in the
left lane you keep your left blinker on so cars in that lane who are
passing (but going slower than you) move to the right to let you by!
I can't even count the number of times in a week where I'm stuck
behind someone going faster than the speed "limit" (but slower than
me) who don't get out of the way even though they're not passing
anyone and could easily get out of my way. I know some states (nj?)
Have laws that say that you need to go faster than the person to your
right, but when does it get enforced? And even if it did, we need to
instill the etiquette in people so that they're accustomed to getting
out of the way when a faster car is behind them.

I don't know how to get the US to adopt the light policy, but I'm
going to start using my left blinker to signal to people in the left
lane that I want to pass them. Perhaps in 20 years it will catch on.

It's the Little Differences

I'm on the road this week in Europe and as I sat through various stages of the travel process I started thinking of Lou's comment in "22 Short Films About Springfield" (the Pulp Fiction spoof episode on "The Simpsons" -- mainly it's the little things that make the difference (in the episode he's comparing McDonalds to Krusty Burger, I pasted a transcript below in case you don't remember it or never saw it courtesy these guys).

Anyways here are some "little differences" that made me wish I was back in the US and A:

When I landed in Frankfurt I had to make a connection through to Munich. For those of you who've ever flown through Frankfurt you're aware that it's not a simple change, the biggest pain is that you have to go back through security. In Germany (and in all airports in Europe that I've ever been to) they don't have a ramps/tables (or whatever you would call it) in front of the X-Ray machines to lay out your bin/luggage and put your stuff in it while you're waiting for the person in the front of the line. They only have table space for what amounts to one suitcase worth. This may seem insignificant, but the net effect is that each person has to wait until they get to the front of the line to take out their laptop, remove their coat and find their quart zip lock (called "zip-top" here) resulting in a much longer wait. You have to wonder though, I'm sure lots of the Europeans have been to the US. You'd think at least one of them must have noticed that the line moves faster there because they have the tables laid out. There must be some reason that all of Europe is refusing to put tables in front of the X-Ray machines, but for the life of me I don't know what it is.

The next little difference (and this one is over-reported, but I couldn't resist) is the whole situation w/ non-alcoholic drinks in Europe. For starters, no one here seems to like anything cold. Even something out of the fridge seems warm to me. If you ask for ice they give you two measly cubes. I have to explicitly state that I want an entire glass of ice (and then explain further that I'm American) to get a substantial amount of ice. I wonder how the practice evolved that Europeans don't like ice and Americans want tons of it. To make matters worse of course they're incredibly stingy with soda (or "pop" as some of you would call it). I always thought this stuff was cheap, but here's beer is cheaper (although that's a little difference I could easily get use to. The beer in the US doesn't hold a candle to Central European beers). Of course the concept of free refills is completely foreign here, and at fast food restaurants they're careful to mark a fill line on the cups that doesn't even fill the cup! To further confuse me though (back on the ice thing), Europeans do put ice in the one place where I hate ice -- juice! Every time I get breakfast here I get OJ with ice in it. Why would you serve me "pure" coca-cola, but then put ice in orange juice? That doesn't make any sense. Of course, the juice here is much worse than in the US (though that does make sense -- we have Florida close by), so I end up not having a lot of it.

The last little difference that I'll bring up today (this post is getting to long) is how Europeans will stand up while the plane is still taxing to get their bags and form a line at the door before the seatbelt light has gone off. This I don't have a problem with at all (more efficient for me, and if they get hurt it's their decision), I'm just amused by the hypocrisy of it (at least from the German standpoint). Germans have to be the most conscientious (anal?) country I've ever seen when it comes to following rules (which makes most things pretty efficient here I must say). For example, when I was in Berlin last year people refused to cross the street unless the "walk" light was illuminated (one woman wasn't paying attention and followed me halfway across the street when it said "don't want". When she looked up and realized what she'd done she scurried back to where she started to wait for a light to tell her she could walk). I just thought if you're going to follow the lights on the streets, you'd listen to the flight attendants on the plane.

Scene from 22 Short Films About Springfield
Lou: Y'know I went to the McDonalds in uh Shelbyville the other day.
Wiggum: The McWhat?
Lou: Uh, the McDonalds restaraunt. I never heard of it either but they have over 2000 locations in this State alone.
Eddie: Hmm. Must have sprung up overnight.
Lou: You know the funniest thing though? It's the little differences.
Wiggum: Example
Lou: Well at McDonalds you can buy a Krusty Burger with cheese, right, but, they don't call it a Krusty Burger with cheese.
Wiggum: Get out.. well what do they call it?
Lou: A Quarter Pounder with cheese.
Wiggum: A Quarter Pounder with cheese? Well I can picture the cheese, but... uh. Do they have 'Krusty Partially Gelagnated Non Dairy Gum Based Beverages'?
Lou: MmmHmm, they call them "Shakes".

Back in The Saddle with My BlackBerry at My Side

After a roughly 2 year hiatus I'm back in the saddle. Two job changes and a move to Berkeley later, I've decided to get back on the horse, and this time I'm serious. With nearly two years of material to choose from what should my first topic be? The BCS? Dems in control of Congress? People continuing to use the hated phrase "at the end of the day" (which, by the way, continues to spread to ridiculous proportions -- I'll have to do a follow-up on that)? No, the first post is slamming the anti-BlackBerry sentiment that pervades our society.

I am one of those people who is often described as a "crackberry" user. I don't go anywhere without my BlackBerry. I've used it on three separate continents to actually answer work email (how passeé ), check sport scores and play that addictive break-out game (high score 10300). I'm constantly stunned by the rampant jealousy of non-blackberry owners who scoff at my lack of embarrassment for using my device so frequently. I've noticed that the same people who complain about my "addiction" are the same ones to ask me to look up something on Google or check a sports score via my beloved device. Some of my friends complain that the BlackBerry gives me an unfair texting advantage since I have I have a full QWERTY keyboard, but that's like a Chevy owner complaining about someone who owns a Ferrari. What do you want the Ferrari owner to say? Oh you're right, I'll go back and buy an Impala?

Of course the #1 complaint by the jealous group of people who don't have a BlackBerry is how it "forces" you to be connected to work 100% of the time. They cite numerous examples of how it affects your "work/life balance". I've actually found (quite to the contrary) that the BlackBerry allows me to have a better work life balance. With a job that requires me to mostly email and call people I can work from anywhere that has a GSM signal. Plus, everyone I know who has a BlackBerry uses it to goof off all the time. And just like a cell phone, just because someone emails doesn't mean you have to respond.

For those of you with a BlackBerry (or other smart phones) you know exactly what I'm talking about. Once you've had your phone for a month you become accustomed to having the definitive answer in an esoteric debate over who appeared in a movie or the score of a game last weekend. You get used to knowing how your fantasy team is doing even while you're shopping for your friends birthday present, and you become attached to playing breakout while rinding the BART into San Francisco.

And The Loser Is...

Lost in the news of Ray Charles posthumously winning 8 Grammys is the fact that Led Zeppelin won a Grammy under the banner of "lifetime achievement award":
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6959970/

Before I go on, I should admit that I'm a huge Zep fan, and consider their first 6 albums (Zep 1-Physical graffiti) among the best albums of all time. That being said, I can't believe that at no point during their reign as THE rock band (which essentially created hard rock as we know it today) did they win a Grammy. Not that I ever thought that the Grammys were indicative of good music, but you would think that at some point between 1969 and 1975 they would have thought that perhaps Zeppelin was worthy of a Grammy for something. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised since it wasn't until Bob Dylan's "Time Out of Mind" album (released in late '97) that he won a Grammy. I happen to think that album is ok, but considering Dylan is credited with writing some of the most influential songs ever, you would have thought he would have won something in the 60s or 70s when he was making history (pick the song or albumn. Certainly out of the following list he should have had one best song: Like a Rolling Stone, Blowin in the Wind, Subterrean Homesick Blues and The Times They Are A Changin).

To me this all goes back to the absolute stupidity of these awards in the first place. I'm going to lump the Academy Awards in with the Grammys which both appear to be trumped-up, self-congratulatory awards aimed at sucking more money out of the public (I don't know enough about the Emmys or Tonys to complain about them, but I'm sure they're no better). My biggest problem with the awards is that they purport to reward the best, but even they recognize it isn't the case. Every year the Academy is righting some wrong from a previous year. An actor/actress/director rarely wins for the actual performance they're nominated for. Russell Crowe won an Oscar more for his work in LA Confidential and The Insider than he did for Gladiator, Renee Zellweger won more for Chicago and Birdgette Jones then Cold Mountain, Nicole Kidman won at least as much for Moulin Rouge then she did for The Hours and I'm sure Scorsese will win best director not because of his work in The Aviator, but for what he's accomplished in his life as a filmmaker. I could go on, but I'm sure you get the idea.

It's also absurd to pick "the best" in something as subjective as film or music. How do you differentiate between Joe Pesci's performance in Goodfellas (which was awesome) and Jack Nicholson's as the Joker in Batman (equally awesome)? The Shawshank Redemption probably would have won best picture had it come out in a weak year (Shakespeare in Love anyone?) but lost in a strong year that included both Pulp Fiction and the winner, Forrest Gump. It becomes even more absurd when studios rush to release films in a couple of cities at the end of the year just so it's eligible for that year's Academy Awards.

If you insist on having some kind of awards show (I guess there isn't anything better to put on TV, especially now that football season is over) make all of them lifetime achievement awards. Every year recognize one actor and actress or musician for outstanding work that they've done over a series of movies/albums. As for best picture/best song/best album, maybe we could take a page out of the American Idol playbook and have a nation vote on which one they think is the best(since the word "best" is subjective by definition, the best anything should be the one that the most people believe is the best).

At The End of The Day I Go to Sleep

As I was driving up to San Francisco yesterday I remembered something else that really bothers me: people who use buzzwords/phrases that really don't mean anything. There is easily one expression that has become the most over-used and aggravating expression on the planet -- "at the end of the day". If you're unfamiliar with the usage, it's commonly used to emphasize the importance of something. For instance, "At the end of the day we're in the business to make money." Another great one is, "At the end of the day we're going to have to tell the customer that this solution just won't work."

Now my problem isn't just that the phrase addds no additional meaning to whatever was said. That's an issue, but it's not the primary one. I think the primary issue is the way that people hear an expression and decide that they need to use it at naseum to sound important/intelligent. What's truly amazing is that I hear really articulate and intelligent people do this all the time, and all it does is make them sound like everyone else. Going back to the meaning, I don't even understand why that emphasizes anything. Why don't we have an expression like "When you get up in the morning"? That would work too, wouldn't it? Couldn't you say "When you get up in the morning you have to remember you're in this business to make money"? I think I'm going to start that instead so that if it takes hold at least I'll feel like I created the expression.

This leads me to an interesting point. I think it's fascinating how quickly an expression can spread through society. It has a multiplicative affect, infecting anyone that it touches. Think of a word like "proactive". Did you ever hear that 10-15 years ago? Now everyone says it. I don't even understand what "proactive" means. How are you proactive? Isn't the word "active" active enough? The opposite of "active" is "reactive"isn't it? So isn't the prefix "pro" superfluous? I mean, what's the difference between saying:

"We have to proactively engage with the customer to make sure they know this is an issue."
&
"We have to actively engage with the customer to make sure they know this is an issue."

The reason you use the word "active" in this example is to make sure that people know that you don't want to be reactive, but the "pro" prefix is useless. Now it's to the point that if I use the word active, people will actually correct me and tell me that I really mean proactive.

Do You Have to Pick That Up?

I know I said I like to talk about politics and football, but I really thought I had to start off with something that REALLY bothers me. One of my favorite writers (Gregg Easterbrook, check his football stuff out here: http://www.nfl.com/writers/easterbrook) has a running item that he calls "The Decline of Western Civilization". Well, I think today's cell phone usage falls into that category.

Let me ask you this: how many times have you been in the middle of a conversation with someone (in person) and had them say "hold on a sec" to answer a cell phone call? Now don't get me wrong, I have no problem if you need to find out what time to be someplace (or it's actually an emergency) but 99% of the time it's to chat. Why do people give preference to someone who is calling on a cell phone when a live human being is in front of them? Whoever is in person has made a larger commitment to spend time with you then whomever is calling on the phone. Don't they deserve your time more than the person who is calling you? I mildly understand the urge to answer the phone. Anytime an alert message goes out we as humans feel compelled to respond (just like a fire alarm). However I've sat and watched numerous people talk to a friend of theirs on the phone about a whole lot of nothing, while I sit across from them wishing I owned a hand gun.

I'd think that perhaps this problem was localized to me and the fact that I talk a lot, but I've seen it happen to many people. Even my parents, who I love dearly, will interrupt dinner when their cell phone rings. My parents were the first people to get CallerID when I was growing up so that they didn't ever have to answer the phone when we were at dinner (and my Dad stopped answering the phone altogether). They're huge on etiquette of all kinds, and my Dad things of himself as a kindred spirit of Larry David, Jerry Seinfeld and Woody Allen (that is to say that he likes to comment on things that people do that doesn't make sense. I guess it runs in the family). I don't eat that many meals with them anymore now that I live in California, but if their cell phone rings and we happen to be eating together, they'll get up to talk on the phone. It blows my mind.

Now, it also bothers me, when I'm the offending caller, and the person that I call doesn't warn me. I like to practice what I preach, but when I call someone I have no way of knowing what they're doing when they pick up unless they tell me. I expect whoever it is that I've called to alert me that they're in the presence of another human being that they were interacting with prior to the time that they picked up my call. I've talked to people for 10-15 minutes only to find that they'd been ignoring someone the whole time!

Opening Salvo

So I've been wanting to get on this for a long time, but for whatever reason it wasn't until my trend-setting friend actually emailed me his blog that I realized that I should stop procrastinating. Anyways, various things bother me on a regular basis, and I feel that I should share these thoughts with the world. I'd say the two biggest areas that I have comments are on politics and football, so that's what you'll read about most of the time (should you actually spend anytime reading my thoughts). Other items will make their way in here from time-to-time, but I promise to constantly mock a group or groups on a regular basis.

For my opening attack, I'd like to list groups of people that I have problems with. I'll probably devote future blogs to each:

-Cell phone users who prioritize people on the phone over people who are present
-Right-wing conservatives
-Left-wing liberals
-Over-protective parents
-Sports reporters
-Television/Movie executives
-People who don't understand statistics/economics
-Owners of teams who won't spend money
-Owners of fast food restaurants who charge a dime for a sweet and sour sauce packet