bpope’s blog

I was catching up on some back reading in my RSS feed, and came across an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal entitled “Common Sense May Kill ObamaCare.”  One section jumped out at me:

The final bill, with all its complexities, will probably be huge, a thousand pages or so. Americans don’t fear the devil’s in the details, they fear hell is. Do they want the same people running health care who gave us the Department of Motor Vehicles, the post office and the invasion of Iraq?

Lets look at those agencies that apparently we Americans fear so much:

(1) Department of Motor Vehicles.
Okay, I can see why people would not like the government because of the DMV…long maddening lines.  However, the DMV is a state-run organization and is not administered by the federal government.  Strike 1.

(2) Post office
What exactly is wrong with the USPS?  Unless I’m mistaken, it’s a highly efficient, affordably priced, federally run organization.  You’re upset because you have to wait in line at 5 o’clock because you chose to go to the Post Office at 5pm just like everybody else?  Please, give me a break.  Strike 2.

(3) Iraq war.
Now, I guess it’s pretty obvious that the Iraq war has been fraught with issues through and through.  However, I think it’s rather silly to not look at the entity conducting the Iraq war…and other wars, peacekeeping, and humanitarian operations around the world: the US military.  The US military is a fine example of what a government can achieve.  It is the best in the world, from a technological and a strategic perspective.  It provides for its troops and turns out leaders.  Strike 3.

I’m not commenting on whether or not I like the ObamaCare plan.  I don’t know enough about it to comment.  And yes, I am excerpting from an article that does contain some valid points.  I do, however, think that is one poor excuse for logical reasoning, and shame on the Wall Street Journal for publishing that kind of fear-mongering garbage.

Today, Core77 highlighted a Businessweek article that commented on a rare talk that Jonathan Ive gave. The whole thing is pretty good, but one section really illuminated why he and Steve Jobs are on exactly the same wavelength.

Ive’s own commitment to the design process is precisely why, he said, if you don’t like Apple products, then you and he have a problem. Well, he didn’t put it exactly like that. In delicate Ive speak, this was, “We maybe would have a difference of opinion, but I can say it’s that way because that’s the way we wanted it to be. There’s not an excuse.”

Dear <subject>,

<Choose 1:

a - something obvious about the subject that personifies it in an attempt to (1) be cute (2) be insightful

b - passive aggressive note to the subject>

xoxo,

<tweeter>

My take:  It’s like the twitter version of the five paragraph essay: maybe a little overused and not necessarily original but highly effective.  I guess if I saw too many of them, I’d get annoyed, but for now I guess the habit isn’t necessarily good or bad, just is.

I’ve been thinking a lot recently about what motivates me, whether it’s work, research, hobbies, involvements, or anything else really.  Why do I spend time doing different things in my life.  Some things have obvious answers for me: I think climbing up rocks and mountains is fun and exhilarating; Frisbee is a great outlet for athletic pursuit.

Other time commitments are more difficult to justify.  Why do I spend time as an assistant Scoutmaster or put effort towards my time on the Executive Committee of Sigma Chi?  There are good reasons to do these things, and bad reasons.  Now, just as in the rest of my life, I look to my father for guidance.  He was a teacher to me, a MathCounts coach (without him there would have been no program), a motivator, a Scoutmaster.  It became obvious to me that he did many of the things he did because he wanted me to have the same valuable experiences he had taken part in.  He wanted Scouts done right, so he did it himself.

I know my father didn’t love every part of being a Scoutmaster: it’s a lot of work with very little thanks, especially in today’s world.  Rather, he felt that the lessons in Scouting are too important to let somebody screw them up while he stood idly by.  It wasn’t ambition that drove him, just good wishes for the next generation.  Unfortunately, people in positions of authority are more often than not driven by the former, not the latter.  I wish that more of the individuals in the organizations that I deal with (and in government for that matter) were more like my father, if only in that respect.

So, this is at this point old news: SJ is out for at least 6 months, Tim Cook (COO) is in charge in the interim….awesome.  My question is about why Apple’s stock price has dropped so precipitously?

Stay with me on this one.  As I understand it, stock valuations are meant to be forward-looking.  That is, analysts take into account everything they can in the future of the company/industry and calculate the overall current valuation of the company based on how much money the company will make over its lifetime.  If that is the case, shouldn’t analysts already know that Steve Jobs will inevitably be stepping down, and probably sooner rather than later?  I mean, I would expect a small drop because Jobs is stepping down sooner than expected, but a huge drop?  That doesn’t seem quite as well reasoned to me.

Anyway, I’m not really confused that the AAPL price is dropping like it is, just expressing my disappointment that the market is so emotionally driven.

This article appeared in the Wall Street Journal on December 27th, and raises some interesting questions.

“The idea [of the boycott] is to use gay-spending power to punish businesses the activists say discriminate against gays’ right to get married. Among the dozens of businesses now being targeted for boycotts are hotels, fast-food chains and dental offices.”

One woman targeted donated $100 to the “Yes on 8″ campaign.  Since the boycott began, her restaurant has lost aproximately 30% of normal revenue.  A few other important details: many of the restaurant’s 89 employees are gay and the restaurant has long served as a local gay hangout, and the woman is a Mormon.

I can sympathize, if not empathize with her when she says “I can’t change a lifetime of faith in which I believe very deeply.”  Personally, I disagree with her beliefs, I think she is wrong, but that’s not the point here.

The point is, the boycott is not only against her, it is against her employees too.  In her support, they have raised over $5oo to offset her $100 donation, but the boycott continues.  There’s no legal issue here, people can boycott who they want.  And, no boycott is pretty, especially when you’rre trying to argue with deep-seated Faith.  However, maybe time and effort could be better spent boycotting a location that doesn’t actually affect so much of the gay community and a woman who is relatively tolerant.

Read the article , let me know what you think.

It seemed an interesting title for an editorial piece, more suited to Christmas than the November issue of the Journal of Sound and Vibration. I read it curiously, wondering at the happenstance that had put this particular magazine in front of my on Christmas day.

Over its history, NASA has been funded by about $400 billion, compared to the $600 billion Congress just approved for the banking industry bailout (disclaimer, NASA’s budget comes to about $800 billion in 2007 dollars).  Nevertheless, our law makers feel that it is more appropriate to trust bankers, brokers and accountants with more money than scientists, researchers and engineers.  George Fox Long’s editorial cogently points out that what is needed to run this country, now more than ever, is smart people.  Scientists who can push the envelope.  Engineers who can rebuild our infrastructure.

More than anything, though, we need politicians “with the fortitude and intellect to suppress their own egos and allow well qualified individuals to address the technological challenges that face the nation.”  That was Mr. Long’s wish for last month’s elections.  I hope that it has come true, that would be a nice Christmas present indeed.

In between bouldering problems yesterday I was reading a back issue of Rock and Ice magazine (R&I), probably from about 5 years ago.  At the beginning was a really interesting letter to the editor.  I don’t have the exact text, but the author was very upset with RI for an article it had published in an earlier edition.  From what I could gather, the article in question described climbing in Yosemite, and how to avoid authorities while living in the Valley for months at a time.  The letter-writer pointed out that, to date, the transient community was what it was because only adventurous and “non-risk-adverse” people take a chance and try to live in Yosemite.  Furthermore, only the clever ones figure it out!  By publishing, essentially, a how-to guide, R&I threatened the composition of that community, inviting a different sort of folk to try things that they wouldn’t have previously risked.

Essentially this boils down to a question of how available information should be.  By publishing the article, R&I made widely available information that was previously only available by word of mouth to those who had demonstrated serious commitment.  In the internet age, information, specifically advice, is more widely available than ever before.  More and more people are becoming empowered in ways never previously considered.  Without a doubt, empowering people is one of the great successes of the internet.

This train of thought reminded me of a line from The Incredibles.  Syndrome, the bad guy , is a non-superhero, spurned as a child by Mr. Incredible.  Later in life he developed a number of technological solutions designed to allow him to compete with supers.  This leads Syndrome to exclaim “Everyone can be super! And when everyone’s super…no one will be!”

But is that true?  It certainly seems to be what the letter-writer thought.  To some extent I think they’re right, widespread availability of information ought to  level the playing field significantly.  Really, though, this should just allow the true elite to emerge, including those who might have previously been disadvantaged.  Yes, this will result in people trying things they would never have before considered.  Unlike the writer that got me started on this train of thought, I don’t think that is necessarily a bad thing, though.

This is a complex and nuanced issue, I think, and I don’t pretend to do a full analysis, that would take much more time and space than either you or I really want, I think.  Obviously information is a powerful thing, and it needs to be dispensed carefully in some situations, but in most cases I support openness.  At the same time, there will always bee some secrets.  Some things need to stay magic.  Sometimes you need to “never show anyone. They’ll beg you and they’ll flatter you for the secret, but as soon as you give it up… you’ll be nothing to them.” [The Prestige]

(And for your non-climbers reading this, beta is climbing slang for tips that will help you get up a route.  The perpetual beta status of gmail is an entirely different subject.)

Today, in the Wall Street Journal opinion section, a piece titled Barack Obama-san argued against widespread economic stimulus/deficit spending. The argument presented was that such “Keynesian ‘pump-priming’” should not be relied upon based upon the failure of similar policies in Japan in the 1990s. Furthermore, the WSJ posits, such investment in “public works are usually less productive than the foregone private investment.”

I am no economist, so I became curious. Why is it that the New Deal seemed to work, but the Japanese policies did not? A quick look on wikipedia (albeit, not necessarily a reliable source, but an accessible one) tends to contradict the logic that the opinion piece would have you believe is incontrovertible. I really hope that there are some economists out there trying to model the New Deal, Japan during the 1990s, and other examples of stimulus spending. I’d like to know the right way to go on this one…any thoughts people?

I know, having worked on their design, I’m supposed to be an Apple guy, and proselytize for the iPhone with all my waking hours.  Still, I hate to see good products get categorically panned when they shouldn’t.

Let me preface this by saying, I haven’t used a Blackberry Storm.  (Though, I really want to see what their touchscreen feels like.  I just haven’t gotten the chance yet.)  Every review I’ve read has said the same thing though: the Storm is a disappointment in almost every way.  The software is slow and unresponsive, the UI sucks…stuff like that.  Back to Apple…nearly every complaint I’ve heard about the iPhone has been software related (yeah…thanks Campo, haha).  Sure there’s some hardware stuff too (the recessed jack on v1.0 or the fingerprints on the touchscreen), but mostly it’s software needs.  Jumping over to e-books, the Sony e-reader outclasses the Kindle in nearly every department, except the book distribution model, which is essentially also a software thing.

The point I’m trying to make is that, as a product design engineer, I would sweat over tenths and hundreths of a millimeter in product thickness or width.  I would spend hours and hours agonizing over how to make a button feel just right.  Yet all of these details are eventually overlooked in the end because it’s all about making a complete product: integrating software, hardware and marketing.  It’s the complete package that matters to consumers, and admittedly that’s what’s important in the end, but I hate to see really good engineering shortchanged in the shuffle.

So, please, take a moment to appreciate some of the good things in a product before categorically saying it sucks.  Thanks.