Brian's Braintag:www.glug.com,2007:/blog//12007-09-14T18:29:25ZMovable Type 3.34Russia won't back further UN sanctions against Irantag:www.glug.com,2007:/blog//1.872007-09-14T18:27:40Z2007-09-14T18:29:25ZDon't let this slip through the cracks. This is a BIG deal. Russia has veto power on UN security-council resolutions. This means it will now be nearly impossible to pass security-related sanctions against Iran. This is significant because it's almost...
this slip through the cracks. This is a BIG deal.
Russia has veto power on UN security-council resolutions. This means it will now be nearly impossible to pass security-related sanctions against Iran. This is significant because it's almost identical to what we went through with Iraq....
When the U.S. was actively trying to pass sanctions and get international approval for other operations against Iraq, Russia eventially got sick of it and made a statement similar to this one. Effectively, it meant the international community was no longer capable of supporting any further actions against Saddam. Having exhausted all channels within the UN, we were at war a few months later -- the army was referred to as the "coalition of the willing" (in other words, a coalition made up exclusively of countries willing to wage a war without UN support).
]]>
Example of How News Outlets Spin the Factstag:www.glug.com,2007:/blog//1.862007-09-13T23:54:24Z2007-09-13T23:55:45ZI thought this was interesting, and a good example of how news outlets will spin the facts in order to get the headline they're after to further their agenda. The topic is the federal deficit / congressional spending reports that...
Federal Deficit Running Lower This Year (Associated Press)
Article B: Budget Deficit Jumped in August (Wall Street Journal)
The moral of the story is that you can't just read a headline to understand the news. You have to carefully consider what information was compiled to create the story, and what the author might be trying to teach you despite what the facts say.]]>
Vulnerabilities in Just in Time Shipping Methodstag:www.glug.com,2007:/blog//1.852007-09-13T21:18:16Z2007-09-13T21:19:47ZMost modern retail outlets (walmart, sams, costco, kroger, etc.) all use "Just In Time" (JIT) shipping and delivery. This means supplies arrive just before they're needed for the shelves. This keeps things fresh, minimizes the amount of "back-room" space needed...
Most modern retail outlets (walmart, sams, costco, kroger, etc.) all use "Just In Time" (JIT) shipping and delivery. This means supplies arrive just before they're needed for the shelves. This keeps things fresh, minimizes the amount of "back-room" space needed to store things not on shelves, and generally helps to keep costs down across the board (they almost never have excess inventory they have to get rid of, for example). Remember in the old days if something wasn't on the shelf they could generally find it "in the back" ? Ever notice how that's never the case anymore? "Hey, if it's not on the shelf, we don't have it!" This system really does save money, and in turn, keeps the price of goods a lot cheaper.
Walmart has this one down to a science... Their system is REALLY fascinating (without a doubt, the most sophisticated supply chain management system ever built). They do a couple of interesting things...
First, every purchase you make is tracked (not necessarily back to YOU).. they want to know what you buy with what. What do they do with this data? Well, there's a 20% chance that someone who buys a Hersheys candy bar will also buy Graham Crackers and Marshmallows -- so it makes sense to put some of each next to the Hersheys bars, or put some Hersheys bars next to the graham crackers (or both)... If you walk around a walmart store, you'll find they have this down to a total science -- you'll see all these random items being placed next to each other (many seemingly have nothing to do with the other one -- but their computer tells them to do it)... This is no parlor trick. The system has a MAJOR impact on walmart revenue -- ever notice how you can walk into walmart intending to spend $10 and walk out having spent $40?... Yeah.. they're pretty good!
The other thing they can do with this system is connect it to predictive modeling systems... such as weather. People tend to buy more Popsicles on a hot day -- so guess what walmart does? 2 days before a heat-wave, their computer system AUTOMATICALLY ships extra Popsicles to stores in areas that will experience the higher temperatures. No people are even involved. The guys in the warehouse get a "packing slip" (generated completely by the computer).. so they load up the truck, and it shows up at the walmart store where it's unloaded. I've heard jokes from guys who've unloaded the trucks that they can predict all sorts of funny things based on what supplies the computer decided to put on their truck.
Think about what this means in terms of "Just in time" arrivals... In the summer, people drink more lemonade. During storms, people buy more batteries, water, and flashlights. On extra hot days, they buy more ice cream, on extra cold days, they buy hot chocolate, On Saturdays, people tend to buy more milk and bread. All of these events can be predicted with a great deal of accuracy now, thus the stores always have "just enough" inventory, despite seemingly strange fluctuations in demand. They get down to very granular levels with their predictions (these are very simple examples).
Also, this is a REALLY slick system for hurricanes.... A few days before a major storm hits an area, truck-loads of diapers, batteries, toilet-paper, flashlights, bottled water, etc. will arrive at stores.... Again, the computer does all of this (no human EVER needs to be involved).
Some parts of the country have different purchasing habits -- the walmart system is smart enough to "learn" this.. (Example: In Utah, milk and eggs are a popular saturday-night staple -- the walmarts in Utah are ready, while they may not care in other parts of the country -- this is completely automatic).
I also know that fuel companies (like Flying-J) use a similar system for predicting where fuel demands will be, and thus automatically deciding how much gasoline should go to their different service stations across the country. When big storms are predicted, trucks are usually arriving with extra fuel before the storm is ever a problem.
While this is really an amazing technological feat, it does expose a certain amount of vulnerability in our current distribution system. If everything is Just In Time, what happens if a major event occurs that could not be predicted? (Example: an earthquake). Also consider, if purchasing habbits in a given area suddenly change, it may leave shelves a little empty until the system can re-learn what's going on.
Food for thought.
What does "credible" mean?tag:www.glug.com,2007:/blog//1.832007-09-12T22:27:18Z2007-09-12T22:30:37ZIn response to my previous post, I thought it was interesting to tackle what it actually means (in my opinion) for something to be credible. The dictionary defines credibility as "Worthy of confidence; reliable." -- this means credibility is subjective...
In response to my previous post, I thought it was interesting to tackle what it actually means (in my opinion) for something to be credible.
The dictionary defines credibility as "Worthy of confidence; reliable." -- this means credibility is subjective because we each decide for ourselves what is "worthy of confidence". My personal standard is pretty high.
In my opinion, things are credible when they can be independently verified..
Example: Can you verify that 17 school buses were stolen in Houston? Sure.. call the Houston police, they'll tell you (don't trust them? I suspect you could call the victims themselves!). Can you verify that the air force is planning some sort of stand-down on the 14th? Call them and ask (I guess they could be lying -- but it is a fact that they CLAIM there is a stand-down). Can you verify Hillary Clinton and Dennis Milligan made the statements? It's on video.. you can see it for yourself. Can you verify that a black beard is a sign of Jihad? Absolutely.. talk to a Muslim Cleric, or study the ancient religious texts yourself.
See the pattern? You can know for YOURSELF if these things are true.
By this standard, credibility slips when items cannot be verified at the source. As soon as we use words like "my sources tell me", we've broken the chain of credibility, unless I can verify your sources. The problem is that conspiracy theorists will rarely let you verify their sources. There are a few exceptions (like Dr. Jones and the great work he's done with his 9/11 research). The more a conspiracy theory has verifiable subtext, the more credible it becomes. Unfortunately, once you can verify more pieces of the theory for yourself, it becomes less of a conspiracy theory and more of a conspiracy fact (and people tend to find "theories" to be a lot more fun).
The philosophical subtext around credibility is certainly interesting!
Compiled: Credible information pointing to an upcoming terrorist attacktag:www.glug.com,2007:/blog//1.812007-09-12T21:25:19Z2007-09-12T21:27:48ZNews outlets are buzzing with information about potential threats with more activity than I think I've ever seen before. We've seen all of this float across the news at various times... Since there's so many inaccurate or non-credible things that...
Three Videos and a Black Beard: We know that Bin Laden has issued two videos recently and he has dyed his hair black (it is a fact that a beard being dyed black is a sign of Jihad). We also know that a third video was announced this morning. It has been 3 years since he last released a video, and now we have 3 within a week. Is is highly likely that “3” marks the completion of a signal. Islam also requires Jihadists to provide warning and a chance for the enemy to change its ways before executing an attack. Also, there are many similarities in this video and the one given to Europeans in 2004 just prior to the London Subway bombings. The latest video is definitely recent, since he makes references to the current mortgage crisis and several other current events.
Warnings of an attack from the CIA: CIA director Michael Hayden warned last Friday (Sept. 8th 2007) that Al-Queda was planning new, large-scale attacks on US targets.
Air-Force Stand-Down on 9/14: The air-force has ordered a command-wide stand down on Friday the 14th. According to the Air Force Times, Command boss Gen. Ronald Keys ordered the Sept. 14 safety stand down in which the entire command — about 100,000 active-duty airmen — are standing down training flights and many other operations as part of a command-wide safety day. What’s not being published is what the phrase “many other operations” actually means. This could be nothing, but it’s significant enough it should be on our radar.
Head of the National Counterterrorism Center says “We’re going to get hit again”: According to Newsweek (and many other credible news outlets), Retired Vice Admiral John Scott Redd, head of the National Counterterrorism Center, says, "We have very strong indicators that Al Qaeda is planning to attack the West.". During the interview on August 27th, he indicated that “chatter levels” were similar to what they were seeing during the summer just prior to 9/11/2001.
Democrats and Republicans Agree: The only way for the GOP to win the Whitehouse in ’08 is if we get attacked again. Hillary Clinton said it, so did Dennis Milligan (republican state party chairman).. Here’s his quote: "At the end of the day, I believe fully the president is doing the right thing, and I think all we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on [Sept. 11, 2001], and the naysayers will come around very quickly to appreciate not only the commitment for President Bush, but the sacrifice that has been made by men and women to protect this country"
Schools a Possible Target: 17 yellow school busses were stolen from various charter schools, business schools, and private bus companies in Houston in the last few weeks. Published reports in 2004 said that the U.S. military found information in Iraq pertaining to U.S. schools. In March 2007, the FBI issued an informal bulletin to state and local officials to watch out for people tied to extremist groups trying to earn licenses to drive school busses.
Specific Nuclear Threats in Al-Qaeda Chatter Uncovered: “They will soon realize their mistake when American cities are hit by quality operations” were the words uncovered August 8th amidst Al Qaeda chatter. Another said the attacks would be carried out by means of trucks loaded with radioactive material against America’s biggest city and financial nerve center. A third mentioned New York, Los Angeles, and Miami as targets. It drew the message: "The attack, with Allah's help, will cause an economic meltdown, many dead, and a financial crisis on a scale that compels the United States to pull its military forces out of many parts of the world, including Iraq, for lack of any other way of cutting down costs." No specific time-period was mentioned or hinted. It is unknown if these threats are credible, but they were thought to be credible enough to warrant a full-scale dirty-bomb-hunt in NYC immediately after the statements were made. The problem is that, since no time period was mentioned, we don't when this is supposed to occur.]]>
Catch-22 for Bernanketag:www.glug.com,2007:/blog//1.822007-09-11T21:22:19Z2007-09-12T21:46:23ZThe timing and circumstances surrounding the upcoming interest-rate decision on Tuesday, September 18th is really interesting. Nearly everyone on wall-street expects the feds will lower interest rates on their session next week. It's actually becoming not even a question of...
The timing and circumstances surrounding the upcoming interest-rate decision on Tuesday, September 18th is really interesting.
Nearly everyone on wall-street expects the feds will lower interest rates on their session next week. It's actually becoming not even a question of "if", but "how much". Conservative estimates are that they will only lower then 0.25 points, while some are even talking about 0.75 all at once. I watched an interview today with a guy at Morgan Stanley who said the market has ALREADY priced in a half-point interest-rate drop. (In other words, the stock market should theoretically be 400 to 500 points lower right now, if not for the fact that most people believe the feds will bail them out).
Today was a key day, as we saw presidents of several key banks make statements about interest rates and the economy Investors were hoping for some hint about what the feds might do... What they got was a statement from at least 2 different bank-heads (who sit on the federal reserve board) who reiterated that it wasn't the job of the federal reserve to bail out institutions who had made bad investments... and yet there's still hope from the street that the fed "can't be serious"... many saying if they don't lower interest rates, we'll head almost immediately into a deep recession. Nobody wants to believe the fed is so stupid they won't lower rates, even though the comments they're making are clearly hinting that they don't want to.
The big reason the fed doesn't want to lower interest rates is simple: the dollar is really in bad shape right now -- it's been in a steady free-fall for the last 3-months... It's been many, many decades since the dollar has seen levels this low. The international markets have caught on that the fed is printing their way out of the national-debt and social-security problems (among other things). They were also not amused with the decision to lower the rate on the discount-window in response to the mortgage crisis (this also de-values the dollar). All of these things have a HUGE impact on how much confidence the world-markets have in the U.S. dollar... Combine these problems with the fact that SOMEONE appears to be engaging in a slow-but-steady sell-off of U.S. dollars (many speculate it's China, and for good reason), and we can see confidence levels in the dollar plummeting world-wide. IF the fed lowers interest rates, you can expect accelerated dollar sell-off's and possibly a tightening of the credit that's extended to the U.S. by the rest of the world (can you imagine what would happen if confidence in the dollar dropped so low that the U.S. government could no longer borrow money?!)
So.... the situation is simple. They have two choices.
Choice A) If the fed lowers interest rates, the stock markets will rally and everyone here in the states will be very happy as they see the feds making money cheap.... This will cause inflation to jump by 2 to 5 percent almost overnight (depending on how much they choose to lower rates) as many take advantage of the cheap money -- and confidence in the U.S. dollar will plummet simultaneously. The world-markets will accelerate their current sell-off of the U.S. dollar -- putting the future confidence of the dollar at serious risk, and causing a long-term, accelerated inflation slide that the feds may no longer be able to control.
Choice B) If the fed chooses to leave interest rates as-is, the market will probably plummet by 400 to 800 points in one day (with a long-term broad sell-off lasting a few months.. but the international markets will be happy as they see the fed standing behind their currency and not intentionally de-valuing it. The dollar will rally. The confidence in the U.S. dollar will remain strong, and American corporations will really take a hit. A long-term recession will set in with a bursting liquidity and real-estate bubble in the U.S.
It's the day of reckoning for the fed. Congress has put us in this situation with their drunken spending, and now the federal reserve will have to choose their poison.
What of the recent options activity? Are terrorists betting on a market crash?tag:www.glug.com,2007:/blog//1.842007-08-29T19:21:01Z2007-09-13T15:43:52ZThe short answer: Probably not. Hal Turner was reporting (and scaring people) into thinking someone had bet nearly $2b that the market was going to crash by Sept. 21st. He (incorrectly) reported that if the market did not crash, they...
If the market stays EVEN, they will have to give it all back (effectively creating a net-zero gain/loss scenario, other than transaction fees)
If the market goes up, they will have to pay back MORE than the $800m (creating a scenario where they will lose money -- the amount will be proportional to how much the market goes up).
If the market goes down, they will have to pay back only SOME of the $800m... If the market goes down by more than 30%, they get to keep it all.
In other words,because they sold calls, their maximum profit is the original $800m -- but their potential losses are unlimited (depends on how high the market goes before the contracts expire on September 21st).
It's also worth pointing out that's it's extremely rare for someone to place trades like this "uncovered". In the options world, there's usually an opposite bet that the market will do the opposite, just in case the first bet fails. This is called "hedging". In fact, most brokerages won't let you sell "uncovered calls" unless you have a huge amount of cash in your account. Unfortunately, while the two trades are generally executed at the same time, there's no way to know if this was a covered call or not since the two are treated as separate, private transactions.
Also, these calls were deeply "in the money" (it's a long story what that actually means, and it's getting late -- but essentially that means the seller wasn't willing to gamble much). All things considered, if you were betting the market was going to crash, this was a very conservative bet.
Now, if someone were really willing to bet $800m that the market was going to completely crash, rather than selling deeply in the money calls, they would have bought deeply out of the money PUT's... Effectively, this means their maximum loss would be the $800m they put it -- but their maximum gain would be potentially unlimited (the more the market falls, the more they would make -- possibly even 10x to 50x return on their investment) -- but they didn't do this. They took a much more conservative approach. Don't you think if they KNEW the market was going to crash they would have wanted to turn that $800m into.. say... $8b? That would be pretty easy to do (by buying puts instead of selling calls) if they really believed it was going to crash.
This movement does NOT feel like someone betting on a market crash (they played it wrong if that's their bet). In fact, it feels more like someone betting the market will either stay flat, or dip a little. My personal opinion is that this is a large financial institution, or a mortgage company who's hurting for cash, that decided to use this as a clever way to take out an $800m loan on the back of the market. It's a pretty safe bet that the market isn't going to skyrocket before September 21st... so as long as it stays the same, or even dips a little, they will have taken out an $800m loan without having to cause panic to the public that they needed the money (and risked the media having a field-day with it). This ends up being an expensive loan (with transaction fees) -- but not nearly as expensive as the impact it might have on a stock price if the public found out you needed to borrow $800m.
Also... the 1.78 billion number being thrown around seems more ominous than it really is -- this refers to the value of the stock being controlled by the contracts, not the "bet" itself.
What about the trades on the Euro index??
This is a different trade..and NOT the one I'm referencing above (the calls above were placed on the S&P index here in the U.S. (Reference can be found here)
The trade this article refers to was placed on a European index. THIS one is potentially more ominous.. They did buy PUT's (which is what I said would happen if someone was REALLY serious about betting on a crash)..... although the guys writing these articles like to find the biggest numbers they can to inspire fear.... Just to put this in perspective, I've got one set of PUT's on the QQQQ (Nasdaq 100 Index) that I paid $1,000 for.... This $1,000 controls $700k worth of stocks. If they were writing an article on me and my bet, they would have used the $700k number -- not the $1,000 number, even though I only have $1,000 at risk.
Apply that same ratio to these trades and you've got someone who probably invested around $4.9m... I don't know what they paid for the options -- I'm assuming around $0.20 per share * 245,000 contracts [100 shares in each contract] and you've got a $4.9m bet -- that's a BIG DIFFERENCE from the $6.9b the fear-mongering media is tossing around. If they're right on their $4.9m bet, they could make 5x to 10x (or more) on their money. If they're wrong, they'll lose it all.
These articles are really bolsering up the amount of stock being controlled by the contracts (which is not a reflection of how much money they actually bet), which is why they start tossing around the word "billlion". They have options in $6.9b worth of shares -- but they can't make that much money, nor did they bet that much money (not even close). Remember, even a little guy like me can use $1,000 to have options in nearly $700k worth of stock.
Also, there ARE rational theories for this (the article points out two: a hedge-fund protecting against losses, or a long-only fund manager pressing a panic button). Pre-cursor to terrorism is also a very real possibility on this particular trade -- but it would be a pre-cursor to an attack in Europe, not the U.S. (if the U.S. was the target, why would they short the Euro index??)
Someone DEFINITELY bet a lot of money that the European market was going to crash in September, I DO NOT want to discount that fact -- but it was closer to $4.9m -- this is much more in the range of something a financial institution might spend to hedge against worsening market conditions. $5m is nothing to them, and conditions are definitely worsening.]]>
Virginia Tech's Anti-Gun Policy Kills 32tag:www.glug.com,2007:/blog//1.802007-04-17T17:03:18Z2007-04-17T18:22:40ZThe last blog entry I wrote about the shooting in a SLC mall was in direct reference to this exact problem. I asked the question "how many people would have died if there had not been a good guy in...
The last blog entry I wrote about the shooting in a SLC mall was in direct reference to this exact problem. I asked the question "how many people would have died if there had not been a good guy in the area with a gun?"
Thanks to an extremely strict "no guns" rule, which bans all people, even licensed concealed weapons carriers, from carrying a gun in the VA-tech campus buildings, we now have the answer to that question. It must have been like shooting fish in a barrel. 32 people died while defenseless students waited for someone with a gun to show up and help.
According to the VA-Tech policy: "Students and employees who want to keep guns on campus must store them at the Virginia Tech Police Department. Anyone caught carrying a firearm onto campus will be asked to remove it immediately. Failure to comply could result in university disciplinary action or arrest against students and employees and trespassing charges against anyone else."
Sounds like that policy worked out really well for them. When will people realize that bad guys will always try to find places where the good guys can't defend themselves? Posting in writing that you prohibit guns ATTRACTS the guns (And not the self-defense kind. The assault kind.) Guns were strictly prohibited on campus, and 32 people were shot yesterday.
The naivety of public policy makers on this topic is maddening. How many more people will die, how many more laws will be passed and policies enacted, before we realize that the criminals aren't concerned with obeying laws and policies? When will people realize that in incidents where a good guy has a gun, a lot fewer people die than in incidents where good guys are forbidden from defending themselves?
Some thoughts on the SLC Mall Shootingtag:www.glug.com,2007:/blog//1.792007-02-14T19:17:42Z2007-02-14T21:28:28ZI've lived in the Salt Lake City area nearly all my life. The recent events are obviously stunning to a community, and my purpose here is not to dwell on the emotional impact of these types of things. Many other...
recent events are obviously stunning to a community, and my purpose here is not to dwell on the emotional impact of these types of things. Many other bloggers have already weighed in, and I'm not sure what more needs be said.
One interesting view worth noting: When I learned of the events, I was sitting in a hotel restaurant in New York having breakfast with an Israeli co-worker of mine when I showed him the headline on my phone.
Israelis have a unique perspective on these types of things. They live in an unfriendly part of the world and the natives of the land are not exactly welcoming. The best equivalent I can think of would be if the native americans decided to wage war and take back their country. Certainly they don't have a military to fight the battle in a conventional sense, so resorting to terrorism is the only realistic approach to winning their freedom. (Remember the old saying: One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter). Israel's solution was to build a fence around the people causing the problems.
In the old days, the palestinians would walk into crowded shopping malls, pull out an automatic rifle, and open fire on the crowd. This method was highly effective for a long time because it's incredibly difficult to defend, especially in a country where the people enjoyed many of the same freedoms that we do. Think for a minute about what we would do, as Americans, if something like this was happening to us on a regular basis. The Israeli government opted for a unique strategy.
In Israel, all citizens (there are exceptions) are required to serve in the military immediately after high school. Men serve for 3 years, women serve for 2. After their active-duty term expires, they can either opt to continue their career in the military, or start life in the private sector and continue to serve in the reserves until they are about 40.
Israel's solution to the problem was to require all active members of the military to carry their weapons with them at all times. This provided an immediately-available group of citizens who could respond to a shooter firing randomly into crowds. It works, too. The palestinians quickly realized they could no more draw their weapons before being gunned down by a barrage of plain-clothed soldiers carrying weapons.
I mention this because I was deeply disturbed by the comments of Salt Lake City Mayor, Rocky Anderson. Anderson is a staunch liberal who firmly supports gun restrictions. I mention this only because a particular hero emerged from all of this. It was an off-durty police officer from a neighboring city who happened to be eating at a restaurant the evening of the event. He heard the gun shuts, jumped up from his table, and was able to engage the shooter in a gun-fight for several long minutes while police were on their way. Without a doubt, he saved the lives of dozens of people by keeping the shooter busy (and eventually killing him).
The response from Mayor Anderson was interesting, to say the least. He encouraged citizens NOT to run our and get concealed weapons permits in response to this incident (for the record, I do have a Utah concealed carry permit). His view was that having lots of citizens running around with guns while all of this was going on would have caused huge problems for the police and might have gotten someone killed accidentally.
Words fail me.
In any situation where a person enters a crowded area with a gun and opens fire, the people in that crowd are basically lambs going to the slaughter house until officers arrive on the scene. How many people can a gunman kill during those 5 or 10 minutes it takes to bring police in? 10? 20? 50? hundreds? I think Israel has a few case studies on this matter, and their solution was clear: Give the good guys guns. It's been highly effective in Israel not just as a deterrant to terrorists entering crowded places, but since instituting this change, the violent crime index in Israel has dropped to near zero. They don't have murders and rapes in the streets like we do in the states (they used to have attempts, but the risk of getting killed by someone passing by was huge!).
Rocky, you're an idiot. What would have happened in that mall if nobody was armed? Can you say Columbine?
]]>
Living off-gridtag:www.glug.com,2006://1.782006-12-06T18:07:17Z2007-02-14T19:46:37ZSo Sunday morning I woke up and the power was out in our house. We called the power company and we got a recording which said (I swear I'm not making this up) that they did not know the cause...
So Sunday morning I woke up and the power was out in our house. We called the power company and we got a recording which said (I swear I'm not making this up) that they did not know the cause of the power outage yet, and that service would be restored by 11am. Obviously, at least one of those two statements was incorrect. Probably just means Big Bob spilled his morning coffee on the equipment and didn't want to admit it. "oh.. uh.. we're not sure what happened. It'll take 3 hours to fix.. uh... it.."
So there I was -- stuck with no power and no heat. Living completely off-grid!! I was so disconnected, in fact, that the only way I could use my laptop was off battery power, and the only source of internet access was my Verizon EVDO card and my blackberry. Talk about a totally wild hippie experience living off the grid!!! I felt just like that guy from "30-days".
The power was restored about 10am and I was back on-grid (fresh juice flowing from the power outlets and internet-access restored over 802.11 and Comcast). God bless America. I hope I never have to go through THAT again!!
When Apple 'gets it', I'll switchtag:www.glug.com,2006://1.772006-08-04T18:01:03Z2007-02-14T19:46:37ZI want to switch, but I can't. Through Apple's many innovations in their UNIX-based operating system and their recent work on porting to the Intel chipset, they've produced a rather unique opportunity to capture a portion of the business and...How I pick an airlinetag:www.glug.com,2006://1.762006-05-13T04:01:09Z2007-02-14T19:46:36ZThere are basically five things I consider when I'm deciding which airline I'm going to fly for a particular trip (personal travel only here - my business travel has slightly different restrictions and rules). For the record, I have Platinum...
There are basically five things I consider when I'm deciding which airline I'm going to fly for a particular trip (personal travel only here - my business travel has slightly different restrictions and rules).
For the record, I have Platinum status on Delta and Continental (top-tier status) and I have Premiere-Executive (mid-tier status) on United. I state this only because I want the point made that I'm not a weekend traveller - I feel like I "get" the airline business - at least from the perspective of someone who consumes the serviecs on a regular basis.
Anyway, the things I consider when considering which airline to fly are below, in order of important:
1) There must be NO RISK of getting stuck in a middle seat.
2) Do I get DirecTV in my seat?
3) Can I confirm an upgrade when I book the flight?
4) Are the flight times convenient?
5) Price
A few funny things about this list....
1 and 2 are usually mutually exclusive because the discount carriers that have DirecTV (JetBlue and Frontier) have a REALLY CRAPPY track record of assigning me a window/aisle and then switching it to a middle seat at the last minute... I view this as dishonest and highly unethical - but somehow it's perfectly legal.
The fact that 1 and 2 are mutually exclusive makes number 3 the most important thing. This means my ability to get an upgrade becomes the single most important factor when booking a flight. Delta is generally great about confirming my upgrades when I book. Continental much-less so, but I can still get them. United is total crap when it comes to their domestic upgrade policy (you have to "earn" upgrade points, and they aren't easy to come by - effectively making my average number of upgrades on United only about 1 in every 10 flights).
Bottom line, and the reason I'm going to the trouble of posting this: Frontier, you used to be my favorite airline - that DirecTV system is worth a lot to me (Even more than a first-class seat!!!!) But you've got a history of "bait and switch", causing me to fly in a middle seat more than 70% of the time - and NOTHING is worse than a middle seat - I might as well be flying Southwest. If you, Frontier, would fix their bait-and-switch tactics, you would stand a reasonable chance at stealing some of the top elites from the bigger carriers - even WITHOUT a first-class cabin!! Until then, Delta will keep my business.
Goodbye AIMtag:www.glug.com,2006://1.752006-04-28T20:34:01Z2007-02-14T19:46:36ZFirst, I want to point out that I'm primarily an MSN Messenger guy. With only a few exceptions, everyone I care about is there. I keep AOL Instant Messenger around for those exceptions. A few days ago, I installed a...
First, I want to point out that I'm primarily an MSN Messenger guy. With only a few exceptions, everyone I care about is there. I keep AOL Instant Messenger around for those exceptions.
A few days ago, I installed a fresh copy of AIM after reformatting my system for "spring cleaning" and I couldn't help but notice a copy of the Viewpoint Media Player, a company largely considered to be creators of Spyware, came along with it. Was AOL distributing and installing Spyware on my PC without my permission by using AIM to get it there??
The problem with Viewpoint Media Player is not that it's inherently bad when it's initially installed. AOL claims it's what drives all the cute AIM animations (ironically, I don't think many tears would be shed if I couldn't see those adorable animations, but that's a topic for another blog). They also claim that it's required. In fact, if you un-install it, the next time you start AIM, it happily re-installs it for you without telling you.
The problem with all of this is that I didn't ask for it, I didn't know why it was installed on my machine, and my firewall was suddenly reporting that it was attempting to access the internet. All things that have come to be associated with Spyware.
In this case, however, Viewpoint swears they're not spyware (they have a "clean bill of health", they say, with many different spyware removal companies).
So what are they really doing that's got me so upset? Well, the payload they're delivering with AIM, by itself, appears pretty harmless. However, after a few days, you get this popup on the bottom-right-hand corner of your screen that looks very similar to the Windows Update popup. The purpose is to politely inform you that Viewpint Media Player has fresh updates that are ready to download, and if you'd like to download these updates, just click the "I accept" checkbox and push the "Update" button. (Note: There is no cancel button, and no other way to make this dialog box go away that I could find).
Upon reading the terms and conditions I was being forced to agree to in order to make this popup window go away, I learned that the software creates a unique tracking number ("Customer Unique Identifier" is their term). This number and other information is transmitted, without asking, to Viewpoint servers. The software downloads updates and installs them on the computer, also without asking.
The privacy policy states that "The Viewpoint Media Player will soon be capable of tracking information about the content it displays and how the user interacts with it. When the Viewpoint Media Player displays Viewpoint content, it tracks the URL it is served from, as well as Viewpoint file data tagged by the author in XML. This data can include, but is not limited to: the names of objects and textures displayed, and the names of animations invoked." -In other words, it collects information about what I'm looking at and sends it, without my permission or knowledge, across the internet to someone I have no relationship with or knowledge of.
Regarding whether or not Viewpoint is spyware - I say if it looks like a duck, it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck - no amount of marketing is going to make me view it as anything other than a duck.
I've removed AIM from my computer for good. Those people I was communicating with over AIM will either have to email me, use MSN Messenger, or pick up the phone. However, I would encourage all users of AIM to immediately stop using their network, as they're clearly alligning themselves with some pretty shady companies on the internet, and, in effect, they're clearly responsible for installing spyware onto my PC. These types of actions, I believe, should be illegal, and congress is working dilligently to pass laws that make it so.
I would encourage everyone to remove AOL Instant Messenger and Viewpoint Media Player from their PC's as quickly as possible.
A few things I've donetag:www.glug.com,2006://1.742006-04-27T18:01:25Z2007-02-14T19:46:36ZI have bankrupted friends in my life time; squeezing them for every last dollar they own despite rolling in cash myself. I have also been to jail, run a chain of hotels, owned high stakes in utility companies, invested heavily...
I have bankrupted friends in my life time; squeezing them for every last dollar they own despite rolling in cash myself. I have also been to jail, run a chain of hotels, owned high stakes in utility companies, invested heavily in railroads, and won second prize in countless beauty contests.
... and that was just one game of Monopoly. Think what the rest of my life must be like?
Never been past 2ndtag:www.glug.com,2006://1.732006-01-27T21:53:06Z2007-02-14T19:46:36ZThis may come as a bit of a shock to some people (especially to those who know me). I've been married for almost 4 years now, I have kids, and I've never been past 2nd base with Melanie (this despite...
Melanie. Swimsuit. Roller Coaster.
Seriously people, get with the program.]]>
