At last the secret of what you need to know before buying a computer is revealed, there is no one size fits all answer. But you don’t need to be a world class geek to learn computer buzzwords and understand some basic concepts before you shop for your next computer.
I usually try to stay out of the Apple versus Microsoft debates. Since I am updating some content on desktop operating systems on Computerguru.net I thought I would use this blog post to address the often asked question of "what computer should I buy" and add this perspective. I will also introduce a few new articles to answer some frequently asked questions relevant to someone shopping for a computer.
Recently on an online forum the question of "what computer should I buy" was asked based on the idea that a MacBook Pro is inherently the best laptop out there. The person asking the question was looking for reasons to buy a MacBook Pro, but gave no clues on how they are going to use it. That is a very important factor in answering the question! I never answer any questions on "what computer should I buy" for friends and family until I ask several questions.
I laughed as I read one of the answers that stated, "If all you are going to do is web surfing, social media, and email you don’t need a MacBook Pro." Yea, that's right. There are Chromebooks as well as cheap Windows notebooks that could do that for a lot less money!
My best advice to anyone looking to buy a computer, think long and hard about how you are going to use it, and find other people with the same wants and needs, and ask them what they own, what they like and not like about it.
I am not a graphics designer or an artist, those are the type of users who are typically the Apple fans. I have been working in enterprise computer networking for more than 20 years, started working on desktop computers in the 1980s. I look at the computer as a tool, and I look at what is the best tool for the task at hand. I have no loyalties to any specific brands.
Many answers comparing Microsoft to Apple often use various luxury car to cheap foreign comparisons, implying if you could afford the expensive luxury car, but choose otherwise, you must be a fool. So let me run with that analogy.
Take a step back and look at the history of Apple versus Microsoft. In the 1990s when Windows 95 dominated the desktop, Microsoft was the Ford F-150 pick up truck. Not many people would describe the Ford F-150 pick up truck as a sexy luxury vehicle, but many would describe it as the work horse vehicle that gets the job done. There's a good case to be made that the folks marketing to the pick up truck users have a different plan than those looking to sell the sexy luxury vehicle.
A computer is a tool I use for work, as well as recreation. I work in a business world that is Microsoft based. We are required to purchase a specific brand of Windows based computers, not my favorite brand, but that's my environment. My problems are no so much with Windows as it is the vendors that support our users create applications that run on old Microsoft operating systems. I have to deal with home cooked applications that are designed for last generation Windows computers. That's my world.
I have had iPads and various other Apple products in my home, and they never got used. Even if the interface is slightly different, I don't have time to deal with it. I have had access to Kindles and Nooks, and they never got used. I can put an application on my Windows notebook that reads the books, so why do I need to learn a new interface? It's called being lazy, I know it is, but I have no personal reason to care about Apple products. It's nothing personal.
If one of my family members wants to buy a luxury car, I will be happy to ride in it. If money were no object, tomorrow I would go out and buy a new Ford F-150 pick up truck that best suited my needs.
I don't get emotionally attached to my computers or automobiles. They are tools. Nothing more.
You too can understand computer buzzwords
Since 1998, ComputerGuru.net has attempted to provide self help and tutorials for learning basic computer and networking technology concepts, maintaining the theme, "Geek Speak Made Simple." Recently I updated the Drupal content management software for Computerguru and updated a few pages.
Based on commonly asked questions, I have added several new pages to the section Common technology questions and basic computer concepts. On computer operating systems we have added an article that explains the major differences between desktop computer operating systems and one on installing Linux and understanding all the different Linux distributions.
I get a lot a questions on computer cables and finally finished up this article on Ethernet computer network cable frequently asked questions answered and an article explaining computer network modular connectors and telephone registered jacks.
And based on many questions on printers, we had some fun coming up with this article, the ugly truth about computer printers.
Yes, I know that sounds like a lot of geek speak, but we do our best to break it all down into small bite sized chunks, so it is easy to digest. Please take a few minutes to check out the new content, and please share it with your geek friends on social media.
Any topics need covered? Any questions missing?
Are there any buzzwords bothering you? Something else you would like us to cover here at the Guru 42 Universe? Let us know: Guru 42 on Twitter -|- Guru 42 on Facebook -|- Guru 42 on Google+ -|- Tom Peracchio on Google
As someone who writes a lot about great inventors and forgotten geeks I get endless questions asking to compare Thomas Edison and Nikola Tesla.
Recently I have been asked to answer questions comparing Benjamin Franklin and Albert Einstein, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, and Albert Einstein to Nikola Tesla.
There is an obsession with "who was smarter" questions, and comparing one successful person to another. The problem with these compare person x to person y questions is that they often ask to compare two totally different people. Do we really need to keep score?
This material in this blog post has been rolling around in my brain for a few weeks. With a few additional questions added to my list, the time has come to address fascination with comparing people.
There is a fascination with comparing people with Einstein. As I amused myself reading some recent questions, I wondered how silly can it get, will people start comparing Albert Einstein to Wayne Gretzky or Babe Ruth?
To those of you who only vaguely know their names, let us take a brief look at the careers of sports legends Wayne Gretzky and Babe Ruth.
Wayne Gretzky played in the National Hockey League from 1978 through 1999. During his career as a hockey player he dominated the sport, he was the NHL's season points leader 10 times and named the NHL most valuable player award nine times.
George Herman "Babe" Ruth was an professional baseball player whose career in Major League Baseball (MLB) spanned 22 seasons from 1914 through 1935. Ruth lead the league in home runs in twelve seasons. At the time of his retirement Babe Ruth held dozens of MLB records.
In sports there are various statistics kept to evaluate the performance of a player. Statistically Babe Ruth was the greatest Major League Baseball player of his generation. Statistically Wayne Gretzky was the greatest National Hockey League player of his generation.
They were very successful in their professional lives, but the sports they played required very different skills. How can we compare Wayne Gretzky to Babe Ruth?
Now let us compare Wayne Gretzky and Babe Ruth to Albert Einstein. Albert Einstein was the most influential physicist of the 20th century, Babe Ruth was the most influential Major League Baseball player of the 20th century, so I should be able to compare them?
Have I gone crazy? This is all sounding absurd, but is it any more absurd than the endless questions of comparison?
I have no idea what the IQ was of any of the successful people I have studied over the years, nor do I care. Some of the most successful people have been looked at as being stupid when they were growing up. On a personal level, some of the "smartest" people I have known were not very successful. They might have been considered a genius on an IQ test, but they never achieved much in life.
The success of famous people has a lot to do with making the most of their opportunities and being a master of their time and circumstances How do you compare complex individuals living in different times working in similar but different professions. I have studied many successful people over the years, in business and technology. A common theme in all successful people is a strong passion for their area of interest. Many had an compulsion, perhaps you could call it an obsession, for success.
It is often said that there is a fine line between genius and insanity. Many successful people operated on that fine line.
Who is the greatest? Who was the smartest? Who was the funniest? Wayne Gretzky or Babe Ruth then again maybe it was Albert Einstein?
Why does it matter?
As we study Geek History we explore the visionaries who have an idea and see what is possible, often before the technology exists to make it real. Ray Kurzweil has been a technology visionary since the 1970s when he invented a reading machine for the blind with a text-to-speech synthesizer. In the 1980s Kurzweil created the first electronic musical instrument which produced sound derived from sampled sounds burned onto integrated circuits.
Inventor and futurist Ray Kurzweil believes the day that artificial intelligence becomes infinitely more powerful than all human intelligence combined is not that far off in the future. In his book, "The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology" written in 2006, Kurzweil predicts when this new phase of artificial super intelligence takes place. "I set the date for the Singularity—representing a profound and disruptive transformation in human capability—as 2045"
Is singularity a destination?
So how far is it from here to infinity? How long will it take us to get to eternity?
I often say that the more I learn, the more I realize how little I know. The phrase "You don't know what you don't know" has been said many ways. It is a play on a well-known saying that is derived from Plato's account of the Greek philosopher Socrates, "I know one thing; that I know nothing."
Maybe I am looking at this from my simple minded human perspective, but three decades is a pretty short time period in the evolution of humans and technology. I have the experience of having worked in the field of technology for more than four decades.
I sound like a real old fart when I talk about using radios with tubes in the 1970s and working as various forms of technology as it transitioned to solid state electronics. I remember back in the 1980s when I tried to explain to people how they would be using personal computers as tools in their business plugging them into phone lines. The concept of the internet was not widely known back then.
No one can predict the future with any certainty. Of course, if you want to debate, there were always those visionaries ahead of their time. Leonardo da Vinci is perhaps the greatest visionary to have ever lived. Leonardo saw the possibilities of flying machines in the 1500s, and designed in theory many examples of flying machines, centuries before the Wright Brothers launched their plane at Kitty Hawk. Relatively few of his designs were constructed or even feasible during his lifetime, the scope and depth of his interests were without precedent in recorded history.
There were many people who could look into the future and see what was possible, such as a true visionary Jules Verne, who was quoted in 1865 as saying, "In spite of the opinions of certain narrow-minded people who would shut up the human race upon this globe, we shall one day travel to the moon, the planets, and the stars with the same facility, rapidity and certainty as we now make the ocean voyage from Liverpool to New York."
One of my favorite science fiction authors I read growing up was Isaac Asimov who told amazing stories of robotics and artificial intelligence. The technology of the 1940s and 1950s could not create the robots in the stories of Asimov. Today the stories of intelligent robots are no longer fiction.
Maybe I've read too many science fiction novels about the utopias and the dystopias? When I say, "You don't know what you don't know," I look at the examples given here. With every generation we are amazed with how far we have come as we look back to the past. But we also see the long journey ahead and are equally amazed as we look towards the future.
From time to time events in the world remind us that modern technology has limits, as we recently saw with the problems with Amazon Web Services, that took down many major web sites. People were having panic attacks because they were having issues getting to their favorite website.
Theoretically the internet was created to be a better more fault tolerant communications system. As the internet has exploded commercially it has become the exactly the opposite of the original goal. It has created the biggest single point of failure in our world. People forget there are other ways of doing things without using the internet, like using traditional broadcast radio for news and entertainment.
It scares me that some people think that we should use the internet for everything. Instead of making any more comments based on my subjective opinion, I felt inspired to do a little research.
It would appear that traditional radio is still alive and well.
Here are some snippets from Pew Research on radio broadcasting:
"... terrestrial radio continues to reach the overwhelming majority of the public."
As far as using radio for a source of news and information:
"Pew Research Center’s own survey work adds insight here, finding radio to be a common source of news among adults in the U.S. In research asking about how people are learning about the U.S. presidential election, 44% of adults said they learned about it from radio in the past week. "
To those who say terrestrial radio (traditional broadcast radio) is dead, might be surprised to see that the Pew research numbers show that the percentage of Americans ages 12 or older who listen to terrestrial radio weekly has remained pretty steady at over 90% for the years 2009 through 2015.
Why not always use the internet?
You use the simplest tool you need to solve a problem, why make things more complicated than they need to be?
I want to kick back after dinner, and unwind watching some mindless entertainment. I watch television. The internet can be a pain at times. Connections are slow, websites are take too long to load. Sometimes the alternatives to using the internet are more efficient.
I want to sit on the porch, enjoy a beverage, and relax. I listen to the radio. It is quick and simple. Why would I use anything else?
I am driving in the car, I want some background music to pass the time. I listen to the radio. Why do I need the internet?
What if the power goes out? What happens then? Will my wi-fi work? Or I just could listen to my battery powered radio to connect to the world.
Need any more examples?
One argument over net neutrality is the fear that the large Cable TV providers like Comcast controlling internet access as ISPs could charge for various levels of service on the internet in tiers, like they do with Cable TV services. Some people object to that because they believe "the internet should be free."
Entertainment such as radio and television started out as broadcast media, in that you had a receiver in your home to receive the signals broadcast by the local stations. Television grew out of radio. In the early days of television, the 1930s and 1940s, the successful television networks were the ones that started with radio networks.
There are still "free" televisions stations in that you can find many local stations that broadcast a signal through the air that you can receive. Cable TV was initially created to provide television service to areas that did not receive a good broadcast signal. As cable TV expanded in the 1960s and 1970s the Cable TV operators began to add extra channels to their systems that were not derived from broadcast signals.
The internet of today is the next step in the evolution of entertainment. The internet is new way to deliver various content to your homes through wires provided by your Cable TV company that were once used just to deliver television service. Satellite services once developed to compete with cable TV services now also deliver internet access. Radio has also expanded beyond the traditional through the air broadcasting to satellite radio and internet radio.
Broadcast radio is only free in the sense that you do not pay an ongoing fee to listen to the radio. But you pay for in the sense that you listen to advertising that is paid for by someone else. With cable television you are paying for the convenience of having a clear television signal delivered to your home through a wire. The programming is paid for in various ways, sometimes strictly by advertising, just like in the days of broadcasting. Sometimes the programming is paid for by fees through the cable services provider for carrying the channel. In the case of premium services like HBO or Showtime, you get to watch them commercial free, but you pay a premium, as in a charge to view them, that offsets the revenue that the commercials would raise.
Right now internet service providers are providing you with a connection to the services and you are paying for the access just like in the early days of cable TV. There are also premium services on the internet like NetFlix, where you pay a premium to access content, just like you would with premium services like HBO or Showtime.
Gratis versus libre free speech not the same as free beer
I stumbled upon an article about American software freedom activist and programmer Richard Stallman drawing attention to the concept of gratis versus libre and had a massive "ah-huh" moment regarding how this concept of "free" gets twisted in the net neutrality debate.
Richard Stallman is considered the father of the Open Source software movement. Stallman explains that Open Source refers to the preservation of the freedoms to use, study, distribute and modify that software not zero-cost. In illustrating the concept of Gratis versus Libre, Stallman is famous for using the sentence, "free as in free speech not as in free beer."
This dual definition of free can cause issues where the distinction is important, as it often is in dealing with laws concerning the use of information, such as copyright and patents.
There's no such thing as a free lunch but you are free to eat your lunch anywhere you want.
The use of the English adjective free often gets twisted because it can be used in one of two meanings. When you say there's no such thing as a free lunch you are using the word free meaning "for zero price" (gratis). When you say you are free to eat your lunch anywhere you want you are using the word free to mean "with little or no restriction" (libre).
The myth that the internet is free
Some people don't like the possibility of the large cable TV providers like Comcast controlling internet access as ISPs where they could charge for various levels of service on the internet in tiers, like they do with Cable TV services. That is part of the battle over net neutrality. Nothing is free.
Traditional radio and television are evolving and expanding and becoming a part of the big picture of media and the internet. If you don't pay an upfront fee to use something, you will pay for it in having to tolerate some form of advertising. If you want a better quality signal someone needs to pay to build up the highway to provide the services, and you will pay for that in service fees. If you want to watch programming or listen to music without commercials, there needs to be a way to license it and collect fees in the form of subscriptions so the content providers get paid for their work.
Part of the debate on a "free" internet is that the concept of free is two fold. You may be free to choose what services you want to use on the internet, but access to use those services is not free from cost or payment.
Graphic: American software freedom activist and programmer Richard Stallman (right) illustrating his famous sentence "free as in free speech not as in free beer", with a beer glass. Brussels, RMLL, 9 July 2013
Most smartphones come with FM radio receivers already built in, and the new chairman of the Federal Communications Commission wants you to know that your wireless carrier may be keeping you from using the technology.
Why should you care about using FM Radio on your cell phone?
Emergency management professionals will tell you that traditional radio is a great source for news during times of emergency.
There are people in the cell phone industry that would call the public safety argument for using cell phone FM radio just a marketing ploy by traditional radio, but I would disagree. I know from first hand experience how fickle cell phone service can be.
During an earthquake on the east coast a few years ago everyone picked up their cellphones and began calling everyone they know to see what had happened. The cell phone circuits were overloaded. Thankfully the earthquake was just some rumbling and no major damage was done. But we all saw how vulnerable we are if we rely on cellular phone circuits for information during a time of emergency.
It happened again with Hurricane Sandy, and the problem was compounded by actual damage to cell towers and power outages in addition to increased phone volume. Cell phone users experienced various communications issues.
What is the issue with using FM Radio on your cell phone?
This article from Wired back in July pretty much sums up the issue…("Your Phone Has an FM Chip. So Why Can’t You Listen to the Radio?")
"Broadcasters and public safety officials have long urged handset manufacturers and wireless carriers to universally activate the FM chip, and recently brought the campaign to Canada. Carriers have little financial incentive to do so because they profit from streaming data, says Barry Rooke of the National Campus and Community Radio Association."
It's funny that the question being discussed from a Apple leaning publication such as MacRumors (FCC Chairman Encourages Activation of the FM Radio Receiver Built Into Your iPhone) states, "Apple's stance on the activation of FM receivers in iPhones is uncertain."
Other articles such as this one from The Verge ( FCC chief wants smartphones’ hidden FM radios turned on, but won’t do anything about it ) have a different slant on why, "Giving consumers the chance to pick free FM radio also means fewer track sales on iTunes and fewer new subscribers to services like Apple Music. ... That’d be a major downside for Apple, which is probably why it hasn’t embraced FM radio on the iPhone yet."
FM radio alive and well
We recently asked the question, "Does it makes sense to eliminate FM radio in favor of digital?" because in 2017 Norway will become the first country in the world to start shutting down its national FM radio network in favor of digital radio.
Our conclusion was that it makes no sense at all because broadcast radio is alive and well in the United States. There are currently over 6700 commercial FM stations. Not only is traditional FM radio alive and well, traditional FM radio provides a valuable service in time of emergency.
The mainstream news introduces new Federal Communications Commission chairman Ajit Pai as "Net Neutrality Foe." (1) The "Net Neutrality is dead" chant is being stirred up as technology sites like wired are already predicting "Net Neutrality No More." (2)
From many online debates I read in recent months, as well as questions I have been asked, it is obvious that there are many interpretations to the term Net Neutrality. My reaction to the appointment of Ajit Pai as the new FCC chairman is to simply say that since the topic is not clearly defined in the minds of many, the debate over any changes will be ongoing.
As far as technology sites like Wired predicting "Net Neutrality No More," I take that for what its worth. I'll read Wired for what's new in the world of gadgets. I wouldn't read Wired to try to make sense of FCC regulations and pending changes in internet law.
It also becomes a matter of opinions, which are like certain human body parts, everyone has one, and they all stink.
For some opinions that tell a different story...
This article from Forbes written after the appointment of New FCC Chair Ajit Pai backs the opinion that Net Neutrality won't change much. "Why Is The Media Smearing New FCC Chair Ajit Pai As The Enemy Of Net Neutrality?"(3) ...
"The net neutrality misinformation bandwagon has opened an ugly new front."
"For technology companies here in Silicon Valley and across the Internet ecosystem, Pai’s appointment is very good news. He favors a return to the bi-partisan policy of light-touch regulation established in the early days of the commercial Internet—policies that have made possible the convergence of networks, media and technologies on the single open Internet standard. His FCC is likely to be consistent, professional, and predictable."
This article from Forbes written right after Trump was elected backs the opinion that Net Neutrality won't change much. "The True Fate Of Net Neutrality In A Trump FCC" (4)...
"The basic net neutrality principles—that broadband providers can’t block access to lawful content, can’t intentionally slow network traffic for anti-competitive purposes, or otherwise discriminate against some content providers for non-technical reasons--are perfectly safe, regardless of what policies the Trump Administration ultimately adopts, or who the new President appoints to Chair the FCC."
This is article from IEEE, a technology professional association, does not jump on the net neutrality is dead bandwagon either. " Is Net Neutrality Good or Bad for Innovation?" (5)...
IEEE describes themselves as, "A not-for-profit organization, IEEE is the world's largest technical professional organization dedicated to advancing technology for the benefit of humanity."
"Unfortunately, there is no clear answer. Economists have done plenty of modeling on net neutrality over the past eight years, but there isn’t a strong consensus about whether keeping it or throwing it out would be best for consumers, innovation, or the economy."
"... anyone who tries to reverse U.S. policy on net neutrality will likely have a difficult road ahead. Public sentiment will not be on their side—when the FCC solicited public comments on the issue in 2014, they received a record 3.7 million comments, with the vast majority in favor of net neutrality."
I am more concerned about mergers and acquisitions that reduce competition than I am about changes in Net Neutrality laws. Comcast recently announced it will roll out a mobile phone service in 2017 using Verizon’s network infrastructure, stirring up speculation of a Comcast and Verizon merger in the future. "Are Wedding Bells On Horizon As Comcast Launches Wireless Service On Verizon Network?" (6)
That is a lot more frightening thought than any net neutrality legislation. The 800 pound gorilla of cable, partners with the giant of wireless. Holy monopoly Batman!
For those who fear new changes in net neutrality will create a new wave of internet censorship, they must have short memories because there have been many proposed laws in recent years to control what content is allowed on the internet, and these laws have been for the most part, independent of the net neutrality debate.
Stay tuned as we continue to follow on ongoing debate over Net Neutrality.
Links to news articles:
(1) Report: 'Net Neutrality' Foe Ajit Pai Is New FCC Head
(2) Trump’s FCC Pick Doesn’t Bode Well For Net Neutrality
(3) Why Is The Media Smearing New FCC Chair Ajit Pai As The Enemy Of Net Neutrality?
(4) The True Fate Of Net Neutrality In A Trump FCC
(5) Is Net Neutrality Good or Bad for Innovation?
(6) Are Wedding Bells On Horizon As Comcast Launches Wireless Service On Verizon Network?
Federal Communications Commission Photo: FCC Chairman Genachowski swears in Ajit Pai as a new Commissioner at the FCC headquarters in Washington, DC. May 14, 2012.
I am geek who loves to get to the bottom of myths and legends, as well as claims by auto makers in commercials. After watching several television commercials by a certain automaker bragging about earning more J.D. Power Initial Quality awards than any other brand, I decided to do a little research. Should I really be impressed by all these awards? What exactly do they measure?
The first point is the numbers game. Claiming that your brand has more J.D. Power Initial Quality awards than any other brand has do with the number of models that you sell. Chevy has the most models on the J.D. Power Initial Quality awards list, but Chevy also produces a large number of models when you look at their line of cars and trucks. On the long list of 2016 Initial Quality Ratings I was surprised to see models such as the Hyundai Accent, Kia Sportage, Hyundai Azera, and Kia Soul on the list, all made by the Hyundai Motor Company.
The other issue with the automaker bragging is the value of measuring initial quality. The definition of initial quality is defined as problems experienced by vehicle owners during the first 90 days of ownership. The first 90 days, that's not a long period of time. I am pretty happy with my 2008 Mercury Milan, 9 years and 185,000 miles later, and I have never had a major problem. Seems like quality should be measured in larger increments than 90 days.
Studies skewed by modern technology
J.D. Power has two major areas for automobiles, the annual Vehicle Dependability Study (VDS) and Initial Quality Study (IQS). I thought I would dig deeper and look for the longer term dependability ratings. Instead of finding more answers, my search raised many questions of the value of their dependability ratings.
In the world today people see an automotive as more than an transportation vehicle, they see the automobile as a collection of gadgets and gizmos attached to a vehicle on wheels. Because of this infatuation with technology, issues with entertainment systems and Bluetooth connections can skew automotive dependability ratings.
An article on Autoblog, "J.D. Power needs to rethink its Vehicle Dependability Study," makes the statement, "A poor Bluetooth pairing procedure is not the same as a blown engine."
The Autoblog article explains how the ratings are skewed by modern technology.
"If an owner can't get his or her phone to connect via Bluetooth to the audio system, that's a problem. If an owner's audible command isn't properly deciphered by that annoying synthesized voice all infotainment systems seem plagued by, that's a problem. But are either of those problems as serious as a transmission that won't shift, or an engine that won't start? Not by my standards. But by J.D. Power's, the answer is yes."
An article in Forbes, "Inside The 'Real' J.D. Power Vehicle Dependability Ratings" also explains how the ratings are skewed by modern technology.
"Apparently the notion of what qualifies as an unreliable car no longer means one that leaves its owner stranded at the side of the road or otherwise requires frequent repairs. Today it’s stretched to encompass what some of us might consider minor inconveniences, particularly balky voice control systems and difficulty with Bluetooth mobile phone pairing and connectivity. Issues with electronics now account for 20% of all consumer-reported car problems in J.D. Power’s survey."
Remember when a car was just a car?
If you dig into some of these studies on dependability you will find brands of vehicles where there are better engines and drivetrains with fewer problems, but the overall brands rate lower because of issues with Bluetooth connections or voice activated entertainment systems. Going back to quote the Autoblog article, "A poor Bluetooth pairing procedure is not the same as a blown engine."
I've owned quite a few cars in my lifetime, and a few had major engine problems. I am pretty happy with a car that is 9 years and has 185,000 miles on it. Yea, the voice activated audio system sometimes doesn't understand what I am saying and I sometimes swear at it when the Bluetooth gets temperamental and decides not to connect to my phone. But it is the most reliable car I have ever owned.
There was a time when someone talked about the dependability of a car, they were primarily talking about the engine and drivetrain, the major components of a car. Issues with electronics in a car meant static on your radio. If your car radio gave you fits, you ripped it out and through in a new one. Maybe an upgrade with a tape deck!
After reading several articles explaining these vehicle dependability studies and initial quality studies, I am reminded of a quote by Mark Twain, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
Image: Screenshot from 1970 Mercury commercial
Explore automotive innovation and invention at Altered Automotive (link is external). Learn more about the great automotive inventors like Ford and Olds as we explore the Ford Piquette Avenue Plant in Detroit (link is external) and the R.E. Olds Transportation Museum in Lansing, Michigan. (link is external)
I try to live by a simple motto: when evaluating your outcomes, look for reasons to succeed, not excuses to fail.
As part of my inspiration to write this blog post, I just updated one of my websites by restoring a story on Thomas Edison and the mythical quote on his 10,000 failures to invent the electric light bulb. You'll find the link to that story at the end of this blog post, and you can read about Thomas Edison as one of the best examples of a successful state of mind
I have stayed away from social media more than usual lately because of all the negativity. The news have been dominated in recent days about people wishing for the failure of the incoming presidential administration. The world seems to be super charged with negativity. All the "not my president" memes and cartoons are getting way out of hand.
For all the years I have been eligible to vote, going back to the days of Gerald Ford, more often than not, the person who I thought was the best candidate to become president never made it out of the primaries. Along the way I have voted for many losing candidates in the general election. For all my discomfort and frustration, I have always accepted the results of the election, and supported the president in respect for our country. When a candidate I dislike has won, I have asked myself, and others, is there something I could have done to change things?
In the world of the Tao of Questy, the goal is not to take sides in an "us versus them" argument, but to stretch your brain to see things in a different perspective. To all the sore losers in politics, stop and think about this, when you lose, don’t lose the lesson. On social media I don't see many people asking the question, "Is there something I could have done to change things?" But I do see a lot of people looking for ways for the new president to fail, hoping he will fail. So much for good sportsmanship.
Turning to sports
I enjoy sports. I hope it would be a good escape from all the political rhetoric. But today the big story on the sports talk shows is the ranting by Kansas City Chiefs tight end Travis Kelce who spent his entire postgame media session ripping the referee and the rest of his crew. Worse than the crazy rant by Travis Kelce is the fact that the sports shows keep showing it, and keep talking about it.
I watched the game. Like most close games there are many things that could have been called that were missed. Yes, it was the heat of the moment, and yes, he was emotional. But this was the same Travis Kelce that was penalized during the game for shoving a player to the ground out of frustration. Another negative example in sportsmanship, and another reason to illustrate why athletes shouldn't be our heroes.
The Dallas Cowboys lost a close game on Sunday. I am not a Cowboys fan, but I was impressed by their interviews after the game. There was a lot of talk about what they achieved, and how they looked forward to next year. Comparing the two scenarios, it sure gives meaning to the thought that winners have reasons, losers have excuses.
The real heroes in our world
If you are looking for the real heroes in our world you need to read about The Carnegie Hero Fund Commission. Created in 1904 by Andrew Carnegie, the commission awards the Carnegie Medal to individuals who risk their lives saving or attempting to save others.
I recently saw a CBS News Sunday Morning segment cover the Carnegie Hero Fund. There are some pretty amazing stories, like the 19-year-old mother of two in Auburn, Illinois, who saved a 75-year-old man who had gotten his wheel chair stuck on the train tracks.
Check out the CBS News Sunday Morning segment, Carnegie Heroes: A definition of selfless humanity.
Check out the Carnegie Hero Fund Commission
Take time to reflect
It's pretty sad that in recent days in sports and politics that sore losers dominate the news. To all the folks in politics who proudly proclaim "not my president" and all the sports stars and fans that blame the loss on the officials, take a moment to step back and reflect.
Winning is not the magnitude of the outcome, it is the perspective of the outcome. Failure is an attitude, not an outcome.
Winners have reasons, losers have excuses.
Need some inspiration to succeed? Read about Thomas Edison and why some people never fail
According to various news reports Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer, co-founder David Filo and others plan to resign from the company's board when it completes its $4.8 billion sale to Verizon.
Technology rock star Marissa Mayer
Marissa Mayer was Google's first female engineer. She started with Google in 1999 as employee number 20. Mayer worked at Google for 13 years, rising to the role of senior vice president.
Mayer was appointed president and CEO of Yahoo on July 16, 2012. Mayer led Yahoo! to acquire Tumblr in a $1.1 billion acquisition on May 20, 2013. During the summer of 2013, Mayer was looking more like a rock star that a corporate executive as she appeared in an issue of Vogue magazine. Mayer fueled a lot of debate on her office life, mixed with motherhood. At the peak of Mayer's success in 2013, Business Insider's Nicholas Carlson released the "unauthorized biography" of the Yahoo executive. The biography tells the story of how the painfully shy teenage from small town Wisconsin went on to be the successful geeky girl at Google.
Mayer delivered the keynote address at the 2014 International Consumer Electronics Show at The Las Vegas Hotel & Casino on January 7, 2014. After a demonstration of the Yahoo News Digest, the keynote went on to pitch several products and services. First a new vision for a series of digital magazines was demonstrated, Yahoo Smart TV that recommends shows for your viewing was illustrated, followed by a discussion of trends for Yahoo owned site Tumblr. The keynote address ended with a presentation on various Yahoo advertising products.
While Yahoo was delivering the message that that they are a big player in the world of news and entertainment, the Marissa Mayer keynote felt a lot more like an hour long infomercial for Yahoo products, rather than anything engaging or entertaining.
Is Marissa Mayer a failure?
It has been three years since Mayer delivered her keynote address at the 2014 Consumer Electronics Show. Yahoo has slipped in popularity over the last three years. Yahoo never became the news and information portal that Meyer pitched at CES in 2014. Yahoo is in the process of being sold to Verizon, and reports state that Marissa Mayer will resign from the company's board and step down as the CEO. Was Marissa Mayer the wrong person for the job or was saving Yahoo as an internet portal an impossible mission? Those are the questions that now fuel the debate over Marissa Mayer.
The headlines once asked, "Is Marissa Mayer technology's new rock star?" This week, the headlines read, "Is Marissa Mayer a failure?"
What happens to Yahoo?
Yahoo was founded by Jerry Yang and David Filo in January 1994 and incorporated on March 2, 1995. When the internet went commercial in the mid 1990s millions of people with computers had no idea where to start. They were clueless how to connect to all the information that would start pouring into the internet. Yahoo was there as the web portal pioneer that connected everyone to the internet world.
The Yahoo of 2017 is different from the Yahoo of 2012 when Mayer stepped in, and very different from the Yahoo internet directory started by Jerry Yang and David Filo of the 1990s that introduced us to the world wide web. If the Verizon deal goes through as planned, Yahoo as we know it will pretty much be dead. The new company will be known as Altaba, a combination of the words "alternative" and "Alibaba." Yahoo owns about 15% of Alibaba, a Chinese internet company. Altaba will be a holding company of the assets of the current Yahoo.
Stayed tuned as we will be watching what happens to the remains of Yahoo, and the career of Marissa Mayer.
Links to news articles:
Photo Credit: CEO of Yahoo! Marissa Mayer (L) and Zachary Bogue attend the Yahoo News/ABCNews Pre-White House Correspondents' dinner reception pre-party at Washington Hilton on May 3, 2014 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Andrew H. Walker/Getty Images for Yahoo News)
During 2017, Norway will become the first country in the world to start shutting down its national FM radio network in favor of digital radio. Traditional FM radio receivers will not have any local stations to receive. I am not familiar with radio stations and reception in neighboring countries, so I am not sure what the people in Norway might be able to receive on traditional FM radio once their local stations all go digital.
I read an article on the topic a few days ago, and give some thought to the question. It quickly turned to a "who cares" type of issue. I scratched my head a bit, wondering why I should care. Norway is not a leader in technology, so how is this an earth shaking news story?
But in recent days it appears that technology in Norway has people thinking. I am actually surprised how many people have posted or commented about it. I have been asked, does it makes sense to eliminate FM radio in favor of digital broadcasts?
Being the geek that I am, I decided to read a bit more before I reacted. It took me little time to find this article, Digital has not killed the radio frequency in Canada FM radio is old. So why hasn't digital made a dent? which states, "During the late '90s and 2000s, Canada experimented with the digital audio broadcasting (DAB) model that Norway will shift to this week — and it was a flop."
Based on that article, from the CBC Radio Canada, it doesn't sound like Norway is such a pioneer.
I quickly found another article from Reuters, Norway to switch off FM radio in risky, unpopular shift to digital which states, "There are 2 million cars on Norwegian roads that don't have DAB receivers, and millions of radios in Norwegian homes will stop working when the FM net is switched off."
Does it makes sense to eliminate traditional FM radio in favor of digital broadcasts?
So, to answer the question, does it makes sense to eliminate FM radio in favor of digital broadcasts? After reading several news articles, I can confirm my initial reaction. Ah, no, it makes no sense at all.
The days of traditional AM and FM radio are definitely declining, but in the United States there are a lot stations still operating. In fact, according to the FCC the number of broadcast stations licensed as of December 31, 2016, is 4669 AM stations and 6746 commercial FM stations. I know I sound like an advertisement for your local radio, but even with all our access to the internet for news and information, millions of Americans are still depending on traditional AM and FM radio for news and information on the morning drive.
Someone stated the reason for the change was that the "equipment is outdated and is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain." Working in technology for more 40 years, I could apply that remark to quite a bit of things we use everyday. When I use that logic people usually tell me to quit complaining.
Learn more: Geekhistory explores who invented radio