There's a lesson here

HP's decision to ax its tablet and subsequent fire sale caused lots of pontificating among the techie crowd, including the assertion that the fire sale would further strengthen Apple's iPad. 

But this is exactly what I was thinking the lesson from this should be:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/238562/touchpads_lesson_tablets_cost_too_much.html

I've had a similar thought; I'm not an Apple guy, but I must admit that if I'm going to pay $300-plus for a tablet, I'm just going to go ahead and buy an iPad. Heck, the same might be said about Macs; there's no doubting their quality, and if it were based on that alone (it's not), then I'd recommend them for any computer purchase. However, quality PCs can be bought for one-fourth the price of a comparable Mac. 

The tablet makers haven't figured out that the same logic might apply to their products.

93 percent of statistics...

From a "friend's" Facebook page:

“25 States allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on, and walk down the street with no permit of any kind: some say it’s crazy. However, four out of five US murders are committed in the other half of the country: so who’s crazy?” – Andrew Ford


OK, I get it. So 80 percent of the murders in the U.S. are in the half of the states with the most stringent gun laws. Proves that lax carry laws deter murder, doesn't it? (It sure worked in the Old West!)

Oh, but wait. What is the population rank of the 25 states with these lax gun laws? I'm betting you'd see a lot of Montanas and Wyomings in that list, with a Texas mixed in.

Want to convince me of something? Riddle me this: what is the per capita murder rate in those 25 states with more stringent laws compared to those without?

Ah, leave it to a liberal to get all scientific and ask for some commie number like "per capita"....

Update: According to my best estimates and based off what I can ascertain from Wikipedia (Open carry in the United States), the combined population of the 26 states with "open carry" laws (per my understanding of it, as these laws are not all the same) makes up 37.9 percent of the population (Texas isn't actually among them; Pennsylvania, at No. 6, is the largest population). So if that murder number is correct, then 62.1 percent of the country accounts for 80 percent of the murders.

Oh, but wait....! According to FBI statistics, those murder statistics might be off just a smidge...or a lot. See, when I added together the total murders from the FBI statistics for those 26 states (37.9 percent of the population, remember), I got 5,450 murders, out of of a total of 13,646. That's 39.9 percent of the murders in 37.9 percent of the population. That's just a little off from the "4 out of 5" number cited, making me think, oh, maybe it was pulled out of this guy's arse.

Now, this was some quick spreadsheet work on my part, so I wouldn't go before Congress to testify with it....but I bet people have testified based on less evidence than I put together in 10 minutes of research.

Oh, and the FBI statistics had the murders broken down by weapon used -- I won't throw out any random statistics here, but I bet you might find a correlation between states with lax gun laws and high rates of murder by gun. The million-dollar question there would be: if they didn't have easy access to guns, would those murder totals be lower? I'm 93 percent sure they would be.

Of Google and editorializing

Nashville residents take on Google Wi-Spy, join privacy lawsuit

As a journalist (or at least someone with a journalism degree), I'm more bothered by the editorializing in this story than I am by the content, specifically, the author's line "Google may have downloaded information such as user names and passwords if you were on the Internet when the street view car drove by." Without the bolded words, this is a factual statement; adding the bolded words is editorializing. Your readers can figure out what kind of things can be gathered from an open Internet connection.

He's also incorrect in the next paragraph, "Google says it tapped into wireless networks in an effort — unrelated to the street view feature — to improve its location-based services, such as those that allow smartphone users to map their location." The street view feature is part of the maps and location-based services. It's completely related.

There are other turns of phrase -- such as the wry "Google, however, wants a second opinion" -- that seem to betray a slight bias by the reporter.

Now, I'm a Google geek, so I'm not going to be too concerned about this. Frankly, this is no different than having a private conversation over a CB radio. If you want a secure conversation, you use secure channels, so to speak; if you want secure data, you don't make it public, you put some kind of security on it. And to be clear, Google wasn't "cracking" these open networks; the term "open" is used for a reason. And I may be naive, but I'm not buying that Google was gathering passwords -- umm, if Google wants to misuse personal information, it has much easier ways of getting it (hint: it's already got it...). It was trying to use open wireless connections to base locations on; this is another way of geo-locating, using public wi-fi hotspots. When you don't password-protect your connection, yours looks no different to a scanning computer than does the one at Starbucks. The lesson you should learn from this isn't that you should sue Google, it's that you should protect your network from people who are certainly up to no good.

Google has also elicited screams with its Street View technology by taking pictures of people's houses and posting them on the Internet. This is again a matter of public information; if your house is on a public road, then anyone can see it. Google just has a much bigger audience for its photos.

This will be an interesting test case, one of many that are defining the laws of our new digital age. But even more important than defining the laws may be the defining our attitudes toward all the capabilities of the digital age.

And now, taking the fight to the light bulbs

Support For Energy Efficient Bulbs Dims Among GOP

I've heard this complaint before, but for some reason hearing this story on NPR this afternoon really wound me up. Seriously, this is where we are as a country, spending time railing against light bulbs?

Anyone saying they get headaches or "the light from them just isn't the same" is full of crap.

It's just one more example in a long line of folks who not only aren't willing to make small steps to be environmentally friendly(er) -- they actually believe it's their God-given right as an 'merican to destroy the environment any way they can.

Justice?

Oklahoma pharmacist sentenced to life for killing would-be robber

This is the second story I've heard this afternoon that tells me a lot about the bad trajectory this country is on.

Long story short, this pharmacist shot a would-be robber in the head, then went and got another gun and shot him five more times while he lay on the floor unconscious.

The first shot is not a problem; he was protecting himself. Everything after that is just outlaw justice, and we supposedly left that behind in the 1800s. Unfortunately, a lot of Americans romanticize this, and it's no surprise this guy has a lot of supporters.

I am a little surprised that he was tried for first degree murder. I guess there was premeditation in the moments between shooting him the first time and coming back to "finish him off."

Top 20? Yeah.

Paste's Top 20 (so far)

Paste has a couple of top 20 best album lists for 2011. Jason Isbell’s “Here We Rest” doesn’t make the top 20 of the first half of the year? Come on.

In defense of Transformers 3

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/43598173/ns/today-entertainment/

Not sure why folks hate so much on the Transformers movies ... I mean, I know they're not that great, but they're far from the worst. The above review says it about right, especially this part:

"You want to quibble about character development in “Dark of the Moon?” It’s a movie about ROBOTS IN DISGUISE! Save those debates for the holiday season, when Hollywood shamelessly panders for acclaim and awards with costumed dramas and weepy ensembles where some sickly person stares up at the skies with outstretched arms and rain on his face."