Bad Shepherd, Bad

Today I saw The Good Shepherd, a Robert De Niro film. It lasted two hours and one half, and I regret it. No movie has given me a headache except for this one. The plot is long-winded and shallow, the action unknown, and the characters only somewhat interesting. I never knew that Matt Damon could be so boring. By the end of the film, I was waiting for the moment of truth - the assassination of Damon's character. I literally was waiting for Matt Damon to die. I was waiting for some instance that would validate the two hours I had spent in my seat, but sadly none was offered. I can't even say for sure if the ending was happy or sad. It really doesn't matter.

The whole thing is a bomb. The actors apparently were trying to recreate that atmosphere of The Bourne Identity and The Bourne Supremacy - terse, untrustworthy, and delicate - but there was hardly any action at all. For a CIA movie, you'd think there'd be some substance there. Of course, betrayal played a role in the plot, but that's like eating steamed cabbage without any corned beef. It's categorically sludge. The whole thing has the consistency of dried cement - coincidentally where the movie should be buried.

Saddam Hussein meets the Heat (not in Miami)

As of approximately two hours and forty minutes ago, Saddam Hussein is ceased. He has kicked the bucket, flown the coup, abandoned the chase, killed his last second, rolled down his sleeves, closed the book, finished using his body, inhabited Hell's hospital, departed for another world, caught the killing disease. He is scientifically and factually dead.

The bastard is finally dead. A scourge of humanity is snuffed out.

My family and I were watching The Producers on DVD (the original, starring the immortal Gene Wilder) when it is said to have taken place. I had fully expected the execution to take place on December 31st, as has been rumored, but it is appropriately ironic that Hussein died while I watched a comedy about Hitler.

I'm not going to be an armchair general and predict what will happen now that the witch is dead. I don't know, and I don't know enough to infer. The Bush administration is reconsidering their strategy. (At least it came about in a timely manner.) Categorically, right now we're losing the war, and I doubt that Saddam's death will hasten victory or defeat. Both Saddam and Bush lost the war. So who has won? Why, the insurgents have won. The terrorists have won.

But at least the bastard is finally dead.

Free market education

I'm in high school. I don't particularly enjoy it - Who does? But I don't like the way the schools are run, either. There's a fundamental problem that's ruining the schools of America: No choice.

Schools today are more segregated than they were 30 years ago. In an age where desegregation orders are in effect, you would think that people of different skin color, religion, and creed could actually congregate together. But the fact of the matter is that we are segregated. Not by government order or charter - but by our homes. We live where we can afford it. Children go to school based on where they live - the root cause. School districts are ruining schools. By funneling property taxes only into the schools of their respective districts, politicians are segregating our children and dividing us - the rich and the poor, two wholesomely separate groups kept wholesomely separate without any command.

If you were a parent, and the school closet to you was the worst in town, and you had a choice in where you sent your child, would you choose a different school? Of course you would? Would the worst school in town then try to shape up and get better teachers? Of course!

Now, some people will say that the disappearance of school districts would ruin schools. But what if public schools got funding for every child that decked their halls? (Private schools of course would be barred from this benefit.) Suddenly, things would change for the better. Parents would start to shop around. Feeling the pressure, principals and administrators would find the best teachers possible, so that their school would the highest scores on the AP U.S. History test! Facilities would improve, and better materials would be bought - all in the name of competition.

If there's no competition among schools, the losers are the kids. By locking children into government-mandated natural monopolies, the school districts are lazy, bloated, and slow. Breaking these bonds would force schools to improve - or else. The No Child Left Behind Act cannot improve schools by requiring education institutions to meet and beat arbitrary standards. That doesn't accelerate the motivation to improve; goals like that simply change the material taught in the classroom by shifting the focus onto memorization skills and subjects the tests pinpoint. Teaching to the test is not an improvement in education!

So what can we do? Push school districts into the free market. Redistribute property taxes so that the funds are divided according to student population. Survival of the fittest won't kill schools; it will make them leaner, stronger, and healthier.

Physical media

I own 46 CDs. I have reviewed 43 additional albums. I own 0 songs - none from iTunes, none from Yahoo!, none from MSN. That's zero, zip. I may have grown up with the Internet, but I will not give up CDs for files on an operating system. No way, no how. Physical discs have too much value for me to abandon them in the name of technological advancement.

And in an age when I can pick and choose which songs I want to buy, there's just one problem: I wouldn't actually own the songs I would buy. For some reason, I would only have a license to those songs - like I need permission to listen to the music I buy! Who calls me villain? Ha!

I will never buy music with embedded digital rights management (DRM). It's never gonna happen. Not any time in the next century. The music stores would have to give me a damned good reason to do that, and I just can't see it happening. There's one huge problem with DRM: It removes incentive, instead of creating it. In the next few minutes, I could begin downloading music from dozens of sources: Some legal, some infringing copyright in the process, but all quickly available. And when I can download unrestricted music at no monetary cost, there is no good reason to pay for an item of lesser value. I ask: What value does DRM add? Presently, none. DRM allows me no incentive to purchase the files it locks down - DRM says I don't own what I buy; I am buying a license, a permit that can be revoked or denied to me at any motion.

Other consumers will purchase DRM-laden music for one of several reasons: They are not concerned about the limitations; they are not aware of the limitations; it's cheap; they cannot choose an alternative. Any of these reasons are possible. I may be an audiophile, but I am not gullible: I will not degauss my CDs, I will not pay $500 for a wooden volume knob, and I will not pay for a license when I could find music of better resolution for free. I am perfectly aware of programs that will strip the DRM from iTunes files or licensed WMA files, but I still cannot do it - I would be upholding the very statutes I have thoroughly come to loathe.

But of the MP3 stores? Audio Lunchbox or eMusic? Jamendo? I have not used their services, either. I'm just not interested in those stores. I don't support them, because I have no incentive to; I am not out to spite DRM. I simply will not purchase it.

My CDs have the most value to me. They take up space; they are real. They are not a bunch of files in a box. They are discs, with packaging and additional material. I need no license for them. I don't care if the entire world stops buying CDs; any music I purchase will be on a CD.

I tried Ubuntu

On Friday, I tried Ubuntu - "tried" being the key word. I downloaded the v6.10 ISO file, burned it to CD, and booted from it, but each time I tried to use it live I would see nothing but an I/O error message and a line telling me that Disk Error 10 had occurred.

I supposed that the CD hadn't been burned properly, or there was some damage on it, so I burned a new CD today, and I booted from it. This time, great success!

I waited a few minutes as the desktop was loaded from the CD, and upon completion I was gazing upon the maroon-tan-greenish desktop. I noticed that the right edge of the desktop exceeded my LCD monitor, but I was barely concerned. I browsed to the Applications menu and ran through the list of programs available to me - not too shabby! There was even a sizable list of games. I tried solitaire briefly, a bit dissatisfied with the blurry graphics. I realized that the screen resolution was too small!

I navigated to the Preferences/Administration menu and found the Device Manager. Yes, Ubuntu recognized my ATI Radeon card. So I went to the Screen Resolution setting, and lo and behold, the only resolutions available to me were "800 x 600" and "640 x 480". Huh? Well, I'd heard that ATI didn't have the best driver support in Linux, so I opened up Firefox from the top taskbar so I could find the cause of my trouble.

Well, Firefox looked just like it did on Windows (except a bit greener), and I typed "blogger.com" into the navigation bar, so I could record my exploits on my blog. That was a great time to find out that I wasn't connected to the Internet!

The Device Manager told me that Ubuntu knew the model of my PCI wireless network adapter, so I tried to open up a wireless connection. Unlike Windows, Ubuntu doesn't have any way to search for wireless networks. If I wanted to connect to the network, I needed to know the network name. (Unfortunately, I forgot it.)

At this point, I decided that I would not attempt to use Ubuntu for any prolonged period of time, but instead just see what I could do with the system.

I opened up the Examples folder on my desktop, to see what the Ubuntu team wanted to tell me. I opened up the Ubuntu welcome video, only to discover that I could hear nothing - and I knew my Altec Lansings weren't deaf. I went to the Sound configuration window, but Ubuntu didn't recognize my Creative PCI card - only my Realtek chip that came on the motherboard. using the Volume Manager, I tried switching back and forth between the sound sources available to me (none of which were recognized as being a Creative card) and making sure that nothing was muted, but I could hear nothing, even when playing the sax recording.

I was not pleased wit my first fifteen minutes of Ubuntu. I couldn't change to a higher resolution, Ubuntu couldn't search for nearby wireless networks (which is more a lack of a feature than it is a fault), and Ubuntu wouldn't recognize my Creative sound card. The bright side was that it was all painless. Ubuntu is fast. I mean, faster than the time it takes Donald Trump to sound like a pompous ass. If only Ubuntu were more co-operative with my hardware, I might just be tempted to use it again.

An Ode to Christmas (shopping season)

Tomorrow, at approximately 6 A.M . (6:30, perhaps, but if it's 7, then you're really pushing it), Christmas shopping season will end. Oh, to which aspects of life, accepted into daily life, will we bid farewell?

Let me say goodbye to...

...The endless traffic. Tucson, Arizona is quite the popular spot for snowbirds. So, not only are the streets - all of which are a lane or two too skinny - packed with the locals, but all the idiot drivers from the Midwest and the East are clogging our roads.

...The lines. Oh, joy. There's nothing like going out to breakfast, seeing a line going out the door, and discovering that the waiting time is half an hour. This is besides the lines in the stores, which are longer than the distance between San Deigo and Los Angeles. Again, this is the fault of the snowbirds - especially the old people. The old people really come out of the woodwork when Father Christmas rears his bearded head. Why don't I just say good bye to them? Yes, I shall.

...The old people. You don't know how to drive, you occupy all our restaurants, and the only thing you're good for is pumping cash into our winter tourist destinations until the Gem Show comes to town and really show us the money. Please, buy your grandchildren gifts in our town, but for God's sake don't go outside to do it.

...The transportation department. Honestly, you are the most retarded people to ever walk the face of the Earth, and you all work for the city of Tucson. The traffic lights are badly synchronized, and you obviously have no idea how to handle the high influx of tourists that arrive annually but nevertheless manage to befuddle you every single time.

...The War on Christmas. Bill O'Reilly spared us this year by barely mentioning it (Maybe Billo realized that he'd look more intelligent if he didn't get so angry over such an inconsequential item), but that didn't stop a number of newspaper articles that debated the ultimate fight - Happy Holidays vs. Marry Christmas. Honestly, I'd rather study a fight like Mr. T vs. Chocolate Chip Cookies.

...Christmas stores. Not that they concerned me - They capture my interest just as much as the Halloween stores do. (Try to guess how much that is!)

...Pie. Come tomorrow, all the pies will be gone from stores and bakeries everywhere. Of course, all the pie will come back on Boxing Day, but as we say goodbye to Christmas shopping season, we say goodbye to pie reservations.

...Christmas muzak. I don't care about Nat King Cole or Bing Crosby or Gallagher or whoever sings those Christmas songs. Frankly, as long as the lyrics don't say, "Accept Jesus or burn in Hell," I'm not very concerned.

...Christmas specials on The History Channel. Who cares?

...Doorbusters and whatnot. Congratulations, retail of America, for waking up many of our country's citizens at four or five in the morning to get 90% off deals, or something like that.

...PS3 shortages. This doesn't have much to do with Christmas, however. Many people now believe that the PS3 has reached market saturation. I think it's a bit too early to tell for sure, and I'm sure we'll see PS3 enthusiasts who were trying to avoid the long holiday lines coming out and buying those big black beauties.

...Mall Santas. This is the only time of the year when we've needed them.

...Christmas shopping season. You know, I thought it traditionally started the day after Thanksgiving, but this year I saw Christmas ads popping up as early as Halloween. Does it really take you two months to shop for gifts for your friends and family?

Some Linux users are just too good for me, I suppose

Thanks to Digg, I happened to stumble across this analysis of why Linux is not Windows, at the blog OneAndOneIs2, by Dominic Humphries. By all means, "Linux != Windows", the blog entry I am trying to dispel, is quite long. I didn't attempt this task on a whim, but I believe that "Linux != Windows" was very wrong for several different reasons, and as such I decided that I would use my blog to do what I like to do most when it comes to blogging, speak my mind. This blog entry is divided into sections, according to each "problem" that divides each component of the opinion I am refuting. This essay relies heavily on the original article, so I suggest you read that first. At any rate, I shall proceed.

Point 1. How is it impossible to expect Linux to be better than Windows and have the same features? Isn't that called an upgrade? Doesn't that imply that improvements have been made upon central concepts? Claiming that Linux cannot be like Windows and better than it is like claiming that Windows Vista could not possibly exist, because it's Windows XP, but better. Mr. Humphries is missing the point of Windows users who try Linux. Those users want an upgraded Windows; they're not looking for something exactly the same. If those users wanted an operating system that's exactly the same and Windows, why not choose Windows in the first place?

Firefox succeeded not because it was different, but because Firefox built off of IE and had better, upgraded features. Just look at FF2 and IE7: For the most part, the GUI is the same! You navigate to different websites by typing the URL into the navigation bar and press Enter or click Go; you navigate through your window/tab history by using the Backward and Forward tabs; you save websites by putting their paths in bookmarks. Is the Find function an ability that Firefox devs invented? Of course not! Its presence in the bottom of the browser is (you may disagree) and improvement, an upgrade! It's not superior because it's different; it's superior because it has better functionality! Better != different! Sites like OldVersion.com exist because changes to software made the new versions worse! Firefox's features, when IE6 was competing with Firefox, were better than those in IE because they were easier to use and faster to use! If Firefox changed the default language to Swahili, would that make it better than IE? But Mr. Humphries' reason, yes, because it's different. Again, if users were looking for a copy of IE, they would just use IE! I myself switched to Firefox, because I heard that Firefox had better features, not because it was different. Firefox was similar enough in use to IE that I had no trouble adapting to it.

Point 2. This section is quite misleading. It asks whether or not there's really any big difference in the differences in Linux distributions and then compares Linux to a car: If you can drive one car, you can drive them all!

But you see, the difference in choices is more complicated than that. When you want airbags in your car, you don't choose between "Baag," "Baglite," "Big Bag," or "Sfebag" type airbags, all of which do the same thing but conform to standards that ordinary (most) people won't understand. When you have lots of choices in interfaces, file managers, desktops, and even window managers, people who just want to use a computer will be confused when presented with a choice. If you have to explain all of the intricacies of an operating system to someone who just wants to get work done, chances are that person will give up and move to what he or she is used to - Windows XP, which comes in the consumer-friendly name differentiations of "Home" and "Professional." When your operating system has dozens, if not hundreds, of minute differentiations without any clear advantage in any, that is one example of too many choices. When you have so many choices for both underlying and trivial options, you have to do one of two things, or a combination: Differentiate, or consolidate. Give the user reasons to choose, not options; most people just want to get their work done! Give the people the means to the ends, not the means to the endless! The problem is that there are too many choices there they don't need to be.

Ah, and here we come to desktop Linux. Let me admit that I am an experienced Windows user, and I believe that Linux is not ready for the desktop. But remember, correlation does not equal causation. I have considered switching to Linux, as I've mentioned in my last blog entry. (I'm not going to rehash it, for the most part.) Mr. Humphries is ignoring the big reason that Linux is not ready for Dell and blaming the whole thing on Windows junkies. Honestly, if it was only our fault, why is Linux so slow in moving onto the computers of the masses? We're not getting in your way!

Or is it because of the work ethic involved: You might have to adjust Linux to get it working, and if you need help you have to go to some forum. That's just the problem: The masses want to use their computers, not work with them. I worked with MS-DOS and had no trouble using at after I learned the commands. I'm not rigid to one set of controls, and I have no doubt that a beginning computer user who works with Linux will have little trouble learning what buttons to press. But what if something isn't working? What if you can't find something? The average person doesn't even care about what the problem is! People just want to fix it and go - wham bam, thank you, ma'am. That leads me to...

Point 3a. I'm not panning forums. Forums are great. I've used a great many forums!

You're not going to endear many Linux switchers by telling them that they have to get used to tech support from a loose organization of volunteers. When I search 'Windows help' in Google, I get Microsoft's support site; when I search 'Linux help,' I not only get Linux Questions, but LinuxSelfHelp, Linux Online, linuxhelp.blogspot.com, linuxhelp.co.za, and JustLinux, just to name a few. These websites may be comprised of fine, fine people; I don't know. But what I do know is that with Windows, you know who to ask: The guys that make it. Coincidentally, the guys that made it also have a website for it! Linux is like Windows in that regard, ironically: The guys that made it also have a website for it - and thousands of people made it! The problem is that there is too much choice where there shouldn't be.

And is it just me, or is Mr. Humphries criticizing Windows users because most users only use software after it's stable? Sorry to rain on your parade, but that simply is not going to fly for most people, except for the most hardened Linux veterans or the peopel actually working on the program. Let me give you an example: Songbird. Songbird is at release version 0.2.1. It's barely usable. (I've tried it myself.) But when the media library fails to comprehend my Weird Al library because the metadata has quotation marks (among other random quirks), it's NOT ready for use. Should I apologize for expecting my programs to work when I run them? I run my programs to get something done, and I'm not about to compromise my productivity for "new" software. I have standards: I shouldn't need to fool around with software to get it to work. Only in the world of Linux is that expected!

Furthermore, Mr. Humphries criticizes Linux switchers for expecting their software to be polished to a grade as high as Windows. Remember that they "don't owe you anything?" For God's sake, Linux is competing against Windows! Like it or not, Linux is trying to compete in the same market in which Windows operates. They're trying to convert people to this OS, and they're complaining that people expect it to be good? That's their own damn fault! They shouldn't cry that it's impossible them you to deal with, because those Linux heads got themselves into it! They're trying to compete against an OS with 95% of the market share, and they expect to wow people by not providing comprehensive, easy service and telling users to find the answers for themselves? Some call me a waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahmbulance! I'm crying my eyes out that those poor Linux devs are overworked and paid nothing. Hey, they chose to do what they do; programming is not a task that can be performed by the unskilled, and managing programmers isn't, either. If you have a product to sell, the free market doesn't care about how much work you put into it: Only the quality of its mettle. Root, hog, or die.

Point 3b. It is in fact more elitist to say, "Everybody knows this," than, "Everybody ought to know this." According to Mr. Humphries, everyone who has never used Linux before is a novice. Let me build on that an offer a parable:

Imagine, if you will, a Beginning French class. None of the students before have ever taken French in their lives; they don't even know the alphabet or the diacritic marks. So one of the students raises his hand and asks about the alphabet. The teacher shrugs it off, replies that the alphabet is something everyone knows, and goes on.

In that example, it sure sounds like the teacher telling the student that he ought to know that would be the same thing as saying everybody knows that.

The difference is that telling someone that they ought to know something places emphasis on what is not learned and that it is in fact crucial. That phrases places emphasis on the fact, not the person. Would it be elitist for a French teacher to tell the students what they ought to know in order to prepare for the test?

By contrast, telling someone, "Everybody knows that!" puts the emphasis on the person. Saying that assumes that the person who is hearing it is a Have Not in a world of Haves. Claiming that everybody knows something - and you don't - puts you at a lower level. There's no emphasis on even learning what is unknown. If you don't know it, then you're sunk.

And now I get to talk about the Lego metaphor. It's completely wrong. When you download a distribution of Linux (especially a desktop distribution), you get an environment that is set up for you - just like a Windows installation. That's not like getting a Lego set at all! I honestly don't know of a right metaphor, but this one is completely irrational. If you're comparing Linux to Windows, then the only difference is that the Linux toy car comes with the tools to take it apart, build, find, or purchase extensions, and customize it how you like, while the Windows care comes with a paint set. I absolutely hated this section of "Linux != Windows". Linux doesn't come broken up into many different pieces. Would you really compare downloading programs to a Lego car? If so, then Windows would also be a Lego car! Besides, the focus of Linux should be the focus of any other operating system - providing a platform for getting things done. Emphasizing how much you can take apart only skims the purpose of an operating system's usefulness. What is the worth of Linux if its only purpose is to be taken apart and put back together again?

Just because you use open source software doesn't mean you want to open up the code and spill its guts. Though I may use Mozzila Thunderird, Mozilla Firefox, StepMania, and Foobar2000, I really don't care about how they work. Generally, software being open source is just an added bonus, not an important feature.

Point 4. This is just another attempt to brush off the users who simply want to get things done, by claiming that the software was created for a difference target audience.

Now, obviously there is nothing wrong with designing tools for programmers; I find no faults with developing an efficient IDE, for instance.

But when you don't tell the beginning users what is most efficient for them, that's your fault. Face it; people who just want to get work done just want to know how to do it in the quickest way possible. Even if you have just developed the most powerful text editor on Earth, there's no way you should advertise it to a person with the goal of expediency if it takes a few hours to learn. Chances are, Vi is one of those programs. It may certainly be an excellent program, but give the novices something like OpenOffice if they just want to type a list or two! Don't you think you're missing the mark if you're trying to sell a newbie on a program so complex that it requires special effort to close it?

Point 5. Look, is it too hard to write a program that has both keyboard shortcuts and menus? I definitely see the point here: Different users have different needs. Once you know the shortcuts, any other way is painfully long. So, I have to disagree on this point, but I totally respect where the opinion is coming from. My version of "user-friendly" says, "Programmed to be usable by those familiar with simple commands and by others who can understand non-obvious shortcuts."

Point 5a. While Point 5 is respectable, its folow-up is less so. While Ctrl-X and Ctrl-V are non-intuitive, they are very efficient. All you need to cut and paste are only but a couple keystrokes away, and the only finger you need to shift is your index finger.

So what does d5w offer? That's just as non-intuitive as Ctrl-X or Ctrl-V to the uninformed. But when you get to know either keystroke combination, that combination becomes familiar and efficient. To the uninformed, d5w doesn't look like much at all. But if you've worked with it before, of course you'll know what it is!

Point 5b. I liked reading the first half of this section, and it all goes downhill from there.

Dominic Humphries is complaining that coding menus takes time. Well of course it does. But if you can't compete with the market, that's your own problem.

Secondly, how is MS Word inferior to Vi and Emacs, because the latter are used for coding? Here's a reality check: MS Word wasn't designed for programming. It was designed for word processing! If you want programming, use an IDE! For God's sake, MS Word is not inferior to Vi or Emacs because they're aimed at different audiences! Is there a joke that I missed, due to lacking a sense of humor? If not, then I can hardly believe the nonsense that I just read.

And again comes up the issue of appealing to the masses. Believe it or not, it's more efficient for some people to just click on what they want instead of learning commands. If you're not going to develop frontends for the programs you're putting into Linux, you're going to have lots of users who will find Linux to be a complete waste of time.

Point 6. This whole portion of the article is one great straw man argument. I don't know how anyone in their right mind would believe that Linux is copying Windows for developing a GUI. What is Point 6 trying to prove?

Point 7. It's this last category that makes this article worth debunking. This "problem" demonstrates arrogance to the highest degree possible. To the common user, it's the middle finger. it's like saying, "Screw you and your little dog, too," to everyone not fortune enough to be in the know. Here, let me sum up "problem 7":

We don't care about you or your needs, and if you don't know what we know, then you're not worth our time.

What a callous choice of words for a community so intent on convincing people that Linux is better. I suppose all those people on Digg who relate tales of switching and never looking back are fringe radicals, hm?

What is so supremely ironic is that Humphries claims that the goal of Linux is to create the best operating system ever. But if you don't accept feedback, how is it going to be usable?

This point is the gotcha clause. The excuse clause. It makes Linux sound like a colossal waste of time to the whole world except for a few people. But the truth is that Linux is usable, and if you're listening to Mr. Humphries, then asking whether or not you are good enough for Linux is an excuse for not supporting you.

Asking the users to do everything for themselves will not only frustrate good people but convince the smart but unexposed people that they'd be wasting their effort on such callous people. Let me ask you something, Mr. Humphries: Are you saying that you're developing an operating system and then not expecting people to use it? That proposition is so laughable that it's hard for me to even refute it. It's ridiculous. It doesn't make sense at all. I'm finding difficulty finding the sense in it. You're developing a usable operating system, not expecting anyone to use it, and criticizing people who expect it to work but have trouble? Doesn't that violate the philosophies of the desktop Linux distros, who are trying to convert the common people? Doesn't that even contradict the goals of Firefox, since Firefox is built from user input?

Mr. Humphries, I really hope that you're not naive enough to believe what you're saying. I sincerely hope that you do not reflect a majority of the Linux community, because "problem 7" is your problem. I sincerely believe that Linux is about the people, not the machines, and if you're crazy enough to insist that the computers matter more than the people, you're not doing anything for Linux. The last category in your article will do nothing to advance your cause.

Don't switch to Linux just because you can

Let me sum up the situation: Yes, it's Linux. But there's no reason for me to use it. Yes, it's free, and yes, it's secure, but I don't need it.

I'm not against Linux: I think it's a great OS, certainly, but I'm not going to switch to it. Reading Digg every day exposes me to a slew of articles about why now is the right time to switch to Linux and how "So-And-So moved from Windows to Linux and never looked back!" but I really see no incentive to move to Linux.

You how everyone knows that Microsoft is copying Apple, and everyone is pretty vocal about it? Well, if you think about it, Linux is copying Microsoft, but no one seems to be talking about it. Admit it, Linux developers are trying to copy Microsoft, even going so far as to emulate it (a.k.a. WINE). Why should I switch to Linux when there's still a desire in the community to run Windows programs? Isn't Linux supposed to replace Windows? It would be like switching to a Mac and claiming that OSX is superior to XP, but then installing Parallels and XP on the Mac. If Linux is really so great, why does it need offerings compatible with another operating system? I know it looks like I'm saying that a smaller software library for Linux makes it inferior, but it is inferior to me.

I have considered switching. But every time I've considered it, I've found a reason to not do it. The big reason is that Windows is easy to use. Ignore the stigma that Windows always crashes; I seemly suffer it naught. Windows recognizes any worthwhile device I can throw at it (not advisable), and it's simple. The Linux community as a whole believes that you should only bother with Linux if you're willing to make it work. This attitude even prevails among the community of desktop Linux users. Lost is my ability to count the numerations of the aforementioned comments on Digg stories. Few Linux supporters that I have witnessed actively believe that Linux should be so easy to use that you don't have to tinker it; that for me is enough to drive me away. I have installed MS-DOS, Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows 2000, and Windows XP on various computers. (I love how you need to install DOS on your computer before you can install Windows 95 on it!) Windows XP is such a cinch to install and use that there's no reason to switch. I'm happy that my computer works just like that. I don't want to use an operating system that needs tinkering to work. You know what I call that? Beta software.

I know I haven't covered security. One word: Router. Now, I'll not be disingenuous. Symantec Antivirus 9 is installed on my computer, although I've never had any viruses on my computer. Simply put, I've never had a security crisis on my computer. If you're smart enough, it won't happen. I'm not advocating Windows to the general public based on my experience, because generally people don't have common sense. (Why on Earth would you click on a pop-up that says, "Click me!"?) Even if Linux does have better security, I don't need it.

Yes, yes, Linux is not all that shabby. But I'm not about to switch to Linux just because it's Linux/it's not Windows. Look, Linux people. You want to hook me in? Here's what I want: Your operating system has to be so easy to use that it will work right out of the box, no tinkering whatsoever; it has to have support from developers that will port all of their Windows software to Linux; it has to have compatibility with every driver Windows can handle; and it must do everything Windows can do, and more. Until then, I'm happy where I am.

Free games (as in beer)

The free multiplayer game scene is really lacking: Sporadic, disunified, and stagnant. With no accounting incentive in the market, the incentives for developing such programs are too implicit for programming teams to find worthwhile.

Everybody wants stuff for free. Admit it, if someone gave you everything on a platter, no strings attached, I guarantee you'd take advantage of it. People love free stuff. (Some proponents of the free programs movement also believe that code should be free.) There are tons of games that have been developed to meet this demand, ranging from Runescape, to GunZ, to War Rock, and beyond. Some of the people behind these games are in it for the money; others, the achievement; others, the community. Whatever the motivation is for writing these games, there seems to be a fair amount of people willing to satisfy the demand for free stuff.

Of course, simple economics become a significant problem simply at the mention of free stuff. Programming a fully 3D, immersive, interactive world is by far an exceedingly complicated task. Programmers work for high salaries because programming is not for everyone. And there it is: What do the developers of free games get in return? Some only work on games in their spare time; others, who would like to participate, can't. The reality of the situation is that performing a difficult task for little compensation isn't feasible. Not only is it hard to support a project with donations, but resources become more scarce when there are competing projects. There are hundreds of free games! Obviously some people have to be excluded from the donation collecting process.

Therein lies a further problem, one that (not coincidentally) plagues the open source scene, as well (but to a much lesser extent): Disunity. There are so many games that it's a challenge to find talent that can do significant work. Programming in a team is like forming a band: If you don't know what to do, it's not like you're going to be able to do a lot after a few weeks of practicing. Learning how to program takes months, and programming promotes a never-ending process of learning. That is the premium that corporations like Apple and Microsoft pay for. How are you going to convince people on the Internet who you don't know to do it for free?

My game status

Tomorrow, I will go to Best Buy and, once again, for the fifth Sunday in a row, attempt to bring home a Wii. The store opens at eight, I'll be unable to sleep in, grumble grumble, etc. etc. I'll be picking up the console and Twilight Princess. Then, using Buy.com Google Checkout promotion, I might order Metal Slug Anthology for $35. I love Metal Slug, but I'm still contemplating whether or not it's worth $35. Plus, Twilight Princess will keep me busy for a long time - 70 hours perhaps? It'll probably take me longer, since I'm not particularly skilled. Plus, it'll probably take me a little time to get used to the Wiimote.

Right now, I'm concentrating my game-playing efforts to conquering Viewtiful Joe on Adult mode, which is considerably harder than Kids mode. King Blue is really being a bitch to me, and I'll be happy when I finally kick his ass into an episode of Green Acres! I gotta give kudos to Capcom for such an inventive, refreshing game. Even after three years, the game is still good. There's also an anime version , strangely enough.

With winter break quickly approaching, I'll have time to enjoy the fruits of my investment. Rumor has it that Best Buy has been hoarding consoles for tomorrow, which might explain why Best Buy had no Wiis the last two Sundays I went to the store. I really don't want to be one of the people who has to wait until after Christmas to play the Wii. I've seen Wiis in person, but I haven't actually seen anyone in person use a Wii. From all accounts (except those from Gamespot), using a Wii is easy and fun. Ah, Christmas; the one time of the year we can all relax an act like consumer whores!

Re:Comments relating to "Mac blogs talking about the Zune"

Imagine my surprise on Monday night when, after writing my Tuesday item, I discover that my Sunday entry has comments. My first two comments ever on my blog! My e-penis went over NINE THOUSAND. I'm now an Internet celebrity, even though I could count the number of returning visitors on both hands. (I'm not ashamed of using StatCounter.com to track that sort of thing.) To be fair, both comments didn't agree with me, and I wish my first comment would've went something along the lines of, "FATHER MY BABIES!!!!!1ONEONEONE." Granted, I'll take what I can get. Perhaps I can build a readership by pissing off all the Apple fans and becoming the opposite of Daniel Eran. (That would never work out, since there is nothing wrong with Apple.)

Now, of course, I have to deal with the comments. I have to either constructively take heart or disregard them. I knew that decision before I started writing this entry. So, please pardon me while I take two sentences and run with them.

Microsoft didn't set themselves up to compete with the iPod. Microsoft never announced that they intended to compete directly with the iPod. Microsoft has never said that such was their intention. Everyone else has been saying that Microsoft is trying to compete against the iPod. How has Microsoft set themselves up? By entering the market? By simply entering the market, Microsoft was automatically aiming for the neck of the juggernaut? What a load of baloney.

To be fair, though, Microsoft was inadvertently competing with Apple. Let's say a consumer doesn't have an MP3 player, and that consumer wants to buy a fully featured device between $200 and $300 - nothing unusual. So you have Apple, iRiver, Microsoft, Creative, and Sandisk all competing against each other. So, at one point in the process, the consumer has to make a choice between Microsoft and MP3 Player X. So, Microsoft isn't competing directly against the Zune - I'll explain why in the next sentence. Microsoft may be competing with Apple, but they are also competing with at least three other companies, all of whom are viable players. Just because Microsoft is in the market, you can't justify the assertion that Microsoft is trying to kill Apple.

Now, I'll not be disingenuous. Microsoft is definitely trying to get into the consumer markets, and they've been doing so for a decade or so. (Trying is the key word.) The Xbox 360, until the Zune, was the most recent iteration of that. Microsoft is trying to convince you, the consumer, that your living room and ears should be supported by big M. Who stands in their way? Apple, of course. Microsoft would love nothing more than to knock Apple out of the market - Apple, who has an outstanding track record in product quality. Of course, Microsoft is smart enough to know that a goal like that is impossible. However, I am sure that they would like to become the other elephant in the room and become oligopolies. And while Microsoft is a small player in that arena at the moment, nothing would surprise me less than if Microsoft became a major player in the consumer markets in the next 10 to 20 years. That is, if Microsoft doesn't gloriously screw themselves by making stupid firmware.

And then I get to address the second comment. I don't really know what to say to you, Anonymous. I'm trying not to be hypocritical? I'm sorry? Would you come back later and generate more traffic for my blog?

Corporate allegiance

Why is it that consumers who specialize in a certain product tend to treat that product's producer as a patron saint? I'm looking at you, all you Microsoft devotees, you Apple fanboys, you Linux saints. Why is it we are all engaged in OS holy wars? How is it that the competition between Windows, OSX, and Linux became personal? The battle has practically become a war. Inevitably, people on the Internet cannot meet without eventually dividing themselves from each other simply for their choice in operating system. Good Lord, people are disliking each other for no real reason!

It would be impossible to say that any one 'group' started it. Rather, the fight has existed for a decade or two. UNIX and OS/2 used to be a part of the holy wars! So it's impossible to lay the blame solely on specific supporters, since the shift in OS popularity involved separate groups of people. Instead, I'll categorically blame everyone: Everyone for being simple-minded, everyone for being confrontational, everyone for acting like stuffy, arrogant aristocrats.

Right now the major conflict lies between Windows and Mac users, with a touch of Windows vs. Ubuntu on the side. But when you look at the sides that are fighting, you have to ask, what's the big deal? I mean, if you look at Windows XP/Vista and OSX, it's critically apparent that the two are fundamentally the same. It's not like one operating system has a magic program that does everything better; it's not like one is solidly superior. Techies use the tools they choose because those are the tools with which they are most efficient. Just because you like your Mac doesn't make you superior; just because you like your Dell doesn't make you more cost-effective; just because you like Ubuntu doesn't mean that everyone else should.

What aggravates me so much about this issue is how pervasive it is; even I have been drawn into it. The problem of course is that every conversation about operating systems eventually turns into deciding which is better. The answer is that none is clearly supreme. You can cry and kick and moan, but operating systems all have advantages and disadvantages. Ignore, for a minute, the advertising and the branding and the image and the perspective, and in the end there really isn't that much difference. Operating systems simply have different methods of accomplishing the same objective.

Let me give you a little bit of American history. In the debates between the presidential candidates for the election of 1860, between Stephen A. Douglas and Abraham Lincoln, both candidates slapped one another with labels and epiphanies: Douglas called Lincoln a Negrophile, and Lincoln called Douglas a slavery lover. However, if you were look at both candidates' true facets, we see a strikingly similar picture: The two are practically identical. Both candidates perceived slavery as a problem with no easy solution; both candidates were comfortable with slavery; both candidates grew up in Illinois. American history does not fail to recognize their similarity, but in 1859, the two candidates seemed radically different.

Windows XP and OSX and Ubuntu and even OpenBSD all have several traits in common: They are all able to get things done; they all have tools for maximizing performance; they all have tools for managing data. Why is there so much fuss? Type on your keyboard and hit the Enter key already. There shouldn't even be an argument here. It's not like one side is right and the other wrong - not by a long shot.

But here's the big picture: Your choice of computer does not matter. History will not recognize your brand of laptop; nobody will scrutinize your distribution of Linux of choice. Computers are like cars - tools for getting things done. I wholly believe that arguing about which kind of computer you use is not only detrimental to your potential contributions to society but also detrimental to your mental health, creating a virtual arena where choices become boxing matches and every option becomes a dual. The real world isn't about fighting; get up from your computer chair and experience the world for what it is - an opportunity to build a better Earth. There is absolutely nothing to gain in getting lost in the details - not even the size of your e-penis is consequential.

Mac blogs talking about the Zune

Why is it that Mac blogs are talking about the Zune? I mean, why would a blog about Apple products feature an entry about the latest advertisement for the Zune? now, to be fair, Macenstein has features covering a variety of other tech products. But Macenstein is not alone. Through Digg, I've seen at least five Mac blogs talking about the Zune. Why? The Zune is hardly related to Apple products at all.

I believe that it's anti-Microsoft sentiment. Now, you can tell me, "Duh!" and call me a simpleton for introducing the concept in the second paragraph of this blog entry, but in the famous words of Rob Corddry, "Commmmme ooooooooooon!" Here we have tons of blogs by Apple fans talking about a product that is at this point no more an iPod killer than it is sewing machine. It's just not going to happen. So why talk about it? I mean, doesn't the Zune belong in the museum of failed Microsoft products?

The issue I have is not that people are talking about it, but it's that Apple fans are treating the Zune like a major competitor, when clearly the Zune is about to go cold on the mat. Apple blogs are just beating up on the Zune simply because it was produced by Microsoft. Microsoft's been humble in saying that they're not trying to compete with the iPod, but the Zune's poor sales compared to the other major MP3 players seem to prompt more attention than the sales of Creative's line of MP3 players or the iRver family. We hardly hear anything about the Creatives or iRivers on Mac blogs, but the Zune gets a good amount of attention for being a market failure!

All the attention Mac blogs are giving the Zune does nothing to discourage the stereotype that consumers of Apple products just like to stick it to the Man and like to just go against the crowd. Don't act like it doesn't exist; Apple's commericals even promote this hipster image. All the attention the Apple blogs are giving the Zune seals the deal. There is a message that lies underneath the message put out by Apple blogs, and the question in that is how subtle that message appears. The high level of Zune coverage by Mac sites is nothing short of Apple's fans sticking up their noses at Microsoft.

How did we get lost in Iraq?

As it turns out, the United States government has systematically underreported violence in Iraq - in a hope to discredit the notion that Iraqis are engaged in a civil war. There is no way that the administration could honestly miss 90% of the attacks that occurred in a single day without either being extremely incompetent or extremely dishonest. Neither situation is desirable.

As it turns out, the Iraq Study Group thinks that there is no simple solution for solving Iraq's problems. So much for staying in the course. Of course, there have always been public figures and individuals that have expressed beliefs that Iraq would be unwinnable. By all the accounts, that is what everyone can agree upon - even Donald Rumsfeld. Even Bush seems to understand what the Study Group's report says.

What disturbs me the most is 2003. While it is absolutely vital that we understand the current situation in Iraq, we most also understand how we got here. How is it that the United States stuck itself into a country and planted roots into a volatile nation now locked in a hopeless imbroglio? We can look back to 2003 for the answer: Arrogance. 2003 was the year of cowboy diplomacy. It was, "Our way or the highway," because we were the United States, and we were determined to root out terrorists and teach them what happens when you threaten America. Some of us even believed the president when he told us that Iraq had WMDs. In fact, most of us believed him. President Bush spoke powerful words after September 11, and we were behind him all the way. Seventy percent of the country supported Bush in 2003.

The only problem was that the Bush administration was wrong the entire time. In fact, the administration was very likely lying to us. In 2001, both Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell made appearances on TV claiming that Iraq didn't have the capabilities to produce weapons of mass destruction. Hans Blix and his weapons inspectors found no WMDs in Iraq.

The Bush administration had ulterior motives when they attacked Iraq. Was the aim to depose the man who had tried to attempted to kill H.W. Bush? Or was the mission one for the imperialist quest of establishing a mini-America, a puppet government? A review of the facts reveals to appropriate reason for launching an offensive against a government dangerous to Iraqi citizens. Iraqi citizens now live worse than under Saddam Hussein's regime. And "freeing" Iraqi's from Hussein's oppression was never a goal - just a supposed by-product of our goal. I'm worried that no one will ever know the true reason for invading Iraq, because the possibility is floating around. The only ones who mught really know why we did it are Bush, Cheney, and Rove, but none of them are talking; even if they did talk, who would believe them?

The myth of monopolies

I have oft heard a myth about companies that manufacture consumer products. The myth is that companies with expansive market shares have monopolies in those markets. I will take an objective (as much as I can) look at two controversial companies, Apple and Microsoft, and determine their potential status as monopolies.

First, we must understand the criteria for monopolies. To be a near-monopoly or a monopoly, a firm needs to have close to or all of, respectively, the sales in a specific market. That means, to be a near monopoly, one of three specific things must happen:

1. A firm controls a resource critical to a market.


2. A government signs a contract with a firm that makes the firm the only competitor.


3. A firm can make a product cheaper than anyone else can.

Any of those three things can turn a corporation into a monopoly. For instance: A company patents a specific technology and then sells it; the government contracts a single company to produce trains for a public railway; a firm can launch cheap long-distance telephony service by launching satellites cheaper than anyone else.

Once you are a monopoly, you have the market. There is no one else. You have all the sales. No one can compete with you, since there are no close substitutes. Coke and Pepsi are close substitutes, for instance, so they can't be monopolies. And the best part is that you can keep other companies out of your market by use of technology, legality, or force. That sounds great, doesn't it?

What really makes a company a monopoly is the presence of barriers to entry. If your company can keep other people out of the market, you have exclusivity. You are a monopoly. Now, there are many potential barriers to entry. If you are a large company, you are an incumbent. That means you have a big legal team, loyal customers, patents, research and development, and lots of advertising. Those are all factors that can keep another company out of your market. A new company is building a new operating system? Threaten the little guy with patents and advertise how great you are, and you have successfully kept another firm out of the market, etc.

So is Apple a monopoly in regards to the iPod? Well, the iPod has 75% of the market share. That's hardly limiting anyone else from entering the MP3 market - hey look! There are lots and lots of MP3 players! There are other big competitors in the market, like Creative, Sandisk, and Microsoft. Apple hardly controls the means of productions, since any of the other companies listed above produce MP3 players that can replace the iPod. Apple certainly doesn't have any legal power that prevents anyone else from creating a similar MP3 palyer - hell, apparently Apple can't stop companies from producing identical fake iPods!

Next up is Microsoft. You would probably say that Microsoft is a monopoly. First, are they the only operating system producer in the market? Nope. Say hello to Linux, Macintoshes, BSD, YouOS, and a Windows clone, ReactOS. Microsoft is certainly not alone. And certainly some of those are close substitutes for Microsoft Windows. Apple OS X is an obvious choice, as would be the Ubuntu distribution of Linux. Does Microsoft possess any resources crucial to the market? Maybe. Microsoft, like any large technology corporation has patents on code - in Windows. Microsoft likes to talk about those patents when bringing up the possibility of litigation to keep Linux from competing with Microsoft. That is a barrier to entry if I ever saw one. Threatening a group of volunteers with litigation is taking advantage of your status in the market. While it is possible to build an operating system without violating Microsoft's patents, Microsoft can scare businesses into shying away from Linux by making Linux look illegal.

Microsoft also has deals with hardware manufacturers, like Dell and HP. Windows is bundled with that hardware. That in turn makes life difficult for the other competing operating system developers, since the hardware companies won't bundle anything but Windows. That in turn leads to customer loyalty: Consumers know that Windows comes with every OS they buy, so they feel safe. The hardware companies in turn don't want their customers to feel alienated by bundling different OSes.

I covered iPods and Windows because those are the most frequently discussed brands when it comes to monopoly debates. While there are certainly more monopolies and mistaken monopolies in the wild, such examples are not particularly relevant at this point in time. I know that there are people who will disagree with me and those who will hold me up, but the fact of the matter is that the evidence truly decides. I have not covered all the evidence, to be sure: There are other mentionable examples of Microsoft's status as a monopoly that I deemed insignificant overall. All I can do is hope that I've convinced at least one person of the true status of the iPod and Windows in the market.

R&D v. Advertising

The technology sector is a very interesting area of the economy. It's not like other kinds of products - used by many, understood by few. And unlike most products, technology is dependent not only on public awareness but also on development. Computers are improving at a rate faster than any other product in history. If cars were computers, in the space of less than three minutes you could successfully complete an order for a Mercedes Benz that costs $3.99 and gets 1,000,000 miles per cubic centimeter of compressed air. (Sort of.)

The thing is, consumers hardly care about advanced technology. For most consumers, the most important criteria are, "Does it run fast?" and, "Does it work?" That is the image that technology companies - especially consumer technology firms - try to project. Every company wants to say about their computers, "These computers are so easy, a caveman could use them," and, "There is so much that you can do with our products." Thus, technology companies are faced with two challenges: To appeal to the public, and to build products that are one step ahead of anything a competitor can offer.

If a company builds a computer that is the best in the world - but never tells anyone about it - what good is it? If somebody builds a piece of crap - and then tells every person possible how beautiful it is - what good is it? That is the reason why firms specializing in computer-related products face such a challenge. Unlike the cola market, consumers can evaluate for themselves the quality of the product and make a conscious choice, and their preferences can change.

But once you buy a computer, you're stuck with it; not to mention that most people wouldn't be able to make a choice if they had to choose. I'm not just being arrogant. How did e-mail virii spread so quickly? People opened their e-mail attachments, unaware that it could do something. People just don't know. Many people think of computers as many people think of cars: You can use a car, but you don't know how it works. When it breaks, you take it to someone who can fix it; the same goes for computers.

Thus, firms have to not only stay ahead of the game and be able to tell people that. If a technology firm fails at the first objective, the firm loses market share in industries that purchase and depend on computers, because other firms will know which product is superior. If a technology firm fails at the second objective, the firm loses market share in consumer industries, which are just as important. In both the corporate and consumer markets, if the market finds that there is a better choice, the market will choose the better product. If neither the corporate nor consumer markets know about the product, then there is no point in producing it. Both objectives are important, and firms are continually evaluating which strategy to take: Whether to spend more resources developing a product, or more resources advertising a product.

The end of National Novel Writing Month

At precisely 12:00 A.M. on December 1, National Novel Writing Month (a.k.a. November) came to a close. I talked to one of my friends tat had participated in the event, and she was very excited to say that she had made it to 50,000 words. I asked her immediately thereafter whether or not her story made any sense. It didn't, but that's not the point of NaNoWimo, she told me.

Call me a stick-in-the-mud, but what's the point of writing a novel if essentially the entire thing is meaningless. You might as well have written the sequal to Trainspotting, and nobody would notice. Perhaps I value my time more than some other people. If you're going to write a story, you should have at least one of four goals: One, to craft a story that is meaningful or pricessless - one that can be remembered long after you're gone; two, to write a book that can be published for monetary gain; to author a tale from which you may derive enjoyment; or four, to write a parable relating to the current state of society and what the current state of affairs means.

NaNoWriMo would most likely fall under category number three for most participants, but I'm exactly sure where the reason of "Because I can" falls. You see, there are a lot of things we can do but shouldn't. It can take a person anywhere from one hour to three to write 1,500 words. (A steady pace of 1,667 words per day for thirty days can win NanoWriMo.) That's a potential investment of 30 hours to 90 hours in one month. You should really have no better opportunities to write a 50,000 word novel. I dropped out after the tenth day, because I realized that the activity just wasn't worth my time.

I'm not typing this simply because I'm jealous of the people that won National Novel Writing Month. I mean that our time on Earth is short. Spending a great deal of it on an activity that undertaken simply because it can be done is useless. There is no point in acting on impulse when rational thought can compensate tenfold. I learned that the hard way. After sinking 15 hours into NaNoWriMo, I decided that the novel wasn't worth my time, and I pursued other activities, enterprises that I appreciated more than the novel I stopped writing.

How to screw up a perfectly good product: Just ask Microsoft

Microsoft has a real dud on their hands. The ill-conceived Zune is not performing in the market as Microsoft has hoped. While it may certainly be listed in Amazon's bestseller list for electronics (though not as high on the list as a position that would indicate categorical success), the media's attention to the Zune has been passing. It appeared on the Today show, only to be compared to the iPod; the iPod continues to dominate the market.

In the months before the Zune was to be released, the reports about it that I read made the Zune look like a great product. Of course, only Microsoft could screw up a product like this:

• 30 GB hard drive


• Customizable background


• Smart playlisting


• Song and photo sharing


• Spontaneous video encoding for viewing video in any popular format


• Slick interface


• Based off a previously successful MP3 player (Toshiba Gigabeat)


• A big screen

Of course, Microsoft proceeded to do stuff wrong:

• Limiting song sharing to 3 plays/days


• Not integrating the Zune marketplace with Windows Media Player


• Disallowing the use of the Zune as portable storage


• Strange, limited marketing (I never saw a single advertisement for a Zune)


• Forcing consumers to buy points before they could buy Zune songs: 1 point is not equal to a penny


• Paying money to Universal for every Zune sold


• Abandoning PlaysForSure DRM and not allowing songs bought from MSN Music to be downloaded for free from the Zune Marketplace

Microsoft got the technical specs right, but the execs proved that they do not know anything about consumers or actually selling products. Making services hard to use and arbitrarily destroying possible community interaction in favor of business is no way to sell a gadget. Microsoft needs to get rid of any old thinking (read: moronic executives) and embrace the new marketplace, or else the Xbox brand may very well by Microsoft's only successful consumer product. Lesson to learn: When creating consumer products, think about satisfying your users, not your partners.