Don't Do Evil

"Don't Do Evil." Google's corporate slogan, at first blush, appears lofty, or maybe naive. Some argue it is a smoke-screen for the true purpose behind the creation of Google which was to rule the world as a result of its control of information. Personally, I am somewhere in the middle. I, don't believe Google exists for purely altruistic reasons. Yet, I find it hard to believe Larry Page and Sergey Brin set out to rule the world. While I am impressed with the products Google has implemented, there is a voice inside me sending out warning signals. I many ways it is hard to articulate the content of those warning signals. When I try, I tend to ramble. So, I anticipate this being the first of several posts about Google and the issues raised by what they do. If nothing else, I hope what follow gives you something to think about.

WARNING! WARNING!
An early Google tag line exclaims "We deliver the world's information in one click." In order to do this, Google has to gather the world's information, and store it on servers located all over the world, so when we do click on a mouse, the information has only a short distance to travel to our computer monitor. Simply put, Google began as a search company. They are run by engineers who developed an algorithm enabling us to search for information we want and have it delivered to us in a matter of seconds. It appears to me Google does this by collecting every piece of data they can from the people using their products. When we perform a search, Google stores our query. When we click on an ad we see on a search results page, Google stores that information too. Google's business plan must be based in a large part on selling advertising. The data Google collects from our searches, including the amount of time we spend viewing an ad, reading something we click on, what we search for, where we go to next, what we appear to like and dislike, is invaluable to them, and more importantly, to the company paying for the advertisement. Though Google claims not to turn information over to the advertiser, they use the information themselves to help the advertiser target customers. By using Google for our search needs we are trusting them not to share our personal information with anyone. We are telling them, "Don't Do Evil."

Privacy Issues
I believe we must be aware of the possibilty that our personal information may be shared with others. Our privacy rights may be violated. But, have we "assumed the risk" by using Google search of our own free will. It's a dilemma.

I read, and enjoy movies. I enjoy a good conspiracy theory. The possibilities are interesting to me. For example, for many years I've felt, in a tiny space in the back of my brain, that Google was collaborating with the United States government, or one of its information gathering agencies. My theory is Google enticed millions of people to use its free gMail product so it could gather personal information and share that information with the United States government. How else did they make money on a free service? By selling advertising? I suppose it's possible, but not as sexy as my conspiracy theory. Have you ever noticed the advertisements that appear on your screen after you perform a search. More times than not, the advertisement relates to something in your search. Have you noticed the ads on my blog (generated by Google's AdSense) change as my posts change, and they generally relate in some way to the post itself. coincidence? Seems to me Google is on very thin ice. They need to gather information about us to be the best at what they do. We need to have a tremendous amount of trust that Google isn't sharing our information. Google risks their entire business by sharing our information and losing our trust. If Google doesn't share our information how will they entise advertisers to pay for ads that generte revenue so Google can operate? See, it all fits nicely in my imagined conspiracy theory.

Maybe Google should be required to share information, or at least some information with government agencies. If Google is in the business of gathering information and they come across information that has national security implications, should they be permitted or required to share that information with the appropriate government agency? If the government, arrests a suspected terrorist, should it be permitted to see the messages that person sent via gMail? If so, may they then see the messages received and sent by the recipients of the mail sent by the suspected terrorist? If so, where does it stop? Is someone from a government agency sitting in a room 24/7/365 scanning every message sent by the millions of gMail users. If so, my conspiracy theory gets more interesting doesn't it. Did you hear about the high school teacher who, as a class lesson, sent a phony message through gMail that hinted at possible terrorist activity? The very next day, the FBI showed up at his house. It could have happened.

Think for a minute about the privacy implications of the following stream of thought. Google has an incredible amount of power because they developed a device to gather and store information from all aspects of your life. The data it gathers from you grows much like a multi-level marketing campaign with Google at the very bottom of the pile. The more people that use it, the more data is collected. The more data collected, the more advertisers want to advertise because Google can maximize their advertising dollars through their ability to provide data that helps the advertisers target Google users. Every time we search we provide Google with data because we choose a result. And, every time we choose a result we give Google data that they learn something from. For just a minute, assume this theory is correct. What comes to mind when you think about these words: privacy, greed, competition? What happens when I toss in the fact that I've only mentioned two of Google's products; search and gMail? What happens when you add in the data gathered through You Tube, Google Docs, Google Calendar, gChat, AdSense, Adwords, Google Analytics, and the rest of the Google product line? What happens to my theory when we learn Google purchased Doubleclick? Doubleclick provides the digital platform for websites to sell online ads and advertisers and agencies to buy advertising. What happens when we learn Doubleclick uses its database to help advertisers target prospects. Does it appear to you Google's purchase of Doubleclick may have given it the opportunity to become the foundation of all advertising on the Internet. Is that too large a stretch of the imagination?

"Conspiracy Theory" or "Reality"
Is my imagination creating a conspiracy theory worthy of a screenplay for a "B Movie" or is it reality? In the February 4, 2010 issue of "The Denver Post" newspaper I read an article about Google and the National Security Association (NSA), one of the United States government's largest information gathering agencies. The essence of the article was Google and the NSA were in conversations to see if the NSA could assist Google in determining how or who was responsible for hacking into the gMail system in China. It appears gMail accounts in China were hacked into, disabled, and plundered of their content. It also appears that the targeted accounts werre those of Chinese dissidents, people who oppose the Chinese government, and people who are proponents of the free flow of information in China. What happens to my "Conspiracy Theory" if Google consumates a deal with the NSA and opens up its databases to this information gathering organization? What if Google has been providing the NSA with this information all along, and this is just an excuse to get the relationship out into the open because people much smarter than me are thinking about my "Conspiracy theory?" Stay tuned.

Read more!

While There is Tragedy in Haiti, Don't Forget Your Neighbors

Up to 200,000 people may have died after a 7.0 earthquake in Haiti on January 12, 2010. Over 2 million people are still in need of food and medical attention. The disaster in Haiti is hard to fathom. My heart goes out to those injured, dead, and now those millions who are still in need of food and medical attention. I can't even imagine what it is going to take to rebuild Haiti after this terrible event.

USAID reports as of January 22, it has contributed $90 million to the U.N. appeal, including $22 million in non-food assistance and $68 million in food assistance. Additional contributions of nearly $90 million in assistance for search-and-rescue, health, and other support had also been committed as of January 22, bringing total USAID assistance to Haiti for the earthquake $180 million. Over the past several weeks I have seen television commercials imploring people to donate money, food, and clothing to Haiti. I have seen movie stars, professional athletes, musicians, rap stars and others announcing that they personally have donated money to Haiti and asking us to do the same. The outpouring of support for the people suffering from this tragedy is unbelievable. Especially in light of the number of Americans out of work or devastated by the economic downturn here in the United States. Americans have a lot to be proud of for the efforts being made to help the Haitian people, and it appears we have only just begun.

I was in San Francisco the day after the earthquake struck Haiti to celebrate my daughter's birthday. I had a wonderful three days celebrating with Lauren and her friends. We played and ate and generally just had a very fun time going places and doing things. During the day, it seemed everywhere we went someone was asking us for money to eat, drink, or get somewhere. At night, everywhere we went we saw people sleeping in doorways of stores and office buildings. There is poverty and homelessness in San Francisco, and, I would venture to guess, every big city in the United States, and probably small cities too.

About 3.5 million US residents (about 1% of the population), including 1.35 million children, have been homeless for a significant period of time. Over 37,000 homeless individuals (including 16,000 children) stay in shelters in New York every night. This information was gathered by the Urban Institute, but actual numbers might be higher.

A study conducted in 2001 by the U.S. Conference of Mayors in 27 major cities showed that homeless shelters turned down 37% of individuals due to overcrowding. This number has increased 11% compared to the previous year, while the number of places available in homeless shelters changed insignificantly. Statistics for homeless families are even graver -- 52% were turned down by homeless shelters, an increase of 22% since 2001. Experts believe that the number of homeless people is significantly higher than the number of places available in shelters. Furthermore, outside of major cities there are very few shelters, despite the high number of the homeless.



Some important information gleaned from Sermon’s video above:

• On a given night, an estimated 672,000 people experience homelessness. This means 22 out of every 10,000 people are homeless in America.

• 42% of those 672,000 are unsheltered (meaning they live on the streets or in other forms of shelter not meant for human habitation), while 58% are living in shelters or transitional housing.

• 37% of the homeless are people in family units, while 63% are individual adults.

• The most common makeup of a homeless family is a mother with one or two children. This certainly goes against the image of homelessness most perceive; we’ve noticed that people typically picture the homeless as a single male standing on the street corner, not a single mom with kids in tow.

• Those meeting the federal definition for chronic homelessness make up just 18% of the entire homeless population.

• Sermon explains that the chronically homeless, as defined by the federal government, include individuals with physical or mental disabilities who have experienced homelessness multiple times or have remained homeless for a significant amount of time.

• 8 out of 10 homeless persons are in urban or mostly urban areas.

• Overall, homelessness decreased 10% from 2005 to 2007. This does not show the influence of the current economic slump.

• In July 2009, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) released a mix of 2007 and 2008 homeless count numbers, the first official attempt to reveal the affects the recession has had on the homeless. These preliminary numbers show that the number of homeless had not changed between 2007 and 2008. However, Sermons points out that this stalemate (after a period of significant decreases in homelessness) demonstrates a significant step backward in efforts to end homelessness.

The recession will force 1.5 million more people into homelessness over the next two years, according to estimates by The National Alliance to End Homelessness. In a 2008 report, the U.S. Conference of Mayors cited a major increase in the number of homeless in 19 out of the 25 cities surveyed. On average, cities reported a 12 percent increase of homelessness since 2007.

Although homelessness is a difficult number to measure definitively, it appears that more people—especially families—are sleeping in shelters, living in their cars, and taking up residence in tent communities. See also: "Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University: The State of the Nation's Housing 2009."

I could go on and on, but by now I sense you get the point. Things are not great right here in the United States of America. We may not be suffering from a tragic 7.0 earthquake, but there are homeless hungry people right here in America. There are people right here in America who need food, clothing, and medical attention. I can't help but wonder what that $180 million dollars could be doing right here in America.

Many different religions provide guidelines for giving charity. We've all heard "Charity begins at home." Religious teachings agree. After things are secured at home, we are told to look for those in need in our community, in our city, in our state, in our country, and then, and only then, to those throughout the rest of the world. I hope those who have given to those in need of assistance in Haiti have helped those in need right here in America. If not, it's not too late. There's a woman out on the street not two miles from my house holding a sign that says "Dreaming of Chicken."

Read more!

A Simple Solution for Congress to Consider

Tucker Hart Adams was the chief economist for US Bank. She was also once the chief economist for United Banks of Colorado. She is president of a prestigious economic consulting firm and she serves on several boards and is active with numerous professional and community organizations. I had an opportunity to hear Ms. Adams speak at a lunch I attended a few weeks ago. She is engaging, intelligent, and takes a no-nonsense approach to addressing the issues we are all facing.

Ms. Adams is retired so she indicated her remarks were just some thoughts she had. It was her "Non-Economic" forecast for 2010. When she was done, she answered questions. One of the first question asked for her views on the health care proposals currently before the Congress. I'm very interested in this topic, more so after tonight's State of the Union Address. A lot of what Ms. Adams said, rings true with me. A lot of what I've read and heard about this issue makes no sense. I believe the President said tonight that he will not raise taxes this year. I believe he said no one, rich or poor, will have their taxes raised. I also understand the current proposal before Congress provides for tax increases to start in 2010, although the actual plan won't start until 2013 or 2014. So we will be paying for services that we won't be getting for four years.

Since this debate began I've wondered if we are talking about reforming health care, or reforming the health insurance industry. I'm still not sure. I am sure that Congress is taking a very complex problem and trying hard to come up with a complex solution. Maybe something simple is in order. Maybe the final bill should focus on the problem and not address all the special interests of the Congressmen and Women voting on the proposals.

Citing a National Health Interview Survey, "USA Today" reported on December 17, 2009 there are more than 45.4 million Americans of all ages - or 15.1% of the population - with no health insurance. 58.4 million (19.4%) people of all ages had been uninsured for at least part of the year prior to the interview, and 31.9 million (10.6%) had been uninsured for more than a year at the time of the interview, according to a report from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Health Statistics. Ms. Adams stated that of the 45 million uninsured people, 15 million of them were uninsured because they had pre-existing conditions, and 30 million people were uninsured because they can't afford the insurance. Many of the 30 million uninsured people are in there 20's and 30's and can't afford the insurance because they live in expensive homes, drive expensive cars, and have big screen televisions in every room. They don't believe they will every get sick. Their children won't get sick or injure themselves. They prefer to have nice things instead of purchasing medical insurance. And when they do get sick or their child does break a bone, it is you and I who pay for the medical attention they receive.

The proposals before Congress to resolve this problem are thousands of pages long. Maybe there is a simple solution. First, let's agree we are trying to reform the health insurance industry, not health care. The health insurance lobby is just going to have to back off and face facts. Next, let's require every American to purchase health insurance, regardless of age or economic circumstances. We are already required to purchase car insurance and pay into Social Security and Medicare. Why not require everyone to purchase health insurance. Even if that means owning one less big screen television set or driving something other than a Mercedes.

This will eliminate those people who simply choose to be uninsured. There will still be some who simply can't pay the premium, and we'll have to provide subsidies just like we do for so many other things right now.

Next, this mandatory insurance will have to have a large deductible to keep the price down. I believe Americans must take responsibility for their own health care expenses, just like we are responsible for paying our mortgage, our credit card debt, and our car payments. Health insurance needs to be something every American puts in their personal budget. Some people still won't be able to do this and will need our help, but that number is significantly less than 45 million.

Finally, health insurance companies need to be regulated and required to provide a basic policy at a set price to anyone and everyone who applies for it. Even those with pre-existing conditions. The price of this insurance needs to be low enough for people to afford, while still providing a small profit for the insurance companies. In addition to this basic policy, insurance companies should then be permitted to offer additional bells and whistles to those who want to pay more for these benefits. They should be able to charge whatever the market will support. The wealthy will get the insurance they desire while everyone will at least have a basic policy.

This idea takes care of the 15 million people who have pre-existing conditions and are excluded from the market today. It also takes care of 20 million or so who can afford health insurance but have decided to spend their money on other "necessities" like cars and television sets. There will still have to be a pool of money available to assist the truly poor, but we will all have better health care for less money than we are spending today.

Read more!

I'm Not So Sure About Global Warming

I've been doing some thinking about global warming. I'm concerned about the environment. I'm concerned that people act like we have unlimited resources. I'm concerned about our frivolous use of water. I try to recycle as much as possible. I enjoy the outdoors a lot and do not litter. When I fish, I always do my best to leave the area like I found it. I am slowly replacing all the light bulbs in the house with energy-efficient bulbs. With all this in mind, I'm having some difficulty with what I'm hearing about global warming.

I consider myself a spiritual person. I wouldn't say I am "religious" or "ritually observant," but I am spiritual and somewhat knowledgeable about religion. I believe in God. I believe there is a higher being. I'm not totally convinced God created Earth, but, even if the Earth resulted from some "Big Bang" or other scientific event, when it was created, it was pure. It was clean. It had water and vegetation. It had a hot molten core and there was an atmosphere above the Earth.

Later, Earth was inhabited by animals that lived and procreated. The animals drank the water, ate the plants, some lived in the water, and some ate other animals. Later, Earth was populated by people. They ate the animals and plants, and drank the water. Later they used resources they found on Earth to build homes, and eventually they built roads, cities, and all the creature comforts we have grown used to.

During all this change, Earth itself went through changes. One of my favorite places on the planet is Rocky Mountain National Park. When visiting the park one can learn a lot about the history of Earth. At some point in time, the beautiful Earth we envision as The Garden of Eden, cooled and was in an Ice Age. Later, Earth warmed, and the ice melted. In Rocky Mountain National Park, there is evidence of this in places like Glacier Basin and Moraine Park. Both were formed when glaciers melted and moved down the mountain sides taking everything in sight with them. History seems to suggest Earth goes through periods where it cools and warms. Even if you believe there is a scientific reason for this, instead of God making this happen, I am not aware of any dispute over Earth's tendency to warm and cool over many many years.

If all this is true, even if most of this is true, it seems awfully arrogant to think humans now have the power to effect climate change because of the cars they drive and the factories they operate. The cooling and warming of Earth has occurred over hundreds of millions of years. To think that since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, humans have effected climate change, is almost unbelievable. On the other hand, why would educated people make all this up? Can you believe in the theory of global warming and believe in God?

I've been accused of being cynical. More than once. For example, I have a theory about sports teams. I believe sports teams re-design uniforms in order to generate revenue from the sale of jerseys and caps. I believe teams keep their uniforms until they believe they've saturated the market with the sale of the uniforms to fans. Once the market is saturated, they re-design the uniform and start all over again. Is it possible someone at General Electric believes they have saturated the light bulb market? Could this person have realized this and helped spread the word about global warming to generate revenue for energy efficient light bulbs. Could people support the theory of global warming because by doing so they are helping to create new businesses that are using wind and alternative clean energy to run our home and cities? Could the theory of global warming be used to stimulate a struggling economy?

I don't know the answer to any of these questions. Maybe it means something that I am asking the questions. Maybe I'm out of my mind and should just go-along-to-get-along. If you've read all this, I'd be interested to know what you think. Leave a comment.

Thanks to http://air2aircorp.net/cms/global-warming-policy-and-aviation-p-28.html for the photo.

Read more!

A New Camera Surely Requires a New Tripod

If you haven't read my post on the new Canon T1i SLR I recently purchased, scroll down to see what I think and what I've learned. As you would expect, I also found it necessary to purchase a tripod to use with my new camera. I used it this week to attempt to take some photos of a very cool looking moon. I failed miserably at this task and couldn't figure out how to photograph the moon properly. I kept gettting weird reflections and had problems getting the camera to focus. I'll figure this out eventually.

In spite of not having the necessary skills to photograph the moon, I must say I am very impressed with the Promaster T325P Carbon Fiber Tripod along with the Maglite 2 ball head. The T325P holds 13.25 pounds yet weighs 2.6 pounds. When folded, the T325P is 21.25" high. Its minimum working height is 8.25" and its maximum height is 63". Based upon my limited research, it appears the price of the T325P is fairly reasonable and there are online deals to be had.

The T325P is easy to use and has a built-in level and a compass (I'm not sure yet what I'll use the compass for). The level is a very handy feature to have. I was trying to photograph the moon and I was standing in the middle of the street in front of my house. Using the level was very easy and helpful on this uneven surface.

I am most impressed by the T325P's light weight. This tripod is easy to carry around, yet incredibly sturdy. I'm sure it will also fit in a carry-on bag when I travel. The tripod looks cool and has a nice finish. The twist locks are tight and are easy to use because of their size.

The T325P is equipped with leg spreader locks which must be pushed back to use (instead of being

spring loaded). Personally, I like this better than the spring loaded version as I seem to have more control and there is less to go wrong down the road.

The Maglite ball head are well-built but don't provide quick-release plates like a few of the other ball heads I looked at. The tension controls are easy to use but didn't always work well. It was a bit of a chore to secure my camera when it wasn't level. I had to apply some extra tension to the controls to keep my camera from sliding backwards.

Overall, I was very impressed with both the tripod and the Maglite head. The prices for both were reasonable and in my first test, they both performed admirably. I would recommend this setup to others.

Read more!

My First Digital SLR Camera

I bought my first Digital SLR Camera, the 15.1 megapixel Canon EOS Rebel T1i(a/k/a the 500D). This camera is at the top of the Rebel line and directly competes with the Nikon D90, while the XS and XSi compete with the Nikon D3000 and D5000. I did several years of research, mostly because I couldn't afford to buy until now. My problem was, the longer I waited, the more I changed my mind because the technology kept changing. I finally decided now was the time, and this was the best camera I could purchase in my price range. I purchased a two lense kit with 18-55mm IS and 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS lenses from Adorama. The camera arrived with a defective lens, but this situation was professional and quickly resolved by Sammy Santana. I thought I'd try to write about my new camera as a way of forcing myself to do some additional research to really try to understand how the camera works and the features available to me.

Having never used a camera as sophisticated as this one, I enlisted the help of professional photographer extraordinaire, Eric Stephenson who was kind enough to spend about three hours with me. Eric confirmed my research that the T1i was fast, would produce high quality photos and was capable of creating HD videos. Eric walked me through just about everything the camera could do, then I was off to Jamaica to test it out. The body is similar to the Canon XSi and weighs 1.2 pounds. Unlike the XSi, it has holes in the front for a microphone and a speaker on the back. The camera is comfortable to hold and offers a large 3-inc LCD with a 640X480 design with 920,000 dots, creating a very clear onscreen image.

All the buttons are positioned for use by my right hand, and every button feels different. Eventually, I should be able to do what i need to do without looking. There is a Live View button that also serves as the stop/start button when creating HD video.

Canon also included the Creative Auto mode that was originally found in its higher-end cameras. Eric explained this is a semi-automatic mode somewhere between the Auto mode and the Program mode.

He suggested this was the place to be when I wanted to experiment with shutter speed and aperture settings. The T1i accepts EF and EF-S lenses. It uses SD/SDHC cards, including Eye-Fi wireless cards. I learned the hard way it is a good idea to determine what type of cards your computer will read before purchasing. Or, you can do what I had to do, and purchase a card reader. If you want to take a look at all the features found in the T1i you could have a look at the manual.

I'd like to try explaining the T1i's basic shooting modes, mainly just to see if I really understand them:

Program: This function automatically sets the most appropriate shutter and aperture speed, while giving me some control over metering, exposure compensation, etc.

Shutter Priority: Lets me control shutter speed while aperture is automatically set; other functions can also be accessed in this mode.

Aperture Priority: Lets me control aperture while shutter speed is automatically set; most camera functions can be changed in this mode.

Manual: Allows me to control aperture and shutter speed, as well as all the camera's different settings for exposure.

A-DEP: Stands for automatic depth-of-field, which will automatically select the appropriate aperture to ensure that depth of field covers all focus points.

Auto: In this mode, everything is set automatically.

Creative Auto: Lets me change the brightness, depth of field, and color tone fairly easily.

Portrait: Automatically blurs the background in order to focus on the person I am shooting.

Landscape: Provides me with more depth of field to keep landscapes and wide-angle shots in focus.

Macro: For shooting small objects, this mode allows me to get in closer to the object I am shooting.

Sports: This puts into play the continuous burst mode so I can catch moving objects or sports, by giving me up to 3.4 frames per second. I used this mode at a Colorado College hockey game.

Night Portrait: A night portrait mode to take photos at night.

Flash Off: Turns off the flash.

I am no expert, but this camera seems wake and shoot fairly quickly. It also focuses and shoots much faster than any camera I've ever owned. I believe it is faster than the more expensive Nikon D90. One of the must-haves for me was continuous shooting speed. Something I didn't have before. The T1i seems very fast at 3.3 frames per second. This was fast enough for me to take some great photos at a Colorado College hockey game.

Canon worked to improve this camera's low-light capabilities, something my daughter, who owns an XSi was very jealous of. This, along with the higher resolution and video capture abilities where of great interest to me. Personally, I think this is a great entry-level camera for this price range, and it competes admirably with any other camera I looked at. I'd be interested to know what you think.

Read more!