It’s all about where you draw the line

Mike Elgan has written an excellent article regarding Microsoft’s so-called “Mojave Experiment”.

This is not simple Microsoft-bashing (of which I am not fond). It’s a well-thought out article, and a good discussion of how companies and marketers should relate to customers, and how not to.

Microsoft held a series of videotaped focus groups and told attendees — all non-Vista users — they would be shown a future version of Windows called “Mojave.”

First, they were asked what they thought of Windows Vista, and many comments were negative. A Microsoft representative showed them a variety of specific features of “Mojave,” and comments were positive. Then, Microsoft told them “Mojave” was in fact Vista, and some attendees said the Experiment had changed their thinking about Vista.

Microsoft gathered the most favorable comments and placed them on a site called The Mohave Experiment.

…

Since Microsoft cast this marketing push as an “Experiment” — i.e., science — I would like to hereby publicly challenge Microsoft to answer the following questions:

• The Mojave Experiment involved 120 people. But the Web site shows 55 people saying nice things about Vista. What did the other 65 people think?

• Most or all Mojave Experiment videos posted to date feature an expert or marketing person showing neato features to someone. If Vista is so great, why didn’t you let people touch the computers?

Go read the whole thing — it’s not that long…

I found a few interesting quotes regarding the financial crisis. Let’s take a look at what people (that is, Democrats) are saying Now, versus what they were saying Then.

Now:

The fundamental issue is we have got to put an end to this situation in which there is no sensible regulation, and irresponsible individuals in the private market, or unwise individuals in the private market can incur the kind of risks that put us in a threatening situation.

Barney Frank (D-MA), September, 2008

Then:

These two entities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems…the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.

Barney Frank, (D-MA) Sept 11, 2003
source: New York Times

What was Frank responding to? From the same NYT article:

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

That is, Bush was pushing for oversight in the increasingly risky portfolio (i.e. mortgages to people who couldn’t afford them). The legislation, introduced by Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) was blocked by the Democrats in Congress. Barney Frank at the time was the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee.

Harry Reid, on the same legislation:

The legislation from the Senate Banking Committee passed today on a party-line vote by the Republican majority, includes measures that could cripple the ability of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to carry out their mission of expanding home ownership. While I favor approving oversight by our federal housing regulators, to ensure safety and soundness, we cannot pass legislation that could limit Americans from owning homes and potentially harm our economy in the process.

Harry Reid (D-NV), Senate Minority Leader
Press Release, July 28, 2005
(also quoted here and here)

The Republicans saw it coming, and Democrats blocked their efforts to avert disaster. (Of course, by “expanding home ownership”, he means giving out mortgages to as many people as you possibly can — give out zero down, interest-only mortgages so people can “own” a house.)

That same bill reappeared as S-190, the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, sponsored by Sen. Charles Hagel [R-NE], and co-sponsored by Senators Elizabeth Dole [R-NC], John Sununu [R-NH], and (wait for it…) John McCain [R-AZ].

Now:

8 years of de-regulatory zeal by the Bush Administration, an attitude of “The market can do no wrong” have led us down the short path to economic recession. From the unregulated mortgage brokers, to the opaque credit default swaps market, to aggressive Short Sellers who were driving down the price of even healthy financial institutions based on innuendo, this Administration has failed to take the steps necessary to protect both Main Street and Wall Street.

Chuck Schumer (D-NY), September 2008

Then:

With the benefit of hindsight, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which imposed a new regulatory framework on all public companies doing business in the U.S., also needs to be re-examined. Since its passage, auditing expenses for companies doing business in the U.S. have grown far beyond anything Congress had anticipated. Of course, we must not in any way diminish our ability to detect corporate fraud and protect investors. But there appears to be a worrisome trend of corporate leaders focusing inordinate time on compliance minutiae rather than innovative strategies for growth, for fear of facing personal financial penalties from overzealous regulators.

Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Michael Bloomberg (Mayor of New York)
“To Save New York, Learn From London“, Wall Street Journal, November 1, 2006

In their infinite wisdom, they were arguing to reduce the regulations passed after the fall of Enron.

They’re liars. All of them.

But remember: it’s all Bush’s fault.

[cribbed from Smallest Minority]

[Significant Update Sept 27: Added source links in quotes; added additional excerpt from NYT, and rewrote some text.]

In a comment to a post on this blog, I’ve received the following joke:

“What’s the difference between Sarah Palin and Barack Obama?”

“One is a well turned-out, good-looking, and let’s be honest, pretty sexy piece of eye-candy.

“The other kills her own food.”

You say that as though it’s a bad thing?

Tell you what… Let’s give Palin and Obama each a rifle, some ammo, and a hunting knife, and see who makes it off the island.

On this blog, over four years ago, I said:

To be blunt: The Democrat Party as we know it will no longer exist in 20 years. Possibly 10 years.

Modern liberalism is in its death throes. I predict that Bush will win this fall’s election by a handy margin, and that Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential run will be the last stand for modern leftists in this country. If they win 2008 they have a few more decades; if not, they’re toast.

Someone will of course take their place — perhaps Ross Perot’s party. Sorry Libertarians, I don’t think it’s gonna be you….

If I recall correctly, Hillary at the time was publicly saying that she was not considering running for president. I’ll admit I didn’t see Obama coming in to snatch the ticket from Hillary. Heh.

Anyways — The leftist implosion over Sarah Palin is quite a thing to see. The media keeps flinging shit, and are surprised when nothing sticks. Guys — here’s a hint — Your stories will get more traction if they’re…. oh, what’s that word… “true”.

“She tried to ban books” — No she didn’t. Funny how the list of books she wanted to ban includes books that didn’t exist at the time. Funny how it is in fact a well-known list of “books that have been banned somewhere, at some time, in the United States”.

“She supported the Bridge to Nowhere” — She shot down the Bridge at a point when both Obama and Biden still supported it.

“Can she been Vice Pres and still raise kids?” — Would anyone ever ask this if she were male? You’re showing your true colors there, Democrats. By the by, her husband is a full-time dad.

“She was a member of an Alaskan Separatist group” — Has anyone backed this up with anything? Anywhere? Buehler? I suspect the only “source” for this is anonymous — nobody seems to know where it came from.

“Other Republicans have denounced her, so she must be bad” — Yeah, the Republicans she opposed in winning the governorship. Oh no, her political opponent said something bad about her — it must be true!!?????

“She’s a religious zealot and has said that invading Iraq is ‘God’s Will’” — She said, in a church, that they all should pray that it is God’s will. There’s a big difference between saying “This is true” and “I hope this is true.” Charlie Gibson’s “exact words” quotation, and a few YouTube videos I’ve seen, all cut in in the middle of a sentence.

These are not a mistakes — they’re lies. In her case they are such bizarrely blatant lies that the public is catching on. Finally. It’s going to be an interesting two months.

[Update: This post was inspired by an article at American Digest]

[Update: Oh, you wanted a source? Here ya go.]

I’ve observed over the years that most people don’t quite know the difference between a fact an an opinion. They don’t quite grasp the sometimes-subtle distinction between a fact and a theory. A fact and a meme. A fact and a judgment.

First off, a fact is — by definition — neutral. A fact cannot be mean spirited or rude, nor can it be kind. A fact cannot be racist, nor sexist. A fact cannot be fair, nor can it be unfair. A fact is not influenced by your perceptions, though hopefully the inverse is true. A fact is not truth.

Black people in America, proportionately, commit more violent crime than white people. This is not a racist statement — it cannot be racist; it is a fact. There are hard numbers to back it up, and unlike many statistics, the math is straightforward. If I take that fact and use it as a basis for judging individual blacks about whom I otherwise know nothing, that is racism; but it’s racist theory and opinion — the underlying fact does not change.

If I say a person is ugly (or beautiful), that is an opinion. If I say premeditated murder is illegal, that is a fact. If I say murder is wrong, that is an opinion (albeit a widely held one.)

There are situations wherein one group will claim a fact is a judgment, by claiming that the use of a word is, by definition bad. “Retarded” is a good example — it is a perfectly, factually accurate word to describe the mental state of certain people. The word itself means that something has been held back, or impeded; so “mentally retarded” simply means that in that particular person, normal human mental development has somehow been held back or impeded. It is a factual, neutral term. (To make the point further — anyone can be “mentally challenged”. Einstein was mentally challenged when he came up with relativity.)

You frequently hear statements that purport to be the “truth”. I tend to ignore any such argument. Why? The difficulty there is that “truth” can mean many things — it is a flexible term that can be used to mean just about anything you want it to. Philosophers talk about “truth”. Preachers talk about “truth”. Politicians often talk about “truth”. Many reporters (unfortunately) look for “truth”. “Truth” is what you believe to be true, or what you want to be true. If you look for “truth” you are likely to fall into the trap of coming to a conclusion and then cherry-picking only that which supports the idea. Science looks at facts.

I always liked the bit in the old Dragnet television show where Sgt. Friday wanted “just the facts”. He was good because his thought process wasn’t clouded in his search for “the truth” — he only wanted to talk about facts. Not opinions, not what the person thought about the situation. This point is also stressed in the TV show CSI, in the character Gil Grissom’s mantra, “The evidence never lies”. Witnesses can mislead you with opinions, lies, or simply errors, but the physical evidence is fact. As Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s character Sherlock Holmes puts it:

From a drop of water a logician could infer the possibility of an Atlantic or a Niagara without having seen or heard of one or the other.”

Logic and facts are a powerful combination. Doyle’s statement is true because, simply put, that drop of water is a fact. If that same hypothetical logician had bad information that he believes to be fact, that same logic could lead him it a completely different place.

There is a place in common discourse for opinions, and judgment, and theory; but if you do not want to be misled, look for that distinction. In news reporting, opinion and theory are frequently reported as news. This is a mistake. “Hard News” reporting should be based on fact, and nothing more. There is room in such outlets for editorial pieces (opinion again), but it must remain distinct. If a politician tells you to believe in something because everybody else already agrees with it, beware. Facts are not dictated by popularity; facts are often decidedly unpopular (just ask Galileo). Besides that, if a politician is trying to convince you that everybody believes something, he wouldn’t be wasting his time unless he knew that a whole lot of people do not believe it — it’s a self-fulfilling falsehood.

Facts are not influenced by belief, nor convenience, nor popularity. They are not warm and fuzzy; they are hard and cold. They are reality — unvarnished, and raw.

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.
John Adams
‘Argument in Defense of the Soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trials’
December 1770

An interesting passage from Clayton Cramer’s blog on what happens when the government tries to “stick it to the rich”:

There is one problem driving not just HP, but a lot of other U.S. companies to constantly slashing workers. In 1993, Democrats in Congress showed how much they hated "rich people" by passing a law that prohibited corporations from deducting as business expenses any annual salary exceeding one million dollars–and the salaries of the next four highest paid officers. So large corporations started to compensate officers with stock options instead. This created a strong incentive for officers of the corporation to keep the stock price rising for the next few quarters–even if it destroyed the long-term viability of the company. Note that this didn't actually prevent corporations from compensating their officers quite generously. And in truth, Democrats weren't really trying to prevent that–they were just pretending to be on the side of the little guys, while continuing to cozy up to corporate fat cats. It just created perverse incentives for how to run a large corporation.

A company that is developing complex products will need several years from the start of the process to the point where the product starts to bring in revenue. Think of this as a tunnel: you put money in one end of the tunnel in 2004; it turns into a return on investment in 2008. The products that you start developing in 2005, won't give a return until 2009. Ditto for 2006 to 2010, 2007 to 2011, and 2008 to 2012. If your focus, because of your stock options, is driving up the stock price over the next several quarters, the temptation to go for short-term improvements is very, very strong.

Cutting spending this year may impair profitability in 2012–or maybe it won't. It's hard to tell. But you can almost guarantee that cutting spending on long-term projects this year will drive up the stock price for the next quarter or two. This is why layoffs often lead to higher stock prices. Corporate officers whose primary income is derived from stock options have a strong incentive to cut costs right now. I don't think that stock options are necessarily a bad thing. But it does encourage a short-term view of how to run a company.

On a different note (but from the same blog): Holy Crap. How is this guy a major party nominee?

Ah, what our wonderful welfare state has wrought.

A New York woman, pregnant with her fourth child, is so sure of her inherent right to demand that others provide for her that she has threatened to blow up her local welfare office after they told her she was ineligible for more benefits.

Deep breath. Repeat after me:

You cannot call something a “right” if someone else has to give it to you.

[***Spoiler Alert*** if you haven't yet seen The Dark Knight]

Brian writes an interesting piece on the newest Batman movie. For the most part I agree with him; but one statement he makes is, to put it mildly, complete batshit:

The watchword of the current series is plausibility. Everything has to make sense. None of the equipment is over-the-top for the sole sake of being over-the-top.

Okay. So… Bruce is not himself a tech guy. That is almost the entire point of Lucius Fox.

Would you please explain to me the “plausibility” of Bruce wiring up EVERY CELL PHONE IN THE WORLD into a bat-sonar device? Without Lucius having any clue??? Did he take a correspondence course in “Comic Book Tech”? (It’s on the list right next to “VCR Repair”.) Did he wire it up during a lull in his copious spare time? All those monitors alone must have taken hours to hook up — and to what purpose but to look cool for the camera?

(As a sidebar, that particular bit of tech was certainly a tip of the hat to, if not a setup for introducing, the character “Oracle” from the comics.)

Having a gimmicked phone in Hong Kong worked, because he made it specifically for the job. Somehow magically making millions of regular off-the-shelf units do the same thing was complete nonsense.

(Oh, and while we’re on the subject of implausible schemes, can somebody please tell me how Joker managed to load hundreds of drums of gasoline onto the two ferries without anybody noticing? For that matter — if they were evacuating the city via ferry, how did it not occur to anybody to maybe put people down in the massive, supposed-to-be-empty hold?)

The worst part of it to me was that it was totally unnecessary to the plot. If the plot simply didn’t work without it, they should have called for rewrite. As it is, it smells as though some studio exec watched a pre-release version and said “this movie just doesn’t have enough bullshit.”

The movie was excellent, but Nolan really tripped over his cape with that bit….

[Update: Brian Responds]

Not much to add beyond the headline, except: why do so many people fear those who obey the law?

With leftist politicians, the answer is plain: They don’t like the “little people” having too much power, and they certainly don’t want them to be too self-reliant. Liberals’ er… socialists’ entire power base is built on people depending on government for what they need. The “public safety” claims are a sham, repudiated time and time again by real-world crime statistics anywhere gun control laws have been instituted or loosened. Ban guns, violent crime goes up. Allow concealed carry, violent crime goes down. Why? Criminals prefer disarmed victims, because they don’t like getting shot.

And to the Mayor of Washington, DC: Thank you for being a damned fool and pushing Keller all the way to the top.

I’ll make this quick:

Will you TV commentators please stop referring to Ted Kennedy in the past tense?

Thank you.