[The Working Title Blog]

Netflix CEO says their "goal is to become HBO faster than HBO can become us."    Well, personally, I'm hoping they succeed... especially in the realm of original series. Mostly because I want to see HBO lose. I want to see them wither and crumble. HBO has always had phenomenal original series because they can take risks and make shows that will captivate, entertain, and push the limits with worrying about ratings and sponsors and viewer demographics and selling ad-time... which are huge factors that network shows have to constantly consider. But HBO has failed to adapt to the evolving and rapidly growing digital world. No, worse than that: they have straight out *refused* to adapt. Want to watch one of their series? Get an HBO cable subscription. Or wait until it's out on DVD/Bluray and buy it. HBO series' aren't even available for purchase on iTunes. HBO's series aren't even available for purchase on iTunes. Now, while they DO have a &q

Reading Wired's recent interview with tech mogul Tim O'Reilly and he makes a couple of important points about innovation, growth, and the patent/copyright system in the tech industry. Excerpt: TIM O'REILLY : Everybody wants to foster entrepreneurship, but we have to think about the preconditions for entrepreneurship. You grow great crops in great soil. And the soil is the commons. Increasingly, we have monopolistic companies that try to take as much as they can for themselves. And we have a patent and copyright regime that makes sure nothing goes back into the commons unless by an extraordinary act of generosity. This is not fertile soil for innovation. [...] Pursing this path is not only altruistic. If companies don't think systemically enough--if they try to capture too much of the value--eventually innovation moves somewhere else. WIRED : If you could pick a company that needs to hear this, which would it be? TIM : Apple. They are clearly on the wrong path

As a hunter myself, I feel like I want to support the NRA... at least in principle. In practice, however, I find myself less and less able to do so. I'm generally and morally opposed to the methods, media spin, and propaganda tactics they have begun to employ (or maybe they always have, I just was too young and/or naive to see it for what it was?). They should represent responsible and practical ownership of firearms, not an off-shoot or subset of the Republican Party. I think nearly everyone would agree that there are simply some people in our society that we do *not* want, nor should be allowed to, own firearms... people with a history of violent behavior, for example. It's out societal responsibility to keep firearms out of criminals' hands and keep them in the hands of responsible citizens. Yet any reasonable attempt to do so is met with outrage and fury by the NRA, heralded as the first step in abolishing our rights to firearms. "They want us to WAIT 1

I think we need to start asking ourselves: How much can you *really* trust Apple? Sure, in the beginning they were a relatively honest and trustworthy company. Even their philosophy of completely controlling every aspect---the hardware, marketing, sales, etc.---of their products made some sense. Doing so eliminated the problems which Microsoft had struggled with managing... hardware incompatabilities, driver issues, OS being installed onto--or worse being sold with---sub-par hardware... all of these issues, although not technically nor directly the fault of Microsoft, they become attributed as the fault of the software. (These problems which still exist although the industry has gotten exceedingly better with. Better cooperative development with hardware manufacturers for hardware and drivers, clearer communication of hardware requirements, etc.) In this early point of the computer industry, Apple's full-control mantra saved itself a lot of headaches. Every Apple computer had

I have long known that I was an introvert. I dislike the popular conception of introverts as being shy loners, unable to fit in, so it is not something I often admit to. While I generally enjoy the company of others, I need time by myself to recharge. I generally prefer quiet and solitude as opposed to high-stimuli environments. I would prefer a laid back evening, having a couple of drinks with some close friends opposed to a big party or a crowded bar almost any day. It wasn't until recently I have come to embrace this introversion aspect of my personality. Somewhere around four months or so ago, I had taken the Myers-Briggs Personality Type Indicator . I had taken it once before--with the same result--however this last time I have taken a more serious look at the results. I don't know why the results didn't have any profound meaning for me... perhaps I dismissed it as having some of the Barnum Effect , where, much like in horoscopes, the results are generalized enough

   Once or twice each year in December, I *do* consider making a resolution. This is usually triggered by somebody else talking about their resolutions, causing me to wonder if I should come up with a resolution too. Then, following a full 20 to 30 seconds of consideration I still have no resolution and continue on with my life. But in truth, I kind of have a problem with the whole New Year’s resolution thing. It’s not because I’m a pessimist, either… I really am not. (I am, however, a cynic. There’s a difference.) People view the New Year as a "new beginning" and a "start fresh," ideas which are held symbolically in this date. Yet why people see such significance on this day is lost on me. The date has changed… but that happens every day. One day to the next, the world is more-or-less then same on Jan 1st as it was the day before. Why do we wait until this one point in the year for reflection and self-improvement? Why do people believe one day is more of a