But it occurred to me one day as I was forwarding an important document via my Gmail account... that a young megalomaniac in training would be smarter to set their ambitions on gaining control of Google, than a country. I'm not pondering if Google is evil... but what if they were made to be? What if nefarious and sinister forces set their sights on control over this private corporation?

Consider the massive amount of information Google now has effective access to, and control over, worldwide. "But doesn't belong to them!" If it's been on their server, it may as well.
Even looking beyond the colossal search engine and advertising leverage they have, and ability to spotlight causes or ideas at will, no small amount of the world's financial data is stored in their server farms: accounts, balances, transactions, insider info, not to mention intellectual property, ideas, designs, drafts, documents. I have a considerable amount of a novel in draft in my Google account for a simple reason: I can access it anywhere in case I  lose my thumbdrive, or my hard drive crashes. I've sent ideas for businesses, ideas for plays and scripts, commercial proposals, all through my gmail account for times when my private hosted email wasn't available or accessible.

The power they have is the power we've yielded. Andrew Grove, a tech giant in his own right, wrote: "Only the paranoid survive." Should we all be at least a little more cautious with our private data?

And yes, I'm aware it's not just Google: Microsoft, Facebook, and a multitude of hosting companies also have direct access to billions of pages of private, and by that I mean intentionally kept secret, information and data. Same rules apply... however, if you really wanted to blackmail the world....
Well, let's just say Dr. Evil with his pinky to his mouth might just as well hover his finger over a "MAKE PUBLIC" button to everyone's private data, as he might over a missile launch.  Panic in the streets is still panic in the streets.

I'm reminding you about your stated goal on "43 things,"
to "be the happiest person I know... every day".

How's it going?

Sincerely,
Your past self

- View this goal:
http://www.43things.com/things/view/170786

Throughout 2009, several 3D movies have been hitting the theaters: Up, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, A Christmas Carol, and the Toy Story double feature, remade in 3D… among others. The studios know it’s one sure way to get people off the couch and in the ticket line.

Many people leaving a 3D film retain the glasses. Maybe they figure they’ll need some sunglasses for a costume party… but does that mean people can view 3D clips via YouTube?

I was surprised to find so little in the way of 3D (stereoscopic) content on the web: what I was able to find were a few web videos were made using the red/cyan filter method, which has been widely replaced with the orthogonal polarized filter method (which actually used to be the technique from 1952-1955).

Apparently it’s a matter of the nature of video technology: current monitors can’t send two different polarities of light simultaneously, that must be done via projection off of a reflected surface (silver screen).

HD technology with adjacent micro-OLED’s with different polarities could solve the problem, but the cost would be prohibitive. Current workarounds are Head-mounted displays, formerly known as virtual reality goggles.

In light of these technological limitations, with more and more new movies being produced in 3D, projection screen TV’s could make a comeback if there’s enough of a demand!

The HD monitor manufacturer (along with  graphics card design firm) that enables polarized technology on a computer screen is going to have an instant market. Here’s to hoping the USA gets there first.

Originally posted on my blog: 3D Film Content on the Web? Innovation opportunity…

This Christmas, I plan on telling many of my friends, "You're a Scrooge." I expect them to give me a hug and thank me.

Is this a Randian Objectivist overture, praising my friends for being unapologetically, counterculturally capitalistic, focusing on the business bottom-line while the prevailing social norm is to be self-sacrificing?

No, it's a commentary on the fact that the ongoing usage of the "Scrooge" appellation is unfair to Dickens. The character, Scrooge, transformed into a generous and kind-hearted man after his evening of paranormal activity. Yet the enduring connotation of the name is of a stingy, miserly, mean old humbug.

I suppose that the fairest application of   Scrooge  would be towards a person who had exhibited mean tendencies, especially towards Christmas or other holidays of gift giving, who became someone everyone wanted around, compassionate and warm.

Dickens doesn't go into these details, but I'd like to imagine that Scrooge not only lived a happier personal life after the spirits visited, he had a more successful business too. Better customer relations, better employee productivity and retention... and as revenue increased, he probably created some new positions. Small business growth, which would feed more families than just Bob Cratchit's.

I don't think Dickens should be interpreted as condemning business, or capitalism, or profit, or entrepreneurship per se (at least not in "A Christmas Carol"), just the withered soul that a skewed focus can produce. There's a balance. Life's for living, and money is a means for supporting it, not the end in itself.