I thought this was a sweet interview. This is a short segment.
Content gets good with the guest at about 2:03.
At 2 hours and 20 minutes they are basically debating. Really interesting I though to see Joe Rogan get his mind open to some new ideas (other than that he smoke’s rocks!).
I want to point your attention to 28:00-28:45.
I would really like to see a more secure, private, and web friendly payment system take off. This one even lets you trade in Bitcoins!
The whoopin’ gets good at about 4:20.
If the embedded video doesn’t work, here’s the direct link to the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euvImZAGH7o
edit: fuck wordpress, won’t embed my shit EDIT by JayAaroBe on 2012-04-10: Video has been embedded
When someone says “Pass me a Kleenex,” you know what they really mean is “Pass me a tissue.” But the brand Kleenex has been so successful that the word has become synonymous with the product. The tech company Apple has likewise left such an imprint with its ubiquitous iPod, which spawned the term “podcasting.” Most people now realize that a podcast doesn’t require an iPod, but the term has stuck. This is a testament to how Apple has left its mark on the world of technology, and even in popular culture.
Steve Jobs was the visionary behind the company Apple. His recent death was prominent in the news and it has prompted a look at the legacy that is Apple.
It’s clear that Apple has made such a dramatic impact on the world, but why is that? And are Apple products really as great as they’re hyped up to be? Or is it merely slick marketing?
As technology expert Leo Laporte explained, Apple was not the first to come up with their technologies; rather, they were the ones who took those technologies and made them mainstream. Edison and Ford didn’t invent the light-bulb and the automobile, respectively. Instead, they brought it to the masses and thus became the popularizers of their day. A quick look back at Apple’s history confirms this unmistakable pattern.
In the early days of computers, people used keyboard text commands to operate their computers. Apple brought personal computers into the average person’s home by having a Graphical User Interface (GUI), which consisted of windows that you could open, close, and manipulate with a mouse. It was such a success that Microsoft soon followed suit with its own “Windows” operating system.
Next came portable music players. Apple wasn’t the first one to make a portable music player that could store and play mp3s, but their product was so sleek and simple to use that suddenly iPods were everywhere and people who had never before heard of mp3s were now listening to them on their iPods.
When Apple introduced touch-screen capabilities to their devices, they weren’t the first ones to invent such technology. But again, they brought it to the masses. The pattern repeats itself with the iPhone storming its way into the smartphone market, and then the iPad setting the bar for the tablet market. By this point, Apple had changed our culture. Everywhere you look, you can see people using their mobile devices, and you can bet that a good portion of them are Apple devices.
There’s no denying that Apple’s been successful. But what is their secret? Are their products truly better than all the others? That is the never-ending debate amongst tech enthusiasts. When a student is shopping for a computer, smartphone, or other device, how are they supposed to decide whether they should by an Apple product or something else?
The truth of the matter is not black and white, but it can be simplified. Apple does indeed make high quality products. This is reflected in their high price tags. But their marketing campaign has been almost as equally impressive as their products. Through advertising, they have managed to convince many consumers that their product defines them and that buying an Apple product means the purchaser is stylish, creative, unique, ahead of the curve, and not bogged down by technical mumbo-jumbo: “it just works.” This marketing technique has been immensely effective. People identify their personalities with their Apple products.
However, the marketing is just that: marketing. While it is true that Apple makes good products, it is not true that they never break or that they break less than competing products. They certainly are stylish, but when it comes to getting the most for your money, Apple is not the place to turn. For those who can afford the higher prices and prefer the style of Apple products, there’s nothing wrong with them. But for a student on a budget, look elsewhere. An Apple computer can cost hundreds of dollars more than an equivalent computer of a different brand. And iPhones have serious competition from Android phones.
The bottom line is this: there is no doubt that Apple has revolutionized our modern tech culture. For those who have the extra money to spend and prefer the style of Apple products, they won’t be disappointed. However, for those looking to get the most “bang-for-the-buck” or don’t necessarily care for Apple styling, the competing products are just as good and cost a lot less.
In one episode of Family Guy, Bill Gates is flying through the air on a jetpack with Disney CEO and chairman Michael Eisner, who says “God, the people look like ants from up here”, to which Gates replies, “They are ants, Michael, they ARE ants!”
You may feel this way when listening to the following cast on public opinion surveys performed in the US.
Why is public opinion relevant?
Do Americans want free speech?
What is the median voter theory?
What makes war more popular?
Was giving women the vote a good thing?
Did propaganda make East Berliners more socialist?
What are 3 types of public spending that Americans always want more of?
What is 1 type of public spending that Americans always want less of?
30 minute long lecture followed by about 20 minutes of questions.
In a previous article, I discussed insider trading and explained what makes it illegal. Since then, I recently learned a disturbing fact. Our elected representatives in government are apparently above the law. What do I mean by this? Well, actions that would land a citizen in jail for insider trading carry no penalties for some politicians. You can see this on the various committees and subcommittees in our government. An example of this is a politician who sits on a committee that decides how the government spends it’s money. This politician will be a stock-holder in a company that gets a government contract due to the decision of the very committee that politician is a part of! In other words, Politician A is a part of a committee which decides which company gets the government contract for something like building new military airplanes. Now the corruption can happen in one of two ways.
Example 1: Politician A learns that company B is going to be getting the multi-billion dollar contract for making new military airplanes. Politician A immediately calls up his stock broker and and says “Buy a ton of stock in Company B!” If this situation occurred in any other industry, Mr. A would go to jail for insider trading. But since he’s “Politician A,” he’s allowed to do that without any penalty.
Example 2: Same as above except Politician A already owns a ton of stock in Company B. Now when it comes time for the committee to decide which company gets the multi-billion dollar government contract to build military airplanes, Politician A votes for Company B. Gee, ya think there might be a conflict of interest?
And I’ve got news for you folks: this type of thing goes on in BOTH parties. Democrats and Republicans are both equally guilty of this. In fact, that’s the reason why this corruption has been allowed to remain unchecked; because neither the Democratic politicians nor the Republican politicians dare to point a finger at their opponents on this issue because they know the opponents can point a finger right back at them. So amongst all the bickering back and forth that goes on between the two parties, one of the things they CAN agree on is to remain hush hush on the issue of this particular type of corruption / conflict of interest.
Wrapping up, this is just another example of how the political system in the US has gotten to the point of being legalized bribery. I’ll write another article going into more detail on the subject so stay tuned.
I am applying my background in economics to the industry I work in, hence the boldface. No expository analysis, just emphasis.
Asia’s Medtech is Inexpensive
The Star Tribuen/ Economist—January 24, 2010–Across the rich world, governments with aging populations are worried about soaring health care costs.
In Britain last week, David Cameron announced yet another reorganization of the National Health Service. But the problem is most severe in America. Medical spending per head has nearly tripled since 1990, yet most indicators of health have barely budged. And the rising cost of health care depresses wages — because many Americans receive health insurance from their employers, who therefore pay them less.
Help may be at hand. Frugal innovators in China and India are making medical devices that are cheaper — sometimes by an order of magnitude — than their Western equivalents. Companies such as China’s Mindray and India’s TRS serve home markets that include vast numbers of people for whom every yuan or rupee counts. So these companies focus relentlessly on reducing costs. They create products that are stripped to their essentials: scanners that cost $10,000 rather than $100,000; portable electrocardiographs that cost $500 instead of $5,000.
These devices are not merely cheap knockoffs of Western designs. Often they are just as effective as the gold-plated machines used in the West, yet they are rarely found in hospitals of the rich world. Their absence helps explain the massive disparity in costs between treatment in the West and the emerging world. A night in an American hospital typically costs 25 times as much as a night in an Indian, Brazilian or Chinese one. A night in a European hospital typically costs four times as much.
Western medical device firms are well aware of eastern innovation. Indeed, firms such as GE Healthcare, Philips and Medtronic are investing heavily in China and India: setting up research centers, hiring local talent and developing frugal inventions of their own, which they gleefully sell both locally and in other emerging markets. Alas, they are not rushing to market such thrifty ingenuity back in America or Europe.
Two main factors keep cheap devices out of Western markets. One is the muting of price signals. Health care is not an efficient market in the rich world because — be it in Europe, where the state typically pays the bills, or in America, where private insurance companies do — the customer does not have to shop around. Patients neither know nor care how much anything costs, so they demand the best of everything, which is wonderful for the makers of hugely expensive equipment.
A second factor — which applies more in America than in Europe — is red tape. America’s Food and Drug Administration is excessively risk-averse: It often takes twice as long to approve a new medical technology as European regulators do. America’s confusing approvals process deters upstart medical technology firms, since they typically lack the deep pockets and army of experts required to navigate it.
And for a device to succeed in America, it must be blessed not just by the FDA but also by the bureaucrats who oversee Medicare and Medicaid, the two huge government health care schemes. Obtaining that blessing can take years…
(again, emphasis added)
To be a great thinker is to say that you have confronted some of the deepest, the most revolutionary, and at times the most hard-to-swallow ideas of our time.
To be a great person is to incorporate these ideas, uniquely, as part of your self development.
To be OnBoard is to continually confront big ideas and to incorporate new approaches, except now you’re saving energy for not having to go it alone.