May 21, 2012

Verizon iPad 4G vs AT&T iPad 4G – Which to buy?

Some say the glass is half empty (AT&T has only 28 LTE markets), some say the glass is half full (Verizon has 203 LTE markets) – a physicist would say the glass is 100% full: half liquid, half air (4G is a marketing term, not a technical standard).  Let’s review.

Unlike 3G which is a technical standard, the definition of 4G is, for all practical purposes, anything you want it to be, as long as it’s “faster than 3G.”  How much faster?  Well, Verizon says 6-10 times faster, and it proudly calls its LTE (Long Term Evolution) network, “4G.”  And, by the way, that’s what everyone else calls 4G too.

AT&T has a slightly different definition.  It has only 28 LTE markets (where its service is basically speed equivalent with Verizon’s LTE service).  But … and it’s a big but … AT&T has also deployed a technology known as HSPA+.  AT&T calls this “faster than 3G” service “4G” and if you look at the AT&T coverage map, it looks like AT&T has the “largest 4G network in the US.”  But does it?  It depends upon how you define 4G.

Tom DeVito, Vice President and General Manger for AT&T in New York and New Jersey says, “It’s important to us that our customers have a consistently fast mobile Internet experience. Our customers will have the benefit of access to both our 4G LTE coverage where available and our HSPA+ network, which will provide a much more consistent speed experience as they move in and out of 4G LTE coverage areas.”

OK, so now you are faced with today’s most pressing question, “New Verizon iPad or new AT&T iPad … which to buy?”

If you live in one of the 28 AT&T LTE markets, buy an AT&T iPad.  You will get awesome LTE speeds plus you will get HSPA+ speeds when you’re on the road.  This is the best possible solution for 2012.  However, by the end of 2013, you will be wondering why everyone else’s “New” iPad is so much faster than yours. (I don’t know why Apple didn’t call this new device the iPad 2S, it would have made this article so much easier to write.) To be fair, AT&T is adding LTE markets all the time, and it expects its “LTE rollout to be largely complete by year-end 2013,” but I’m not sure that AT&T’s LTE deployment will catch up to Verizon’s by year-end 2013 – that’s a lot of ground to cover.

If you live in one of the 203 Verizon LTE markets and don’t travel much, buy a Verizon iPad. You will get awesome LTE speeds when you are at home and good ol’ fashioned 3G speed when you’re on the road.  This may not seem like a great solution for right now, but Verizon’s LTE network will cover most of the US by the end of 2013.  BTW, Verizon 4G is also in 200 major airports.

If you live in a Verizon LTE market but you do travel extensively, you may want to purchase an AT&T iPad because for the 18-month lifespan of this device, AT&T may offer better average connectivity speed for you on a nationwide basis (as the unit falls back to HSPA+ when 4G is not available) again, check the coverage maps.

Correction: International travelers – you have to buy an AT&T iPad, if you can afford the international data roaming charges.  Verizon iPads are not international traveler-friendly (nor are its phones).

New iPad Cellular Bands

New iPad Cellular Bands

International Travelers — the Verizon iPad is the clear choice for you, it is literally capable of every domestic (USA) and international connection to 3G networks.  See the chart.  In case the chart is just a technobabble to you, it says that a Verizon iPad can take an AT&T micro-SIM card and connect to AT&T Networks, but that an AT&T iPad cannot do the same with Verizon Networks.  There’s no reason to bother with that, but the chart also says, Verizon’s iPad is absolutely compatible with the most commonly used international networks. There’s a nice writing about this by Matt Hamblen at ComputerWorld.com.

If you almost never travel and use your iPad with a WiFi network at home or in the office … why are you reading this article?

The thing that I find most disturbing about this issue is the remarkable amount of consumer confusion it is causing.  A confused consumer is always bad for business.  LTE is just a bunch of letters and, with AT&T’s latest marketing trick (calling HSPA+, 4G) no one can really say what 4G is.  AT&T isn’t wrong – you can call HSPA+, 4G.  But who does it help?  Consumers will not have a consistent experience across the AT&T network, so how will they know when AT&T is bit throttling, traffic shaping or they’re just in an HSPA+ coverage area?  The indicator on the device will say 4G in every case.  This is just bad.

On Verizon, 4G means LTE.  This is comforting, because LTE is a technical standard with a well-defined range of speeds.  And, you can always count on it to be 6-10 times faster than a connection on Verizon’s 3G network.

Should you punish AT&T for telling you that a 3.5G technology is 4G?  I guess it depends if the glass is half empty or half full.

The True Power Of Your Social Network

On March 27th, 2011, we learned the unthinkable: our 2 1/2 year old granddaughter, Emma Zinberg, had cancer.

Within 24 hours, she was a patient at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. While we had received an initial diagnosis of neuroblastoma at the hospital that found her tumor, the team of oncologists and surgeons at MSKCC correctly diagnosed Emma with pancreatoblastoma, an extremely rare form of pediatric cancer.  There are less than 5 diagnosed cases a year in the United States.

On April 1st she underwent a successful 8-hour surgery, followed immediately by chemotherapy.  After several rounds of treatment, she was declared cancer free on May 25th 2011.  Emma is cancer free because of the extraordinary team of doctors, nurses and specialists at MSKCC who work tirelessly to provide the best care possible to all of their pediatric patients.

Our family wanted to do some kind of fundraiser for MSKCC.  My daughter Alexis (Emma’s mother) and her husband Andrew decided to invite our family and friends to join them for a charity event called, Kids Walk for Kids with Cancer because 100% of the funds received go to support Memorial Sloan Kettering Pediatric Cancer Research.

This is where the social media story begins: Kids Walk for Kids with Cancer uses active.com, a website that is easy to customize for fundraising events.  You can visit it at http://www.EmmaZinberg.com. With this excellent online fundraising tool in place (total set up time under an hour), our first outreach was to post the link on everyone’s individual Facebook pages.  I was fascinated that the wall posts did not received many comments or likes, but the results were instant – people started making donations.

Next we sent out a few emails to family and friends, then to some business associates as well.  A couple of tweets later and, within a week we had raised over $25,000 that will go directly to MSKCC.

When EmmaZinberg.com went live on March 4th, we had no idea what to expect.  Would we raise a few thousand dollars, would our family and close friends come walk with us?  Now, it is clear that even people we don’t know are helping us raise money so that MSKCC can continue their lifesaving work. I am in awe of the true power of our collective social networking tools.  And now, I want you to be in awe of the power of yours.

At 2 ½, when Emma was diagnosed, she knew something was wrong, but could not fully understand the problem.  Alexis told her that she had “yuckies” in her tummy and that the doctors were going to make them go “bye bye.”  Since then, “Bye Bye Yuckies!” has been both our cheer and our prayer.

Please support Team Bye Bye Yuckies! by making a donation or come join us as we walk for Kids with Cancer on Saturday, May 12, 2012 at 1:30pm in Central Park at Mineral Springs. As you know, 100% of the funds received will support Memorial Sloan Kettering Pediatric Cancer Research.

And, if you can, please post a link to EmmaZinberg.com on your FB page or tweet it out.  We are asking you to use the power of your social networks so that more families like ours have a chance to say, “Bye Bye Yuckies!”

Pornbot Twam: Twitter’s Dark Side

Twitter Spam

Twitter Spam

Elfrieda Utley @lerahxg followed me today. She’s from Arkansas. If you don’t look at her Twitter profile too carefully, it looks pretty normal. She has 128 followers, she’s following 1,407 people and she has Tweeted 43 times. Her last Tweet: “I can remove 90% of your so-called beauty with a Kleenex” is stupid, but – sadly, that’s not a crime on Twitter. That said, if you do look carefully at her Twitter profile, there is a problem – and it’s pretty significant: @lerahxg is a pornbot. Its website is http://best-xxx-vids1.info. Ugh!

By the time you read this, the account will probably be suspended – but maybe not. There’s a slight chance that Twitter won’t find anything wrong with it (other than the pornographic content of the website).

Elfrieda represents so many problems with Twitter I don’t quite know where to start.

First and foremost, the content is available to anyone of any age. Twitter should not be linking underage people to porn. But there’s more. @lerahxg is a bot, so it falsely inflates follower metrics. Bots are counted, but they don’t count. Don’t you wonder how many pornbots are following your favorite celebs or politicians? It could be a very big number.

This week I’ve probably identified 50 new followers as pornbots. Twitter gives you two options for dealing with this kind of annoyance. You can “Block @name” or “Report @name for spam.” If you report the offending follower as spam, the follower is automatically blocked and removed from your followers.

The sad news is that you really have to look at every single person who follows you and determine if they are a real person or a bot.

Of course, all bots are not pornbots. There are plenty of other types of Twam (Twitter Spam). There are “link twammers” who use your @name to get your followers to click on their link. These really make me mad because they are trading on my brand name.

Then, there are @reply bots and trending tweet bots that twam you or your followers as the names imply. @reply bots are far more offensive than trending tweet bots because @reply bots actually reply to your tweets.

Other than reporting them to Twitter, there is not much you can do to protect yourself. But, protect yourself you must! No one else can do it for you.

If you use Twitter for business it is essential that you remove each offending twammer from your followers as soon as you identify them. Why? Twitter is both a medium and a metric. You use Twitter to communicate, but you also use Twitter to measure the efficacy of your social media. A bogus follower count (especially one that is inflated by pornbots) does not accurately represent the value of your social media communication. And, should a quantitative entity analyze your Twitter account, you will look very foolish to your boss. Pornbots can get you fired.

We analyzed the 25 Twitter profiles, each with over 20,000 followers, and found that all of them had pornbot followers. One account had over 15 percent bot followers, which is pretty sad.

If you project these numbers out to the greater Twitter community, it doesn’t take long to come to the conclusion that the number of followers someone has is not a meaningful number, unless it is adjusted for bots and twam.

Do yourself a favor. Grab a tool like tweepi and analyze your Twitter account. When you’re done, I’d love to hear from you. How pervasive is twam? LMK @shellypalmer.

Do Not Track … Really?

Do Not Track

A couple of years ago the FTC proposed a “Do Not Track” button.  Recently, the Administration got a couple of very big Internet companies to agree to implement it. The idea is really simple: add an easy way for consumers to opt out of web tracking systems.  In practice, it’s a little less simple … open your browser preferences, select the privacy tab and look for a checkbox that says something like: “Tell websites I do not want to be tracked.”

Having done so, a reasonable person might assume that they were now free to browse the world wide web without leaving a trail of breadcrumbs for web profilers, unsavory advertisers and custom content providers.  Not exactly.

As is often said, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”  According to the Wall Street Journal, “The new do-not-track button isn’t going to stop all Web tracking. The companies have agreed to stop using the data about people’s Web browsing habits to customize ads, and have agreed not to use the data for employment, credit, health-care or insurance purposes. But the data can still be used for some purposes such as ‘market research’ and ‘product development’ and can still be obtained by law enforcement officers.” Seriously?

First, let’s look at the Administration’s framework for The Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights:

  • Individual Control:  Consumers have a right to exercise control over what personal data organizations collect from them and how they use it.
  • Transparency:  Consumers have a right to easily understandable information about privacy and security practices.
  • Respect for Context:  Consumers have a right to expect that organizations will collect, use, and disclose personal data in ways that are consistent with the context in which consumers provide the data.
  • Security:  Consumers have a right to secure and responsible handling of personal data.
  • Access and Accuracy:  Consumers have a right to access and correct personal data in usable formats, in a manner that is appropriate to the sensitivity of the data and the risk of adverse consequences to consumers if the data are inaccurate.
  • Focused Collection:  Consumers have a right to reasonable limits on the personal data that companies collect and retain.
  • Accountability:  Consumers have a right to have personal data handled by companies with appropriate measures in place to assure they adhere to the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights.

At first glance, some of these ideas such as Individual Control, Transparency, and Security are good.  Others such as Respect for Context, Focused Collection sound good, but will be very, very hard to reduce to practice.

Does the United States need a Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights?  Absolutely!  We need to figure out how to govern our budding digital democracy.  Is this the right way to approach it?  Probably not.

FTC Commissioner J. Thomas Rosch has posted a .pdf you should read entitled, THE DISSENT: WHY ONE FTC COMMISSIONER THINKS DO NOT TRACK IS OFF-TRACK Rosch: Concepts to Guard Online Privacy Have not Been Properly Vetted – here are some of the relevant paragraphs:

First, there are a number of consequences if a consumer adopts a do-not-track mechanism. To begin with, a consumer may sacrifice being served relevant advertising. On a related note, there is academic research suggesting that in order to compensate for the loss of the ability to track consumer behavior and the associated ability to serve relevant advertising, advertisers may need to turn to advertising that is more “obtrusive” in order to attract consumers’ attention.

Consumers may also lose the free content they have taken for granted. Not only could consumers potentially lose access to free content on specific websites, I fear that the aggregate effect of widespread adoption by consumers of overly broad do-not-track mechanisms might be the reduction of free content, free applications and innovation across the entire Internet economy. Beyond that, consumers may forgo the reported ability to earn commissions from “selling” the right to track their behavior or allow the use of their personal information.

I also wonder whether an overly broad do-not-track mechanism would deprive consumers of some beneficial tracking, such as tracking performed to prevent fraud, to avoid being served the same advertising, or to conduct analytics that foster innovation. Concerns have been raised that do-not-track mechanisms also may have the unintended consequence of blocking tailored content, in addition to advertising.

Commissioner Rosch is spot on.  Sadly, he’s not getting much traction with his reasoned approach to the issue. Our elected officials see privacy as the “gift that keeps on giving.”  You can scare the hell out of people, then launch a campaign focusing on shutting down the evil Internet people.  It’s truly the perfect issue for those who prey on the fearful.

What can we do?  First, contact your elected officials.  We live in a republic.  Our elected officials speak for us and make our laws.  They need to understand how you feel about privacy.  What do you want?  Tell them.

What if you don’t know what you want?  Admitting that takes courage and, by the way, it is the right answer.  This is new territory.  We have never been here before.  It is impossible to imagine all of the things people will do with data in the age of Big Data, but knee-jerk political reactions and fear mongering is not a reasonable course of action.  Like so many things in our modern world, this very important issue cannot be solved with sound bite politics.  Privacy, data collection and what data can and should be used for is “the” issue of the Information Age. It would be great if we could all give it the respect it deserves and start a Socratic, earnest, serious dialog.  Information is the currency of the Information Age, we should treat it that way.

Fragile Beginnings: Discoveries and Triumphs in the Newborn ICU

I usually don’t cover medical technology unless it somehow impacts living and working in a connected world.  But a new book entitled, Fragile Beginnings: Discoveries and Triumphs in the Newborn ICU by Adam Wolfberg, MD really got my attention.  It features some of the remarkable work being done by my very good friend Jason Carmel, MD.  Fragile Beginnings tells the story of the authors’ daughter, who was born at 26 weeks, her struggles in the neonatal ICU, and her ultimate recovery from a large brain hemorrhage. The book features Dr. Carmel’s work as a scientist, and his studies of brain injury and repair and describes advances in newborn care and the brain plasticity underlying his daughter’s recovery.

Half a million babies are born prematurely in the United States every year.  In fact, one of my granddaughters was born five weeks premature. As doctors and parents make decisions about life-saving care in the first hours of a premature infants life, they must grapple with profound ethical and scientific questions: Who should be saved? How aggressively should doctors try to salvage the life of a premature baby, who may be severely neurologically and physically impaired? What will that child’s quality of life be like after millions of dollars are spent saving her? As a specialist in high-risk obstetrics, Dr. Adam Wolfberg explores those profound questions at the beginning of life from the font lines of the Newborn Intensive Care Unit.

Apple Stock: What Goes Up …

apple-stockApple’s share price has been “topic A” in my world this week. Everyone wants to talk about it — and, everyone has an opinion. First and foremost, I do not own any shares of Apple (or any other tech stock). I keep my money under my mattress. Also, I am not a financial professional, nor am I going to suggest that anything you read here be used to make any kind of financial decision. You should consult your own financial professionals for advice on how to invest your money.

That said, Apple is trading just over $500 per share and its market cap is somewhere around $468 Billion. A little research will show that it has dangerously close to $100 Billion in cash and marketable securities and, hasn’t really had a bad quarter in the recent memory of man or beast. iDevice sales are off the charts and the company (for the moment) seems to be doing everything right. So, is Apple worth $500 per share?

If I were a financial analyst, I’d tell you that it’s probably cheap (trading at just over 14 times its earnings for the past four quarters). But that’s not the whole story. Talk to a true financial professional about accounting practices and dig deep into how Apple accounts for its sales – you may be surprised at what you learn.

Of course, Apple may be underpriced because the market lacks confidence in the future. Or, it could be that the Street thinks that Apple is about face super stiff competition from a CE industry that is “mad as hell” about being brutalized by nice folks in Cupertino.

All of this begs for the question, “How high can Apple share prices go?”

According to some of my friends, the sky is the limit. My cynical New York financial friends say, “What goes up, must come down.” Emails and txt messages from readers suggest that, “Apple can do no wrong.”

It’s the last point that gives me pause. Apple could easily screw up the iPad 3 or the iPhone 5. AppleTV (whatever it ends up being at launch) may not be awesome. There are, in fact, an infinite number of ways that Apple could fall from grace. It should also be noted that Samsung, LG and the Android camp are not exactly asleep at the wheel.

If I had to guess what forces will most impact Apple, I would have to seriously discount competition as a factor. Apple is extremely aware of what other manufacturers and software vendors are bringing to market, and it is unlikely to be caught by surprise.

If anything negatively impacts Apple, it will be an unforced error. This may be caused by any number of things: abject arrogance comes to mind. But, it is also possible that the patent/trademark lawsuit games that Apple likes to participate in may also get out of hand.

All in, if I was a betting man (and I’m not), and someone asked me straight up “What’s going to happen with Apple?” My best guess would be that it is an unstoppable force of nature, and that no amount of financial analysis or market research is likely to yield any usable intelligence — accounting practices notwithstanding, $500 per share seems like a fair price for a company that has literally changed the world.

Gary Carter RIP

Gary Carter

Gary Carter

In mid-summer 1986, the New York Mets were about 20 games ahead. Jerry Della Femina called and asked me to write a song and produce a music video for the team. It was the kind of idea that Jerry was famous for – create and produce not only a song and music video, but create a half-hour “making of” video so the whole thing could be packaged for home video release. Of course, everything hinged on the Mets continued success.

When the Mets winning streak put them 27 games ahead, everyone in New York knew the 1986 Mets had a chance to take it all the way. I got the green light and, along with Greg Smith and Hal Hackady, wrote “Let’s Go Mets!”

Everything was awesome. The agency liked the song, the video storyboard was approved and even Mets management thought it was a “toe-tapper.” (Not my words.) There was only one thing left to do … play it for the team.

Time was extremely tight and, so we took the train to Pittsburgh to play the song and explain the team’s role in the music video. With boom box in hand, we got to the locker room and, we got schooled fast – baseball players who think they have a shot at getting to the World Series don’t want to think about anything but baseball before an away game.

Gary Carter was the first person to walk up to me and ask me what was going on. We spoke for about five minutes and then he and Keith Hernandez got everyone’s attention.

It’s hard to describe how instantly likable Gary Carter was. He had a unique ability to make everyone he spoke to feel like they were the most important thing in his world — a truly remarkable attribute. Some people thought it was a parlor trick, but years of infrequent, but substantial conversations with Gary proved to me it was not.

In 1987, Gary (along with Mookie Wilson and Roger McDowell) starred in a kids video that I also wrote and produced for Jerry called, “Think Big.” It wasn’t anywhere near as successful as “Let’s Go Mets!” but while we were on location shooting Gary and I really got to know each other. At that time, before Google and Wikipedia, I did not know that Gary was a Football player. I found out during a game of touch football with cast and crew during a lunch break. Gary had the arm of an NFL quarterback – he told us some great stories about his high school sports career and his love of both football and baseball.

His smile was infectious, his laugh was genuine and he was a true gentleman in every respect. And, not for nothing, he let me use his game glove to catch while we were shooting Roger McDowell pitching. I’m not sure I can adequately describe how it felt for a Long Island kid to catch Roger McDowell with Gary Carter’s game glove while Gary “took over” as director.

“Let’s Go Mets!” became the “official theme song” of the World Champion 1986 New York Mets and the video went Platinum. It kicked off a pretty good time in my career as a composer/producer and writer/director – but the true gift of 1986 was meeting and getting to know Gary Carter. Some will remember Gary as an All-Star, power-hitter who set the stage for the Mets to become champions; I’ll remember him as friend who left us too soon. Gary, RIP.

Shelly Palmer Nominated for 2 Emmy Awards

NY Emmy

NY Emmy

New York, NY — Thursday, February 16, 2012. The 55th Annual New York Emmy Awards nominations were held this morning at the studios of CUNY-TV. Shelly Palmer was nominated for two New York Emmy Awards for WNYW Fox 5′s Shelly Palmer Digital Living. Mr. Palmer has six previous Emmy nominations.

Shelly Palmer Digital Living received both Emmy nominations in the category Business/Consumer: Program/Special.

The 55th Annual New York Emmy Awards will be presented at a Black Tie Gala on Sunday, April 1, 2012 at The Marriott Marquis in Times Square. For additional information, visit www.nyemmys.org.

Click below to watch the nominated episodes.

Shelly Palmer Digital Living Episode #3 – June 10, 2011

Watch the newest episode of Shelly Palmer Digital Living . Join Shelly Palmer as he shows off awesome gift ideas for Dads and grads. Original airdate: June 10, 2011 Share/Bookmark

Shelly Palmer Digital Living Episode #2 – May 13, 2011

Watch the newest episode of Shelly Palmer Digital Living online. Join Shelly Palmer as he shows off some of the coolest new ways that technology affects the way we do life. Original airdate: May 13, 2011 Share/Bookmark

Apple OSX Lion & Microsoft Exchange: The End of Fanboy Days

mac-outlook

Outlook 2011

Back in April 2011 I wrote a scathing review of Microsoft Office 2011 for Mac.  I was specifically distressed by the highly touted addition of Microsoft Outlook, because after careful testing, I could reach only one conclusion: it sucks.  My solution for the total suckage of Outlook for Mac 2011 was to run Microsoft Office for Windows 2010 on the Macs around my office using a program called Parallels that (in simple terms) allows you to run Windows and Windows compatible programs on your Mac.

This sub-optimal solution became even more sub-optimal as we added more people to Microsoft Exchange.  So, some intrepid souls decided to try something radical … they used Apple Mail, iCal and Address Book to interface with Microsoft Exchange.  Low and behold … praise be to Jobs … it worked.  There were happy Mac Fanboys all over the office singing the praises of Cupertino and loving the fact that Apple was in the business of doing business.

Hallelujah, Apple got its enterprise on.  Time for Snow Leopard sock puppets! We were all thinking about making the switch.  But … just as quickly as we had fallen in love with the Apple Mail/Microsoft Exchange solution, came the End of Fanboy Days … OSX Lion 10.7.x.

There are many wonderful things I can say about Apple’s OSX Lion operating system, but compatibility with Microsoft Exchange isn’t on the list.

All of our new MacBook Air computers came with OSX Lion 10.7.x preinstalled.  As I am fond of saying, my MacBook Air is simply the finest computer I have ever owned … except for one small issue … iCal under Lion is incompatible with Microsoft Exchange.  A few minutes Googling the error message confirmed our worst fears – Apple knows about the bug and has done nothing to fix it.

The issue is subtle, but it is a deal breaker.  Under certain conditions, you can’t send and receive meeting requests and get the title of the meeting to show up in iCal.  You get a blank meeting.  When it happens the first time, you assume that you have done something wrong.  After a few more times, you ask your system admin what’s up.  By the 10th time you lose your meeting info, you type the issue into Google … that’s when the enormity of the situation hits you.  You’ve just opted into a workflow that is completely useless for the doing of business with 92% of the business world.  Want a list of compatibly issues; just search for your favorite flavor – it’s not pretty.

To say that we did everything to solve this would be to understate the issue.  No eclectic techno-geeky trick was left untried.  Bribes to friends at Apple, calls out to hackers, even a FB plea to Fanboys around the world … all to no avail. :(

The ultimate solution is so sad, I have named it the End of Fanboy Days.  We are now the proud owners of a bunch of 17″ HP ProBook 4730s running Microsoft Office Professional over Windows 7 Professional.  HP’s Value Added Reseller (VAR) channel rocks!  If you ever need a bunch of computers that are sturdy, built for business, free of bloatware and ready to use when you get them, call your favorite HP VAR.  Talk about flawless integration with Microsoft Exchange — everything works so perfectly, it’s sinful!

I still carry my MacBook Air.  For me, it is still the ultimate computer in the galaxy.  I don’t mind having the crippled Microsoft Office for Mac 2011 running on this computer because I don’t do any administrative functions with it.  But, if I didn’t have an executive admin and an administrative assistant who keep my calendar, I would have to choose between crippled Outlook functions or non-functional appointment compatibility in iCal.  Two unacceptable options.

If you don’t use your computer for business and don’t have to have a computer that is 100% Microsoft Exchange compatible, nothing here really concerns you.  However, if you are truly trying to use a Mac running OSX Lion 10.7.x as a business tool to interoperate in Microsoft Exchange environment … sadly, it is truly the End of Fanboy Days.

Abundance – The Future is Better Than You Think

Those of you who follow my blog know that I am an optimist. The Shelly Palmer School of Connected Living has one primary thesis: “Technology is good.”

This is why I am very excited about this new book Abundance – The Future is Better Than You Think, written by my friend Dr. Peter H. Diamandis, X PRIZE Foundation Chairman/CEO, and Steven Kotler, Science Journalist.

Abundance is a powerful antidote to today’s dark pessimism. Peter and Steven present a convincing case that the world has been getting better at an accelerating rate over the last few decades. There are abundant stories and hard facts in the book to support the case that our future is better than we think.

Anyone who enjoys technology will love the extensive tour of the latest in exponential technologies, DIY innovation, Techno-philanthropy, and more. Have you considered that the free apps we take for granted today on our smart phones (GPS mapping, video conferencing, digital and video cameras, full sets of library and encyclopedia, etc.) would have cost more than $1 million dollars, affordable only to the richest, 20 years ago? And those poorest citizens of the world, who used to be called the bottom billion, are now the “Rising Billion” because of accessibility to technology? Masai warriors in Kenya now have cell phones that give them better access to mobile communication and information than USA presidents 15 years ago.

So there you have it. If you want some good news (great news actually), read Abundance. If you want to help change the world’s conversation from its current pessimism about scarcity to Abundance, share the book with your friends.

You can visit Peter and Steven’s website www.AbundanceTheBook.com, where you can pre-order Abundance by February 13 and get thank-you gifts (free access to Singularity University’s video library packed with graduate training on exponential technologies, AI, Robotics, Synthetic Biology, Neuroscience, Entrepreneurship, Innovation, etc., The Transcendent Man documentary, and more.) But, before you do, check out this excerpt from Chapter 1.

OUR GRANDEST CHALLENGE

The Lesson of Aluminum

Gaius Plinius Cecilius Secundus, known as Pliny the Elder, was born in Italy in the year 23. He was a naval and army commander in the early Roman Empire, later an author, naturalist, and natural philosopher, best known for his Naturalis Historia, a thirty-seven-volume encyclopedia describing, well, everything there was to describe. His opus includes a book on cosmology, another on farming, a third on magic. It took him four volumes to cover world geography, nine for flora and fauna, and another nine for medicine. In one of his later volumes, Earth, book XXXV, Pliny tells the story of a goldsmith who brought an unusual dinner plate to the court of Emperor Tiberius.

The plate was a stunner, made from a new metal, very light, shiny, almost as bright as silver. The goldsmith claimed he’d extracted it from plain clay, using a secret technique, the formula known only to himself and the gods. Tiberius, though, was a little concerned. The emperor was one of Rome’s great generals, a warmonger who conquered most of what is now Europe and amassed a fortune of gold and silver along the way. He was also a financial expert who knew the value of his treasure would seriously decline if people suddenly had access to a shiny new metal rarer than gold. “Therefore,” recounts Pliny, “instead of giving the goldsmith the regard expected, he ordered him to be beheaded.”

This shiny new metal was aluminum, and that beheading marked its loss to the world for nearly two millennia. It next reappeared during the early 1800s but was still rare enough to be considered the most valuable metal in the world. Napoléon III himself threw a banquet for the king of Siam where the honored guests were given aluminum utensils, while the others had to make do with gold.

Aluminum’s rarity comes down to chemistry. Technically, behind oxygen and silicon, it’s the third most abundant element in the Earth’s crust, making up 8.3 percent of the weight of the world. Today it’s cheap, ubiquitous, and used with a throwaway mind-set, but—as Napoléon’s banquet demonstrates—this wasn’t always the case. Because of aluminum’s high affinity for oxygen, it never appears in nature as a pure metal. Instead it’s found tightly bound as oxides and silicates in a claylike material called bauxite.

While bauxite is 52 percent aluminum, separating out the pure metal ore was a complex and difficult task. But between 1825 and 1845, Hans Christian Oersted and Frederick Wohler discovered that heating anhydrous aluminum chloride with potassium amalgam and then distilling away the mercury left a residue of pure aluminum. In 1854 Henri Sainte-Claire Deville created the first commercial process for extraction, driving down the price by 90 percent. Yet the metal was still costly and in short supply.

It was the creation of a new breakthrough technology known as electrolysis, discovered independently and almost simultaneously in 1886 by American chemist Charles Martin Hall and Frenchman Paul Héroult, that changed everything. The Hall-Héroult process, as it is now known, uses electricity to liberate aluminum from bauxite. Suddenly everyone on the planet had access to ridiculous amounts of cheap, light, pliable metal.

Save the beheading, there’s nothing too unusual in this story. History’s littered with tales of once rare resources made plentiful by innovation. The reason is pretty straightforward: scarcity is often contextual. Imagine a giant orange tree packed with fruit. If I pluck all the oranges from the lower branches, I am effectively out of accessible fruit. From my limited perspective, oranges are now scarce. But once someone invents a piece of technology called a ladder, I’ve suddenly got new reach. Problem solved. Technology is a resource-liberating mechanism. It can make the once scarce the now abundant.