Steamd

So, I get this e-mail forwarded to me by a member of my family:

The media has done a good job of convincing many that Bush has done such a terrible job. Check your tax bill before you criticize!!!

Based on using the actual tax tables, here are some examples on what the taxes were/are on various amounts of income for both singles and married couples. So let’s see if the Bush tax cuts only helped the rich.

Taxes under Clinton 1999

• Single making 30K: tax $8,400
• Single making 50K: tax $14,000
• Single making 75K: tax $23,250
• Married making 60K: tax $16,800
• Married making 75K: tax $21,000
• Married making 125K: tax $38,750

Taxes under Bush 2008

• Single making 30K: tax $4,500
• Single making 50K: tax $12,500
• Single making 75K: tax $18,750
• Married making 60K: tax $9,000
• Married making 75K: tax $18,750
• Married making 125K: tax $31,250

If you want to know just how effective the mainstream media is, it is amazing how many people that fall into the categories above think Bush is screwing them and Bill Clinton was the greatest President ever. If any democrat is elected, ALL of them say they will repeal the Bush tax cuts and a good portion of the people that fall into the categories above can’t wait for it to happen. This is like the movie The Sting with Paul Newman; you scam somebody out of some money and they don’t even know what happened.

I couldn’t resist…family or no family, I just had to respond. Anyone who knows me knows that I love a good debate! So it got me thinking…

Seriously, are lower taxes really that important? I personally don’t mind spending a bit extra on taxes if I can afford it. The problem I have with this picture is that, sure, it looks great on paper that Bush lowered our taxes. However, when you start to consider that the Iraq war alone costs the U.S. government an average of $270 million daily and has cost taxpayers $600 billion to date, tax cuts are the last thing we should be worrying about. $600 billion is a staggering number and I really don’t think all that money came from our taxes. A lot of it came from borrowed money that did nothing but raise our ever increasing deficit.

But I digress. Whether you’re for the war or against it, it doesn’t really matter. But everyone can certainly agree that the increased spending hasn’t done much to help us solve other problems that our country faces: social security, health care, immigration, energy conservation, education, poverty, the economy, and so much more. These are all hot topics on everyone’s agenda this election season, with the economy and health care leading the pack.

Lower taxes are all fine and dandy, but then whenever someone proposes solid solutions to many of the country’s other problems (social security, health care, immigration, education, etc.) pundits always ask the same question: “Great…but how do you propose we’re going to pay for it?” Umm…duh? The government manages to spend $270 million daily for the Iraq war. Plus, I seriously think that the wealth of this nation can afford to be taxed more with the lower and middle class being taxed less. Someone who makes less that $30K a year shouldn’t have to pay more than $4,500 a year on taxes. Granted, everyone can agree they’d like to pay less on taxes. I do agree that no one should have to pay more on taxes than they really should. We shouldn’t stretch anyone beyond their means. But saying that Democrats somehow can’t wait to “scam” people out of their money each tax season is preposterous.

Money doesn’t fall from the sky. Many of the things you require your government to do cost money. And one of the primary ways the government get the money to do all this fun stuff is through income tax. If the economy sucks and you’re paying less taxes, how does that equate to a good thing? Sure, we definitely need to reduce the amount of pork barrel spending in Congress, but that’s a completely different debate. Worst thing the government can do is tax the hell out of people when the economy isn’t good. That’s definitely not good politics. But neither is the kind of politics that drives the value of the dollar down a bit. That’s not good either.

The real question to ask is this: What do your tax dollars get you? Even if you had to pay a bit more on taxes, what do you aim to get out of it?

I don’t go out of my way to tell people what political affiliation I am. I don’t consider myself a devote Republican or Democrat. Hell, I don’t even think of myself as much of an independent either. I’m just a guy who votes his conscience and refuses to see the world through binoculars. I don’t wear rose colored glasses and I definitely don’t vote strictly on the basis of one or two issues. I do believe that too many people are divided and blaming it on the media isn’t helping. Sometimes you just have to open your eyes a bit, look at the big picture, educate yourself a bit, and see things for what they are.

Honestly, all this tells me is that I shouldn’t vote for Clinton. And, believe me, I won’t.

I wrote this as part of a comment on the 43 Folders website. The premise for this post was used in a presentation I did for Refresh Dallas. Figured I’d go ahead and post it here for those who don’t visit the 43 Folders site all that often.

When it comes to getting others to value your time and attention, I find that many times the problem is that people try to take the form of communication they are using and attempt to turn it into something that it’s not. It’s as if they are trying to miraculously morph it and change it in some different way, as if they’re discovering some new, innovative way to use a specific form of communication.

Take a phone call, for instance. Phone technology has changed dramatically over the past 20 years. The sound quality is better. There are features like call waiting, voice mail, conference calling, *69, and such. You no longer are tethered to the kitchen wall and can receive calls anywhere in your house, in your city, hell, anywhere in the country. Consequently, it also means that you could potentially receive more calls. Now, you could say that an iPhone, a Treo, or a Crackberry makes you more productive and allow you to better manage your phone calls. But the question is: Does it make your phone calls any better? No, not really. An iPhone isn’t going to make the conversation with your silly aunt from Ohio any better. For all intents and purposes, even after 20+ years of evolution in telephone technology, a phone call is still just a phone call.

E-mail isn’t all that much different. E-mail started off as just plain text. Then it grew to allow you to add emphasis, bold things, italicize things, and eventually allow you to format your text just like you would in a word processor. Now we can use HTML code in e-mails and have images embedded in them. Your silly aunt in Ohio has now discovered the stationary feature in her e-mail client and is sending you stuff with pictures of her dogs tiled in the background. Even with all the advancements made to it though, an e-mail is still just an e-mail.

We also have text messaging, instant messaging, Twitter, FAX, forums, bulletin boards, bathroom walls, and all sorts of other ways to communicate with other people. All of these have a specific form factor and serve a given purpose. There’s no way you’ll be able to use a bathroom wall the same way you would use an e-mail. You could…but your co-workers probably wouldn’t like it. Nor would they like the idea of doing a complete office meeting with nothing more than text messaging. It’s possible…but it’s not nearly as effective as doing it face to face.

So the next time you start bouncing multiple e-mails back and forth between you and your co-workers and clients, ask yourself a few questions: Would it be easier and more efficient if I just picked up the phone and called this person? What’s the most efficient method of communication given the circumstances? What’s the best way to not only honor my own time and attention but the time and attention of others involved?

Sometime a phone call is just a phone call.

The Daily Kos recently posted a story called I Refuse to Buy into the Obama Hype (now a supporter). Man…this story is dead on!

In fact, do what the writer tells you to do…go to The Library of Congress and browse the bills that both Hillary and Barack have sponsored. I only spent 10 minutes looking at each list and even I could see a difference. It’s very clear that Barack has a better track record getting bills passed. His bills also reflect a lot about what’s important to him. Compared to Hillary, I think it’s pretty clear that Barack stands a much better chance at getting the support of Congress if he’s made President. Regardless of how you feel about Hillary, you have to admit that that’s one point that is extremely important and can’t be debated.

Vote for Barack!

Article: Gates explains why Microsoft needs Yahoo

I think what Gates says in this interview pretty much tells it all:

“We have a strategy for competing in the search space that Google dominates today, that we’ll pursue that we had before we made the Yahoo offer, and that we can pursue without that. It involves breakthrough engineering.”

I’ve heard this before from MIcrosoft for a few years now. Question is: Where is this breakthrough engineering? Oh yeah…you haven’t developed it yet.

“We think that the combination with Yahoo would accelerate things in a very exciting way, because they do have great engineers, they have done a lot of great work. So, if you combine their work and our work, the speed at which you can innovate and get things done is just dramatically more rapid.”

What if their work is dramatically different from your own? How do you combine two thing together that follow completely different philosophies? It’s like trying to convince a vegan to eat a steak. Getting Yahoo! engineers to do things the Microsoft way isn’t innovation…it’s torture!

“So, it’s really about the people there that want to join in and create a better search, better portal for a very broad set of customers. That’s the vision that’s behind saying, hey, wouldn’t this be a great combination.”

Great…but what if the people at Yahoo! don’t give a shit about your vision. Chances are that if the merger goes through, a lot of the engineers that make Yahoo! great might very well go bye-bye. So much for that great combination.

Regarding culture differences:

“Yahoo wants to do breakthrough software. The engineers there want to compete very effectively against Google or any other thing that comes along. So, I don’t think there’s really a different culture.”

But the engineers there also want to compete by offering a great degree of openness, something Microsoft has had a problem with in the past. Yahoo! also has embraced the open-source community which, again, is something Microsoft has had a problem with in the past. How is the culture between these companies not different?

Gates still didn’t talk about the one thing that separates Google from the rest of the crowd, which is just straight-up great online applications. The search and advertising part is important, but those two things are just piggy-backing on the success of Google’s repertoire of online apps like Gmail, Calendar, Docs, and others. For Microsoft and Yahoo! to compete, they need to embrace this and come up with their own solutions that follow this train of thought. Yahoo! has a shot at doing this…but not if it means altering their philosophy to match Microsoft’s. Till Microsoft, Gates & Co. get their head out of their ass, I just don’t see it happening for Microsoft anytime soon.

Didn’t take long for Microsoft to respond to Yahoo!’s rejection:

It is unfortunate that Yahoo! has not embraced our full and fair proposal to combine our companies. Based on conversations with stakeholders of both companies, we are confident that moving forward promptly to consummate a transaction is in the best interests of all parties.

No, it’s not. It’s in Microsoft’s best interests; not Yahoo!’s. If Yahoo! was a lot like Microsoft, I could see it being a fair proposal…but it’s not.

We are offering shareholders superior value and the opportunity to participate in the upside of the combined company. The combination also offers an increasingly exciting set of solutions for consumers, publishers and advertisers while becoming better positioned to compete in the online services market.

So…it’s all about the shareholders. Umm…what about the consumer? Ever thought about asking them how they feel about it? You assume that the consumer is going to be as increasingly excited as you are. You’re damn straight they will…especially after you pull the rug out from under them!

A Microsoft-Yahoo! combination will create a more effective company that would provide greater value and service to our customers. Furthermore, the combination will create a more competitive marketplace by establishing a compelling number two competitor for Internet search and online advertising.

Again, more effective and greater value to Microsoft; not Yahoo! Sure, a Microsoft-Yahoo!-Taco Bueno combo Chilada platter will most certainly put Microsoft instantly into the number two spot for search and advertising. However, the notion that this will create more competition is a highly flawed point of view because it will do nothing of the sort. Just because you own a jigsaw doesn’t mean you’re a good carpenter and are able to make a bitchin’ chair.

The Yahoo! response does not change our belief in the strategic and financial merits of our proposal. As we have said previously, Microsoft reserves the right to pursue all necessary steps to ensure that Yahoo!’s shareholders are provided with the opportunity to realize the value inherent in our proposal.

What merits? Does the strategic merits include giving Zimbra a drop-kick into the gutter? And does the financial merits include trying to buy your way out instead of simply being innovative and creating something truly different for a change? Microsoft certainly can reserve the right…but that doesn’t mean that they are right.

Yahoo!’s CEO made it pretty clear that he believes that Microsoft’s proposal substantially undervalues Yahoo! on a whole. Microsoft clearly doesn’t get it. They just don’t see the writing on the wall. Can they not see how different Microsoft and Yahoo! really are? Can they not understand that such a merger is not good for either company? What are they doing over there? Writing proposals with Crayons?

When I heard about the whole Microsoft/Yahoo! situation, I immediately reacted in a very negative manner. But, rather than immediately flying off the handle, I decided to hold back a bit, let it play out a bit, and see how everyone else responds. Now that both Google and Microsoft have made their statements, the picture is getting clearer and the impact of a Microsoft/Yahoo! merger couldn’t be any clearer: It’s bad news!

I’ve been using open-source software for the better part of two years. My job depends on them. I use the typical LAMP setup (LInux, Apache web servers, MySQL, and PHP) and use other open-source tools like Eclipse and Aptana to get the job done. All of these tools help in contributing to another open-source software project, a PHP-based content management framework called MODx. The level of innovation that is born out of all of these tools is absolutely amazing.

Now, let’s look at a statement by Brad Smith, General Councel at Microsoft:

The combination of Microsoft and Yahoo! will create a more competitive marketplace by establishing a compelling number two competitor for Internet search and online advertising. The alternative scenarios only lead to less competition on the Internet.

Today, Google is the dominant search engine and advertising company on the Web. Google has amassed about 75 percent of paid search revenues worldwide and its share continues to grow. According to published reports, Google currently has more than 65 percent search query share in the U.S. and more than 85 percent in Europe. Microsoft and Yahoo! on the other hand have roughly 30 percent combined in the U.S. and approximately 10 percent combined in Europe.

Microsoft is committed to openness, innovation, and the protection of privacy on the Internet. We believe that the combination of Microsoft and Yahoo! will advance these goals.

The interesting thing is that Microsoft is only focusing on the search engine and advertising part of the deal in their statement. Problem is that search and advertising are just one part of the equation. Granted, Google is the big dog when it comes to search and advertising, but Google didn’t get that way with just their search services alone. It took other services to do that. Google created some very well thought-out, well designed online apps and made search and advertising an integral part of some of these services. They made it where these services end up being a big part of your life because you can get to them from practically anywhere. I’m not sure if Microsoft understands this.

Just like Google, Yahoo! is more than just a search and advertising company. Granted, they’re not as successful as Google, but given time they potentially could be. You see, just like Google, Yahoo! has done a lot to contribute to the open-source community. Contributions like the Yahoo! User Interface Library encourage innovation and show that open-source isn’t as evil as Microsoft would have you believe. And, just like Google, the majority of Yahoo!’s services are built off of open-source software.

If the merger happens, it’s almost a given that Yahoo! will essentially be gobbled up and spit back out. The problem is that since most of Yahoo!’s services are not built off of the Windows platform I just don’t see how Microsoft will be able to merge Yahoo!’s infrastructure with their own. Do they seriously thing they’ll be able to reverse engineer any of this stuff? Doubtful.

The thing Microsoft isn’t telling you is that there is perhaps a bit of a ulterior motive to this merger. Microsoft clearly wants to knock out the competition Yahoo! poses in search and advertising, that much is clear. But I think Microsoft also wants to give a direct hit to the open-source community by also knocking out a few services that pose as big of a threat…services like Del.icio.us, Flickr, Upcoming.org, and Zimbra. With the exception of Zimbra, the other services aren’t much of a threat. But, because their built off of open-source, they’ll probably be dumped or reverse engineered into a nightmare. Given Microsoft’s history, the chances of Microsoft allowing any of these services to continue to exist on their own for long is slim to none.

The bigger threat is Zimbra, an open-source messaging and collaboration suite that is in direct competition with Microsoft Exchange. Killing this means killing the one thing that would allow companies to successfully migrate their existing Exchange servers on over the Linux. Steve Ballmer has made it clear that he’s not a fan of open-source so killing Zimbra would be a clear blow to the bow of the open-source community and Linux.

As the Wall Street Journal has reported, Yahoo! is set to reject Microsoft’s bid. Let’s hope that Microsoft doesn’t have a leg to stand on with this. If Microsoft was smart they would back off and perhaps learn to do the one thing they should have been doing all along: Make better software!

I had a lot of fun doing the presentation and hope to do it again. Thanks to all who came out and participated in the presentation. You made it worthwhile and set me at ease during my presentation.

In an effort to protect Merlin Mann’s work, I can’t post my presentation online. I respect Merlin a lot and love everything he does. As such, I highly recommend visiting his Inbox Zero site and viewing the presentation he did for Google.

I’ll be exploring one particular topic that I hope to turn into a presentation real soon. It’ll be about the use of frameworks in development. Hopefully will have something put together real soon.

InfoWorld has been running a “Save Windows XP” petition campaign for a little while now. Judging by the date of the oldest posts (January 14th?), looks like they’ve been running it since the beginning of the year. In that time they’ve gathered over 84,000 signatures for their petition. That’s a staggering number.

A recent Computerworld AU article noted that “a survey of 961 IT professionals conducted by King Research found 90 per cent of respondents had concerns about migrating to Vista”. What’s interesting is that 44% said they would consider non-Windows operating systems to avoid potential problems, with ease of virtualization being a factor as well.

So what’s Microsoft’s response to the “Save Windows XP” petition?

“We’re aware of it, but are listening first and foremost to feedback we hear from partners and customers about what makes sense based on their needs. That’s what informed our decision to extend the availability of XP initially, and what will continue to guide us.”

Soooo….does that mean you’re gonna listen to the 84,000 customers who want to continue using Windows XP?

“Therefore OEMs will continue to sell XP through June 30th 2008 and system builders will be able to sell XP through January 2009 as they cater to the small business markets. In emerging markets where XP Starter Edition is sold, it will still be available through June 30th, 2010.”

Ok, let me get this straight. System builders will be able to sell XP till the end of the year…but they’re not the same as OEMs….so what version of XP will they be selling? Is there a special “system builder” version of XP I’m not aware of? My guess is that they’re referring to the standard retail versions of XP and they’re allowing system builders to sell through them in a time when retailers can’t.

Problem is that it’s not just the system builders who are complaining. Most companies, including many small businesses, buy their computers from OEMs. So what Microsoft is saying is that they’re not changing the June 30th cutoff for these businesses, the very customers who need “a little more time” to migrate to Vista. Remember, Vista has only been out for a year now. Most businesses follow a 2-2 1/2 year cycle for software migrations in relation to their business continuity. For Microsoft to say that businesses only have a year and a half to migrate is insane!

Meanwhile, you got Steve Ballmer thinking that aquiring Yahoo! is a grand idea and Bill Gates saying, “Screw you guys! I’m goin’ home!”. Microsoft is lucid…they’re just not the same company anymore!