US President Spends 3000th Day In a Row Golfing At His Own Course At Great Taxpayer Expense

News flash: The Republicans don't care.

Before Trump was president, he and his supporters talked about how much time Obama spent golfing, and claimed that Trump wouldn't be golfing, he would be working. Big surprise!, turns out that wasn't true.

There are a lot of news stories about Trump golfing, week after week, as if eventually Trump supporters are going to realize that he spends a lot of time golfing at their expense, and change their opinions. Those who write the stories keep writing them because they're continuously outraged, and because it seems as though their audience hasn't heard the news yet. Guess what! Trump supporters just do not care.

Democrats expect Trump's supporters to acknowledge the hypocrisy, and to be fair about it. Why is that not happening? Why will it never happen?

It's because this has never been about time spent golfing. Trump supporters didn't really care what Obama did on his time off, all they cared about was that they didn't like Obama and attacked him for whatever they possibly could. To them, the difference between Obama golfing a few weekends here and there and Trump wasting taxpayer money golfing as much as he possibly can, is that Obama is black, and Trump is white, pro-white, anti-minority, misogynistic, etc. No amount of golfing that Trump does will make him black, so you can stop expecting his supporters to ever be outraged by it. That's why Trump was right when he said he could shoot someone on 5th ave without losing support. His supporters don't care about what he does, just what he stands for, and more importantly what he doesn't (ie. support for and acceptance of the people they hate).

Not only is it impossible for fervent Trump supporters to be outraged by how much taxpayer money he wastes on his own golf courses, but it actually does the opposite. What they see is that liberals get upset over such wastes, and that pleases them immensely. If they could cause a single democrat to break down in tears and frustration, that would be worth the US going into crippling debt that they could never escape from in a thousand years. The more Trump golfs and the more poor people suffer, the happier Trump's hardest supporters are.

This is why we should never expect someone to show consistency and fairness in dealing with Democrats and Republicans. Politically motivated individuals do not deal with one or the other out of only a sense of duty or respect for law or whatever, they do it to achieve an outcome. Expecting the same punishment for the same crime committed by a Democrat and a Republican is not reasonable if the punishment was done to gain an advantage, instead of because it fit the crime. Moral behaviour and fairness have (sadly) become associated with liberals only. Liberals must stop expecting... anything!, anything decent at all, from Republicans, if they hope to achieve their goals. After all, Republicans aren't going to be affected the same way by the injustices, and they're not going to change their behaviours just because they're reprehensible.

Sadly, one way or another, eventually no one will be shocked or interested in the stories of how much Trump golfs, or whom he's cut support from next. Simply being outraged, without action, expecting outrage alone to effect change, will do little except encourage the hateful, especially when normalization of outrages both dulls people to it, and becomes accepted as it becomes ubiquitous.

---

I'm reminded of the daily outrages of the Bush II era. Trump now seems like a worse president, definitely more selfish, uncaring, stupider, and incompetent. However I'm not convinced he's overall worse, because while Trump seems to have debilitating mental illness, cares for no one but himself, and is only concerned with his own image and fortune, he does at least seem to not want to get involved in additional wars. He has increased attacks on countries of people he couldn't care less for, and in the end we'll have to estimate the number of deaths he's caused to see who's worse on that front, but he's not the war-hungry president that Bush II was. Bush revelled in being a "war president" and saw glory in sending his own people to kill and be killed. Trump may be the worst person ever, but that one issue---the appearance of a desire to avoid full-scale war---makes it seem like his behaviour is all a self-serving act meant to gain the most for himself at the expense of everyone, and not based on a genuine biblical belief that he must gain glory by ushering the holy final battle between good and evil or whatever, as many people hope, and as Bush II appeared to feel of himself.

This is fine.

Trump's behaviour is baffling. It can be explained by either vicious malice or psychotic stupidity. Either way, I think it is dangerous to assume that the situation is being handled by the system, that justice will be served, and that Trump's missteps will be his downfall. They may be in the end, but look where we are at present: Trump has not had to pay for any of his crimes. He's still in power, and he's still propped up by rich people and their subservient politicians. There are looming investigations, but no indication of any specific punishment that anyone is planning for him. If I had to guess, I think the most likely outcome is that Trump will leave office in disgrace within a year, but he will be allowed to do so painlessly (resigning instead of being dragged out in cuffs), and instead of any criminal punishment or jail time, he'll be given opulent severance and be allowed to line his pockets in all sorts of ways. Rich people simply receive money as a natural process. He'll also go out tweeting lies and bile, getting off easy while making sure no one else does.

His disgusting behaviour can partly be explained by the fact that it's worked so far, and he hasn't suffered for it. Might as well continue doing what works. The sad new reality, since Trump's election win, is that opinions are just as important as facts, and the opinions of royalty (or "alternative facts") are more important than the facts of hundreds of millions of plebs. Trump pounced on Al Franken for an inappropriate lewd joke photo, letting his opinion trump facts by saying, "Where do his hands go in pictures 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 while she sleeps?" His narrative about what may have happened is just as important as facts, or evidence, or lack thereof. Lack of evidence no longer matters, since a negative opinion is enough of a fact for the new America. However, Trump got into trouble by endorsing child-molester Roy Moore. The narrative was changed to accommodate: This is fine because Moore denied the claim. This sets a dangerous precedent, going against decades or centuries of common practice, where remorse and confession lead to lighter criminal sentences. If the new reality is that "I didn't do it" is a valid opinion, even if it is a lie and counters facts, and that such an opinion is treated as evidence of innocence, AND if admitting any fault is grounds for punishment, then why would anyone ever again admit to any mistake? The new reality is, if you commit a crime it's okay as long as you maintain a lie about it, no matter the evidence (though maybe only if you're rich and white). Perjury used to be an offence, now it is an accepted defence.

But this is still a problem for Trump, since he himself has admitted to sexual molestation. In the Access Hollywood tape Donald Trump said, "I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything." He then later excused his behaviour as "locker room talk" and admitted it was a mistake. That doesn't fit the narrative now being used, that denial is exoneration, so the narrative is changed: Simply deny the tape ever happened. Now Franken is bad because he didn't deny what he did, Moore is okay because he denied it (evidence to the contrary is meaningless), and Trump is okay because he has switched to now denying what he did and admitted to. That he previously admitted to it, that there's evidence on tape, that he has committed crimes, does not matter, because opinions are facts and so facts can change. Devaluing his apology by denying it doesn't matter; opinion is more valuable and repentance is worth nothing, or less. Change the story, lie, cheat, harm, succeed, and if you get away with it, do it again.

We have always been at war with Eastasia. It's not like the new power paradigm is to use Orwell's 1984 as a playbook, but more like they've combined 1984 with Huxley's Brave New World. A lot of people are complacent about Trump's lies (whether it's "Don't worry, I'll just make some popcorn and wait until Mueller fixes all of this, and I'll do nothing else", or "As long as Trump keeps upsetting people I don't like, everything he says is gospel to me."). This is the new reality. If it works, it is adapted for repeated use and becomes standard operating procedure. As long as Trump keeps getting what he wants (money, revenge, praise), he can continue being vile and psychotic, and no one will stop him, because they're too busy being shocked and bewildered to think they have to do anything. It's as if this is all too strange to be reality, so just do nothing and wait until reality corrects things by itself and things return to normal naturally. They won't, though, because the new insanity is being left alone to become the new normal. This is reality now. Nothing reasonable matters any more.

I think nothing will be fixed until after some great financial collapse that makes sitting back and waiting for someone else to fix the Matrix, no longer a comfortable option.

Trump Predictions

Here are some predictions I have for the next few months:

1. Trump will hold a "fancy dress party for close friends" at Mar-a-Lardo. The theme will be "who here should get a presidential pardon after all this Russia stuff is over." Only one pardon per guest!
2. Due to "increasing popularity", Mar-a-Lardo membership fees skyrocket twenty-fold shortly before.
3. Trump signs an executive order stating that because many important government fancy dress parties happen at Mar-a-Lardo, all members of Congress and other senior lawmakers and basically anyone who could help impeach Trump, gets a fully paid membership to Mar-a-Lardo compliments of the federal budget. "Very close friends" will also receive a Faberge egg and one thousand bochkas of vodka as a thank-you for all their hard work.
4. Trump twits "It would be very, very bad for the Dems if Putin's style of dealing with opponents gets more common here. Capeach?" repetitively for a week.

If Trump can make lucrative business deals with anyone who can stop him from abusing his power to make lucrative business deals, then what's stopping him from promising to pardon anyone who can bring him down, in exchange for keeping him propped up?

---

Bonus prediction:

5. Trump will eventually bankrupt America. He'll do this by firing $2 million missiles at $10 empty tents and hitting camels in the butt, which Bush Jr. famously said he would not do. Trump has no problem doing that. I don't think it's that he doesn't understand economics, but more that it's not his money that's being wasted, and it's that with which he has no problem. The more money going out in the form of wasted military spending (he has so far ordered more air strikes in Yemen than were carried out in all of 2016), the more money comes in to him personally, I suspect. It won't matter if the US goes bankrupt, or at least suffers financially. Only the losers will suffer, and he knows he's not one of them. What will happen when the US gets sticker shock from the outrageous spending of Trump's nascent presidency, from golf trips to camel-butt missiles to useless overpriced Trump-built walls, with Trump meanwhile working hard to reduce corporate and megarich taxes?

A Horrible Mess

Trump has declared his intention NEVER to give up power:

‏@realDonaldTrump Jan 27: I promise that our administration will ALWAYS have your back. We will ALWAYS be with you!

For all those who said they were just glad that the horrible campaign season was over, I hope you enjoyed your 2 months off! Trump registered to campaign for 2020, before he was even inaugurated. We are now in an era of continuous campaigning. Trump will literally be campaigning for re-election the entire time he is in office. There is speculation that the reason for this is that there are laws preventing groups from criticising a campaigning candidate by name, because it can be seen as political influence. So don't worry about Trump using this just to talk shit about other people, he's doing it to silence his critics. There will be plenty of mudslinging from him in his role as president. Another reason for campaigning now is that it allows him to keep previously acquired campaign funds and to accept new donations. Don't doubt that as long as there's cash still there, he will ALWAYS be campaigning.

How could Trump possibly be re-elected if his policies fail? What strategies does Trump use?

1. Exaggerate the positives in what he has done. Exaggerate the bad in what he wants to control.

“It’s not a Muslim ban,” Trump said in the Oval Office. “It’s working out very nicely. You see it at the airports, you see it all over.”

...

@realDonaldTrump Jan 29: Look what is happening all over Europe and, indeed, the world - a horrible mess!

2. Blame others for his mistakes, for getting in his way or slowing him down, or for sabotaging his plans.

Kellyanne Conway says the Muslim ban is actually Barack Obama's brainchild, and President Trump is just following his lead.

Remember it's not a Muslim ban when Trump does it, but it was actually done by Obama and it is a Muslim ban.

3+. Distract people from the real issues. Continue to incite fear and hatred with threats and lies. Use any event or tragedy to his advantage. And I suspect: If there is no sufficient tragedy to cement people's support and confuse their reasoning, create one. Man-made tragedies have worked well to consolidate power and support in the past, including Putin's 1999 Russian apartment bombings and Bush/Cheney's 9/11. There is no good reason to believe it can't happen again.

So there's a Russian joke...

Rachel Maddow talks about US troops rushed to EU countries near the Russian border, which Obama did in his last few days of office, as he is sworn to protect the NATO countries and they axed for the troops. The 5-billion-dollar question is what will Trump do with those troops? Because if he pulls them out, he is thumbing his nose at the treaty, giving Putin what he wants, and possibly adding to the speculation that Putin has damning surveillance footage of Trump.

But wouldn't it be silly to risk world conflict to avoid embarrassment? Or is keeping a gross sextape hidden exactly the kind of top priority on which the current president of the United States chooses to focus? And who said anything about world conflict? Hey wait a minute, why has no one said anything about world conflict? If EU nations are nervous and Putin wants troops pulled from their borders, why? Could Putin actually be considering invading? Perhaps more likely, Putin is planning on taking back what once belonged to the USSR. Getting the old gang back together. Making the Soviet Union Great Again. And he doesn't want the neighbours getting involved.

And what could Trump be thinking in this? Is he too focused on his crowd sizes to consider what global conflicts his gross sextapes and his decisions might get the world into? Or is he on board? Strengthen his allegiance with Russia and raise the US up a little, by helping to cause turmoil in EU? To knock them down a peg or two? These are the types of questions we need to start asking now, instead of getting transfixed on lies about crowd sizes (it was a lie, end of story), conspiracy theories regarding whether Trump really lost the popular vote (it doesn't matter, it won't change anything either way) or whether he'll release his taxes (unless it can lead to impeachment, it doesn't matter if Trump has done bad things in the past as long as the world is so hung up on them that they let him continue to do bad things, and then only talk about those when it's too late). Well, there are some people who are thinking of these real issues, such as Masha Gessen, who worries Trump will lead us to nuclear holocaust. She mentions a few predictions of milestones on the road to Trump's bottom, among them banning increasing numbers of newspapers from the White House, and calling on Americans to report immigrants, thereby beginning a culture of citizen against citizen. Lots of scary stuff to watch out for and mark off our Trump Presidency bingo cards!

Now that Trump's in office and we all need to be thinking of what World War III's going to look like over the next several years, it's clear that it's going to be US + USSR teamed up against everybody else. Perhaps Putin/Trump will try to persuade the biggest nuclear powers to form a gang. Then everyone else can be bullied with impunity. Mutual Assured Destruction is a deterrent against the use of nuclear weapons, but if it's only Unilateral Assured Destruction there's no problem. It would almost be a waste to have all those weapons and not use a few. That would really "put the world on notice", as Conway has claimed Trump is doing when he speaks of an intention to expand US nuclear capability.

Oh, the joke courtesy of Gessen is, we thought we'd hit bottom, and then someone knocked from below. Dark comedy! This is starting to look worse than Bush 2. I guess we'll have to be on the look-out for Pence orchestrating a terrorist attack on the US, and the subsequent power-grab of whatever power is left ungrabbed, amidst the suddenly unquestioning, unified, unquestioning support of the US people.

Welcome to 1984

CNN: Trump White House offered 'alternative facts'

"Alternative facts" offer something that a lot of Americans will gladly accept: respite from the truth. There has been a lot of denial of truth recently---including the reality of global warming, the loss of jobs due to automation, and the competency of President Obama---and fighting against those truths is increasingly inconvenient. But now there is no need to worry about it. Instead of fighting between what you want to believe and what you suspect to be true, Americans can choose to accept what they're told, and leave the struggle between the reality that is, and the alternative reality they want, to people who have no scruples regarding that conflict.

An additional worrying thing to come from this is Conway's statement, "Your job is not to call things ridiculous that are said by our press secretary and our president. That's not your job," insinuating that the media's "job" is to present the message that the Trump administration wants. There were also veiled threats to CNN of punishment for calling out the nascent administration on its lies.

Lying about crowd size probably doesn't matter, but the administration---and media too, either unwittingly or complicitly---can systematically focus on trivialities to divert attention away from atrocities. The only atrocity so far that I'm aware of is Trump's executive order "to waive and delay Obamacare fees and regulation." They may be simply laying the groundwork to be mired in controversy so that no one pays attention to things like new wars.

Trump Loves War

While campaigning, Trump said, "I love war, in a certain way. But only when we win. By the way, when was the last time we won a war?" (This footage is from a campaign rally. #alternativefact)

This suggests to me that Trump equates winning wars with greatness, which fits into the "make America great again" motif. The US hasn't been winning a suitable quantity of wars recently. Unlike Bush 2, who wanted to be a "war president" and start wars for the glory of fighting wars, Trump just wants the glory of winning. It is like a business deal. Trump is anxious to make his mark in his first 100 days as president, and has talked about an intent to destroy ISIS. Given his statements, I predict that Trump will quickly attempt to start and win a war, which means going up against the weakest target that he can find, and using overwhelming force against them.

Trump, like all presidents since the US became a world power, will be making life-and-death decisions involving people all over the globe. This means that Trump will be deciding who gets to die in various specific situations. I hope that people are not stuck in the controversy over lies about Trump's inauguration crowd size, that they don't notice which unpersons the Trump administration is selecting for vaporisation.

US Upholds Free Healthcare, Drugs For Addicted Corporations

The US Fed, a healthcare provider that services people of corporate personhood, has renewed its plan to provide free benefits for businesses suffering from an addiction to money.

In recent years, the plan successfully prescribed large doses of the addictive drug Stimulus to treat depression among corporations. With the disease now all but eradicated, the economy regularly pushes to record heights in overall market capitalization. However, many of these healthy companies have become addicted to Stimulus, and experts in economic medicine say they need to stay on it, or risk stunted growth.

"These companies originally needed Stimulus to get them back on their feet. Now, in peak financial form, they repeatedly want just one more hit so that they can stay on top... to bulk up just a little more. All they need is a constant supply of cash to keep them happy, and I really don't see a harm in that."

The Fed says that Americans support the free healthcare. "Sure, the taxpayers have to foot the bill for supporting the economy, but good health for corporate persons is an important American value. We all have a corporation or two in our family and friends, and we all have to look out for them, to make sure that no single corporation is left sick or suffering like some disgusting poor person."

---

In other news, the US is introducing "Preventative Welfare", a form of financial aid for extremely rich people, which aims to ensure that they stay that way. "One way to keep the poverty figures low is to avoid adding any numbers from among the wealthier Americans."

This Week in Pictures

Stephen Elop in a trance, pledging eternal servitude to his master, in a ritual amid a fiery orange backdrop. The unidentified man on the right, presumed to be Lord Satan, is seen consuming Elop's soul via inhalation.

Post Picayune lowers Nokia target price to $0.00

A lot of people wonder: When will Microsoft buy up the remains of Nokia, now that they ****** their *** up like in a car crash? How low does the stock have to go before MS buys the cadaver?

Here is my prediction: $0.00.

Why? Because as long as MS has a man on the inside (Stephen Elop... inside and all the way up), they already own Nokia as much as they need to.

People expect MS to bail out Nokia and prevent it from failing. When would they do that? Answer: When the stock price reaches $0.00. At that price, it means that investors do not expect to have any ROI at all from a purchase of Nokia. It is essentially the value of a bankrupt company. If the stock price is above that, it means that Nokia's probably not bankrupt and still has its own assets to waste on its survival. So why would MS throw its own money onto the fire when Nokia is still burning away quite toastily?

What factors determine NOK's current price, which has a market cap lower than its book value (ie. it is undervalued)?
1. Expectation that Nokia will burn through its cash and may go bankrupt in a year or three, and that it is completely committed to this doomed fate, pushes the price toward $0.
2. The possibility that it will become profitable in the next few quarters keeps it away from $0, but its current trajectory suggests that this is not likely without some miracle.
3. The possibility that Elop will be fired, and the stock will jump, and that the company can be turned around or even that the company will be liquidated before it goes bankrupt, makes for a long-shot bet that the stock will be worth a lot more than it is now.

In my estimate, many investors have hope that Nokia will stop doing what it's doing and what it has publicly committed to keep doing, and fewer have hope that they'll stick to their plan and succeed, while most investors expect them to stick to the plan and fail.

If MS doesn't already control Nokia's shareholders, then there is a chance that Nokia will come to its senses and fire Elop. In that case, we're talking about a different game. First, there will be a jump in the stock price simply from the renewed hope that Nokia may turn itself around without Elop. But there will also be a jump if there is a perception that MS no longer owns the company. If people believe that MS still wants to control Nokia, then at that point they may need to pay more than $0.00 for it, and the price will go up depending on how much they are seen to need it.

If the current trend continues---Nokia failing in its Windows Phone strategy and yet remaining committed to its own doom---I think that it indicates a general understanding that Nokia is completely controlled by MS, and that MS has no interest in seeing Nokia succeed. If MS only needs Nokia to stay afloat, it can do so at a value as low as $0. A bailout at any higher means that MS is--or wants people to see that they are--committed to Nokia's success, not just their existence. MS just doesn't roll that way. If anything, they might want such a bailout to be done secretly, so that it's not seen as the embarrassment of "WP manufacturers have to be propped up." If these speculations are indeed true, then Nokia stock price and book value should head for $0 in absence of some great success for WP and/or a shareholder revolt.


Disclosure: I have no position in either of the stocks mentioned, and I would rather see MSFT dead and buried in a pile of its own pig feces than consider investing in them, and it would be nice if NOK got the hell away from MS and climbed out of the grave Elop's been relentlessly digging for them.

I was looking for a job, and then I found a job. And heaven knows I'm miserable now

In the movie American Splendor, Harvey wakes up from a nightmare to his comforting reality: "I got a job! I got a job!"

For me "I got a job" is the nightmare from which to wake.

Most people seem to treat a job as a necessity. They wish me luck in finding gainful employment. They treat it as if I'm missing out on something.

I do not see it that way.

Work is not a necessity. Work is usually only a means to fulfil other (real) necessities. Satisfying work may also be a luxury.

Further I submit that no woman or man is truly free who needs to do work for someone else in order to eat. I realize I'm speaking of an ideal world and not the reality we currently exist in, but I do believe that almost no one is truly free in our world (for this and any multitude of other reasons).

If you are forced to do the work that another commands, just so you are able to survive, then you are a slave. Even if work is inescapable in life, a free person would at least do work according to her own will, not the will of others.

I think most would vehemently disagree, because most feel they need their jobs (and they pretty much do, because they're enslaved by employers and a society built to avoid making it easy to not work), and the thought that "this is how reality is" is easier to accept than the thought that "there are many other options, but they're kept from me." It is more comforting to believe that we are in control of a reality with many inherent limits, than it is to accept being controlled and limited by others.

Until things change (and they will, whether in a hundred, or a thousand, or a million years), it seems the only way to escape the "work is a necessity" mentality is not just a change in attitude, but some combination of a change in lifestyle, luck, ... and hard work.

We lose money on every sale, but we'll make it up in volume.

I came across this story, of Nokia offering a $100 credit due to a major glitch in Lumia 900 phones. The glitch prevents data access, and is a software issue that "is being fixed". The credit is being offered on phone sales up until April 21, even though Nokia says fixed phones will be in the stores within a couple days. Nokia says the purpose of the credit is to "give you something for your inconvenience".

I call bullshits.

You don't give a $100 credit for the inconvenience of buying a working phone. Assuming that Nokia actually can fix the phones in a timely fashion, new customers are not going to be inconvenienced (at least not by this particular bug). So either Nokia is saying that these phones are going to continue being an inconvenience, or they really need a drop in price to get the phone closer to its actual market value.

With the credit, the price of the phone becomes $0 with a typical expensive contract. Clearly, the phone has no perceived value on its own. But Nokia doesn't want to sell it that way... they're trying to compete with the higher-end smart phones. Or rather, they need to---this is the longshot bet that Elop risked the entire company on (burning Nokia's existing platform in favour of making crappy WP7 phones that nobody wants)---and if they can't sell phones (at any cost) they go the way of the dinosaurs.

This is basically just Nokia dropping the price of the phone to the bargain basement in a desperate attempt to try to get people to buy it. But they don't want the stigma of being a lower-class phone, so instead of admitting that their $99.99 phone is worth $0, they're trying to spin their financial desperation into a story of "We really really really care about our customers!"

There is a problem though. The perceived value of the phone is still $0. Whatever the reason for the price drop, it can be got for $0 (plus expensive contract). Come April 21, a $0 phone will suddenly jump in price by $100. Will anyone want to buy it after that?

My bet is that Nokia will be forced to keep their discount. Perhaps they already know this and have planned for it. Perhaps they will say "Due to demand and our ongoing commitment to our customers, we've decided to extend the $100 credit." This way, they can compete with the cheaper phones without admitting to being a low-value phone, and while they can try to use their "limited time offer!" to scam/entice new customers now, they can also continue to beg for customers in the longer term.

Some remaining questions:
- How much money are Microsoft and Nokia willing to throw at this market to establish a user base that they can start exploiting?
- How much will it take for customers to be tricked into becoming WP7 users? Comments on the cnet story indicate that $100 off of an expensive contract is enough.
- If things continue to go badly for WP7, will MS bleed money until they've choked their way into the market, no matter how long it takes, or will they give up?

Everyone knows that Nokia's not going to survive long enough for WP7 to buy its own success (unless they fire Elop and get off that sinking ship). Sure MS has the cash to survive, but they're not exactly known for making room on the lifeboat for their "partners". No, partners are kicked off their pant-legs and left to drown (sometimes helped by a knife in the back). Everyone expects that Nokia's going down, and that MS will swoop in at the last minute only to buy them up once their value has bottomed out. MS will be in this for the long haul. As far as I can tell, MS's business model is to throw money at a market until it suffocates everyone including themselves, knowing that they can afford to wait it out. This time though I don't think they'll be able to suffocate Apple or Android. This is business as usual in tech. It's not about making the best product and competing on value, it's about driving the competition away, putting pressure on them through marketing or patent litigation, until they're gone. The Lumia series is MS's investment in their dream phone monopoly. Then you won't be seeing $100 credits to buy off customer inconvenience.

---

Update: May 23, 2012: Prior to breaking this story I was perhaps the most accurate predictor of WP7's road to failure, having never made a wrong prediction about it --- at the very least I was up there with Tomi --- but I have to admit that I did miss the mark on this one.

After April 21st came and went, I did see some ads for a sale price of $49, but generally the price with contract seemed to be back up to $99. Now the price has been dropped to $10 (for existing customers) and $40 (for new customers). It's getting pretty close back down to $0 (with expensive contract).

Nokia wasn't as desperate as I anticipated. Now we will have to wait for the Q2 results to see if they really were desperate and failing but tried to act successful as a marketing strategy (a ruse that can't last forever. MS employees may spend their days writing up glowing Amazon reviews of the Lumia 900, and execs may claim that WP outsells iPhone in China while still refusing to give any of the obviously embarrassing sales numbers, but without some Enron-style fudging of the books, Nokia's balance sheet is going to tell the real story eventually.)

Hilariously, in this writeup of the Lumia 900 price cut, the author says that "seeing that time has passed since its launch, it’s naturally going to see some price drops." This is after one month at "full" price! A bargain basement price after 1 month, while still many months away from a successor product being available, does not make a "natural" price drop and does not bode well.

Even more hilariously, the author claims that "it shows us that Windows Phones can stand equally amongst its peers." I don't think that a price drop to $10 shows that WP can stand equally amongst its peers. I'd say at best it stands at 5% of its peers, based on an iPhone price (with contract) of $200.

Windows phone is a joke. It's too bad that it's all at Nokia's expense. Poor Nokia, you got scammed! When are you going to kick Elop out? Nokia shareholders: Did you make a mistake buying into that rotten potato Elop? Or are you continually being conned by a CEO who is not acting in Nokia's interests? This begs for an official investigation.

Microsoft redefines just about everything

MS is making a Consumer Preview of Windows 8 available for download, installation, rebooting, and rebooting once or twice more today. The company has made major changes to the clunky UI that's been around since the days of Windows 95, including some innovative features that make win8 the first OS to catch up to a few of the features that have been around in OSX, iOS, and some Linux UI managers for a few years now.

With Metro, gone is the tired, old metaphor of clicking on full-color square icons to run a program. The new hotness involves simply tapping on monochrome square tiles to interact with an app! Clicking these new tiles to run an app, er... that is, tapping icons to interact with programs is just a paradigm shift in outside-of-the-box thinking when it comes to streamlining my computer synergy, especially compared to the old method of clicking on squares to run... uh... apps, I guess. In retrospect, the user experience of all the shitty old windows versions (everything before 8, I mean) was just really dreadful.

Surely that's all going to change, this time for sure, with all the new definitions and no more of those distracting multiple colors.

I haven't tried out this amazing piece of software yet, but I can report on some anticipated changes that are likely to debut in windows 8:

• Users can tap on tiles using either a FeelSurface or their gerbils.
• Apps can store data in one or more boxes, arranged in various drawers in the computer's main shipping container.
• The Start Menu has been replaced by a list of apps that can be started via the new Launch Cookbook.
• Gone are the awful days of the Blue Screen of Death. The functionality of the unpopular feature is now handled by the Full-screen Indicator of Unscheduled Coffee Break.

This changes everything! Users who've been screwed over by Microsoft for decades now, time after time, might just want to give MS one more chance yet again to try to not rape them. Eight just might be your lucky number for not getting raped. If not, be assured that the Picayune Tech Squad is the place to be for hopeful speculation about 9, after 8 turns out to be more of the same crap that we've always seen from MS. Surely it's all going to change, with Nine for sure!

---

Update, March 13, 2012: We broke the story first! The mainstream news is catching up to the realization that 8 is going to be crap but 9... maybe 9 will be good! Slashdot is confirming that 8 will be a mistake. "The company needs to learn from its mistakes as quickly and nimbly as they can — and then turn around and make Windows 9 exceed all of our expectations."

If not, then 10. Or 11. It is statistically impossible for Microsoft to deliver with perfect consistency such utter useless shit every time. Eventually they will slip up and accidentally make something that doesn't make their users' lives hell.

Hacked by parasitic greedhead scam

There are some jobs that I don't think need to exist at all. These include, among countless others:

• Baby-seal pulverizer
• TSA crotchprober/deathray technician
• Telephone scamvertiser
• Realtor^(R)

That little ^(R) is there so that no one else can say they do what a realtor does, so if all the realtors demand outrageous fees, what can you do but accept it?

an·ti·trust
adj.
Opposing or intended to regulate business monopolies, such as trusts or cartels, especially in the interest of promoting competition

-- http://www.thefreedictionary.com/antitrust

A cartel is a formal (explicit) agreement among competing firms. It is a formal organization of producers and manufacturers that agree to fix prices, marketing, and production.

-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartel

REALTOR® members [...] are the only ones who have the right to list your property on the MLS® Systems of their local real estate boards.
[...]
MLS® and the corresponding web site www.REALTOR.ca have changed the way people search for homes, and it's hard to court buyers without it.

-- http://www.howrealtorshelp.ca/faq.php

---

Let us consider the economics of realtor fees. For a $400,000 house, the standard realtor fee will run you 4% of the house value (it's higher for less expensive houses). If you move houses several times in your life, you're skimming one 25th of your house value every time, and giving it to someone who has "earned" that much of your property by helping you sell it.

What does that number mean in conceptual terms? Suppose you have a 25-year mortgage on your house. Every year you pay off one 25th of the house. Pick one of those years, and say "This one's for my Realtor." Then go to work every workday that year, and start the day thinking "I do this for my Realtor." Put a smiling picture of them on your cubicle wall for motivation, if it's getting you down.

To be fair, you don't devote all your time to work, and you don't devote all your income to your mortgage. So maybe think "Here's some for my Realtor, here's some to feed my kids.*"

And remember, it's only one year of your life you'd need to do this for! One... for each time you move, I mean.

But perhaps it's worth it. Perhaps your Realtor will devote a year of work to selling your house.


* If you do choose to think of it in terms of food, you may wish to calculate how much is going to your kids and how much to your Realtor. If you spend $300 per month on food for the kids, it will take 4.44 years, not one, to add up to our example realtor fees. So you may choose to spend 4.44 years devoting equal time to your realtor and to feeding your kids, or you may wish to for example dedicate the first hour of work to your kids, and the next 4.44 to your realtor. Again, that's only for one tiny insignificant year of your life.

MPs Really Get Behind Seal Hunt

Canada's embattled sealing industry has been suffering these past few years, bleeding like a dead bag of meat left out on the snow (Photo Gallery with the Huff Post story).

Some conservative MPs are lending their support this year by participating in the seal hunt. MPs donned clubs and enthusiastic smiles as they paused for photo ops in between manic sessions of bashing in the brains of some cute baby seals.

"It's a lot of fun," said one MP, catching his breath and wiping some spattered blood from his lips. "Maybe we could expand the industry with an adventure-tourism aspect. I think that for many people, if they had a chance to bash in the face of one of the little critters, they wouldn't have such negative feelings towards it."

The MPs pinned dead seals to their lapels. "It's quite patriotic, I think, almost like a Canadian flag really. All that red and white."

One of the MPs held out a baby seal carcass to members of the press, offering it for sale. When there were no takers, the MP remarked "Well that's certainly odd. The market for dead seals is actually quite healthy."

Oh, the silent majesty of a winter's morn

I like Edmonton in the winter because I can watch a beautiful sunset while I'm on my lunch break.

Stephen Harper resurrects War on Terror for 9/11 anniversary

The Conservative government will reintroduce controversial anti-terrorism measures that were allowed to expire amid privacy concerns and Charter rights complaints, Prime Minister Stephen Harper confirmed to The Post Picayune Tuesday.

In celebration of the tenth anniversary of 9/11, Harper plans to help everyone remember and relive the days of racist fear-mongering, unjust persecution, and suppression of human rights that we all enjoyed over the past decade.

"We must look back to 9/11 and remember all that we've lost," the Prime Minister said, pausing to wipe a tear from his eye. "We've really lost a lot of government power these past few years. We used to be able to lock up people just for saying the wrong thing or having a 'foreigney' name. We used live in constant fear of our neighbors. Our fears kept us safe... they kept us wanting to be safe. We must never forget, never get complacent and let ourselves idly enjoy a life without totalitarian government power over the people. Without its protection and it making us do what's best for it and for this country, just imagine what a scary world that would be! We must remember the fear, and the hatred. Terrorism strikes right when you least expect it, and if you're not being vigilant by constantly living in terror, that's when terror will get you."

In what will surely go down in history as a great address of the nation, Harper said "The only thing we have to fear is... terror!, terror!, terror!!! And Islamicism, which as you all know is worse than Islam, Islamics, and even Islamism. We cannot sleep peacefully until the Islamicists are all hidden away in a secret prison and preferably tortured a little for good measure."

The Prime Minister later commented on his uncharacteristically emotional display during the speech. "I just think back to 9/11 and can't help feeling sad. I really miss those days. I really do."

Source: American Splendor

Takin it off here, boss. Wipin it off here, boss. Drinkin it up here, boss!

Do you ever notice yourself making decisions based on the outcome of essentially random events? For example, "I will only stop for coffee if the light turns green in the next five seconds," or "If it's heads, then I'll do some housework," or even "If the stock market's up, then it's a good day."

I think this might be happening as a result of being used to or even wanting an authority figure to make decisions for us. In the absence of such a figure, rather than allowing or forcing ourselves to make every decision that needs to be made, we invent authorities to make decisions for us.

Imagine a case where you've quit your job to write a novel. You are your own boss and get to decide what to do and when. Imagine also that you have writers' block. Now you are in a situation where you have sole control over your own actions and productivity, yet your decision-making feels ineffective. I believe the tendency will be toward making more and more "rules" to steer your actions -- an imaginary boss to fill the authority void -- until you fully replace the freedom of working for yourself with a level of control and restriction that you're used to in a job.

Not all such rules are "bad". For example, "I will write between 10am and noon even if I have nothing to write" can help force yourself to deal with procrastination. It can help inspire ideas that only come by doing, and not just by thinking.

Meanwhile, other rules like "I will only stop for a snack if the last digit on the clock is a zero" is an irrational and arbitrary rule that has no connection between the deciding factor and the outcome. Such rules are used to avoid judging for ourselves whether we deserve something or not. It is also used to try to avoid guilt: I didn't decide to eat this cookie; the clock did.

The key measure of whether a given rule is good, is simply whether the expected outcome of the rule is the desired outcome. All other rules should be abandoned, and replaced with a conscious acceptance of yourself as your own boss.

(Turn and face the strange)

Evolutionarily speaking, 'change' is both a good thing and a bad thing. Change is the very essence of evolutionary refinement. Change is also what kills dinosaurs. The difference is the rate at which change happens. Evolution involves adapting to a changing environment, and the process of adapting involves the changing of a species. As long as the latter can keep up with the former, everything's copacetic.

It is no surprise then that we have evolved both a fear and psychological need for change. Too much is chaos, and too little is stagnation. Any process of improvement by definition involves change, so change should only be avoided when things are perfect. But even then, the human mind does not enjoy constancy. The brain works on differences. Stare long enough at an unmoving point and a scene will begin to disappear. Remain motionless and you'll begin to stop feeling what you're touching. Spend a few months in a fixed routine and you'll have very little memory of that time passing.

So we should be constantly (or perhaps only often?) seeking change. One pro tip is to be more aware of what can be changed. Form a habit of checking yourself: Contemplate what you are doing in any random moment; notice the details, and ask yourself why they are that way. Then consider what can be changed (and why that might be an improvement). Then -- don't forget this step! -- ...do it.

As for the big changes: Rather than fearing and avoiding them, find ways to stretch them out into a slow, gradual, and manageable process. Acclimate yourself to everything. A new job or new location, even if you win the lottery: only fools rush in.

If we had some bacon we could have some bacon and eggs if we had some eggs

A couple is grocery shopping. One sees bacon on sale and says, "Ooh! We could have bacon and eggs!"

The other replies, "Ehn, don't bother. We don't have any eggs."

They continue shopping until they come across eggs on sale. "Ooh! We could have bacon and eggs!" says one to the other.

"Ehn, don't bother. We don't have any bacon."

...

Or a more realistic example:
Person 1: "You don't have a DVD player?"
Person 2: "Well, I don't own any DVDs, so what would be the point?"
Person 1: "They have DVDs at the library. You could watch those."
Person 2: "Well, no, I can't, because I don't have a DVD player."

...

Or even closer to home:
Person me: "I don't need a high-paying job, because I don't have a lot of expenses. Then again, it would be nice to be able to travel a lot. But I can't do that, cuz I don't have a high-paying job. But I don't need a high-paying job, cuz I don't have a lot of expenses."

...

Is there a name for this particular type of neurosis? It seems to involve a narrow focus on a single problem at a time, and the unsolvability of it due to some other blocking problem, without simultaneously being able to think of the other problem being solvable. Looking at only one of several mutually dependent problems, there is never any ready solution to any. It may be due to a dependence on a sequential ordering of problems and solutions, which isn't always available. It may have to do with an attitude of scarcity rather than of abundance, where "what is missing" is the driving force in decisions, rather than what else is possible. All of one's options may not be considered, if some part of your brain has already ruled out some of them for some minor reasons.

Is there a treatment for this particular type of neurosis? One potential idea is to train yourself to consider any problem as solvable, when faced with one. More than just consciously thinking that this particular problem is solvable, unconsciously accept that all problems are solvable. Imagine that all problems are solved, and then let your imagination fill in the details of how that happens.