I'd Like To Serve Dinner But My Table Just Crashed

This week, the Wall Street Journal's All Things Digital conference featured announcements from Palm, Apple, Microsoft, Google and more. The announcement that seems to have captured the imagination in Microsoft's "Surface." For those of you who missed the news, Surface is a table that you interact with the surface of like a giant touch screen. Only it isn't really a touch screen, it's a series of cameras that capture your movements from underneath a translucent surface. It can also interact with cameras, phones, and more.

There's no keyboard, and nothing that people actually use has been shown on the platform. Word processing, e-mail, web browsing have all failed to materialize in any demonstration. You can dump all your pictures into the table and stretch them. You can send the photos to friends, but apparently can't include a note. You can digitally finger paint. And you can get information on items that the table scans, which sounds like an invitation to identity theft if you put your wallet or purse on the table.

All in all, it sounds like gee-whiz technology that looks great in a showcase, but seems pretty useless in real life.

Do They Realize They're The Sideshow?

In the news lately, for this and that, have been Rosie O'Donnell, Lindsay Lohan, and Britney Spears. The attention has made me wonder: do they realize that the attention they're getting is the same attention that used to be lavished on sideshow freaks? Do they realize that they are hollywood's equivalent of a flaming wreck on the side of the highway?

If they do know, do they care? Has being famous become so important that it no longer matters why someone is famous?

Lies, Damned Lies, and Presidential Politics

Hillary Clinton is trying to ride her husband's coattails. She is campaigning to bring us a return to "when Bill was President." She claims the Bush administration policies have reversed the federal surplus that existed when Clinton was in office.

Stop!

Let's make one thing perfectly clear. There NEVER was a surplus. There was an anticipated surplus, based on what the U.S. would receive in Capitol Gains taxes assuming the Internet bubble of the late 90s would NEVER end. Guess what. Bubbles burst, and with it any imaginary surplus. So let's see what the Clinton administration would return us to.

Most people lost a fortune in the stock market thanks to easy availability of stocks and no oversight of analysts. The recession that hit earlier in the decade had its seeds planted on Clinton's watch. These things don't just happen overnight. So maybe she's talking about a safer time. Like when the U.S.S. Cole gets blown up and the Clinton administration let Osama bin Laden go after finding out where he was. After all, he wasn't ever going to do anything like that again. Oh wait, he did.

Let's not look at presidential policies through nostalgia. The good old days weren't all that good.

When Should Consumers Really Be Protected?

Several items have occurred in the past few weeks, all under the name of consumer protection.

Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal announced he was going after Apple, Inc. In his announcement he stated that there were two complaints in Connecticut and 25 more nationwide about iPods that didn't work and that Apple had not resolved the complaints to the customers' satisfaction. Apple has sold 700 million iPods and 27 of those people aren't happy. While I'm not disparaging the people who have the complaints, 27 out of 700 million means get your own lawyers and duke it out in civil court. This is not a case that should be wasting taxpayer money.

Blumenthal is also going after Best Buy because they have different prices on their web site as they do in their stores. Guess what? So does Barnes & Noble. So do many stores. Why? Because it costs more to have a physical location than it does to have an online store. Higher costs, lead to higher prices. When a company tries to defraud its customer, then there should be protections. When consumers are simply too stupid to do their research, then let the buyer beware.

The Dairy Association is pulling ads that touts the weight loss benefits of milk. Despite scientific evidence that states calcium assists in weight loss, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine has complained to the FTC and fought to have the ads removed. Is their concern based on scientific evidence? No. The PCRM, far from having the consumers best interests at heart, is a vegan group dedicated to stopping people from eating anything that comes from an animal. They would prefer that everyone stuck to a diet of twings and berries. Once again, a loudmouth group of activists has pushed their own agenda in front of the public good.