Disqus - Latest Comments for Mike

Re: Gay advertising

Mike — Wed, 01 Oct 2003 16:20:17 -0000

There's even a link to the actual TV ad on the bottom left corner of the site.

Re: Gay advertising

Mike — Wed, 01 Oct 2003 16:19:15 -0000

Have you seen the ads on Bravo for Orbitz "gay travel"?

http://www.orbitz.com/gaytravel/

I kid you not.

Re: What to Tell Your Republican Friends About Their Support of the War

Mike — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 12:21:30 -0000

Note to self: research difference between plurality and majority.

Re: Measuring The Quality Of A Society

Mike — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 21:49:59 -0000

Interesting that you bring up Prisoner's Dilemma. One of the most effective strategies for PD is Tit-for-Tat - reciprocate cooperative behavior for cooperative behavior; punish non-cooperative behavior with non-cooperative behavior; measure for measure.

The problem with prisoner's dilemma is that it assumes two agents of equal power to reciprocate. I don't know how tit-for-tat scales to multiple agents, asymmetric power, or variable power.

Re: How To Strategically Comment On Other Blogs

Mike — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 13:08:21 -0000

Back in the days of proto-blogging I always found that starting a genuine conversation with someone was the best way to get attention. In other words, give interest to get interest.

That became even more true when "comment technology" came on the scene. (Back in, uh, 2000?) The ability to leave a comment of someone else's blog is power that, used responsibly, can deliver great benefits. A thoughtful comment that engages the poster or other readers can help build reputation and promote interest in one's own site.

A clueless or tossed-off comment is like littering in someone else's living room, or even worse.

Re: Blog Comments And a HUGE Wasted Opportunity

Mike — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 00:22:19 -0000

David, this is a great tip. Thanks.

Re: How To Never Run Out of Content For Your Blog Again

Mike — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 12:16:12 -0000

David, I often use Google alerts to monitor keywords or people who are active in my area. For example, there's a reporter at the Tampa Trib who typically covers real estate and foreclosure stories. I've got a daily alert set for her name. If she published a story that interests me, I can blog about it.

The possibilities for that technique alone are endless - the trick is learning what to filter OUT if you set up a lot of alerts.

Re: Five Terrible Reasons You Failed To Incorporate Your Online Business

Mike — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 10:49:17 -0000

Lisa, depends on your facts. Generally, most lawyers advise forming your entity in the state you'll be doing business in. You could start one here, or one where you're going, ot both, or start one here and then a nnew one later. Mostly depends on your risk tolerance.

JR, an s corp is treated the same in every state but an llc is not. Sale of goods exposes you to suit elsewhere, but enforcement would still be here, so either one is better than nothing. If you want to expand into other states you might find a corporation more suitable.

Re: Five Terrible Reasons You Failed To Incorporate Your Online Business

Mike — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 10:22:40 -0000

Genevieve: You're correct that California puts a much higher price on doing business than almost every other state in the union. That is, I understand, one reason so many Californians set up their businesses in Nevada.

As far as protection of personal assets via an LLC, I pretty clearly stated that every state treats LLC's differently. California is one such state, and I for one wouldn't do business there because of it.

Re: How To Create a Landing Page With Viral Potential

Mike — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 19:00:43 -0000

Great tip, Dave. Can you share with us any pages where you've used this technique? How about conversion stats?

Re: Apple guy gives Xbox team some advice

Mike — Wed, 21 Dec 2005 17:27:50 -0000

Dare I say "apples and oranges?"

The fact that Microsoft intentionally chose to launch the 360 in time for the holiday season despite its admitted knowledge that they couldn't come close to meeting the demand for the much-hyped product is far greater than any supply shortage Apple has perpetrated. Does Apple have supply shortages? Sure, sometimes.

But you didn't see the Nano hyped on a half-hour MTV program MONTHS before it was available to the public, did you? You didn't see Apple whipping up the frenzy on the newest iMac by running an ARG, did you?

Of course you didn't.

Apple has recognized its chronic undersupply problems and taken a major and controversial step to fix them. Microsoft, on the other hand, has tried to ignore its supply problems and taken major and controversial steps to exacerbate them.

I'm an XBox fan and an Apple fan, but I can tell when a supplier of one of my favorite gadgets has let me down.

Re: My fellow Democrats

Mike — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 23:13:43 -0000

Unfortunately, politics is a zero-sum game, at least for the candidates, and that's the reason negative campaigns work. Want to debate about the proper role of government in our lives? Great - but it's not going to happen in a presidential campaign. As soon as one candidate or the other thinks they're slipping, all we hear about are pigs and Bill Ayers.

It would be nice to believe that an Obama presidency wouldn't be as bad as, say, Carter's. But he's Not the One. I know enough about Chicago politics to know this: Obama's just another a Chicago pol, backed by the machine, and any talk about reform is just to get him through the only really tough election he's ever had. His words may solund different and inspiring, but his policies are the same old stuff that's been peddled by politicians for at least the last 50 years.

Is McCain any better? I used to think so - now I'm not so sure. But real progress, true progress, isn't going to come from the government anyway. It's going to come from the people, the ones who get things done if they can only get their government out of the way. At least, that's what our founding fathers believed, and I'm still naïve enough to think they were right.

Re: What to Tell Your Republican Friends About Their Support of the War

Mike — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 12:21:30 -0000

Note to self: research difference between plurality and majority.

Re: Measuring The Quality Of A Society

Mike — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 21:49:59 -0000

The problem with prisoner's dilemma is that it assumes two agents of equal power to reciprocate. I don't know how tit-for-tat scales to multiple agents, asymmetric power, or variable power.

Re: 10 Things I Want To Change In Nike+

Mike — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 11:59:42 -0000

Totally agree. Mine crashed this morning as I completed my very first 11 mile run. Second time in 2 months it's crashed and I'm not pleased.

And the web site... argh. Flash login? Really, Nike, that's the best you can come up with? Flash sucks. Fix it.

Re: A Simple Answer to the Torture Question

Mike — Fri, 09 Dec 2005 13:12:51 -0000

That's not harsh, excessive, cruel or barbaric.

Spoken like a man who has never given birth or even witnessed one!

I for one, will readily acknowledge that my wife is far tougher than I. Just show me a needle and I'd spill my guts.

Re: A Simple Answer to the Torture Question

Mike — Fri, 09 Dec 2005 22:12:52 -0000

Alex, sounds like we mostly agree.

Childbirth is harsh, excessive, cruel, and barbaric. Our enemies are pseudo-macho goat fornicators.

Only one problem... how would we simulate childbirth in an interrogation situation?

Re: Katie Couric Nails It On The Ports Deal

Mike — Fri, 10 Mar 2006 11:40:05 -0000

"only 5% of the cargo coming into this country is checked."

Well, now.  I've heard that before but I've never heard it sourced, and Katie Couric's use of it makes me deeply suspicious.

A few days ago, I was listening to the local NPR affiliate (oppostion research, y'know...) and htey interviewed the durector of the local port authority here in Tampa.  He said 2 things.:

First, he said, that 5% stat is false.  "Every" container entering the U.S. is checked before arrival in some way. 

Second, he said that  he has ample federal funding for security and has not requested any more.

In light of these statements, I'm wondering just where the truth is.  As  we saw with the Dubai deal, I think axe-grinders are taking some liberty with facts to push their own agendas.  I'd like to see some actual hard facts, not Known Facts.

Re: Investing 101

Mike — Mon, 17 Apr 2006 09:52:02 -0000

That "magic" is exactly the basis for all economies - the creation of wealth.  We could all, in theory, produce everything we needed to sustain and enrich our own lives - food, clothing, shelter, and entertainment.  It works better, though, for each of us to focus on one or a few particular things we're good at, and trade those for something that other folks are good at.  A single farmer, specializing, can produce food large numers of people, whereas that same number of people farming for themselves would produce much less. There remains waste, inefficiency, and fraud, but those tend to be minor factors in healthy economies. 

The same applies to the stock market.  A dollar flowing into the market is an investment; on average, that dollar grows because it is used to fuel economically productive activity. That's the "magic" that creates dollars.  Some companies fail, but on average the value of the stock market grows because of the wealth that its companies create.

We now know that Enron was an exception.  It created no net wealth, but instead was an example of waste and fraud.  Many people lost the money they put into Enron; but if they bet across the board on the economy they could be showing a net gain at this point. 

Re: Investing 101

Mike — Mon, 17 Apr 2006 15:08:20 -0000

MikeA said, "All money within the system is brought into the system by an actor...no money is created through the exchange of shares....   I'm not sure what you mean by "value" in terms of the stock market (money?) and you haven't explained how my gain of $5 does not come at the expense of another. Where did that $5 come from if not from another participant in the market?"

It appears, M.A., that you are conflating the ideas of "dollars" in the market with "value" in the market.  Let's take a hypothetical widget company whose business grows steadily and honestly from day one.  I buy the IPO for $5/share.  I later sell my stake for $10/share to you.  You, in turn, sell the stock to a third party for $15/share.

 Who's won and who's lost?  It depends.  If the company is doing well, its success creates the value represented by the share.  If I bought a stock worth $5 by paying 4%, then I have lost nothing.  If it's worth $10.00 when I sell it to you, I have gained but you have not lost.  If it's worth $15 when you sell, you have gained but your buyer has not lost.

 We only "gain" or "lose" if the underlying value of the stock decouples from what we have paid for it.  Even though we bring our dollars into the market to purchase the stock, the underlying value is creating by the successes and failures of the company issuing the stock.

 By contrast, if I sell you the stock for $10/share, and the company loses half its value due to crushing competition, you may have lost relative to your purchase price, but your loss has little to no relation to my gain (unless I have insider information - fraud). 

Final scenario.  I buy at $5/share.  You buy, not from me, but direct from the company, a new issue, at $10/share.  Third Party buys another re-issue from the company at $15/share.  The company takes our collective $30 and invests it in more efficient widget production, improving its bottom line and increasing the value of the company.  We all sell our stock for $20/share - the current actual value.  We've all gained, but no one has lost. 

In fact, true "investment" is always a non-zero-sum game, a win-win situation, because of that very effect.  It's speculation - betting that a stock is under- or over-valued based on market inefficiencies - which is a zero-sum game.  Day trading is a great example of this.

Re: Documentary: French Could Have Killed Bin Laden Twice But Couldn't Get U.S. Authorization

Mike — Sun, 24 Dec 2006 06:12:44 -0000

Here's where the credibility breaks down: supposedly, the [i]French military[/i] are the only ones who know where bin Laden is.

Clearly, the only French people who know where he is are the ones who mail him his checks.