At dinner Tuesday night, I was discussing those points with a bunch of guys I consider to be very bright technologsts. One of the guys at the table argued the iPad isn’t meant to replace a laptop for business use, it is meant as a consumer device – a user friendly extension of yourself, I suppose. I agreed, explaining that the iPad is useless as a mobile office solution because it is limited in applications to what is web based, or what is available at the app store.

I like using Office, I really don’t like OpenOffice/GoogleDocs. I’ve tried them and found them incredibly wanting. Say what you will about Microsoft, they make a hell of an office product. (Don’t get me started on how inferior Entourage is to Outlook, though. That’s another post in itself.)

But here’s the problem, as I explained to them. The iPad isn’t really a good platform for personal use either.

What do you use a personal device for?

A personal device, especially one expected to become the standard for such devices, needs to have a lot of capability for personal media.

The iPad is clearly based on the assumption that everything is in the cloud. That’s not the case for most users, though. Most users still install applications, download mp3s, play DVDs, etc. With only 16GB on the low end device, the amount of space available for any of that media is minimal. Even at 64GB, the iPad is seriously underpowered for storage compared to a 160GB to 250GB netbook – especially at two or three times the price.

Assuming you want to get everything online, you still have the problem of actually achieving that. Since the iPad doesn’t do Flash, you’re going to have problems with a staggering number of websites, especially if they use it for video delivery. Flash is installed on the overwhelming majority of computers. There is rampant talk of HTML5 replacing it, and many big names are looking at implementations to replace Flash, but there are significant hurdles.

George Ou at Digital Society (of which I am a Director), looked at YouTube’s implementation of HTML5 and found it lacking. In addition, you have the issue of battling codecs that has made adoption by browsers inconsistent.

Assuming the iPad only allows Safari, and since Apple has significant concerns with the lack of patents on the Ogg Theora codec, it’s possible that some site video won’t work even with HTML5.

Absent a reliable streaming solution, and without enough storage space to handle stored media, the iPad falls short on the media front.

What is the iPad’s Value Proposition?

The other problem with the iPad is the fact that it is unlikely to function well as a standalone product. The lack of any type of drive prevents the direct install of applications and requires the iPad be connected to something else. So now you have to shell out the $500 to $700 for the iPad, and you still have to have the $300 netbook, or the $1,000 laptop to connect it to. The iPad was billed by Jobs as an intermediary device with the best features of a smartphone and a laptop. However, since it is far too large to hold up to your ear, and way to underpowered to replace the laptop, you have left neither of those behind, and instead spent $600 for a device that does little the other two don’t.

If you will still need a laptop/computer as well as a phone, there is a serious question as to what the iPad gives you that makes it a unique value.

When the iPod came along, most people were still listening to CDs. The value of the iPod was in a) the storage capacity to keep larger amounts of content with you at any time, b) a menu system that made accessing that content quick and easy. While other mp3 players were in the market, the iPod made digital music easily accessible. The best mp3 available offered significantly less as a value proposition.

Similarly, the iPhone put more power in the phone. The Blackberry was the smartest widely-deployed smartphone available at the time of the iPhone’s release. Yet the iPhone rose quickly to dominance because it gave you more power, more capability, and more storage at a similar price point, and in an easier to use package.

The iPad Has None Of That

A few years ago I helped organize an event at which Marc Andreessen spoke. He had requested a white board for an audience participation event. With almost 800 people in the room, that just wasn’t reasonable. So I arranged with a Dell sales rep the use of their first tablet. We connected it to a projector, and turned Andreessen loose.

Midway through his remarks, he started talking about convergence, and the tendency to take things that work perfectly well on their own, and jam them together. He commented that his first cellphone was a brick – big, bulky, heavy. But he had just gotten to a very small, very lightweight phone, and now here come smartphones to make us carry the brick again.

Then he held up the tablet and said, “A paper tablet is cheap, you can get it wet, you can use it in broad daylight… this thing has none of that!”

And that’s the problem with the iPad. It’s not robust enough to be either a business device or a consumer device. It relies on Apple’s closed architecture, has far too little capacity, and limits your ability to consume the media you want as you choose. Further, it has far greater limitations than a netbook, but at a substantially higher price point.

A netbook has similar battery life, but also allows you to add your own software. A netbook has a larger hard drive, and doesn’t require another more expensive computer to run. A netbook costs half, but does twice, as much. Are they perfect, no. Will they get much better over time, yes. But I would still pit even the worst one against the iPad.

The iPad simply doesn’t offer any value compared to what else is on the market. Cheaper, but more powerful netbooks, or slightly more expensive, but far more capable Macbooks offer much more. Even the iPod Touch and iPhone give you most of the same functionality, but with a smaller screen at half the price. There is simply nothing that differentiates this product. And that’s the fundamental problem with the iPad.

First, let me say that in the 10 years I have been in DC I have never seen a crowd like that trying to get access to their elected representatives. The lines to get into the House office buildings literally wrapped around the buildings like a nightclub rope line. Several of the buildings stopped letting people in, so people familiar with the HOB system were telling those turned away to go to another building, then enter the basement tunnel system to get to their representatives.

On some level it appalled me that the US Capitol was telling people they were not allowed to go inside and see their members, but the sheer volume made me understand it simply from a security perspective. I would say, however, that I did not get the sense from anyone that they would have turned violent. In fact, everyone I saw or talked to had a very sunny disposition. Given their agitation that was remarkable to me. There was no “mob rule” that escalated the anger at all.

I would not, however, say that there was no anger. There was, in fact, plenty. What really struck me about the anger, however, was its direction.

This was not a Republican crowd. This was an American crowd. The people I talked to were just as angry with the right as they were at the left. They were just as happy to disrupt the normal cycle of business in Congress for both sides. When men and women in well tailored suits walked past the crowd of people in jeans, dockers, polo shirts, and jackets, they were subject to mocking and derision without regard to what party they may belong to.

The suits, for their part, looked none to pleased. They were scowling at the crowds as they walked by, and seemed disdainful of the effort by the crowd to make their voice heard. That seemed true universally among what were clearly the DC class.

It became very clear to me that this crowd wasn’t anti-Democrat, anti-Obama, or in any way pro-Republican. It was simply anti-Washington. It was a crowd incensed at what it perceived to be the arrogance of DC. I heard time and again as people passed by, or chattered in line, the refrain that these were people happy to come remind Washington that the rest of the country is watching and demanding respect.

When I returned to my office, I saw a reference to Ramseh Ponnuru’s column in Time magazine titled “The Rebirth of the Republican Middle“. In it, Ponnuru argues that the results on Tuesday were less about party than they were about people clamoring for ideas and results. Deeds in VA clearly had no ideas. Corzine in NJ clearly had not delivered results. Hoffman in NY seemed ill-prepared for the local issues. Ponnuru argues that the lesson for Republicans is to run campaigns based on a message of specific achievable fixes for what ails us.

I assume that the upper case “R” in the title is due to a style requirement at Time magazine. I assume that because Ponnuru’s column specifically goes on to state the question of whether the GOP is too conservative or not conservative enough is really secondary. Ponnuru’s focus on ideas and solutions has no partisan stripe.

However, based on what I saw yesterday, I do believe that there is a republican wave in the sense that people feel government has gotten too big, and ignores them freely. Democrats didn’t get elected because people felt Washington was too small. They got elected because people felt that Washington, under the GOP, was unresponsive to “we the people”. The Democrats have proven that they’re no better. Now is the time for candidates to run on making government work, not simply adjusting its size.

You may have the flu if you have some or all of these symptoms:

• fever *
• cough
• sore throat
• runny or stuffy nose
• body aches
• headache
• chills
• fatigue
• sometimes diarrhea and vomiting

*It’s important to note that not everyone with flu will have a fever.

Very helpful. If you sometimes get fever, but not always, and you sometimes get diarrhea and vomiting, but not always, that leaves:

• cough
• sore throat
• runny or stuffy nose
• body aches
• headache
• chills
• fatigue

In other words, the Swine Flu could look just like any other non-specific illness. That’s not terribly helpful at all. Maybe the CDC should provide more of a narrative description:

On Day One, you will notice giant red spots on your forehead. Those will grow into huge sweaty red welts. The coughing will be uncontrollable, and you’ll wish you were dead. Then the real fun will start….

At least then I’d know what to look out for. Instead, I have non-specific symptoms and no real way of knowing whether I have the Swine Flu without a tedious trip to the doctor.

So I did a little digging and found some more useful information. I dug through blog post after blog post and compiled these actual, specific symptoms from first hand accounts. If you have any of these, seek medical attention immediately

Swine Flu Symptoms

• An urge to watch Babe and Charlotte’s Web over and over again.
• An overwhelming sense of cannibalism from eating bacon.
• Smelling like Des Moines, IA.
• Random snort and oinking sounds (separate and distinct from your normal Tourette’s).
• Developing a random stutter.
• Falling in love with frogs (or general inter-species romance).
• A tendency toward Stalinism.

So there you have it. An actual, helpful list of warning signs. Now you can consider yourself prepared.

P.S. (For those who missed them, the stutter joke is a reference to Porky Pig and the Stalinism crack is a reference to Animal Farm.)

Apologies to friends on Facebook and Twitter who have already seen a link to this. If you are reading this on Facebook, and can’t see/play the video, you can visit http://www.kungfuquip.com/surviving-the-zombie-apocalypse.

The answer is always incredibly simple. For instance, you can just get Netflix, and watch all those episodes of Entourage on DVD – six months or so after they air. You can go to Hulu and watch programs – except for the fact that the overwhelming majority of cable programs are either a) not on Hulu or b) on Hulu months after they air.

Now there is a point to be made here about why they call it pop “culture” and how there is a societal value to watching shows near the air date so you can engage in the social aspects of entertainment. But I’ll leave that point alone.

The really annoying part of these posts is the authors will invariably talk about the ease of getting cable content, then cite as their examples shows which are not cable programs.

The latest of these is TechCrunch. Now, I’m a geek, so I read TechCrunch a lot. Some of their content I’ll quibble with, but most of it is pretty good. This little item, though, is truly stupid.

John Biggs posits that he has come up with a great process for ditching cable:

I’ve been angling to get rid of my TiVo and cable for some time now and I believe I’ve finally figured out a solution that works best for me. It involves a lots scripting, Sabnzbd, and HandbrakeCLI and I’ll tell you what I ultimately did next week once it’s stable but it seems to be working as well as can be expected for these sorts of hacks.

Sure, John, that’s super easy as long as you’re familiar with Usenet, binary newsreaders, and video transcoders. Super easy!

He goes on to explain that the content he’s pulling in is completely illegal:

It consists of two disparate parts. The first is a shady underground that can offer these shows, stripped of commercials, a few minutes after they’ve aired. How they do it is a topic for another story, but needless to say popular shows are available in less than ten minutes after they air on the Eastern Seaboard. It is a testament to the dedication of a few TV lovers that these shows are available, for free, as they happen.

It’s important to understand that unlike mp3s, television content is not easily ripped and not easily portable. Yes, the shady underground may currently be doing this, but the content owners are chasing it down.

But let’s assume all of this is easy, and the illegality won’t make you squirm, and let’s look at the shows John’s actually talking about here.

What I don’t see in that list is actual, cable content. There is a bunch of stuff from the UK, and a whole lot of broadcast content, but where is the cable content? If it’s that easy to ditch cable (and cable companies should be “skeered”) and given there are literally hundreds of cable channels, and only a few broadcast channels, why is a list of available illegal content skewed so heavily to broadcast.

So from the read of this, John Bigg’s has gone out of his way to come up with a way to steal broadcast content through an incredibly complex process that involves “a shady underground”.

So here’s my suggestion for John. If you want to watch TV as it airs (rather than “immediately after”) then go buy yourself an antenna. They’re lovely inventions that let you watch all the broadcast TV you want, and don’t involve scripting, HandBrake, or SABnzbd. If you want an option to timeshift that programming, invest in a Win-TV-HVR-950Q from Hauppage. It has a built in DVR, and picks up NTSC, ATSC, and clear QAM programming (broadcast, in other words). It’s plug and play, so again, no scripting.

A priest (Donald Pleasence) summons a professor (Victor Wong) to an old church to see a canister of liquid Satan.

If you’ve seen the movie, you’ll recognize that the description is technically accurate, but fails to capture the real essence of the film. A better description might have been:

Trapped in an old church, a priest (Donald Pleasance) and a professor (Jameson Parker) try to prevent Satan’s return to Earth.

Not much longer, and yet it sells the story better. But I don’t get the sense that the TV Guide writers are trying to be accurate or sell the movie. They’re just cranking out copy.

Anyway, this got me thinking about TV Guide and whether it may actually be challenging to sum up a movie that badly in one short sentence. So I figured I’d give it a try. Consider this my audition to write for TV guide. (Feel free to leave a comment with your own movie summaries.)

• The Bourne Identity – A man with memory trouble (Matt Damon) kills people.
• Top Gun – A pilot with daddy issues (Tom Cruise) flies Naval aircraft recklessly.
• Jaws – Three men (Richard Dreyfuss, Robert Shaw, Roy Scheider) who need a bigger boat go fishing.
• Titanic – Two young lovers (Leonardo DiCaprio, Kate Winslet) experience extreme moisture.
• American Beauty – A man (Kevin Spacey) and his wife (Annette Bening) have marital problems.
• Jurassic Park – A team of scientists led by Sam Neill visit an amusement park accompanied by a lawyer.
• The Day After Tomorrow - The adventures of a climatologist (Dennis Quaid) studying weather.
• Rocky – A boxer (Sylvester Stallone) who may be mentally disadvantaged and has an aging coach (Burgess Meredith) tries dating.
• Forrest Gump – A mentally challenged man (Tom Hanks) waits for a bus and tells stories.
• The Silence of the Lambs – FBI agent Clarice Starling (Jody Foster) deals with a difficult inmate (Anthony Hopkins).

So without further ado, I’ll throw out the 26 questions I’d really like to ask, but would be unlikely to actually answer myself.

1. Have you ever been arrested?
2. Were you guilty or innocent and what were the charges?
3. Will you ever drink that much again?
4. How much do you hate your job?
5. How many times per day do you pray for an earthquake just to break up the boredom?
6. How many times per day to you hope for the sweet release that only death will bring?
7. Where did you lose your virginity?
8. How much did it suck?
9. If you could go back in time and give that person pointers, would you?
10. If you could go back in time and not be such a whore (or manwhore), would you?
11. Speaking of sex, how many kids do you have?
12. How many did you have on purpose?
13. How many times have you wished you had that vasectomy you joked about in college?
14. If you could have any celebrity killed, which would it be?
15. Would you make it painful or quick and easy?
16. Would anyone miss Lindsay Lohan?
17. Have you ever done drugs?
18. Are you still in contact with the person who sold/gave them to you?
19. Can I have their number?
20. Do you like Internet porn?
21. Ya, me either. How many times per day do you look at some just to make sure you still don’t?
22. Really? That’s a lot! You’re very thorough in your “research” aren’t you?
23. How many drinks does it take before you make really bad decisions?
24. Want to go out tonight for drinks?
25. How much time have you spent answering Facebook questionnaires/quizzes in a desperate attempt to regain some semblance of a connection with another human being?
26. How’s that working out for you?

Answer these questions then send this to or tag 20 of your closest friends then prepare for them to be terrified by your answers. Be sure to tag me so I’ll be able to keep track of the implosion of your career for my own twisted pleasure.

I have read the excerpts of Latimer’s book and frankly don’t find all that much wrong with it. I’ll likely buy the book and consume it all simply because I liked the way the excerpts were written. His publisher is right. He has an engaging style. Was he in the room or across the street at the EEOB? Who cares. He was clearly closer to the President than 99.9% of Americans will ever get in their life, so let him have his say. We might find it interesting.

The treatment Latimer has received in the last 36 hours, however, has left me perplexed. It reminded me a lot of McClellan’s welcoming reception and that reminded me of something Peggy Noonan wrote.

William Safire, himself a memoirist of the Nixon years, said to me, a future memoirist of the Reagan years: “The one thing history needs more of is first-person testimony.” History needs data, detail, portraits, information; it needs eyewitness. “I was there, this is what I saw.” History will sift through, consider and try in its own way to produce something approximating truth.In that sense one should always say of memoirs of those who hold or have held power: More, please.

Noonan, and by extension Safire, were spot on. I think that every White House staffer should not be discouraged, but rather should be required to write a book, and tell the story of their time there. Our history demands that those making it (whether the President or his secretary) should provide us with as much detail as possible. When these books are written we should not denounce the writer, we should simply ask for the next installment from the guy who sat next to Latimer so we could see how he remembered the events.

One of the most interesting conversations I have ever had was with the woman who sat next to Monica Lewinsky in the White House. She once gave me her take on the woman behind the blue dress and it meant more to me than any ABC News special report.

Do I buy the caricature of Latimer as an opportunist trying to parlay his brush with fame into a financial windfall? Absolutely. Do I also believe that much of what he says is probably exactly as he remembers it? Absolutely.

That’s why we need more of these books, not less. We need to be able to compare notes and make our own determination about what happened, who these people were, where they made mistakes and where they proved they were only human.

Now, the latest to weigh in against Latimer in protecting the Bush years is James Carville.

This little dweeb needs to be glove slapped… People that have the honor of working in the White House ought not be going out and publishing this…

I couldn’t disagree with Carville more.

The people that need to be glove slapped are Carville and his ilk for attempting to silence future tomes. If Dana Perino, Tony Fratto, or Ed Gillespie recall events differently, let them write a book and give us their take. By the time all the ink dries, we might have a semi-complete picture of life inside the GWB administration.

As with most topics I write about here, the subject of zombies has prompted some interesting discussions with friends and colleagues. In the case of World War Z, my only complaint about the book is its reliance on the slow moving, arms raised, schleppy zombie made famous by George Romero films. I, as a matter of preference, would much rather have seen the speedy, violent zombies of 28 Weeks Later / 28 Days Later or the Xbox 360 game Left 4 Dead.

I firmly believe that when the zombie apocalypse (ZA) finally comes, it will look more like the rage virus. Honestly, it would have to. The fact is a slow zombie is simply not that hard to defeat. They’re kind of like cows. You could hunt them with a dent mallet. Granted, if you were set upon by a pack, it may be harder to fight off. However, the spread of the contagion would either have to be immediate or a single mass event would have to hit most of the population at once.

In World War Z, the contagion is slow to spread. Brooks gives the impression that a year or two passes between the first outbreak and the pandemic. That’s simply too slow for a zombie virus to move unless the zombies themselves are so fast, and so hard to kill, that they can rapidly turn new zombies. Compare Brooks’ approach to that of 28 Days/Weeks Later or even the disaster of a film called Quarantine. (If you haven’t seen Quarantine, think of it as the Blair Witch Project of zombie movies – shaky handicam story telling that rapidly becomes painful to sit through.) The contagion in those movies spreads rapidly enough, and the zombies become fast and violent enough to quickly become a problem.

What has been interesting to me is the almost universal agreement on the topic of fast versus slow zombies. Just about everybody I have raised the issue with agrees that fast zombies are much scarier, much harder to kill, and much more likely when the ZA is upon us. I have to wonder, then, why franchises like Resident Evil or the remakes/knock-offs of Romero films generally portray the zombies as stupid and slow.

It seems to me that the future of zombie films has to lie with fast, violent zombies. Purists may disagree, but the only movies I can see remaining true to the schleppy zombies would be flicks like Shaun of the Dead that actually mock the speed.

• Skipper – 83% GOP
• Gilligan – 69% Dem
• Mary Ann – 61% GOP
• Ginger – 83% Dem
• Professor (the only “near tie”) – 47% Dem 41% Libertarian
• Mr. & Mrs. Howell – both at 72% GOP

The outcome made me wonder what the result would be if I looked at other classic TV series. As I discussed the idea with some friends, one that drew a lot of discussion was “Friends”. It seems there is a lot of disagreement about how Ross, Rachel, Chandler, Phoebe, Joey and Monica would cast their ballots.

Now here’s your chance to tell me what you think.

You’ll notice I added “Green” as an option for Phoebe as a number of people indicated their thought that she’d lean that way.