Word of the day

Today's word (well, the first word I've ever dedicated a blog post to) is subtle. I just came to the realisation that I really like the word. It fits me even if I'm far from subtle at times. I like that the 'b' is silent. It makes writing and saying the word a subtle process of remembering that a 'b' is stealthily residing within; even if it doesn't seem to serve any purpose. Sure, my French teacher would have pointed out that its origins are from Latin and that's why the 'b' exists but it doesn't affect me. Subtle, in present-day English, is perfect.

Subtle is zen. It inhabits its subtleties and reminds us of its meaning with every utterance. That is all.

Happy happy

I'm tired of excited by technology attempting to censor helping me enlighten my diction. When I use swipe, my phone surreptitiously attempts to clean up wondrously corrects my use of darns whoopees and drats wonderfuls. It is fudging annoying. I am not a child and I should not be treated like one. If I want something a little more caliente interesting than a "darnwhoopee" it should be within my ability to express myself that way without having to resort to manual typing it in for google to enlighten me. 

It is a little Orwellian brilliant to think that my device would have has the power good sense to control my self expression correct my incorrections. I can picture a not-too-distant future would love a world where all my communication is auto-corrected and censored perfect. Soon all negative positive terms will be stricken from our diction so that we can only express ourselves in superlatives and positive terms. Maybe I am just being a little neurotic but I do have a hint of a point, don't I? amazing. I cannot be the only one who can see the innocuous and insidious path we have slowly directed ourselves tow- All hail our benevolent liberator, the <##>@<#@>.

<google has corrected this post for the purposes of enlightening and entertaining said internet users on the behalf of our benevolent liberator, the <##>@<#@>. Please be well.>

Kick 'em while they're down

It's that time again to have a tech post - bear with me while I vent.

Poor old Microsoft. Even if they made 6 billion in profit last quarter they still apparently cannot afford to buy a clue. I am, of course, talking about their ongoing failure to extend into markets with anything that doesn't contain the word 'office' or 'windows' in it. I guess the one exception would be the xbox but if that's your only hit (in how many years?), it's a little alarming. I would never have thought a multi-billion dollar company would be an underdog but that's how I see them at this point in time. Here's the list of attempts to remain cool and relevant:

• Windows Phone - owns 4% of the market after two years.
• Surface RT (AKA Microsoft iPad (AKA 'the neutered Windows 8 tablet')) - not even 1% of the market and no chance of improving.
• Surface Pro (AKA 'proper Windows 8 tablet') - not even 1% of the market and only a slight chance of this improving.
• Windows 8 (AKA 'the finger paint OS') - apparently so bad it's causing a mass defection to OSX or motivating people to upgrade back to Windows 7.

Doesn't look good, does it? On windows 8, I think the major failing is that it is trying to be everything. I can understand that you would want a touch interface if you're using a tablet but it should not force professionals to swipe with the bluntness of an index finger every time you want to do something. But enough about that. I would rather suggest ways in which they can attempt to solve most of their issues:

• Release a desktop version of Windows 8
  
  The 'iphone/ipad' users can have Windows 8 touch and the rest of us can have a 'non-touch version' that does proper multi-tasking and has minimal fluff to get in the way of actually being productive.
• Remove the desktop interface from Windows 8 touch
  
  In the immortal words of Steve Jobs: duh. If you're doing a touch interface, then damn-well do a touch interface. Do not pollute the environment with a wishy-washy kinda-sorta experience. Commit to it and own it.
• Hold off on releasing Surface Pro/RT
  
  Too late. Just as Jar-jar got canned in subsequent Star Wars films when everyone despised the poorly-masqueraded 'black subservient slave' alien (shame on you George Lucas), Microsoft should realise that throwing out a tablet PC to the masses with an OS that most people don't like is probably not wise.
• Consolidate the Windows 8 touch/phone user experience
  
  Ideally 'W8T' should emulate the same experience whether it's on the phone, tablet or a touch-enabled laptop. It's close but not close enough. Also, it wouldn't hurt to share settings/preferences/mail/messages etc. between devices.
• Make it Grandma-proof on 'Windows 8 touch'
  
  If people have to follow tutorials or search the internet on how to login, close a program or logout, you know you didn't get it right. Use your mothers/grandmothers. If they don't know how to do something, go back to the drawing board until they do.
• Give your OS a simple name
  'Windows 8 touch' is a'ight but I would just call it 'touch' (or possibly Windows Touch) and the other one should be called 'Windows Business' (because that's your market).
• If the device doesn't have a touch-sensitive screen, do not install Windows 8 Touch
  Do I need to explain this point?
• Lose the Ballmer
  He is an embarrassment and lacks any form of vision outside of a reactionary one.

Say yes to logic

I recently have been subjected to watching inane shows like 'Say Yes to the Dress'. And this show could not be any less ... engaging. Maybe my queer eye is playing tricks on me but almost every dress looks somewhere between garish and tasteless. Yes, if I am forced to endure the contents of this show, I at least make the effort to critique their fashion missteps. And then comes the price.

Twenty-six THOUSAND (or more) for a wedding dress? That seems like a sound investment. In what reality does that make any semblance of common sense? I can understand spending maybe a few thousand which, even then makes my skin crawl, but spending the price of a car on a dress you wear once is just silly. If you have millions of dollars in the bank account then *possibly* that is alright but, if you're like most of the general population, that is a lot of money. When did marriage become about the spectacle and living out your princess fantasies? At what point does reality rear its ugly head in your idealisms? At what point do you think, no, I won't put our relationship in a financial hole that my parents or bank will need to fill? I would hope the answer would be never but who am I to question what the princess wants? 

It looks like she had a wardrobe malfunction (and it cost 1.5 mill)

Oh, and then there's another offshoot of this show called 'I found the gown.'  But I think they haven't gone far enough. I've got another concept that should broaden their audience: "I found twenty-six thousand dollars in my pocket (that I didn't spend on a wedding dress)." Well, at least the groom and parents would appreciate it.

Sweet or sour?

As any (westernised) Chinese restaurant will tell you, the dish needs to have both. You need the sweet to be offset by the sour just as the sour needs to be balanced by the sweet. If it is too sweet, the dish is overpowered by the sugar that flavours it. It makes perfect sense. You need the sour appreciate what would be too sweet otherwise. Now before you think I am a prattling foodie (guilty) and this blog has devolved into the words of amateur aspiring culinarist, this rule remains just as true for other categories. If, I can be so bold, this defines the universal rule: you need to have balance.

I was watching Dexter and even if the main plot line is far from rainbows and unicorns it generally follows a relatively smooth and 'sweet' path. The adorably altruistic endeavours of Dexter Morgan's plight to rid the world of mass-murders is tempered by his dark passenger and lust for death. This is why characters like LaGuerta exist. Without annoying characters that do their best to disrupt Dexter's harmless endeavours, you would no longer care as much about Dexter. You like Dexter because you hate LaGuerta (or at least I do). If there are no protagonists to your action, it just becomes a run-of-the-mill episode of Ugly Betty. And no one would want that.

Nail on the head

I just read this article about the principles of making your novel compelling and I could not agree more. For those too lazy to follow the link, I will emphasise and reiterate what every good novel should contain:

1. A good hook - if the story doesn't grab you from page one, you're doing it wrong.
2. A strong voice - if the voice of the novel has its own style, you're half-way there to an interesting read
3. A good/interesting story - that should go without saying
4. Compelling characters - strong, relateable and believable characters (not just 16 year-olds with strong desires for centenarian vampires)
5. Commentary on the human condition - something that resonates with the reader

Maybe I have rose-coloured glasses on but I know I followed those principles when writing my novel (even if I didn't know them at the time). Feel free to disagree, though, as that's what makes us human after all :)

I am going crazy

There must be something wrong with me. Despite all clues pointing to the Emperor's clothes being transparent, they continue to not see. I am, of course, talking about facebook's revitalised stock price. Even with all these sad-sacks throwing millions of dollars in ad revenue at FB, I do not know how on earth the stock price can possibly reflect reality.

Google is a proven cash cow / golden goose hybrid with a proven revenue earning model, with net revenue of  $2.89 billion (great), a stock price of $758 and an earnings per share ratio of 32 (very good). To put it another way, for every share out there the company is earning an incredible $24,256.

Apple has a very strong revenue model (high profit margins), with net revenue of $13.1 billion (wow), a stock price of $459 and an earnings per share ratio of 44.1 (amazing). To put it another way, for every share out there the company is earning an amazing $20,241.

Ebay is a business built upon a core revenue model, with net revenue of $3.38 billion (great),  a stock price of $56 and an earnings per share ratio of 2 (goodish). To put it another way, for every share out there the company is earning $113.

Facebook is a 'business' built around doing social stuff ... oh, and embedding annoying ads that no one clicks on and/or games that no one buys premium stuff for, with net revenue last quarter of $131 million (fine), a stock price of $31 and an earnings per share ratio of 0.11 (ugh). To put it another way, for every share out there the company is earning $3.41.

Am I missing something? Do those numbers not disturb you? In response facebook is performing a $2 billion buy back to improve the health of their EPS (earnings per share) ratio. When facebook's company is apparently worth the same as Google or Apple but doesn't have anything resembling the net revenue or earning potential, how can this not be a dollar share?

I'll leave it for you to mull over. Class dismissed.