Chuck Newton

Dell Inspiron duo

When I travel, even overnight, I do not know what to bring with me. It would seem to be an easy thing to pack just a change of clothes. But, I do not know if it will be cold or hot, wet or dry, or what type or style of clothes I might need. As a result, I tend to pack for all occasions. Black socks. White socks. Tennis shoes. Dress shoes. Blue jeans. Dockers. Dress pants. Suit.  Tie.  And, I am likely to bring my own pillow to sleep on.

The point is that I want to be prepared for all occasions that might arise. (Okay, I got kicked out of the Boy Scouts, but still I always want to be prepared).

And then in the way of tech, I just want a device that fits my needs. I am not a techie, but I remember a time when I tried to carry a laptop, a cell phone, and an iPod. I thought I needed a freakin' tool belt to keep them on me and to keep up with these devices.

So, on the one hand I want to be prepared for any need that arises, but I do not want to load a suitcase full of electronic devices as well everywhere that I go. I hate that thought so bad, I would prefer carrying no electronic devices. Contrary to the wishes of Amazon and Apple, I absolutely do not wish to carry a separate device for every need.

Juggling various electronic devices, especially in a work environment, reminds me of the expert juggler that, at the same time, juggles a bowling ball, a lit torch and a running chain saw. I am absolutely amazed to watch it, but I know it is not for me.

In this indirect way I come to say this is the reason that I do not understand readers, iPads and tablets.

Do not get me wrong! I can see the uses for tablets. I just also see the limitations. A tablet is good for consuming content, just like my Droid, but only bigger. Or, as David Letterman said about the iPad, "It does everything but make phone calls, just like the iPhone".

The problem is that I am a professional and I am called on all of the time to create content as well. For this a tablet is too cumbersome, if not impossible. (Unless, or course you carry a keyboard, mouse and docking station with you, which in some sense defeats the entire purpose of a tablet).

I was in court the other day. The judge ruled on a matter and wanted the order drafted and uploaded before the parties left the courtroom. Apart from surfing the Net for dirty pictures or pretending to read the great American novel, try doing that effectively on an iPad?

It is not that most of us lawyers do not want the option of a tablet (so that we can turn it into a thousand dollar alarm clock or radio), but we need more.

I am not a techie, a nurd or a geek. I come up with things that work tech wise by using it and, if it is not immediately understandable and useful, I throw it out.

Not being a techie in the spirit of try it, like it or chunk it, I have to think that the possible solution for lawyers might be the new Dell Inspiron duo, with its flip hinge design that allows one to switch it from a netbook to a tablet. I do not yet know, but I think it might work because it has all of the attributes of my big suitcase with the convenience of an all-in-one device.

Sure it is probably a little heavier, a little clunkier, and a little slower than the iPad or other tablets, but it is primarily a content consumption device when you want that, but it can flip open and become a content production device when that is needed. (And, it can still function as an expensive alarm clock or radio when you want that).

Now I know I will get a ton of email from the Apple fanatics who believe that in writing such a review believing that I insulted the one true God. And, I have got to admit that I am pretty much a computer agnostic. I take a little from this computer group and that computer group. But, it is what I feel.

And whether the duo is the answer or not, then maybe it can be a jumping off point for others to develop a solution to my suitcase and multi-device dilemmas.

Windows First Teams With Family Guy For Spots Promoting Windows 7, Then Axes Spots, Then Releases Them

I usually leave the tech stuff to other bloggers, but things like Windows 7 are so important to Third Wave practitioners.  Besides, the raunchy and political incorrectness of Family Guy aside, these spots are funny.

(Video) Microsoft's Courier

Courier User Interface from Gizmodo on Vimeo.

My Name Is Chuck Newton And I Am A PC

Jerry Seinfeld was paid $10 million for two spots for Microsoft, which were so weird they made no sense.  The new spots are well done and I think make the point.

I Just Do Not Get It

And, unlike many of my brethren, I like a lot of Microsoft's products.

I did not care for the TV show Seinfeld, and so maybe I just do not care about commercials that are about nothing.

Microsoft pays Seinfeld $10 million dollars to participate in $300 million dollars worth of ads to make Microsoft hip (kind of like Apple).  But, I tend to think there is a big difference in being viewed as hip and just plain idiotic.  Who wants to buy hardware and software from a company that comes across in this commercial as just plain retarded?  It is not cool to be stupid.

Besides, Microsoft will always have problems being seen as the new, sleek, uber cool tech for the simple reason that, unlike Apple, Microsoft does not control the end product produced with its software, as does Apple.  That has great benefit and a few drawbacks.  One of the drawbacks is that you are going to rely on third parties and lazy non-techies, like me, to pull the pieces together.

I guess the TV spot goes some distance to humanize Bill Gates, but I would think that he is better served allowing his actions through the Gates Foundation do that.

View the first spot for yourself.  It aired during the recent Giants and Redskins game.

An Old Way To Think Of The World

Google co-founder Sergey Brin said Chrome was designed to address the shift to using software from within a Web browser rather than as locally installed computer applications running inside Microsoft Windows or some other operating system."I think operating systems are kind of an old way to think of the world," Brin told a group of reporters after the news conference at Google's Mountain View, California headquarters. "They have become kind of bulky, they have to do lots and lots of different (legacy) things."

Now maybe it is my age, I am not sure, but I tend of think of old ways to think of the world in terms of the cold war, not the 1990s, but I think I get the point.  The World is changing to cloud computing and Google is on top of it, where Microsoft is not.

I would love to see what Chrom has to offer, but I have been unable to get it to load on my system.  I just keep getting "Error 4".  So, for the time being I am just stuck with my poor antiquated Firefox.

This Ain't Cuil

It is pronounced "cool", and it is the new Internet search engine of Anna Patterson. 

Her last Internet search engine was so impressive that industry leader Google bought the technology in 2004 to upgrade its own system.  She now thinks she has invented an even better search engine with Cuil.  She claims its search index spans 120 billion Web pages, more than Google.  Google disagrees.

I am not so sure about cruil.  I got online this morning and typed in my specialty, automatic stay violation, and at first it came up blank.  I changed it around some and it did find a number of sources, but the time it took to load pages, OMG.

It might grow on me I guess, but I do not like the dark intro screen (it looks more like Google's evil twin); I do not like the logo. I do not like the layout; it certainly did not list my blog or any post within the first 6 pages I looked at and I am the most prolific writing on the subject online in the country; and in the end it did not seem to this simpleton that it offered anything more than my favorite brand - Google.

Cuil is a name that is suppose to come from the Irish background of one of its founders.  That is good enough, but then why all of the black, gray and blue.  Hell, throw up some green, or a shamrock or two.

Maybe they should have named it "Cruil" and in cruel.  But, then, again, what do I know.

After getting inquiries about Cuil, Google asserted on its blog Friday that it regularly scans through 1 trillion unique Web links. But Google said it doesn't index them all because they either point to similar content or would diminish the quality of its search results in some other way. The posting didn't quantify the size of Google's index.

By the way, I could not find where Cruil had a blog to announce anything.  I have looked at the launching of a lot of products and services of late and they all seem to start off with a blog.  Not here.  Not that I could find.

Look, I understand the argument that the site just launched and it will add things like blogs searches, blog readers and the like.  But for some things, this is almost like going to a new hamburger joint on the opening day only to have them tell you that they will be adding hamburger patties later after they get more established.

A search index's scope is important because information, pictures and content can't be found unless they're stored in a database. But Cuil believes it will outshine Google in several other ways, including its method for identifying and displaying pertinent results.

Rather than trying to mimic Google's method of ranking the quantity and quality of links to Web sites, Patterson says Cuil's technology drills into the actual content of a page. And Cuil's results will be presented in a more magazine-like format instead of just a vertical stack of Web links. Cuil's results are displayed with more photos spread horizontally across the page and include sidebars that can be clicked on to learn more about topics related to the original search request.

The problem with the magazine like approach is that I want to scan quickly through results.  I do not want to read a magazine.  Google makes the actual task I am looking for easier and, hence, more enjoyable.

Cuil is also hoping to attract traffic by promising not to retain information about its users' search histories or surfing patterns.  This is something that Google does, much to the consternation of privacy watchdogs, and in this Cuil might be onto something.

Cuil is just the latest in a long line of Google challengers, including  startups like Teoma (whose technology became the backbone of Ask.com), Vivisimo, Snap, Mahalo and, most recently, Powerset, which was acquired by Microsoft.

Each of these startups has a much better design or interface than does the Darth Vader quality of the Cuil site.

Even after investing hundreds of millions of dollars on search, both Microsoft and Yahoo Inc. have been losing ground to Google. Through May, Google held a 62 percent share of the U.S. search market followed by Yahoo at 21 percent and Microsoft at 8.5 percent, according to comScore Inc.

Google has become so synonymous with Internet search that it may no longer matter how good Cuil or any other challenger is, said Gartner Inc. analyst Allen Weiner.  "Search has become as much about branding as anything else," Weiner said. "I doubt (Cuil) will be keeping anyone at Google awake at night."

Google welcomed Cuil to the fray with its usual mantra about its rivals. "Having great competitors is a huge benefit to us and everyone in the search space," Watson said. "It makes us all work harder, and at the end of the day our users benefit from that."

Microsoft Buys Powerset

If you cannot build it, buy it.

If you cannot get your first choice, move on to your second choice.

Neither represents bad advice.

In this regard, Microsoft did not manage to snag Yahoo to launch its revival into Web 2.0 or to compete effectively with Google.  So, according to Silicon Alley Insider, Microsoft has purchased PowerSet.Com, a semantic search engine startup.

We as Third Wave lawyers have entered into the Google era.  Microsoft is going to have to catch on, catch up, and get rid of its more industrial model in order to get on top of this movement.  In short, it is going to have to stop its practice of being so mafioso and predatory, and move outside of the box (literally) in which its increasingly complicated and expensive software comes.

I am not sure that buying Yahoo would have helped much in this regard, but what do I really know.  What I think I do know is that competition is not all bad.  Google has introduced lawyers, and everybody, to the "power of free" and cloud computing.  They are wiring some cities with FREE WiFi.  How does this pan out in the long run?  That is anybody's guess, but to date it has not been a bad things for lawyers who are trying to compete in this less structured world.  If active competition brings more free and easily obtained information and software and communications to attorneys, and to force those who would rather restrict or charge for such things, then that is good.

Semantic search, or "natural language" search, is supposed to divine searchers' intentions more accurately than today's standard offerings, which means Google, and this would have obvious benefits for whoever figures it out.  Some are skeptical as to whether semantic search would be significantly better Google, but if the threat makes Google try even harder that would be just fantastic with me.

Below is a video about PowerSet.

Powerset Demo Video from officialpowerset on Vimeo.

The Poor Lawyer's MacBook Air

I normally leave tech to Rick Georges over at Future Lawyer.  But, if anything, the Third Wave is about ease and portability.  It is about being to operate with a the smallest footprint possible in the legal world.  It is also about being connected.  PDAs and smart phones just do not hack it for me in this regard.  First, they do not have the overall functionality I need to run my office cheaply and on the fly.  Besides, with age my vision is not as good as it once was.  Second, they are expensive to operate.  I am all about cheap and I hate cell phone bills coming in in the hundreds of dollars a month.  That is also the reason I have been unimpressed with the MacBook Air.  I am not into novelty and design as an excuse to take money out of my pocket.  That ended with me when I bought a Pet Rock in the 70s.  Apple is all about being the end thing, and some lawyers like that.  It is pretty.  It is cool.  (The company is threatening to sue New York City -- "The Big Apple" -- for using green apple with a leaf as its logo in its green campaign)!!  And, these lawyers are willing to burden their practices with the costs of apple products (both as to purchase price and in operating it in this Windows environment in which lawyers must too often compete).  Sure, a Mac can run both its own OS and Windows, but I do not need the "in thing" just to surf the web, to pay three grand for the machine only to have to also spend large sums to put windows on the machine, as well as all of the relevant software.  What I have come to find out is that if you are playing with Macs in a law office environment, you are burning through money.  And, for what?  For a little glitz, for a little glamor, and for a little feel good.  Sure, Mac is kind of in front of the cycle on innovation and design, but you are paying a premium for what -- a year's jump on everybody else.  Besides, Apple will just redesign it in a year and then make lead you to buy the new "in" machine you just have to really really have.

In this regard, I was gad to read about the Ultrathin Intel Atom-bsed Netbook which was shown at the Intel Developer Forum in Shanghai.  Beyond a tool for a school child, and beyond the laptop for everyone, this could be the poor lawyer's MacBook Air.  Sure it is not as well endowed as a full-fledged notebook, but it is also likely to cost somewhere closer to $300.00 instead of $3,000.00.  It can act like a supplement to your PC and do enough things to operate your practice effectively on the fly.  Let's face it.  as we move into a more browser-based world, I do not need a unltrathin that can land a 747.  I need to be able to check my browser-based extranet, merge my collected information into a pleading, upload the pleading to the federal court, and then notify my client and other parties by email that this has been accomplished.

Here is too a cheap unltrathin!

Rejected!

Snap!! 

Oh no they di-ent!

Yahoo! rejects Microsoft's $44.6 billion takeover bid, stating that it undervalues the company.

The question now is whether or not Microsoft will go over the heads of Yahoo's management, and take its $31 per share offer directly to the shareholders.  This would require Microsoft to first try to oust Yahoo!'s 10-member board.  It could also try to sweeten the offer.  Analysts believe that Microsoft is willing to offer $35 per share.  Yahoo!'s downturn erased $20 billion in shareholder wealth.  Microsoft has already offered Yahoo a 62% premium above it's stock price at the time of $19.18 per share.

Microsoft had previously bid $40 per share to buy Yahoo! a year ago but was told no thank you.  Some think that Yahoo! wants to get the old bid back before agreeing to sell.  Microsoft's shareholders already do not like this deal.  It's share price has declined 12% just on the basis of the original offer.

My thought is that this deal is not good for Third Wave attorneys.  Microsoft and Yahoo!, and Google against which both are competing, represent different models.  Microsoft has a restrictive, exclusive and expensive model that places the cost of tech on the user.  Google, and to a lesser extent Yahoo!, has a better model based on an open, inclusive and FREE services and software model that places the cost of services on advertisers.  The Google model is directly responsible for driving down the cost and effectiveness of Third Wave offices.