Robie Jr: Progress Continues

Speakers, Servos and Motors Oh MY. Progress continues. I have the arduino board making noises, moving motors or sweeping servos based on serial commands coming from the raspberry pi.

Of course... I found out a few things along the way. First, I really need to be more careful plugging up servos when they pull off usb power. Apparently my motor shield does not supply GPIO power to the arduino in a way that it protects the USB bus. Apparently it doesn't take to much to pull the bus so low the raspberry resets. The second is that the Arduino IDE does not auto save your code when you compile it... DOUGHT. Quicker than you an say compile, upload, sweep I found myself with a reset Pi and my code all sitting in flash on the arduino with a default template set of code in my project. Yay.

Well at least what I had done will not be to difficult to replicate. I also learned that the standard Tone.h and Servo.h files are incompatible on Arduino projects due to some overloading in the timers on the Arduino. Considering it was going to take some more work to run wav files through an arduino connected speaker even if I used an alternative sound library it looks like I am just going to use the jack on the raspberry pi and run sounds from there. I ordered a small cheap bluetooth speaker from amazon for less than 20 bucks that will handle amplification etc... all on its on and work from the sound jack. Has its own battery as well so I won't have to worry to much about powering it/shielding it.

Along those lines I finally pulled up the capture of all the sounds from Robie I captured a year or so ago and broke them all out into individual wav files. So I am not that far from figuring out how to house all these bits and pieces up in Robie and work on building the laptop <->  pi control scheme via wifi. 

The big piece missing at this point is the camera as I have not hooked that up to the Pi yet. The library examples look pretty easy and I have found some examples of folks streaming the camera to remote VLC sessions so hoping the bigger deal will be establishing the serial link for the motion control and receipt of telemetry.

Telemetry:

• 3 axis accelerometer - serial report back to pi, web serve page with info? 
• Camera - stream video over wifi to watch on VLC 
• Planned - RF spectrum analyzer (cheap one on Adafruit) 
• Planned - Temp (contactless)/Humidity/Pressure

Control:

• Method:
• Initial of WiFi VNC connection to Pi driving serial commands to arduino either through ariduino serial session or Python program.
• Have successfully been shipping commands from the Pi command line to the serial device. Bit awkward if I wanted to control things that way but it works. 
• Long term goal of establishing a two way link using an as yet undetermined protocol for commands and telemetry to a program running on my laptop and or iPad/iPhone. 
• Should let me kill the VNC server/session on the Pi and free up some CPU cycles for stuff like image recognition routines
• setup joystick? 
• Things to Control:
• Camera pan and tilt servos
• up, down, left, right
• Two DC motors
• forward, back, left, right
• Led lights
• Eyes
• Haven't decided on whether or not I am trying to drive the old eyes or performing surgery to add new ones. 
• Connection status? 
• Planned - Moving arms? Looking like there is no way to do this without surgery or some fabrication... shame I do not have a 3d printer...

Power:

• Looking like the power will be a bit convoluted to start. 
• Lipo 7.4v volt 1320mah for the motors going through the arduino shield
• arduino will also be usb connected to pi due to not having a logic level shifter yet to shift between 3.3v and 5v logic. May shift to adafruit trinket pro 3.3v in the future instead of using a shifter as the price isn't that much different and it would shrink the arduino size and let me use a smaller usb micro instead of the stupid usb a connector on the uno...
• Speaker will have its own battery but may have it connected to USB battery
• Raspberry pi running from Anker usb battery
• May have to put a usb led light on this to keep it from turning off... or making a keep alive circuit as it has an auto shutoff if not enough juice is being pulled. 
• Actually think all that will weigh about the same, maybe less than the orgininal 4 D cell setup for Robie. May need to perform some surgery to make it fit as the lipo is tiny in the 4 D cell section. 

Future:

Robie is pretty much a nostalgia project at this point but the basis of what I am building has always been intended to go into something a bit more serious. In order to keep me moving I finally did buy a more capable bot chassis . Caught it on sale on Cyber Monday for ~$175 which I consider a real steal. I had already been eying the Dagu Thumper chassis options (4 and 6 wheel bases) but was not really thrilled about what looked to be a fairly cramped area to build up components in. I had always wanted a tank. However until I ran across this one the Lynx motion base was the only one I could find that wasn't very expensive ($$$$) or way to small/cheap. It also had no suspension and didn't look to be easily modifiable to have some. By comparison the T'Rex is simply in another world. It has something like 7cm clearance with nothing to drag on the underside. The spring torsion suspension isn't super beefy (built for load of about 1kg) but it works in pretty rough terrain. Seeing this thing in motion looks like the Howe and Howe Ripsaw tank (youtube it, or you may remember it from Gi Joe). The tank treads are METAL. The Wheels are METAL. Gears are... Metal and everything else is... wait for it... METAL. And it is"        cc            not super cheap flexible thin crap. This bad boy is really stout.

Anyway, I am looking forward to building up some components on the T'Rex. Also looking to add a fossil style skull label, or perhaps a full skull onto this in someway and use that speaker to play some appropriate roars as it roams around exploring :-).  Obviously this beast can't be powered by the arduino motor shield I have so I also have ordered an Orion Robotics Roboclaw 15a dual H bridge controller. On paper it seems to be a better choice than the ubiquitous Sabertooth controllers out there for medium sized bots like this. And the 15a was appealing over the sabertooth 12a as the stall current on the T'Rex is 11a and I wanted a bit more safety margin. For those familiar with this chassis wondering why I did not go with the T'Rex controller which can handle these motors and provides an Arduino in the same package? Well frankly the SparkFun comments on that controller left me a bit concerned it was pretty fragile.

Well since I started this post I have received all the bits in the mail. If I have any complaints thus far it would be about the suspension. It works really well but it is apparently designed for very light loads. It basically uses a torque bar on each of the arms the bogey's are on as opposed to a damper like on higher end RC vehicles. May need to see if I can figure out a modification so that it can carry a bit more weight than just a battery and controller solution. The issue seems to be that if you run in more rugged terrain with heavier than about 1-2kg it can separate drop a track. Anyway... still a really cool design. 

Not sure if I am going to be able to get Robie up and going or not. I have apparently lost some screws for putting him back together. Room is a bit more cramped with the shell on than I thought it would be so I am not sure how to cram the pi and battery in there. I did get him moving around with just the arduino. Will have to do that and film it again. Need to get the eyes lighting up as well. Perhaps next time.... But in this guise there was no interface, just some canned movement code loaded on the arduino. 

Robie Jr. Update: If I Only Had a Brain....

So months have gone by... oh ok, more than 18 at this point... since my initial post about my work resurrecting Robie. However, soon after that post I quickly realized the limitations of the Arduino setup in terms of doing anything I would find interesting and so Robie went back on the shelf. 

Now I have Pi.... a Raspberry Pi B+ in fact. 700mhz arm computer with 512MB of RAM running raspian linux. Amazon had a kit for sale that included all the essentials to get rolling and quite a bit more for farting around with it for $80.

In the last few nights have have:

• Successfully setup the Pi (pretty much comes ready to roll)
• Setup VNC access from my mac
• Built a couple of perl scripts on the Pi to make noise on an attached speaker
• Loaded Arduino dev on the Pi from my Mac
• attached the Arduino from my earlier tinkering to the Pi and tested out an accelerometer
• rooted and installed Cyanogen mod to my old Nexus 7 tablet... no I do not know exactly what I intend to do... Animated face? Additional Source of data/storage/processing power? Alternative main brain to the Pi? 

My to do List:

• Attach Camera Module to Pi
• Take picture and access from Macbook (not via VNC)
• Stream Video to VLC on Mac
• Connect Arduino back up to Robie Motors
• Have Arduino Motor control originate from Pi program (Python?)
• Have Pi stream motor status to Mac (start of telemetry...)
• Have Pi accept motor control inputs from Mac 
• Stream accelerometer data back to Mac via Pi
• Connect Ping sensor up to Arduino
• Ship data to Pi
• Ship data to Mac
• Connect Servo up to Arduino
• Control from Pi
• Control from Mac Via Pi
• Build Pan/Tilt solution for ping sensor(s)
• Connect Nexus 7 (or more likely 4... think the 7 is just an expendable test bed) to Pi
• Access nexus 7 accelerometer status? Stream via App? 
• Use Nexus 7 camera ? 
• Animate face for Robie ? 
• Play Robie sounds through Nexus 7
• Connect Robie speaker up to Pi or Arduino
• Play Robie sounds 
• Rig Robie Contact points for original sound effects
• Design new Robie sounds... can Pi OCR and Pi Cam combine to let Robie do Text to speech? 
• Pi OCR from Pi Camera to generate Text sent to Nexus 7 Google powered Text to speech routine?
• Design and implement all above into Robie chassis or alt base solution? 
• Scavenge Roomba Drive system? (probably need beefier motor control solution....)
• Design new arms\Gripers in sketchup with micro servo's and linear actuators in mind... 
• Start working on integrated wifi based tele robotics interface for running Robbie via WiFi from Mac
• Develop Autonomous Routines for navigating\mapping the house
• Add sensors for routine mapping of House status
• Temp
• Humidity
• ??
• Build charging base
• Wirelss? 
• Solar? 

Kind of a rough layout of components I ultimately want to integrate inside Robie:

Yes, I know it is quite possible to run all the stuff hanging off the Arduino directly from the Pi via the GPIO pins. But then I'd have an arduino gathering dust :-) I have a parrallax propeller board sitting around as well and it may get incorporated at some point. On a more serious note, I am rather interested in the complexities of interfacing multiple compnents like this. 

Given my general pace of progress on Robie through the years I imagine I should have this done by the time I am 50... which means I am more than half way their already :-) Though in all seriousness I actually may keep fairly steady progress on this for a while as I think I have answers for how to get through most of the above list with bits and bobs I have in hand. The Raspberry Pi really is a marvel in terms of what it makes possible for such a low cost. As such it represents something of a "missing link" for my long term crazy thoughts with regards to animating my old buddy. If I actually do manage most of this the end goal is not a cheesy toy upgrade... I do have a notion to put together a bit more serious rover. Robie Jr. just makes for a fun test bed that lets me make good on some ideas I have had bouncing around in my head for a loooooooong time. 

Space Warriors vs Space Camp

So I recently watched... well suffered through... Space Warriors. And it got me thinking. Was it really so bad? I mean I loved Space Camp but that was before I grew up, moved to Huntsville and actually started working in the Space Program. Perhaps I loved Space Camp because I saw it when I was a kid and couldn't pick it apart on 1000 technical details and now I am just to grown up to enjoy a movie like this. Though I don't think so. I can pick apart Space Camp a good bit... but I still like it. I suppose the thing that gets me about this movie is there is no key critical 'swallow the blue pill' moment that gets you on board. I mean I will set aside the atrocious acting. I liked the original Highlander for gods sake, I can overlook some cheesy lines/delivery and awful special effects. But the setup here just doesn't jibe. Space Camp had two real moments you had to swallow. First was that they would ever let kids sit in an STS during a static test fire (heck not even sure a full up static fire like is depicted is even real...). Second, was that given such an event was some odd confluence of events could lead to the control team deciding launching was the only option to save the kids. The first is pretty easy movie fare... the second took some divine intervention courtesy of the AI robot in the original film trying to fulfill his friends wish. Swallow those two moments and the rest of the movie makes some sense and has some logic to it even in its absurdities. The initial bit was actual Space Camp, the post bits were 'how do we get out of this mess now that it happened'.  Space Warriors??? Not so much.

I suppose the other thing that bothers me with Space Warriors vs Space Camp is the actual regression in movie magic thinking. Somehow in 27 years we go from a robot with intelligence and kids actually in space to a really expensive puppet in Robonaut (product placement for GM???) and kids running remote avatars from the ground. The kids taking the place of the adults in this film just does not work as well as the earlier Space Camps decision to generate an 'accident' that pushes the kids into an extreme situation where the only path is 'through to the end'. This is one case where I think Hollywood would really have been better off just remaking a movie instead of coming up with this steaming pile of dog poo. I'll hand some credit to Josh Lucas for trying to make something out of nothing, but as a coach of mine used to say, "You can't make chicken salad out of chicken S#!T".

It was fun to see stuff from Huntsville on the screen, including the ISS payload control room that I have spent so many hours in. And I will hand it to them for using a relatively realistic idea for putting station in danger (space debris hit).

Can't resist a few callouts on the sillyness:

BCC (back up control center) does use a control room in Huntsville. It does not use the one shown in the movie though that was an easy choice to make for movie making (the backup room is much less interesting looking). When activated it is staffed by the same people that operate the main MCC (Mission Control Center) FCR (Flight Control Room) in Houston. Communications with Station run through White Sands... so if BCC is activated it doesn't matter what happens in Houston with regards to station communications. Thats the whole point of having the BCC in the first place.

One of the key plot elements in the movie is the idea that the main character "Crunches the numbers" and comes up with information the adults don't have. My question isn't how he could be that smart, but what data was he crunching? Even if I suspend my disbelief for a moment on the issue of the kids taking over for the adults I am scratching my head as to how they would access station environmental data in the first place... or become so familiar back to front with station procedures? Where Space Camp used the massive ground support team and  'NASA' as a reason to believe how kids could be supported in an emergency (not to mention they had an astronaut with them) Space Warriors uses the "All adults are idiots and kids have to save everything" method of movie magic. Or put another way... The ground team role in Space Camp was in many ways less amazing than the real life Apollo 13 mission support effort. Space Warriors path is just complete and utter nonsense.

The random robotic EVA suits. I mean if the suits were there why wasn't the crew (or ground controllers) using them? Even if they where not using them to do their own repairs they could have been using them (or the crew EVA suits) as a source of life support... which brings me to the last thing I will bring up (though far far faaaaaarrrr from the last issue with this turd of a flick)...

What the hell was with having the crew be so damn passive in this? They damn near didn't even have them speak. Astronauts. In. Mortal. Peril. are apparently doing nothing to try and alter their own fate. For most of the rest of the stuff they gave reasons (bad and horrible ones... but reasons) for why the kids were taking over. They never really give a reason for the crew being on the sidelines in this story.

I mean really that is just scratching the surface with this one. If you are looking for fun space movies to watch with or for your kids (or the kid in you) then I'd highly recommend the '86 Space Camp, Space Cowboys, or even Mission to Mars over Space Warriors.

I normally hate chewing apart issues in movies without suggesting alternative solutions. Perhaps one day I will take a stab at this one, but right now all I can come up with is pretty much going back to the drawing board.

Review: Amazon Fire TV

So I ordered a Fire TV pretty much as soon as the order page went up from Amazon after the reveal. It has since joined our Apple TV, Google Chromecast and PS3 on our living room TV.

The Good:

Amazon was not kidding about it being fast. I wouldn't say it is night and day compared to the Apple TV but it is very noticeable. Especially when going back to the Apple TV after using Fire consistently for a few days. Load times are extremely rare.

The best part about the Fire in comparison to the Apple TV for us has definitely been the improvement with the remote. I now hesitate to deal with the Apple TV interface unless I do not have an alternative on the Fire. This has cost Apple sales from me as I now buy on Amazon first and iTunes second for video content. I know Jobs had a fetish about reducing buttons. But the Apple TV remote control has gone to far in the minimalist direction. It also really should go to a bluetooth or wifi based connection with the device. The fact TVs have not generally adopted a remote control solutions using bluetooth or some other non-line of site solution in place of IR as a standard is beyond me. Why apple went IR with their hobby and have yet to update it is a source of much head scratching.  Of course we still try and point it most times... some behaviors are hard to unlearn.

The So So:

The voice search capability is a tease. For the content it covers it is awesome and the recognition/speed is very impressive. However, the lack of integrated search across multiple streaming apps like Netflix and Hulu in addition to Amazon's own content is very frustrating.

The Interface. In comparison I'd say the fire interface is on par with Apple TV... but that is damning with faint praise. It puts your stuff on screen to scroll through in various pre-determined categories. Big miss in that there is no ability to easily limit search results to prime. Confusing also because Prime playback in some cases will have a price tag even if you get it via Prime for no cost. Look for the "prime" banner on the content thumbnail. As long as it is there you are ok. Also if you keep your PIN required for purchases you cannot accidentally get charged.

Games. I got the controller and I have tried some titles. The best I encountered by far was the Walking dead title. basically because it plays like a show and requires mostly decision making than button mashing. Some of the more action based titles I tried were not so hot. Limited device storage makes more complex but significantly large games like Grand Theft Auto 4 problematic. For basic puzzle games I am sure it works great. But it is not really a playstation/xbox substitute that is for sure. Expect gen 2 of this device to address some of this. The potential for this capability is high, execution is still lacking though. Potentially fatally hamstrung by the device limitations though.

The Bad:

Lack of storage. Mostly this is only an issue with games. Streaming may solve this in the future, but the implementation here really isn't there yet. Putting it here because they definitely upsold the gaming capability, but in reality the anemic storage hamstrings the capability right off the bat sans a solid game streaming solution.

Lack of integrated search. First device where I can do a search that returns all options available for me to watch covering free,rental (with cost),Purchase (with cost) that launches the show/movie directly from the search results in whatever capability has it will probably see me unhook other options.

Lack of open connectivity with non fire devices for stuff like screen casting etc... One of the primary uses our Apple TV still gets is casting video via airplay from an iPhone or iPad. Amazon could have supported chrome cast for iOS and Android devices and still had a more powerful second screen capability exclusively for its fire devices. This is a silly and greedy limitation which ultimately alienates any customer that doesn't buy into their complete device ecosystem. Considering the recent release of their phone it is possible they have delusions of being able to present a serious challenge to the iOS/Android eco systems. But they have a LONG way to go.

Wrap Up:

This is a very solid device. On balance I like it considerably more than the Apple TV but we have too much iOS/iTunes inertia in our house to retire it. For anyone looking into an internet set top box I recommend it. Especially if you are already invested in Amazon online video content or otherwise uncommitted to iTunes or Google Play content. I know at launch purchase of one of these also got you either an extension on your Prime membership, or granted you prime membership for a year. If that is still the case and you use Amazon for any shopping needs it is a no brainer.

Thoughts: FireTV, and general thoughts on streaming set top boxes

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00CX5P8FC/ref=topnav_storetab_aftv

The link takes you to Amazon's FireTV product page. I have one on order and will post a hands on review after I have some time. But first I would like to say a bit about why I ordered it and what I think is going on in the streaming device market. 

Why? Well first of all I have had a 200$ gift certificate looking for a gift. So the money was not an issue, just my geeky desire to check out something that is new. I also have an Apple TV and Chromecast so it isn't like I was hurting for a streaming device. So why check out the fire?

First up, Amazon prime, Hulu and Netflix in one place. I had been hoping against hope amazon would get on Apple TV but no such luck. So in terms of the big streaming services Amazon is on par with other options out of the box, and its pay content and PRIME content is a decent split between netflix and itunes on its own. Odds are I will find anything I want to rent/buy on prime that I would purcahse on itunes. iTunes has all pay content vs some pay and some not (well if you consider prime being paid for free shipping and video as bonus). 

The remote. The Apple TV remote bites the wax tadpole. The AppleTV iOS remote app does a stellar job of being even worse that the dedicated remote except when it comes to having a keyboard and not being line of sight. Amazon may have one of the first real useful implementations of voice control. At anyrate they had me at Bluetooth. The microphone is gravy if it works. Apple could match this with a decent upgrade to the remote app and I will be shocked if they don't at least try and add voice to it. 

Comparison shopping.... or at least a start to it. I do not know how many times I have wished I could easily comparison shop all the pay streaming services. Sooner or later what happend to airline ticketing will happen to streaming media costs. And it will drive the content costs down. All the content gateway's are going to fight it tooth and nail and that bites for consumers. But Amazon is taking the first step. First one to meld Amazon Prime, Google Play, and iTunes gets a 'shut up and take my money' animated gif from me. Followed by transfer of funds at first sign of orderable goods. 

Games. Mobile games have intruiged me and I keep trying them looking for something to grab my attention. Some have done ok. Most I find seriously lacking in control interface. Bluetooth contoller (also ordered the game pad) and 1080p 60hz games at mobile prices on my TV? Won't sound like it is lifting off due to fan\disc spinning noise? Sure I am interested. Factor in the new steam box service and the fact this thing may actually meet those specs raises interesting possibility of an Amazon steam app.  

Kids Zone. Apple sort of does this but not really. The kid zone feature of this widget may be a killer feature for parents. I am largely against media in a kids bedroom because control options are slim to none. This seems like a decent system where if you use non-trivial passwords you could set it up in a kids room and without a cable connection they would have real limits on how much they could watch. 

Apps. Why apple hasn't opened the TV up to app developers is beyond me. Limited storage? Do you need apps on a TV? I don't know honestly. But why not let folks try? 

Second screen experience. Unfortunately it seems I cannot parktake in this as they seem to do this only with their own devices. Silly. And I hope sooner or later they have apps in the App Store for android devices or iOS devices to use with this. Apple again could catch up on this front with their existing Apple TV/iOS device crowd fairly easily. 

Some things I was suprised to not see.... 

General non-digital based Amazon shopping. Voice search, big screen for pictures. Connected to your amazon account? Expect to see that, maybe via an app. Imagine an unholy alliance with Hulu that gives you quick commercials based on your wish list items and gold box deals or something. Say 15 second add break with link to order the offer. Commercials of products have link to buy? Nothing is free. I'll take better targeted adds that offer me personal good deals over generic mass crap that repeats all the damn time. 

More memory. Games and Apps typically implies locat storage of application files. That is space taken away from their instant play cache, Probably hard in a device they may well be loss leading to add more than 8Gb... but I suspect this is a likely weakness of the box if someone pursues the games and apps heavily... unless those are being done hosted ala steam streaming. 

Looking forward:

Expect to see the new Apple TV to be in this class and probably a Google device. Amazon beat them to market with a next gen set top along the lines a lot of people have been talking about ever since Apple released their original hobby device. The question is if they will have the killer TV streaming deal to leave Amazon in the dust?  Amazon has probably just introduced a 'best of breed' solution for anyone with an Amazon prime account. Bit murkier question for anyone without and an investment in the iTunes ecosystem. A Google device providing Google Play access and Amazon prime (already an app in the play store) could be a right interesting proposition.

The real question to me is what kind of content deal Apple is going to bring to the table with their next gen device. All you can eat access to itunes is a popular thought. Many think it is impossible due to rights issues and costs. Another one I like is the idea of is access to traditional cable content just via streaming service. IE say Apple convinced content sources to treat it like a cable company able to re-broadcast their content to their customers. They take a monthly fee from customers in exchange for granting them channel access and access to streaming content that requires cable subscriptions. Apple gets to end users via ISP providers, some of whome are cable companies. That is likely the reason it woudln't work. But I can dream. Most rumors however seem to indicate Apple is working at the cable company level, not the content source level for whatever it is they have up their sleeve. Could still end up working the same way though, but if they only strike deals with specific cable companies many folks will be regionally locked out. Especially if they are not with the larger players in the market where there is choice. In any case I think content access is now the most likely avenue Apple has to stand out in this segment instead of being in the middle of the pack of options. 

All in all bravo Amazon. I wish you were going after a more open solution. But this makes plenty of sense for their business model and it is not a bad deal for folks that like being in the Amazon world... and most of us are to some extent or other. Now I hope my hands on experience matches up to my expectations. 

Review: Zagg Keyboard Cover for iPad Air (Updated 1/1/2015)

I provided two updates to the initial review (June '14 and Jan '15). Short version is that it is a good keyboard case but the design seems somewhat flawed once long term usage issues are taken into consideration. 

I have had Zagg cases since they came out with their first keyboard for the iPad. Between the first gen and 3rd gen I got to experience the evolution of their half shell case and slot keyboard design. The first one was hard to get the iPad out of, and the angled rest was a clunky solution. The second one I got for my retina iPad dropped the foam friction for a lipped magnet setup that was awesome. The slot no longer required the odd angle pop up plastic bit and they added backlit keys. Only weaknesses for me were two things. First was a constant double strike issue I had encountered in most BT keyboards. And the slot was not magnetized like the thin cover design with the Smart Cover like magnetic hinge they shared with Logitech. I really wanted this design again when I got my iPad Air. But Zagg was not offering it. They did a folio followed by this cover unit and I shied away from both. I eventually settled on the as yet unreleased clamshell pro concept which is a full on clamshell keyboard with a 180 hinge allowing you to fold it over for tablet use. But alas they have pushed it out one month longer than I could stand.

So, I finally go in search of a keyboard and Belkin decided on a non-standard keyboard layout so I didn't really try them much. Logitech has a very nice folio that I appreciated much more in person than I had from online reviews.... until I noticed they mini sized the left shift key which made for some awkward typing so it went back on the shelf. Ultra thin it was then. Not my favorite design (rigid smart coverish) but they seemed to have solved the 'slips off at any hint of pressure' issue of the first gen of the design. Between that and the standard key layout I was grabbing one and headed to the checkout... but they didn't have one sitting on the shelf under the display. When I asked where they were the salesperson walked to a shelf set I had missed and there much to my surprise I saw Zagg folio and cover both sitting on the shelf as well. Out they came and many minutes futzing ensued. I actually still thought I would get the ultra thin because I had read to many negative impressions of the zagg hinge solution on the cover and the issues extricating from the fragile folio back case. I just wasn't going to pass up the chance to check the Zaggs out, especially the cover as it was a departure from the other offerings. 

Initial Impressions:

When I first got the cover out and tried to move the hinge I was rather shocked at how stiff it was. Almost put it immediately back. But I continued on and got it hooked up and linked. And started typing. Oh my.... much better than the ultra thin or the logitech folio. The Logitech had mild improvements over earlier iterations. This was a different world. This is the closest experience I have had to a 'laptop keyboard' on an iPad to date. Keys have solid and noticeable travel. no flex in the deck and they are not wobbly. And thus far no double strike issue (about a week in now). Same good backlighting solution from my previous version. But that hinge.... hmmmm. Out came the Zagg folio. In went the air, up with the connection and more typing. Same keyboard. Slightly different feel in the hand as the folio was actually a bit lighter feeling. Also made the folio surprisingly less stable in my lap as the base is lighter than the cover and the case shell adds a bit of weight to the iPad section. Not much, but noticeable. protection factor seemed negligible for the shell. Largely scratch protection only. and very fragile feeling at the edges. Popping it out may be something you get the knack for, but I got the distinct concern that if I were in a rush I could easily cause a break. Not necessarily true that would happen. That is tough stuff. but it felt flimsy. And back to the cover. The hinge works. The friction in and out is a concern. but it feels sturdy. Folded up it feels like a little laptop. More so than the folio. More so than any other solution I have sampled (and I sample a lot). 

Negatives: 

Putting it together and splitting it apart sits somewhere between folio designs and the ultra thin magnet Smart Cover style hinge. When in laptop mode it obscures the lower edge from the swipe up gesture to get to the quick settings. Can even be an issue to hit lower edge user interface items... like send button in iMessage.... Really Apple, please add an option in iMessage to have enter send a damn message already.... not a massive issue, but annoying. Some have reported getting scratches on their iPad from the hinge. I can detect no abrasive contact with mine. Perhaps it is a build quality issue that varies  from unit to unit? the packaging is designed for easy in store trails if you can find them on the shelf anywhere. Could pay to check multiple ones. But either they have resolved that or I got lucky on the first try. The stiffness of the hinge is alarming but once the ipad is securely in it you have the needed leverage to easily manipulate it. Stress level on a metal and glass slab is not anywhere approaching concern. Not that I am going to put it to the test but I am pretty sure the hinge would fail before the iPad if you forced it to far. It is worth noting, if you use a screen cover like Zagg's bread and butter shields or from other providers it will cause a problem with this keyboard design and that seems to be where most of the hinge leave a mark issues have come from. The tolerances are tight to make this friction/magent hinge work. Protection is a mixed bag. If it lands right the keyboard will take the brunt. But the air is open on one side...and if it falls with that exposed surface in play it carries along the added weight of the keyboard. If protection is a major concern this is certainly not the option for you. I think I would still like the open face lip solution. It actually provided protection in all cases but a full on back fall. The lips ensured that the ever critical corner drop was going to get largely taken by the keyboard. Toss on a skin backing and you had a decent level of protection. Here a skin back would require some surgery to allow the use of the slot in hinge solution here. Something Zagg does not offer in a pre cut solution as yet. IF they do I will likely add another baseball skin *complete with stitching" back to this for some additional help. 

The so so: 

I will actually class the hinge level of movement so so.... BUT that is in comparison to laptops and the issue of using a tablet like a tablet. Usuable range of motion is actually pretty small and it cannot lay over back from verticle as much as you would expect which is mostly an issue in trying to read the screen in your lap if you have to be fairly upright. That said... for a tablet case solution it hands down beats any other option I tried (this one or the folio). I suspect the clamcase will top it. But it will also be twice the cost... and possibly significantly heavier. Another issue.... and this one is truly mild except for the obsessives out there. Because the hinge is open slot without end guides it can be off kilter a bit unless you take the time to ensure it is all the way in and aligned with the keyboard. Otherwise it might be slightly angled in the slot and off center with the keyboard. Again not by much (plan to post pictures at some point) for for those of a certain mindset it might drive them crazy. Other designs were self aligning and this could never really happen. Backlight keys. It is one of those features that is absolutely awesome when you need it... but for me it just isn't that often. I do like that this one seems to remember your color selection. Last one I had did not. Cool blue or subtle red for me. To each their own :-)

Last impressions: 

Earlier keyboards all seemed to leave a funk on the screen. Either gunk off keys or Smart Cover funk etc... This case has standoffs that all align on the bezel, and it shuts without anything touching the screen. Again the slab nature of the air comes into play here This design is very clearly optimized for the Air. Anyway if being able to type full steam on your iPad is high on your list, but ability to separate quickly and go back to using a tablet outweighs any case protection concerns, this is clearly a solution you should get your hands on to try out. I'd give it about 95% vrs typing on my Retina MacBook Pro 15" or older 17" MacBook Pro model. Two final things for bonus points. First, this design still supports portrait mode typing (one of my favorite capabilities of the lip and slot designs). Do not recommend that in your lap, but it works fine on a desktop/tabletop.  And finally you can flip the screen around to face away from the keyboard to use in a 'media mode', basically means the keyboard becomes a back stand if you use it to prop up for a movie. Now this works excellently in your lap for something like a plane ride because the angle is going back to closed which means you can angle it for looking down at it much better than you can tilting back away from the keyboard in the typing orientation. (again will do some pictures later).

Upon Further Review (6/25/2014)

Double strikes are very low compared to previous versions of Zagg keyboards I have used. However, it seems in its place a troublesome missing keystroke problem has developed in its place. For example in say the text of this story it will pop up a handful of times. Just like with the double strike it means a spell check is in order after any significant typing... darn.

Next, there is one troublesome aspect of this design has become apparent after longer use. The flexibility of the board means it is possible for a keystroke to be registered while the device is closed. Apparently, the fact the cover is engaged with the iPad in a closed position is not known on the device so the keystroke will wake up the keyboard (if not the iPad). The result can be a lost pairing requiring a power cycle to restore connectivity (annoying but it only takes a few seconds). more problematic is a significantly reduced battery life, even if you do not have the backlights on, and extremely short if they are. I had to charge the device a couple of times in the same week before I figured out what was happening. The simplest work around is to turn the keyboard off whenever going to store it (ie toss in a bag). However, this means the device looses its memory of your backlight choices (on/off, brightness and color). Not a deal breaker but it is annoying.

Last minor issue is the keyboard can only store one bluetooth device profile. Thus if you are like me and have a couple of iPads you switch the keyboard between you have to de-pair and re-pair whenever switching devices. Definitely a 'first world problem'. But of note if you happen to be in this particular situation.

Upon even further Review (1/1/2015)

I now sit here typing this on a new Logitech TYPE +.... and it was not a gift. I bought it to replace the Zagg. I stand by my general review of the device but something has become apparent and it is that this design does not seem to age well with constant use. First the little rubber feet came out that spaced the board from the screen when closed. Then the hinge stopped really gripping... Both are issues I think most of theses devices will experience with heavy use and regular device switching (home and work iPads) are likely to experience. The lack of grip was not a huge issue for typical use as there are still magnets that hold things together. However, it made the 'media' orientation and portrait orientation very precarious affairs as they did not have any proper device magnets to align with. 

But those are not the reasons I replaced it. The two reasons why I replaced are first, the lack of edge protection. I had used an open back keyboards before but they had a lip which provided much better edge protection, even the zagg pro with its very minor lip (still my favorit keyboard case). My air has 'aged' a bit more than my previous iPads because of this. The final nail in its coffin was a failure of the left shift key, delete key and the 'T' key. I can probably go exchange it as it is still less than a year since I bought it but I haven't tried yet. 

The key death is what finally forced me to find an alternative but it was the rest (including the bugs from my first update) that cumulatively made me a bit ambivilent about trying to go get a new version of this board. 

Crimea is To Russia as the Sudetenland was to Germany?

Russia is on the move to cement its control of Crimea. The Ukraine is not pleased to say the least. The US has begun implementing diplomatic penalties that Russia is largely laughing at. I guess the real question here is the title of this post. For those familiar with the lead up to WW II the justifications provided by Putin for Russian military movement into Crimea is eerily familiar. There are some other parallels in that Europe is relatively weak militarily having lost a lot of its Cold War capacity and the US while not in the same shape militarily as it was Pre WWII it is certainly in a similar war weary climate where public sentiment seems to strongly favor keeping our noses out of yet another foreign entanglement.

Should the US get involved? Well, other than the obvious implications of this being similar opening move to Germany's prelude to WWII, there is the little matter of the Budapest memorandum.  A quick reading of the wiki article shows this to be fairly weak in terms of commitments on the part of the US so there is no clear agreement that we would support the Ukraine militarily in the event of an incursion. However the memorandum is basically an agreement between the US, UK, Ukraine and Russia to not invade the Ukraine or threaten it with nuclear arms. In return for this agreement the Ukraine voluntarily coughed up the 3rd largest nuclear stockpile in the world which they inherited with the dissolution of the USSR.

Now you can argue all day and night and then all day again about the intent of the statements in that memorandum... and I have a seen some comment threads doing just that. But if we move beyond the question of should we do something for a moment I would like to look at what the situation is and what the options really are for addressing them. Though for the record... I find it hard to believe Ukraine defanged itself without believing they would have meaningful support in the event of a Russian incursion. I doubt US PNGing a few Russian diplomats is what they had in mind, or vague threats of economic sanctions. Presidents do have some leeway to respond via Military action to world events without a declaration of war, and the president is who signed us up. But really I am not sure that would do anything more than stir the pot at this point.

If Putin is resolved to Annex Crimea it is doubtful anything short of a full deployment of US and/or NATO military might backed by the political will to wield it would back off Putin at this point. And frankly if that is what it will take to call Putin's bluff I think he is going to do whatever the hell he wants. He is sitting on critical resources that supply the energy markets in Europe. Between that and the general economic crisis environment it is highly unlikely meaningful sanctions will stick for very long, if indeed they ever get put in place to begin with.

However it strikes me that there is another option. It seems Russia is going old school trying to put the band back together (lot of talk Putin is attempting to re-build the USSR by going after former WARSAW pact nations). So why not use an old school solution to the problem? One that has worked against them before.

M.A.D.

You want to back Russia out of the Ukraine? You want to do it without sending in troops that might die in amounts not seen since WW II? Lets have the US and UK jointly Re-arm the Ukraine with Nukes to replace the ones they had to give up. The reason the Ukraine is a non-nuclear power is because the US, UK and Russia agreed not to attack them in return for giving them up. Don't think it takes a genius to figure out who the Ukraine was worried about. Anyway, Russia is in violation of that agreement so the terms of Ukraine's agreement to remain a non-nuclear power have been voided. Only they don't have access to nukes anymore. But that is not to say we could not choose to arm them. Or perhaps offer to serve as their proxy and agree to launch a salvo on their behalf under the right circumstances.

Granted this only works if the threat is real. And this kind of staring match hasn't been engaged in since Khrushchev tested Kennedy's resolve in the Cuban Missile Crisis. 

It would go something like this. With the support of the UK and Ukraine (and ideally the support of the UN) We declare the Budapest Memorandum null and void due to Russia's actions. As a result we jointly declare our support to allow the Ukraine to develop and deploy nuclear arms. In order to provide for their security while they develop their own arsenal again we will loan them a quantity of nuclear munitions to deploy in the interim to provide them an effective deterrent against a newly aggressive Russia.

Now I doubt Russia would distinguish to much between a US nuke (or UK Nuke) launched by Ukrainian forces and one we launched ourselves. If the Ukraine launched such a provided munition it would produce a high risk of nuclear retaliation on any supplier. However, the equation governing how likely Putin thinks a launch is would be significantly different with a Nuclear armed Ukrainian government. And unless he is completely bat shit insane a nuclear armed Ukraine would likely send him scurrying back home, bluff successfully called. But to do that you have to go all in. You have to call. And that means risking a good old fashioned cold war nightmare scenario thermo nuclear war. Hey, they didn't call it M.A.D. for nuthin.

Apple, The Environment, and ROI

Here is an interesting story (http://m.slashdot.org/story/198835) from the recent Apple shareholder meeting in February 2014. Despite the fact I am quite deep in the Apple ecosystem I can say I do not think they are a perfect company. I have a serious love/hate relationship with the draconian measures they take to protect the App Store as the only source for iOS software for instance. But I find this story a slim ray of hope for corporate America. You see, the corporation is recognized as a legal entity ( More or less meaning as a person from a legal standpoint ). And yet many economic experts seem to feel they should only pursue profit (ROI, or return on investment). That they should operate on economic abstraction rather than as a member of the community. This seems to indicate for folks of this mindset there should be no moral basis in decision making. If there is a detrimental environmental method that legally allows the company to make more money than an environmentally friendly option, then adherents to this mindset believe it is required that the company pursue the option with the highest ROI. 

But what is a good ROI? Profits in the next quarter are hardly the only return on investment. Some are far more complex. How do you place a price on being a good member of the community? What is the value of Apple continually topping surveys for most highly regarded/trusted etc brand?

If Apple were at risk of going insolvent as a result of these decisions then Cooks actions would be reckless. However, seeing as Apple is setting record after record after record in their quarterly profits... And they hold massive cash reserves I think it is safe to say the can afford to make some decisions based on long term sustainability and or just because they make them a better member of the community. This is a generally prefferable mode of operation for any corporation, as opposed to being a soulless economic vortex hell bent on concentrating wealth for its share holders. 

Aereo legal insanity

So a western Judge has just issued an injunction against Aereo in several states. For those not familiar Aereo is a new service that works like this.

It starts with a tiny antenna about the size of a dime. This antenna can receive over the air TV broadcasts. Think of it as a tiny set of rabbit ears. Aereo sells you access to one of these antenna's. Only instead of sitting it on top of your TV with tin foil enhancements it sits at their location. You connect to the signal that antenna receives via the internet. Aereo facilities house millions of these little suckers. The key here is one antenna per user. Another key is that in order to have an account you have to live within the broadcast range of the over the air signal. So for example I can't have a New York Aereo account for New York broadcasts living in Los Angeles and vice versa.

Cable companies and networks are going absolutely ape shit over this and are claiming this constitutes a 're-broadcast' of their signal which is illegal. Hmmmm.... if it is a re-broadcast then anyone that uses a set of rabbit ears is guilty or 're-broadcasting' from the rabbit ears to their TV set. So long as the user to antenna ratio is 1:1 it is not even correct to call this a broadcast in the first place.

Broadcasting 

Broadcasting is the distribution of audio and video content to a dispersed audience via any audio or visual mass communications medium, but usually one using electromagnetic radiation. Wikipedia

Sending a signal from an antenna to a single system is not broadcasting (it is uni-casting, ie sending to one as opposed to many) just like it is not when using rabbit ears in your house. The difference here is the length of cable and transmission protocol used to connect your device to the antenna. In the case of rabbit ears the analog signal is sent via cable to your TV antenna input. With Aereo the signal is digitized and shipped to you via the internet which could involve a physical wire the whole way or in many cases jump over wireless links. The cable companies and networks are basically ignoring the fact the technology is based on a 1:1 basis just like a set of rabbit ears or ATSC tuner and instead focusing on the increased technological method of getting the signal from the antenna to the end user.

To muddy the waters a bit there are a couple of things that cloud the issue a bit from the simple explication above. Aereo is also selling a premium account that also incorporates a DVR (also housed at their location) which allows you to time shift over the air broadcasts without having any equipment at your house. Additionally since you can access your account from multiple devices, I suppose there is the possible consideration that if you used your one antenna to stream content to multiple devices at the same time you could run afoul of being a broadcast at that point.

Now, time shifting I think has already been through the wickets so the only wrinkle here is again the notion of Aereo hosting the DVR instead of it being at your house. Again if it is a one to one situation then the only difference is the length of the connection between your equipment and your viewing devices. As for the multiple device thing... you could conceivable split the signal from a single set of rabbit ears to multiple TVs and I do not think anyone would bat an eye. But that is much less well explored territory.

Details aside this is pretty much a new tech company running afoul of some very old and powerful entrenched interests in keeping things just they way they are. You may wonder what the big deal is... and it is money. Specifically advertising money and cable company re-broadcast agreements. You see cable companies have to pay to take that over the air signal from the networks and push it out over their cable systems. So having a company do this without having to broker a deal with the networks gets both parties noses bent out of joint. On the advertising front this method of viewing is not built into Nielson surveying methods so any Aereo customers are not going to figure into the eyeball count that determines advertising costs.

In my opinion the re-broadcast agreements do not apply. The cable companies take in a single signal from the network and broadcast that signal to all of their customers. They are not maintaining a 1:1 ratio of antenna to customers with an independent stream of content to each individual user. Apples and Oranges comparison. There would be an issue if Aereo were allowing customers to sign up out of market ie to folks physically living outside of over the air broadcast coverage. But they are not. So they have a very strong case to make that they are not providing something not already available to any user. They are just selling remote hosting of the antenna and DVR equipment. Both technologies not under question if housed at the users house. The advertising solution should be easy as well... just broker a deal for Aereo to provide sanitized viewership statistics to the rating companies and voila... no different than counting the eyeballs watching cable or typical over the air broadcast solutions. But no... as usual since this is new and may undermine someones way of making money it is causing a fuss.

Thankfully this injunction only hits a couple of markets Aereo is in. And they already have an appeal headed to the SCOTUS for a final ruling on this case.  So far most federal cases have sided with Aereo. The cable companies are saying if Aereo wins then they will start setting up the same kind of solutions to break away from the need for re-broadcast deals. Networks are threatening to kill over the air broadcasting altogether in order to kill Aereo and any chance cable companies could use this method to avoid the re-broadcast deals.  Fun fun fun. Don't you just love our legal system and corporate interests at work?

Who Watches the Watchers?

It is hard to say what the overall opinion in this country is regarding Snowden. But for those that think his case is black and white and he is a traitor I ask you give the following some consideration.

Imagine if Edward Snowden, US Citizen and IT Geek contractor douche-bag were instead named <insert stereotypical foreign name of choice>. And was say a Chinese (or < insert foreign nation of choice >) citizen and IT Geek contractor douche-bag having spilled the beans on said government domestic and international signals interception spying programs?

What would your feelings of this supposed persons actions be?

Wash rinse and repeat for Bradley (Now Chelsea) Manning and Edward Snowden.

If you would brand them traitors to their respective countries and unworthy of further consideration I applaud you and bid you continue on bashing these two folks as you were. However, if you think.. hmmm... I might have liked and cheered what these proposed foreign folks did even though it was precisely the same action, then perhaps you are not fully considering what it is Manning and Snowden did.

In my opinion the heart of this case is a pretty simple issue. And it isn't a citizens right to privacy or a governments right to secrecy. It is something more fundamental. Who watches the Watchers? Ok, perhaps simple is the wrong term. The problem is simple to list but solving it is a fundamental, perhaps unresolvable, problem of governments.

In both cases the US government was doing something that was at best questionable, and at worst completely wrong. And in both cases the 'system' that they were operating in was fundamentally broken with no real recourse for effectively elevating the issues they were exposed to. I read often that many say they had 'no right' to take action on their own. Something I strongly disagree with. We the people of the United States of America In order to form a more perfect Union... these are not just words. They are the foundation of our way of government. And it starts with we the people. When the government we empowered and formed steps out of line it is not only our right, but our duty to act to bring it back in line. It is NOT ok for our government to hide behind itself and hold itself separate from the power of we the people. 

Who watches the watchers? If not the Mannings and Snowdens (aka Whistleblowers) then who? They are we the people. They were exposed to information of wrong doing with no effective legal way to expose it. And they took action. And now that we know I ask this question. How many more knew and did not act? 

If you contend the law of the land is supreme and our representational government can enact law that shields itself from the actions of the people then you give up what our forefathers worked so hard to create. A government of the people, as opposed to one that is above the people.

But they broke the law and have to pay for that? There is merit to this point. But let us look at a similar situation where laws where broken in order to help enact change. Civil Rights. The civil rights movement is littered with those who faced and endured legal consequences for breaking the law of the land upheld by federal precedent (separate but equal) through non-violent protests and civil disobedience. But is that the legacy we really want? That in order to change that which is wrong we have to punish folks who do and fight for what is right? We see that as a necesarry part of how to correct the wrongs of our government? We should not celebrate images of Dr. Martin Luther King behind bars for civil disobedience. We should hang our heads in shame that we did not figure out how to deal more expeditiously with that horrible problem. So it goes with Manning and Snowden. They beyond a shadow of a doubt uncovered actions by our government that were and are unconstitutional. For that they should be thanked, not banished and/or locked up.

Google + Foxcon, a Ludite nightmare come true? Part 1 of a look at our future with robotics

Google and Foxcon are working together to bring manufacturing back to America. Only it isn't quite what you might think. The effort is focusing on massive advances in automation. Meaning the 'jobs' will mostly be for robots. For those that are familiar with history they may recall the Ludites. Today you hear the phrase as a derogatory denouncement of a person or group that is against 'change' in general. Yet the movement itself had a fairly simple concept at heart that was easy to understand. If you replace all the jobs with technology, what will people do? That was the Ludite nightmare... the bogey man that spurred them to action. Granted it was irrational (at least in the big picture, it was undoubtedly real for some) in their time as the advent of large scale factories fueled the industrial revolution. The result is the 19th-21st century move from agrarian societies (farm based) to industrial and urban centered societies. While far from perfect, it is extremely difficult to argue that we are worse off in 2014 than we were in say 1814. By almost all measures we live in better times across a vast majority of the world.


So there are obviously neo-Ludites that fear actions like this one by Google and Foxcon on the basis that it will lead to massive un-employment. Are they right this time around? I don't think so but I also am unsure how to quantify my belief. So I wanted to take a minute and run through some simple thought experiments. Feel free to point out any errors in math, I am notorious for allowing 2+2=5 type errors. Comments always welcome period.

First... start with a representational population of 100 people. It makes the math easier and the numbers a bit easier to comprehend. Currently the US distribution of labor is (Following from CIA fact book)

agriculture: 1.1% (agains for ease of discussion I will use 2% in most cases referring to this, which reflected ~1970 levels of agricultural effort in the economy)

industry: 19.2%

services: 79.7%

US population is ~316.5 million, labor pool is ~155 million or roughly 49% of the population is employed. Unemployment has been bouncing around 7% meaning 7% of the 155million viable labor pool candidates can't find work. 7% of 49 is ~3.5. So that gets us the following for our 100 person representational population. 

100 people total

49 laborers

45.5 laborers employed

3.5 laborers looking for work. 

The remaining 51 people are split between the young and the old. The young are presumably supported by the workers. The old are retired and provided for either by the fruits of their labor and or social programs again supported by the workers. Incidentally if you have ever wondered what the fuss about baby boomers retiring is all about, the crux of it is that the pool of folks on the old end of the spectrum is going to grow considerably. Since currently one of the primary means of retirement income is Social Security that means there will be a greater and greater percentage of the population out of the 'work force' relying on SS which increases the load on the remaining workers to keep things going. 

Of the folks working

~1 works in agriculture to feed everyone

~9.5 work in industry making things (though the US is a net importer of manufactured goods I think). The remaining 38 or so, ~80%, of the work force are unemployed or work in a service industry.

In the US that means the absolute worst case scenario where robotic automation takes over in the job market in our representational population would be a loss of 9.5 jobs... or in terms of percentages it would represent a 19.2% increase in unemployment for a total of 24% unemployment. A truly frightening number to be sure. This is in line with The Great Depression which saw rates as high as 33% in some areas of the world. Also this is assuming robots can only take over industrial type work... which is a bad assumption. Read up on what IBM is working on with its WATSON system and any knowledge based service industry relying on voice interaction looks to be in danger at some point as well. Call center type jobs could potentially be replaced whole sale very rapidly in any use case IBM creates a successful model for. Combine service industry smarts, with advanced robotics and a lot of traditionally safe areas of employment in the service industry become viable for automation as well. And if you replace a high percentage of the workers the foundation of the management world is eroded as well.

In order to see the end game here I think you have to return to the Ludites and the world they lived in. Checking on the US history of agriculture you can see that as recently as 1870 agricultural work represented 60-70% of the US work force. Today it is under 2%. The labor force has made two major transitions in the US since then. It first migrated into industry, then with outsourcing technological innovations in manufacturing the US moved into a Service based economy. That 2% or less number is truly amazing. That is to say that only 2% of people in that 49 (that is less than 1) are needed to feed folks in my representational population based on current agricultural production methods. 150 years ago it would have taken up to 70 people doing backbreaking manual farm labor just to provide food for 100. That is a massive improvement. Looking further you may also realize that means in 1870 you had 70 people out of 100 employed in agriculture which represented a higher percentage of the population involved in a basic subsistence activity than is engaged in the entire economy of today (49 out of 100 in my example based on current US statistics).  

So let us continue on down the rabbit hole. Lets say the industry jobs reached the same level of automation as agriculture and you went from 9.5% to 2%. And in the service industry you went from ~80% to 2%. That is to say where before you needed 49 people in a population of 100 to do all the work needed, you now only need around 3. Leaving 97 people not needing to do anything if all we want to do is maintain our current level of existence. Lets put that in context so that perhaps the light at the end of the tunnel starts to shine through here.... Go back to 1870 where 70 of 100 were engaged in agriculture and apply this logic. You are saying that when you are done 1 out of 70 is working in agriculture and the rest are doing nothing. Same amount of food is available just a WHOLE lot LESS work (by people) is needed. That is what happened from 1870 - 1970. But surprisingly enough you don't see 69 out of 100 folks sitting around doing nothing because they are not working on a farm. 

This leads to a couple of questions regarding our current situation. 1, is it possible to reach a similar level of efficiency with manufacturing and service industries as we have reached with agriculture? 2, if it is possible, is there something to take the place of these two primary employment areas? I would add a third. Does something need to take the place of manufacturing and service industries? The need for a replacement in my mind is completely determined by whether or not we have reached the pinnacle of 'civilization'. If we have then we don't need to keep having everyone slave away if only a small fraction need to do so in order to maintain our 'pinnacle' state. If we haven't, then in 100 years or less there could be folks looking back on this time the same way we look back on the 1870s. And probably wonder why folks were scared of embracing such obvious improvements :-).  

So let us back out to that full 100 people representational population again. And lets move everything to whole numbers. Without a change to employment expectations lets employ this theoretical improvement via automation technologies in both industry and services. This is the absolute worst case scenario because that basically inverts the employed vs. unemployed because there is no change in employment expectation (IE between 18 and 65 you are part of the labor pool and expected to be gainfully employed). 
That makes it:

51 are either to young or two old to be considered as part of the labor pool 
46 are gainfully employed
3 are looking for work

changes to:
51 - young and old
3 - gainfully employed (~2% of 49 in all 3 areas)
47 - are looking for work

In terms of our current system of economy that translates into a much higher unemployment rate than seen in the worst hit areas during the great depression (33%). This would effectively destroy the notion of capitalism as we currently understand it. Keep in mind that presently 10% unemployment is a bad situation in a modern economy. If you are not working in a capitalistic economy you have no way to exchange labor for capital. And when 43% of your population has no means of access to capital they cannot purchase goods. At that point the engine of capitalism grinds to a halt. Horrible right? But why? Basically because capital is no longer being distributed effectively through the population to drive supply and demand exchanges.

The interesting thing in this theory is that you do not have a drop in GDP. It is just being produced by far fewer people meaning we would be far more efficient in our efforts. In theory there is just as much money in the economy, all you have lost is the means of effectively distributing it across the entire population. If you solve the distribution issue you then have something very valuable. If you do not solve the distribution problem you have something very dangerous. In both cases it is the same issue you have to deal with. You now have massive amounts of free time in the able bodied population that needs to be directed somewhere. The old cliche 'idles hands are the devils workshop' has some bite. You have to solve the distribution issue otherwise that free time becomes destructive. The Ludites were a case in point of that particular issue. But if you do solve it then you are looking at a similar increase in the amount of time we have to dedicate to new activities as we did in moving from a subsistence agrarian based economy to an industrial/service economy. What exactly we could accomplish with that is a hell of a good question.

So solving distribution... that is tricky. For starters,  in order to be most effective, people have to want to work. Currently that incentive is based in making money. Re-distributing the effort of 3% of the population to support the remaining 97% would require some currently unheard of levels of taxation. At least if the income evenly concentrated in the remaining workers. You see in order to maintain the quality of living the amount of distribution currently happen would have to remain largely the same. So effectively the remaining 3% of workers would be making effectively what they do now, and all the other money would be going to support the remaining population. Again that is at maintaining current quality of living levels.

The answer is actually something that isn't new. Slavery. Yes... Slavery. If you want to avoid the moralistic overload of that word you can use the more neutral "Free Labor" or perhaps more accurately "Extraordinarily cheap labor". Because you are talking about robotics instead of people either seems appropriate. So in this case, instead of moving the work to 3% with the assumed bump in pay, you are instead moving it to robotics and software. What does a robot or software need to survive? Once that is provided for the remaining result of robotic labor should be redistributed. The issue of separating the robotic creators from the labor results of their creation (to be held distinctly different from the profit from producing them in the first place) is a much easier task than the notion of taxing the working population at rates approaching 100%.

Now don't think I am going on about some insane level of technology like say the character Data, from 'Star Trek the Next Generation'. We are not talking about self aware machinery. Just a new generation of machinery. Lets say industrial jobs were all based on car making. So in our 100 person example 9.5... make that 10... out of the hundred are working in an auto plant making cars. We wave our magic technology wand and a new factory needing only 1 person to run it to be just as productive. Just more robust assembly line robotic technology needing less human oversight, fewer (perhaps no) tasks that still have to be done by hand. Some may think that impossible... while taking for granted the change in general involvement of the population in agriculture from going from 70:100 down to 1:100 from 1870 to 1970. Here we are 'just' talking about going from 10:100 to 1:100 for industry, and around 35:100 to 1:100 in service. Assuming the rate of change were identical (highly unlikely I understand) to agriculture these would represent 15 year and 50 year marks. IE in 15 years we would hit the manufacturing efficiency goal, and the service mark in 50.

Considering the rate of overall change in technology/society/economics from 1870 to 1970 looks more like an exponential growth curve I'd wager decent money we will hit those marks in considerably shorter times. Say 5-10 for the manufacturing goals. Less than 20 for the service overhaul. Mostly because the things that are hard to replace on the manufacturing side are in many ways more difficult technically than replacing say a 'waiter' at a restaurant. Solve the issues in manufacturing and it is simply a cost benefit equation governing how fast they take over service jobs. The X factor in my opinion is not the capability of the technology. The seeds of most of this are already starting to sprout. Its the transition issues. As these technologies mature (like the story this whole article started from) it will increase pressure on the work force to adapt. If the system cannot adapt to absorb the sudden movement of large percentages of its work force within its current methodologies, then you have the recipe needed for significant socioeconomic change. Translation in plain english: Enough people will be seriously pissed off and potentially dangerous that something has got to give. Worst case we would be looking at outright revolution and copious amounts of bloodshed on a scale not seen in the US since the civil war. Best case... probably still looking at the most significant changes to how the world works since the round of revolutions that occurred circa 1776.

So if all my rounding and prognosticating came to pass and Ludite nightmares became reality that would mean sometime around 2035 we could face the following situation
51:100 are retired or to young to work
3:100 are able to produce a GDP output equivalent to 2013s US economy (~49k per head)
46:100 are of sound body and mind and are doing ????? (PROBLEM)

The critical point won't be 2035, or whatever date it might actually be. It will be some tipping point leading up to that time between threatened established interests fighting for survival of the status quo vs. a change they cannot stop. The irony in my scenario is that those entrenched interests will collectively be causing the change as they continue to blindly chase the bottom dollar.

Anyway, in part 2 I plan to ramble through why I think this wouldn't be the end of the world. And take a stab at how I think we could make this transition to an as yet determined post today type system on the basis of robotic labor... or maybe that will be a part 3. 

Duck Dynasty: Phil Robertson vs A&E and the right to Free Speech

First up lets get the introductions out of the way:

Read the story. The WHOLE story and don't rush through it (http://www.gq.com/entertainment/television/201401/duck-dynasty-phil-robertson) and at least a modicum of the comments. Really you will get the whole picture in a nutshell. Bottom line, a big city reporter goes into a backwoods La. fundamental christians home and asks his opinion on sin, writes a story about it and sits back to watch the fireworks. There is a bit more than that which is why I ask you actually take the time to read the entire article. The reporter seems equally fascinated and repulsed by his experience. The bit about why he voted for Romney over Obama is perhaps the most personally damaging thing Phil said in the whole article from my personal bent on life. Go read it if you are interested in what that was about...

Now I have no delusions of 'solving' this one. This issue is now so far beyond the actual facts of the case it is laughable. It is now a rallying cry on both sides of the issue to use Phil and his opinions as a  as bogey man or saint/hero depending on how you view the debate. I am just throwing my thoughts out there. Do with them what you will. 

First up... Phil's freedom of speech has not been infringed upon. No federal or state government action has been taken to restrict his freedom, IE arrest him and lock him up, based on his comments. Phil expressed his freedom of speech, GQ expressed their freedom of the press and A&E.... did what? That to me is the question. If Phil signed a contract with wording on the lines of something slippery like 'Will not embarrass A&E' or some such and A&E decides his public statements contradict his contract then all they did was (intelligently or not) enforce their contractual rights to control a product they produce (Duck Dynasty show). And they will face the consequences of that decision.

That said should they have suspended him over this? I don't think so. Is Phil a saint? No way, and in his own words no way. He is one of many in this world to royally foul up their life and to restore it at least partially on the foundation of christian faith. It makes for a great story, and the Robertson family plays fantastic on TV. Here is hoping the golden goose was not slain for all involved, Phil, A&E, DD cast and all their fans of which I am one.

So Who's side am I on? Neither really. I am munching popcorn watching a freakin greek tragedy in the news at this point. Phil has the right to believe in Christ and to lead the life he feels that requires. A&E has the right to distance themselves from his interpretation or how they think it reflects on them. The LGBT and non-Chirstian community has the right to express their disapproval. And everyone else has the right to choose to watch/ban/support the results as they see fit. In a nutshell, it is ultimate Americana at its finest as I see it. 

And that is that as far as it goes with the story of Phil Robertson and the GQ interview. The rest of this is in response to what I see as a particularly insidious thread of discussion I have seen in numerous comment threads about this issue where it often devolves into this notion that Phil being suspended from DD is a case of 'True' Americans (aka Christians) being beat down by liberal sinners. So where do I stand on that mess? in general I stand on the side of the American system. But what does that mean to me? 

It means if anyone takes up Phil's opinions and those same passages in the bible and wants to make them the 'law of the land', that is something to which I will take sides on. If someone wants to try and ban the teaching of the bible and punish those that try and follow it, that is something which I will take sides on. I believe strongly in the freedom to choose for yourself. But, I draw the line at legally forcing others to believe as you. That is not what 'Freedom' in America is about. The concept of individual freedom as defined in America is hard. Believing it means accepting Christians, Homosexuals, KKK members, Atheists, Men, Women, Hindi, Buhddists, Politicians, Lawyers, Car salesmen, Muslims, Athletes, Telemarketers, Geeks etc... all as equally American. Believing in Christ does not make you any more American than someone that does not. Preferring sex with your own gender does not make you more American than those that prefer sex with the opposite gender. I don't know about the rest of you, but personally I struggle with accepting Telemarketers...

The founding of this nation was on the belief that all are created equal and possessing of inalienable rights such as to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Nowhere in our founding documents of our government does it state what sexual orientation you are required to follow to be American. It most certainly does not specify a mandatory religious belief in order to be American, only that you are free from government persecution of your religion. 

For those that hold we were founded by Christians for Christians... I would like to hear your thoughts on why such deeply christian men chose to so carefully avoid specifically calling out God and the teachings of Christ in our founding government documents? Then for bonus points tackle Thomas Jefferson and his personally edited edition of the Bible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible). This one is particularly thorny if you believe the King James Bible or what it is founded on or one of its derivatives to be the indisputable word of God in its entirety. 

The story of Christianity and this nation goes back well before its founding. Our founders saw religion and governments as essentially being incompatible and mixing them doomed to create strife. The history of the Crusades was much fresher for them. Governments had only recently managed to effectively separate themselves from the rule of the Pope. The issue of different stripes of Christianity being at war because of the implications of who held power was not just a matter of debate but one of imminent threat in the world. As a result they attempted to deal with (diffuse) what was seen as the inevitable friction of any religious belief and governments. The result was the so called 'separation of church and state'. This separation was held as essential by those same said deeply religious founders. They in effect said 'We will found a government that keeps its nose OUT of religion, in return for religion keeping its nose OUT of government'.  

Building our government on the concept that church and state need to be separated did not make these men any more or less Christian than they were. But it most certainly does mean this country (in the sense of its governmental structure) was emphatically NOT founded as Christian. Else we would resemble early New England theocracies (which lead to things like the Salem Witch trials) rather than what we do have. Another thing to keep in mind is that the constitution was our SECOND attempt at forming a foundation for our nation. The first were the articles of confederation. Both the first attempt of the Articles of Confederation and the eventual Constitution were both equally and conspicuously 'godless' in structure and wording. In fact the Constitution as it originally existed did not touch on religion at all. Remember that freedom of religion is a first amendment right. In other words it was the first change to the original document. And that change was not to specifically protect a particular denomination of Christianity, nor to specifically protect generically only the followers of Christ. It was an open ended protection of religion. Thus with not one, but two attempts at building the foundation for our government, the sentiment to include any overt christian doctrine into our government structure was not strong enough to succeed. 

It was not until the first amendment to the second attempt that religion was addressed at all and that amendment can basically be construed as constitutionally asserting that we all had to just agree to disagree (live and let live) when it came to religion... Think about that. 

Ok, enough ranting. I wrote the above before A&E relented on the idea of suspending Phil from DD. Was good to see the family back each other on potential pain of losing significant money. Back to happy happy happy time.