Reshared post from +Mike Elgan

Why Do Women On Fox Wear So Much Makeup?

+Liza Mundy tackles the strange phenomenon known as "Fox Glam" — the caking on of makup and over-dressing on Fox News not only by female anchors and hosts, but even by guests. 

Is it the rise of HDTV? The older age of the audience? The right-leaning politics of the audience? Or is it something else? 

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/09/foxy-ladies/309054/

Ihnatko is certainly no +Android fan boy and in fact is one of the hosts of MacBreak Weekly on +TWiT. His discussion of the so-called smoking gun competitive analysis document is particularly good.  Having spent many years as an engineer, benchmarking competitors and looking at what you can do better, is standard procedure and only the truly arrogant or stupid would deny that they never look at what has gone before. It's well worth spending an hour to listen. 

On the other hand, if you are a fiscal conservative, I reiterate the question, why support the Republicans. Do you favor smaller government? Since 1980, the GOP has controlled the White House for 20 out of 32 years and congress for roughly half that period. Yet, there is no empirical evidence that despite campaign claims to the contrary, that they will ever shrink government. Under Republican presidents spending has gone up and deficits have grown (primarily for the military and with tax cuts for the wealthiest among us) while median real incomes have gone down and poverty has increased. 

So under Republicans, government just spends more in ways that do not benefit the vast majority of the people. How is that an improvement?

Discuss

However, I think the most important takeaway was the idea that you should always strive to create more value than you extract. Only when this happens does the economy as a whole grow and everyone benefits. 

Of course this is exactly the opposite of what the "geniuses" on Wall St do when they come with financial instruments like derivatives and CDOs. They find a way to make a lot of money for themselves without actually contributing any real value to the equation. 

For all of the derision I've heaped upon Apple (and rightly so I believe) over its policies of pursuing patents and patent litigation against competitors I still believe that on the whole the company has created far more value than it has extracted, at least so far by creating great products that people want and inspiring others to do so as well. If Apple starts collecting huge royalty payments from competitors that could shift the equation, but it remains to be seen what will happen. 

Ultimately for any company, the goal should be to first create outstanding products at a price point that customers can afford. When that happens, the profits will inevitably flow just as they have for Apple, +Ford Motor Company and others. They create products that consumers want, thus employing people that buy more stuff and supporting a supply base and other surrounding businesses. 

Reshared post from +Clayton Morris

Sad to hear of Neil Armstrong's death. We throw around the term "hero" a little too lightly these days. He was an American hero.

Reshared post from +Dan Gillmor

My Guardian piece on what the Apple-Samsung verdict may mean. Hint: It's very bad for competition.