Where is the modern day entrepreneur?

What is “entrepreneurship”? I believe the definition is well understood and that most people would be able to identify it when they see it. However, the term seems to have been bandied about quite frequently in recent years.

One problem is with self-classification. People are not good at describing or classifying themselves. Typically, an individual describes himself as he would like to be perceived – not as he actually is perceived. This phenomenon applies to “entrepreneurship” as well. When one proclaims himself as being such-and-such, I tend to let the evidence make the determination. A reporter once asked a great football coach about the poor record of his team, given the immense talent. The coach’s response was, “we are what we are”.

In terms of “entrepreneurship” I have observed a great deal of misclassification. Entrepreneurship implies a creative thinker in terms of business and commerce and one who is a risk taker. In actuality, I have seen very few risk takers among those self anointed as “entrepreneurs”. Today’s entrepreneurs typically take high salaries and assume little risk. When one venture fails, they seem to easily move on to the next high paying entrepreneurial opportunity.

Part of the problem is the environment. The space of innovation and creative thought is surreal. In it, creative thinkers, speculators, idealists, and others mingle easily. Those who enjoy risk and are adrenaline junkies can also find a happy home there. But that does not qualify those individuals as entrepreneurs.

So what is an entrepreneur? That is an article for another time. For now, I’ll just quote a Supreme Court justice, “I know it when I see it”.

Take the guy at the corner pizza shop. He takes out a loan for $40k for a pizza oven, spends another $25k on rehabbing a storefront, and has no choice but to make the business work. He puts a lot on the line, relatively speaking, and is willing to take the risk that he can make great pizza. Now that is my idea of an entrepreneur.

Taking a vacation from healthcare.

Here I am reading the Sunday newspaper and I am reminded of the alleged high costs of healthcare. This article indicates that even those with insurance are feeling the pinch. Apparently the various additional fees associated with insurance plans – like copayments – can add up to be significant.

I find consumer’s behavior toward health and associated costs, including insurance, to be perplexing. Consumers simply don’t want to pay for health related items. Why does the $2000 a year vacation have higher priority? Why are those $300 a seat tickets to the Red Sox game critical to have? Why do people need to have those hideous, gas guzzling SUVs? Oh, and what about the $4 cup of coffee at Starbucks. It doesn’t make sense. Where are peoples’ priorities?

And there is also a high degree of misunderstanding regarding healthcare costs? Most people don’t understand the difference between health insurance and a health plan. Insurance is protection against a catastrophic event. The implication is that insurance doesn’t cover ordinary items, such as routine checkups. A good analogy is auto insurance. It covers accidents, but not routine items such as oil changes, tires, and brakes. Health coverage implies some thing that is more comprehensive than insurance. HMO plans address health coverage, but most are not without additional costs. A plan with virtually no out-of-pocket expenses would be prohibitive – and likely not a good value to most consumers anyway.

The upshot of all of this is that healthcare is a responsibility of the consumer. It is just like food, shelter, and transportation costs. Until consumers assume a responsibility for their own healthcare and associated costs, the system will appear to be broke. So, for those who would rather think about a vacation rather than their own healthcare, good luck.

Where are the Java Applets?

I’ve often asked myself why Java Applets are not more prevelant. HTML is relatively static. Even with CSS, web pages comprised simply of HTML are not very interactive, especially compared to desktop applications.

The developer community is very creative. A variety of technologies, methods, and tools have been utilized to bring life to HTML. Flash, Javascript, AJAX, and SVG are growing in popularity and add a richness and interactivity to web based apps that approaches desktop apps.

Why has the Java applet been left in the dust? I have a few explanations.

First, there is a lack of understanding in the proper usage of the Java applet on a web page. A web page is not a desktop application and the techniques of building Java standalone (desktop) applications do not carry over to web apps. Java user interface components and frameworks have advanced nicely over the years. SWT and Swing can be used to create desktop apps that are as clean, crisp, and visually appealing as native desktop apps. However, SWT and Swing have little use in a Java applet. And that is the approach many Java developers take.

The correct mindset is that of the Flash or browser plugin developer. At their disposal is a rectangular region of the page. They can do whatever they want in that space. To use Swing or SWT there – as it would be used on in a desktop app – is generally inappropriate.

Second, web developers that focus on look and feel are typically not software engineers. Software engineers gravitate towards Java. Designers gravitate towards things like Flash, CSS, and AJAX. While beautiful UIs can be built with Java, it is simply not the tool of the designer. Perhaps JavaFX will address this.

Finally, I believe the use of Java applets are underestimated. There are web sites that utilize Java applets, but they are not easily recognized. Applets don’t look like Swing or SWT apps, so they go unnoticed. These sites are using applets properly. They are not trying to stick a Java desktop-like component into the middle of a web page.

I would like to see Java applets utilized more. From the perspective of a software engineer, I prefer the Java applet. It provides a great deal of control, allows me to do quite a bit (in a rectangular region of a web page), is very robust, and performs extremely well. I generally avoid heavy Javascript because it is unpredictable across browsers. I’ve noticed that sites utilizing heavy Javascript tend to also have performance problems. So, while Java applets have plenty of advantages, it simply may not be the tool of choice.

RELATED
Applets reloaded

How online ads track users – Explanation for the non-geek

It has been said that web surfers’ online activities can be tracked by Google and other online ad suppliers. Here is an explanation for non-technical folks. I believe this is accurate, but corrections are welcomed, as are suggestions to make this more concise.

First, a little background on how web sites work. The web (http) is “stateless”. That means when a person browses a web site, the site can not retain any information as the user moves between pages. You may find that hard to believe. How could your bank’s web site remember who you are as you clicked on various links and moved between pages? Obviously, the banking web site is able to remember who you are as you navigate. The answer is the “cookie”.

Cookies

A cookie is a small piece of unique information (like a number or string). When you first visit a web site, a cookie can be sent back with the initial web page. The cookie is not displayed anywhere, but it is there behind the scenes. Furthermore, once the cookie is sent to the browser, the browser sends it back to the web site whenever another page is requested. All further communications between the browser and the web site include the cookie. That is how a web site can identify a user and retain state between pages. The cookie identifies you to the web site, allowing the web site to create pages specifically for you.

Cookies may also persist between browser sessions. The cookie may be written to a file. That way a browser can remember the cookie after a user closes the browser. When a browser is started up, it can read the cookies from the prior session.

Browsers provide some security regarding cookies. Mainly, a browser will only provide a web site’s cookie to the source web site. The browser will not supply Amazon’s cookie to eBay. It will only supply it to Amazon’s web site. The browser associates the cookie with a URL and only supplies the cookie to that URL.

Tracking Users

How does this all fit in with online advertisers being able to track specific users? There are three things that are desirable to track: i) the web site where an ad is placed, ii) the user who is viewing (and clicking) an ad, and iii) the identity of the user viewing and clicking ads.

First, Google (or any ad supplier) needs to track where ads are displayed. That is part of their business and a service they provide to their customers. A business that places ads through Google wants to know the sites where the ads are being displayed. Ads are similar to links and a fundamental part of web technology allows for tracking a page referenced from another site. This is standard web technology. There is no issue of privacy here, just the ability to determine where ads are displayed.

Google can also track a user via ads. This is quite common and it is accomplished with cookies. When you visit TheBigFootShoeStore.com and the site displays ads, there are several cookies involved. TheBigFootShoeStore.com has its own cookie. The ads displayed from Google, which are references (links), actually reference Google’s web servers. So Google’s cookie also comes into play. At this point, Google can track all of a user’s web site visits that have Google ads on them. The browser security is still at work, but because the ads are served from the same URL, visits across multiple web sites can be tracked. That may not seem so bad. After all, you are simply anonymous at this point. Or, are you?

You may be revealing who you are to Google, however. If you make use of Google services that are require an account, such as GMail, then Google likely knows who you are. You likely provided your name and possibly other information in setting up your GMail account. If so, Google can track your identity and all web sites you visit that have Google ads on them. It knows how often and when you visited the sites.

Google has been used as an example. Any ad supplier can do the same thing. Google is used because it is the biggest online supplier of advertisements. As they become bigger and more formidable (through acquisition), they gain more control as data collection is centralized. That is not to say that ad suppliers could not cooperate and share data. That could happen too.

Protecting privacy

Recently, I’ve wondered about ways to protect my own privacy. The obvious thing is to turn off cookies altogether. Most browsers provide this option. I don’t recommend turning cookies off though. Some web site won’t work without cookies. Beside, cookies do provide a benefit.

There are a couple of ideas I am experimenting with. I generally don’t log on to Google services. When I do, I make sure to explicitly log off. I am not sure if my identity is retained in the browser after logging off though. Secondly, I noticed that modern browsers seem to have the ability to disallow cookies from specific sites. This is a little tricky to setup, because one must know the URL associated with a cookie. The actual URL from which an ad is served, may not be obvious.

I don’t have any sure fire methods and would like to hear some.

Huge profits in college education

Every so often the local newspaper here publishes a story about the huge profits made at one of the local universities. I have no problem with a school making a profit. Schools and places of worship also receive tax exempt status. I have no problem with that either. However, I do see a problem with huge endowments and the associated for-profit investing activities at schools.

Schools are in the business of educating. It is on that basis that they receive tax exempt status. When significant activities and resources are dedicated to building an investment portfolio, they are also in a business of making money – and that extends beyond the business of education.

Additionally, consider whether schools really should be involved in investing activities. Investing is risky. Are schools willing to accept losses? Are the supporters and alumni, whose donations are being invested, willing to accept the risks? So far things have been rosy. But what happens when the first school experiences significant losses? I assume the government will be expected to bail them out. Schools are not in a position to handle losses, which is a strong indication that they should stick to what they know best – education.

The practice of avoiding the payment of taxes is unethical. There have been many situations where businesses devise schemes to avoid paying taxes and those schemes are frowned upon. Consider this one where the top contrator in Iraq “skirts US taxes”. How is this different from what schools are doing? Why are schools allowed to “front” as an educational entity, while running significant non-educational operations?

If schools are participating in significant non-education activities they should be treated accordingly. Perhaps it is time to consider taxing private educational instituations? Perhaps separate business entities must be established for non educational activities – and those are taxed? Something must be done.

Schools must remain in the business of educating. It is unethical for an educational institution to significantly participate in other activities – whether they are profitable or not. Congress needs to take action and close this loophole. While the practice of building an endowment is not illegal according to the letter of the law, it is unethnical and not in conformance with the spirit of the law.

The high price of gas

There is quite a bit of talk of the high price of gasoline and that it will likely cost $4 per gallon soon. Some people refer to this with “outrage” or a “crisis”. Why isn’t someone, such as the government,doing something about it.

Perhaps the cost of gas isn’t that high, considering inflation. I’ve read gas prices have not matched inflation. This chart indicates that inflation has not match increasing gas prices. This article indicates that the current peak prices have recently exceeded inflation. By and large, gas has been relatively cheap.

And why isn’t someone, such as the federal government, doing something about the cost of gas? Because they don’t see the situation as being that bad. A sort of natural equilibrium exists in the industry.

The sources of oil don’t want the price to increase to drastically. That produces behavior which cuts demand drastically: consumer start conserving. businesses reliant on oil cut back, alternative energy sources gain momentum, etc. If any of these efforts have a high degree of success, it could drastically affect the demand for oil in the long term.

If the feds saw a true crisis, there are plenty of options available to the U.S. government. There are U.S. reserves that could be drawn upon. There is plenty of oil here in the U.S. and North America, and those could be relied upon more heavily. The situation isn’t at a point yet where those measure are believed to be needed.

So things just aren’t that bad. An adjustment to the price of oil is in process. A year or two from now, $4 for a gallon of gasoline will be accepted and the economy will have adjusted. People will back back to driving their 12 mile a gallon SUVs.

While I think I understand the situation, my personal views are much different. The U.S. (and the world) needs to end its reliance on oil. While I believe in free markets, I think the government should step in and put a large tax on gasoline (start at 25 cents/gallon and over the course of several years raise it to $3/gallon). That would accelerate activity in industry to seek alternatives. That may seem extreme to many Americans, but it is already the norm in Europe.

A political side-effect, and one that is quite beneficial, is that without the reliance of oil, the Middle East can grow at its own pace. Industrial nations will have no need to interfere with those oil producing nations, and those nations can evolve at their own natural pace – without the U.S. (and other industrial nations) pushing them along because of their thirst for oil.

Recycling

I just came across this news story on recyling. That is when I realized I didn’t really understand the difference between recycling and redeeming. I think redeeming bottles means one can take a bottle to a store a receive the deposit for it (typically five cents here in Mass.). Recycling (as implied by the article) is when a truck comes by and picks up recycled items, typically stored in a separate container.

Of course, everyone has their take on it. The homeless want more opportunities to make a nickle. The state sees this as a revenue opportunity, because they make money on unreturned bottles. The environmentalists love the idea, because every effort should be made to recycle anything that can be recycled – even when recycling consumes more energy. And finally, there are those that believe deposits on bottles (paying people to return bottles) takes away from other recycling efforts.

Is it possible to determine if recylcing simply makes sense? I recall the effort to recycle started as a way to preserve natural resources and limit waste. Those items were not really discusssed much in the story.