A recent small study at Baylor University suggests that cell phone addiction may be a real phenomenon. The poll was conducted by James Roberts, Ph.D. who is a professor of marketing. This may come as no real surprise to those of us who feel that social media is the real rabbit hole of life, but it raises some other interesting questions. First, it should be mentioned that the study was conducted with only 164 college students and extrapolating meaningful data from that sample would be impossible. But logic and observation of the behavior of people driving, walking, in stores, and in eateries, indicate a seemingly misappropriation of time. Here are the study highlights:

• Of the top activities, respondents overall reported spending the most time texting (an average of 94.6 minutes a day), followed by sending emails (48.5 minutes), checking Facebook (38.6 minutes), surfing the Internet (34.4 minutes) and listening to their iPods. (26.9 minutes).
• Men send about the same number of emails but spend less time on each. "That may suggest that they're sending shorter, more utilitarian messages than their female counterparts," Roberts said.
• Women spend more time on their cell phones. While that finding runs somewhat contrary to the traditional view that men are more invested in technology, "women may be more inclined to use cell phones for social reasons such as texting or emails to build relationships and have deeper conversations."
• The men in the study, while more occupied with using their cell phones for utilitarian or entertainment purposes, "are not immune to the allure of social media," Roberts said. They spent time visiting such random social media sites such as Facebook, Instagram and Twitter. Among reasons they used Twitter were to follow sports figures, catch up on the news—"or, as one male student explained it, "waste time”.  

But, the trend that I see, in addition to the addictive aspect, is that we are making modifications to our technology to accommodate distraction and the need to attend to more important parts of life. For example, we are building cars to reflect our need to use a cell phone and not pay attention. The newer cars have automatic stopping when they sense an object, cameras to watch everything, lane change warning, and of course the ultimate luxury, self driving cars. And what about hands-free via Bluetooth?  We are paying attention to the conversation and not as much on traffic. And the beat goes on.
And with full disclosure, I waste time on the internet as well! But no social media for me and if I need to make a call while driving, I pull over. I’ll probably get hit by a car without all of the amenities by someone texting…

The answer is yes, but with some serious qualifications about what and when we will see real significant manufacturing “Made in the USA”. At one time the number of products manufactured here were almost exclusive to or ability to maintain supply chains, hire a willing and vibrant workforce, pay a living wage, and offer quality products for our consumers. It seemed that we made everything that we needed and had the natural resources to succeed at building whatever we needed or that the customer wanted. (Even if they did not need it!). But, that ability gradually eroded as global pressure mounted, trade imbalances became more common, and price became the new normal.
A good example is evident in the television manufacturing arena.  In the late 1950’s there were 90 companies making television sets in the US. By 1995 there was one, Zenith Electronics Corporation, and they sold controlling interest and manufacture to South Korea. But, by then, our supply chains had begun to crumble with the outsource mentality. Everything from integrated circuits to automobiles was coming from other countries. But, we also caused some of the migration of manufacturing. Consumers wanted more selection and lower prices for goods. And, our tax code for businesses was costing twice what other countries were offering. So, it became more profitable for business to outsource and operate from other locations.  But, the pendulum is swinging back again to some extent. China, the largest exporter to the US by far, is becoming a victim of its own success. As they have moved up the economic scale, so have their companies, and it is costing more to do business as they are pressured by the upcoming middle class to pay higher wages and lose profit. And, it seem as though Americans are sick of the trade imbalance and reliance on cheap, sometimes defective products.
It is apparent that we have the desire to manufacture again, but it is not clear if we can re-design the paradigm. I see several problems that will have to be overcome to be makers again.
Element Electronics based in Minnesota started producing large screen televisions in Detroit in 2012. The caveat is that they are assembled here. The components still have to be imported. So, to be successful we have to rebuild the supply chains from electronic parts to steel. The work force has to be supplied that has the technical ability needed to support efficient and profitable US products. We will never again see lines of people assembling widgets and consumer goods. We will stay firmly in the automation and digital age and need well-trained workers. And what about quality? In my lifetime I have never seen so many automobile recalls! Not only American but all of the foreign companies as well. W. Edward Deming, the father of quality control would be ashamed to see his ideas so blatantly ignored.
Finally, we need to build products like battleships that can be repaired. We have to get out of this dispose, recycle, and re-buy mentality. It will be a pitiful epitaph that says “Here lays a civilization built on junk”! We can do better…

The FAA recently released a memorandum titled Interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft. This is essentially a memo where the FAA states how they interpret the rules and regulations regarding model aircraft flights in US Airspace. This includes all UAV’s (unmanned aerial vehicles) including model planes and drones. They state that this is a "Notice of Interpretation with Request for Comment" meaning they are looking for feedback from the community at large. If you fly FPV at all, this affects you. Take a look at this abstract from the memo:

By definition, a model aircraft must be flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft. P.L. 112-95, section 336(c)(2).1 Based on the plain language of the statute, the FAA interprets this requirement to mean that: (1) the aircraft must be visible at all times to the operator; (2) that the operator must use his or her own natural vision (which includes vision corrected by standard eyeglasses or contact lenses) to observe the aircraft; and (3) people other than the operator may not be used in lieu of the operator for maintaining visual line of sight. Under the criteria above, visual line of sight would mean that the operator has an unobstructed view of the model aircraft. To ensure that the operator has the best view of the aircraft, the statutory requirement would preclude the use of vision-enhancing devices, such as binoculars, night vision goggles, powered vision magnifying devices, and goggles designed to provide a “first-person view” from the model.

But Amazon and any other entity also have to consider a rule that has been in place since 2012 that disallows UAV’s for commercial purposes. So, this is a double whammy for anyone who wants to make money or fly anything, anywhere unless they can see the vehicle at all times without any equipment other than eyesight.
In addition to these restrictions there is also the physics of flying drones. Most hobby craft are quadcopters. Amazon uses octocopters, (8 rotors) for their Prime Air delivery craft. The drones are supposed to be able to carry 5 pounds plus the weight of the craft and travel 10 miles. It seems reasonable to suspect that the battery will have to be extremely efficient and light. These are currently mutually exclusive properties at the present time.
And then there are the liability issues. Even if the FAA grants special status for commercial drones, there will be concerns about drones hitting other airborne equipment, landing on people, being the sport of gun slingers, and many other possible problems. “Due to weather concerns which we have much of the time, your package will be sent by UPS or FedEx”! Fortunately, there will be a comment period and Amazon has no plans for immediate air delivery. I think that the time frame is 3 to 5 years. The trend? Amazon has time and lots of money. Need I say more?

Crowdfunding is the collection of money from backers, the "crowd" to fund an initiative and usually occurs on an Internet platform. The initiative could be a non-profit, to raise funds for a school or social service organization, political, to support a candidate or political party, charitable, to raise emergency funds for an ill person, or to fund a critical operation, commercial, to create and sell a new product or financing a campaign for a new start up company.
Crowdfunding models involve a variety of participants. They include the people or organizations that propose the ideas or projects to be funded, and the crowd of people who support the proposals. Crowdfunding is then supported by an organization (the funding site) which brings together the project initiator and the crowd.
Business and social issues have been “crowdfunded” for at least 400 years. The first books to be printed were backed by those people interested in introducing mass-produced education and entertainment. A more recent example is in 1884 when the Statue of Liberty fund ran out of money to pay for the pedestal for the statue on Bedloe’s Island, now Liberty Island. Joseph Pulitzer ran articles in his newspapers to ask for donations and they received $125,000 in 6 months.
But to say that the growth of these sites is exponential would be an understatement. There is no way of knowing how many exist and how many are going to spring up. There are two aspects to consider when participation is contemplated.  All of the sites have a cost, usually between 5% and 10%. The fee will be paid either by the originator of the project, or the contributor.  And in all cases, the potential to get “burned” is always present. Even the cause related sites have siphoned off funds for personal gain. And in one site that I have followed, Kickstarter, projects have failed to be finished, cost much more than expected, or have been totally fabricated. I am not picking on KS, but there is considerable risk when becoming part of a crowdfunded project. If you are thinking about joining in with the crowd, please do a lot of research! And, many of the sites are not secure so that is something else to consider before investing in the latest concept. The trend? There are always more people trying to separate us from our money. Caveat Emptor…

It happens every year, much like a swarm of locusts have deposited a vast wasteland of paper upon the earth. I am referring to the millions of telephone books that litter our mailboxes and entryways. Sometime during the day a hoard of people who are hired by the telephone companies deliver these unsightly, heavy, and useless books to us whether we need them or not. Then they scurry along to propagate one of the largest wastes of paper and money to other folks who have not asked for them or even want them. It is just something to have to throw away. And that is the problem. Where do these orphan tyrants go? Some do get recycled, but many will go to landfills where they will decompose over time; but, there will be another next year!
I did some research to discover how many people still have the need for a “book of telephone numbers”. It is difficult to find out how many are really needed but the number (pardon the pun) is small. Despite the fact that telephone numbers are available on the web via PC or mobile device, even the people who still have rotary phones have directory assistance for free, (411). And, if someone does not have a telephone, they don’t need a book! The answer seems to be a system where we could opt-in to getting these abominations.  The only way to get a book is to ask for one. We could save trees, disposal, and aggravation in the process. The following is from a website that proposes just such a strategy:
“Did you know that an estimated 5 million trees are cut down each year to create white pages phone books and that according to a recent survey conducted with Harris Interactive, only 22% of recipients recycle when disposing of them, which explains why approximately 165,000 tons of waste end up in landfills?* In addition, our own survey shows that 75% of consumers are completely unaware of the environmental and financial impact in printing, delivering and recycling these books. Given that you likely use online directories, social networks and mobile phone applications to find the contact information you need, it simply does not make sense to have the white pages phone books forcefully delivered to us every year”. This should get our attention!
The website, BanThePhoneBook.org has a petition that can be signed to use an opt-in system of delivery found here. The trend?  Much like the post office that uses a business model that refuse to believe that email will replace letters, the phone company believes that this is a valuable service. And, I won’t even mention the yellow pages vs. Angie's list…

Based on past experience it is clear that scams on the internet come and go as they become overused and fail to provide the scammer with clear results. But some return after a brief absence to bring continued threats to users. The “cold call” from someone representing Microsoft Service is one that has returned and I was the subject of that call. Here is how it transpired:
I received a phone call from Frank, identifying himself as a Microsoft Technical Support representative. He had a thick Indian accent, and was difficult to understand and that seemed to be a good point to hang up, but being curious, I continued. I know that I am being politically incorrect but I really don’t care. Frank advised me that they had been informed that I was having a computer problem. When I asked him how he knew this he said that Windows sends data to them when a problem has been detected. I played along and said that the start- program was very slow and took 5 to 8 minutes to boot up. He said that it was easy to fix that and if I turned on my computer we could remedy the problem. My computer was already on and I said that I just turned it on and wanted to ask some questions while it started. I wanted to know how he would fix the problem and what the process was. He said that once it was up and running, he would supply a website URL for me to enter and the he could see my computer. (Read Take Control!). I then asked how much it would cost and he said that they had a downloadable malware package for $250.00. When I told him that I could not afford that he said that they also had a very good program for $99.00! What a great deal! So, I thought that if there was even a remote possibility that he was really from Microsoft Technical Support that he would be interested in my security. So, I suggested that we terminate the call and I would return the call using the Microsoft number and then asked for his ID number. He said that this is not possible and to please continue. I said no and he abruptly disconnected.
So, what do we know about this scam from the past? If you follow the caller’s instruction and load the fake URL, he now has access to your computer. He can then go to the task manager and proceed to “processes” and show you that the usage is at 80 or 90 % which is dangerous even if it is fine. Or he can call up msconfig and show you anything that may be “wrong”. Or in my case of the slow start program, he could say that it is easy to clean up. (With the software he is selling)! And how will we pay for this if purchased? With PayPal or credit card where we supply all of the information he needs to hack the account. And if we download the software he provides, he can plant a virus, other bugs, or even restrict access to your own computer! Microsoft is aware of the scam and offers some good information here. My suggestion is to hang up on Frank before he hangs you up...

There is a relatively new type of currency that is more important than money or bitcoins. It is the value of being “liked” in the virtual world. Like many discoveries that I uncover, this one began with an acronym frequently found in texting circles. I had seen OOTD several times and I was familiar with other ones like OTT, (over the top), but I just thought that this was similar. But on a trip through the rabbit hole, YouTube, I ran across the term again and followed the bouncing ball. OOTD is “outfit of the day” and after checking out some videos, I saw an interesting process.

The OOTD videos are primarily hosted by females and cover many age groups. However, the teens seem to be the vast majority, and there are thousands of these “tutorials”. They are essentially girls showing what they are wearing; makeup, hair, fingernails, and videos generally based on appearance. But what I found interesting is that they are promoting retailers as if they were selling or marketing the clothes and other accessories. For all purposes, it seemed like a commercial being paid for by the companies that they are “representing”. But, after a little research it was clear that they were not being compensated by money but by being “liked”! The number of hits, thumbs up, thumbs down, and subscribers are the currency of choice. Many of the young girls almost beg for subscribers and really try to “put on a good show”. So, the trend is an interesting metric of life in the virtual world. Unlike the clearly biased videos planted by retailers for positive review, these seem like sincere efforts to share and entertain and to be “liked”.

There are some questions that are inherent in this trend: Are these videos harmless? How much money do these girls spend to be “liked’? Will retailers try to corrupt the system and begin to contaminate the presenters with payment? These are tough questions to answer but clearly the line between the virtual world and the real world are becoming blurred. Stay tuned as we follow this trend and please “like”, and post positive comments so I can be “liked” as well!

There has been a trend in jewelry design that has been becoming more popular with the advent of flexible microcomputers, conductive thread, and mulch-colored light emitting diodes. These designs have been mostly decorative and intended for fashion and not function. But the trend is beginning to change as there is recognition that jewelry can be both fashionable and functional; particularly with safety in mind.
Enter the world of Cuff, founded by Deepa Sood, and this may change how we look at necklaces, bracelets, key chains, and other accessories. It is based on a simple removable and interchangeable module with Bluetooth 4.0 connectivity.  When pressed, the module pings anyone who the wearer defines on an iOS smart phone. Called Cufflinc, the module is fairly inexpensive at around $30.00 or E 21. The jewelry itself is scheduled to sell for a range from $50 to 150 dollars. It will be available at the end of this year and can be pre-ordered. The only flaw that I can see is that in order to be effective there has to be a cell signal. The module is waterproof and has an internal battery with a one year life. I tried to find out if it will eventually be useful on the Android platform but at this time, I have not been successful. As my readers know, I do not endorse products but I will include the link to Cuff here. You can check the idea for yourself and comment as desired.
This could be the start of some significant safety for everyone who watches trends in technology. Personally, I would like to see a miniature stun gun!

There is a clear trend in the delivery of healthcare and it is not at the hospital or with the primary care provider. It is showing up at your local pharmacy and growing fast. Walk-in clinics are becoming the new way of obtaining fast, less expensive, and readily available health services. But, the questions are becoming more frequent as the clinics expand.
The leaders so far are CVS with its Minute Clinics, and Walgreen's, with the Take Care Clinics. Both have a fairly large base with CVS at 650, and Walgreen's at 370 clinics. Initially, they were both treating some of the everyday minor problems that most people would either ignore or wait until the condition became worse. But with short wait-times, 7 day a week availability, and prescription service, the clinics are becoming more acceptable to the fast paced lives of consumers.  But Walgreen's has now expanded to include more chronic conditions and the competition is on.
These clinics are generally staffed with nurse practitioners or physician’s assistants and rely on a uniform corporate structure for diagnosis. Of course, the liability factor becomes important when any health professional makes any diagnosis. Can you say malpractice?
I must admit that I have done a lot of reading about these pharmacy clinics and have yet to feel comfortable enough to use one. I think at this point, caveat emptor is the phrase that captures the possible use of these services. Do the research yourself and then make an informed decision as to whether or not it may be better to go to an emergency room, or wait to see your own doctor. There is a link to Business Insider with some great internal links to get you started here. We have seen before that competition can improve the "level playing field", but the rush to profit can get in the way of consumer safety. Just a thought...

Google is well known as being a company of innovation and long-term planning. And, it seems as if the recent acquisition of at least eight companies involved in robotics is a continuation of this strategy. But, in the process, the “new” direction has fueled a great deal of speculation. The move to add several companies involved in robotics may be a concentration, but not new for Google. Remember the driverless car? This research into autonomy has led to some states passing legislation to allow testing of remote vehicles, but with $150,000 dollars worth of equipment on board, the vehicles will not be in every garage. However, according to digitaltrends.com, there are some big guns being brought into the acquisitions:
“It’s not unusual for Google to capture headlines in the technology press, but one of Google’s latest moves raised even the most-jaded technorati eyebrows: robot maker, Boston Dynamics for an undisclosed amount. But that’s just the icing on a huge robotics cake Google’s been shoveling into its maw. This year alone, Google has acquired no fewer than eight robotics firms, including Industrial Perception, Redwood Robotics, Meka, Schaft, Holomoni, plus the startups Bot & Dolly and Autofuss. And Google is committing brainpower too: In addition to putting former Android chief Andy Rubin in charge of robotics, earlier this year Google hired machine learning expert Geoffrey Hinton, and last year brought famed inventor and AI advocate Ray Kurzweil on board. Between initiatives like Google Glass, Knowledge Graph, and now robotics, Google is positioning itself as a hotbed for future technology development.”
And, although speculation is a part of uncovering trends, some of the possibilities are simply more like daydreaming. For example, the idea that Google will compete with Amazon’s Prime Air package delivery disclosure is truly unrealistic.  In fact, it is unlikely that Amazon will ever fully realize quadracopters delivering packages to its customers. But the undisputed fact is that the companies that take “moon shots” will continue to be the leaders in innovation. For a great article with videos of the acquisitions see the article on phys.org here. And now Google, please stop reading my email!