Humans are an incredibly curious species; particularly when we try to understand who we are, where we come from, and why we experience life in so many different ways. Why is our hair brown, or our eyes green instead of blue, and why are we so short, or tall? Well, we have known for a long time that the answers are in our inherited genes; that is, the building blocks of life are based on heredity. We are the product of the parents who formed this new life. The individual aspects of our body are called traits. Some traits are dominant and some are recessive. So, my father may have been bald at 30, I might have long hair at 50, and my son could be bald at 20. It is mostly how the genes are assembled coupled with the environment. We are all aware that cancer can be an inherited risk if both parents have experienced the disease. But, it is not a certainty. We have explored the relationship between gene makeup from the first gene map of the fruit fly in the 1920’s to the completion of the Human Genome Project in 2003. So, with a complete map of an individual’s DNA sequence, we can have the potential risk of experiencing some genetic disorder. And, that is the subject of this post; can we reliably assess risk based on simple testing?
I have been watching the home testing kits sold online from lead testing to blood and drug analysis for quite some time and they all raise questions about the validity of the testing protocols. But, in October of this year I began to see TV commercials for 23andme, a simple genetic test for genes. I underlined simple because complete DNA sequencing still has a cost of $5,000. And this home test is $99! So, I looked into the claims further and discovered that 23andme has been around since 2007 and was founded by Ann Wojcicki, wife of Google partner, Sergey Brin. And then, in November, the Food and Drug Administration, (FDA) issued a cease and desist order to the company. The order is based on the fact that 23andme has failed to provide data as to the veracity of its claims despite repeated requests to do so. As of today, the site is still up and running so it is not clear what will happen next.
My own sense of the testing service is that the information provided from spitting into a tube and sending it back for “sequencing” lacks any real quality control and standards of testing. The size of the data pool is unknown, and the results are not published for peer review. And although their hearts may be in the right place, my fear is that the information garnered from the test may be used for medical diagnosis which is an extreme risk. There are too many variables and information is extrapolated from an unknown published source. The trend? More companies will enter the marketplace and believers in technology will trust that the information is valid. This is truly the feared slippery slope. I would encourage readers to do some serious research before shelling out money for an untested product. There is an actual use review on Forbes here.

I recently received a one dollar bill in a transaction at a local store and was surprised to see the words "TAX CHEAT" in red ink over the signature of the Secretary of the Treasury, Timothy Geithner. He was appointed to the position in 2009 and left in 2013. The current Secretary is Jacob Lew. I did remember that Geithner had some difficulty answering the Senate's questions during confirmation, mostly about having missed various taxes that he owed. My recollection is that he paid the back taxes and somehow convinced the Senators that he made honest mistakes. I wonder if some members of the Senate also made "mistakes" as well and gave him a pass. But this post is not about the tax issue or Timothy Geithner. It is about stamping words on the currency.
The fact that someone is selling the stamps on the net is certainly free enterprise. But, actually using the stamp is a lot less clear to me. We have two conflicting trends meeting at a crossroad. The first is that we have rights under the first amendment to free speech; the second is that we are a nation of laws that govern behavior. So, stamping TAX CHEAT on the bill may be an exercise in free speech, but it is also defacing currency which is against the law. Or, is it? Here is the relevant statute pertaining to the defacing issue:

“Defacement of currency is a violation of Title 18, Section 333 of the United States Code. Under this provision, currency defacement is generally defined as follows: Whoever mutilates, cuts, disfigures, perforates, unites or cements together, or does any other thing to any bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence of debt issued by any national banking association, Federal Reserve Bank, or Federal Reserve System, with intent to render such item(s) unfit to be reissued, shall be fined not more than $100 or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.”
The interesting conundrum here is in the words "disfigures" and "unfit to be reissued". Clearly, the stamp is disfiguring, but is the intent to make it unfit to be reissued? It seems that any prosecution would require an intent to  both deface and cause the bill to be unfit. It is perhaps a question that can not be answered easily and would require litigation to make the final decision.
From this simple dollar, it is clear that we have always pushed the boundaries of our rights and responsibilities, and that we will continue to do so. It is a good trend! Now, how do we get the major corporations that are evading taxes with offshore ownership to pay their fair share?

Taking digital photos really began in 1975 when researchers at Kodak built the first camera based on a CCD. (Charge Coupled Device). This is the sensor that converts light input into electrical images that can be reconstructed into what we recognize as photographic images. This camera weighed eight pounds and fed the image into a TV. It had a very minimal resolution in pixel count and was hardly portable; but it changed the way we began to look at photography. The digital camera was born and became available as a SLR, (Single Lens Reflex), and as a point-and shoot variety. The competitive sensor, CMOS, (Complementary Metal Oxide Semiconductor), was introduced later and is used by many manufacturers. But, with the growing popularity of digital imaging, the erosion of the film camera became clear. Today, the cameras that use film are slowly becoming extinct.
And, as technology marches on, the digital camera is also on the list of eroding markets. The replacement is also digital; but it in the cell phone. The early cell phones had the camera function as a secondary feature but the most recent phones on the market take the camera function seriously. For example, the Nokia 1080 with 41 megapixels, although pricey, is more than just a contender. It is the shot across the bow that will change how we use digital imaging. The biggest change is in the applications which allow editing, processing, storage, and sharing with an immediate result. Think Instagram!
According to most surveys, we are at about 55% of the photos taken are on the cell phone. The trend? It is just a matter of time before the digital camera will be used by serious photographers and abandoned by the general camera user. I suspect that cheap point-and-shoot cameras will be available for quite some time, but that cell phone photography will become a more serious business. Smile for that next selfie!

This is the time of the year that becomes busy for many people as the holidays approach. Retailers are anxious to move product and manufacturers are going full tilt to supply all of the holiday goodies that we will buy. But, there is another segment of the “business” industry that will be busy; the people who deal in fraud and scams.  As retailers begin blitzing the email and internet with deals, you can be sure that there will some enterprising computer thieves who will be trying to attract victims into fraudulent transactions. And, this will be in addition to the ongoing regular scams already well entrenched in our digital world. This year the criminals have another area to use in getting information. The Affordable Care Act has begun signing up individuals and families for insurance. You can guess that there will be bogus sites that will seek only names and personal information. Then, your identify will be at risk. The following general warnings are useful in avoiding risk:

• Don't give out personal information. Be suspicious of anyone you don't know who asks for your Social Security number, credit card and bank account details, date of birth, etc.
• Don't be intimidated. Be suspicious of calls or e-mails that want you to provide or verify personal information immediately. Tell them you're not interested and hang up or don't reply to the e-mail.
• Monitor your accounts. Review bank and credit card statements carefully. Report unauthorized transactions to your financial institution immediately.
• Use a shredder. Tear or shred credit offers you receive in the mail, bank statements, insurance forms and other papers with vital information. In addition to these general guidelines there is a really good list and explanation of many fraudulent practices currently in use at USA.gov here. The trend is clear: As more of our devices communicate with each other there will be more fraud, not less. But it is partly because we are not careful enough. If you get an email from Nigeria about an offer too good to refuse, refuse to open it!
• 
  

It seems as though there are cycles when it comes to covering the dangerous use of illegal drugs and we are currently in the “high times” of Ecstasy again. Currently referred to as Molly or Mandy, the drug itself, 3, 4-methylenedioxy-N-methylamphetamine, has been called “X”, “E” or “XTC”. These names generally refer to the street pill form and MDMA is used when the material is sold as the powder or in crystalline composition.  It is popularly believed that the pill configuration is more likely to have adulterants, but it is rare that illegal manufactures have robust quality controls in place.
Discovered almost 100 years ago, MDMA is called an empathogenic drug as it induces euphoria and a feeling of intimacy in users. MDMA has been used in therapeutic settings but, since the late 1980’s, has been a popular club drug. And, there is always a reason for the media coverage of any particular drug. With the recent deaths of two college students and the sponsorship of celebrities, Molly is on the top of the “hit” parade. But, there is little evidence to suggest that drugs like heroin and cocaine have less lethality.
And, the “war on drugs” attempt at curbing drug use continues to focus on the supplier and so-called drug cartels. But, any consideration of economics would indicate that the better approach would be to limit demand. The trend? More demand means more home-grown suppliers cranking out products of unknown quality.
And, in good conscious, I have to include the most lethal of all of the drugs, alcohol.  Yes it is legal but is the cause of more traffic accidents, shootings, domestic abuse, addiction, rape, and general mayhem. And, the alcohol lobby is so powerful that any real effort to curb this abuse is stopped in government indulgence and revenue. We all know that you cannot watch a football game without your favorite brew…

I have recently seen advertisements on TV and print from both AT & T Next, and T Mobile Jump with programs to "update" your cell phone for just a small charge. Next, will upgrade your phone every year, and Jump will upgrade as soon as six months.
My first question was what kind of an insane world do we live in where we have to have a new phone every six months or even one year? It can only be in the world of marketing, considering that cell phone technology is really not changing that quickly. Unless you want another color, shape, or minor tweak. The other obvious reason would be either catastrophic failure or an unintentional problem like dropping or loss, which may be covered by warranty. Now, I will have to admit that I have had the same cell phone for 4 years and it is not even smart. I really have no need to access the internet from everywhere. It does not dance, sing, or whistle; it makes phone calls!
It seems to be acceptable to drive a 4 year old car, have a microwave oven that is even older, or a washer and dryer that may be in the double digits, but a 2 year old phone? Unacceptable!
To me it seems that with already high cell phone prices, restrictive contracts, and questionable service, it begs the question as to why we even consider these obscene offers. I guess that the answer may be in the simple status that a new phone offers. While the manufacturers have failed to establish standards for cell phones. the marketers will make up for the loss to competitors by making an annual upgrade a default position.  The trend? Probably an upgrade every 2 weeks. It reminds me that many people have bought a high definition 60 inch TV and now watch TV and streaming video on a 5 square inch screen. Curious at best...

Sports scandals are not really new in the American pastimes we are supposed to enjoy. All the way back to the 1919 World series when the Chicago White Sox were accused of  throwing the series with the Cincinnati Reds we have seen bad behavior. Babe Ruth as a drunk and womanizer, boxers throwing fights, and more recently, Pete Rose with a gambling suspension, Michael Vick with fighting dogs, and swimmers with illegal swimming gear. And who will forget the doping scandal with the home run race in the 1990's between Sammy Sousa and Barry Bonds? And then there is the Lance  Armstrong story that really hurt a lot of people. And now, we have more doping problems with baseball, and 33 players in the NFL arrested since the last Super Bowl. The time has come for fans to expect more from those who we consider athletes and not support sports for the sheer enjoyment of competition. It is about money and greed pure and simple. The objective is for the players union and owners to protect the bottom line at any cost. When players are found to be using "performance enhancing drugs" they should be banned forever. But what happens to them now? They receive a 50 game suspension with a small fine compared to their millions in salary and a  vacation. But, every time I see a well-hit baseball, a fantastic reception in the NFL, or a very fast runner in the Olympics, I have to wonder if it is a great athlete or a great drug. The technology to outwit the drug test is far ahead of the curve. It is too easy to cheat and not get caught. The trend is for much more of the same and fewer people being found to have cheated. Of course there are honest athletes but for now, everyone should get an asterisk in the record books.
After the first game of the 1919 series the Philadelphia Bulletin ran a poem about how clean sports really is and it is pure irony:
Still, it really doesn't matter,
After all, who wins the flag
Good clean sport is what we're after,
And we aim to make our brag
To each near or distant nation
Whereon shines the sporting sun
That of all our games gymnastic
Base ball is the cleanest one! 
Play Ball...

There was a time when "going viral" was not only a bad news idea, but  the term connoted terrible consequences. Consider for a moment the Black Death, also called the Bubonic Plague. It traveled from China along the Silk Road into Europe during the 13th century and killed over 100 million people. Or more recently the threat of the bird flu, or the H2N2 virus. Certainly the thought of these becoming viral pandemics had many countries concerned. But now we think of Psy and Gangnam Style a good viral event. We speak of the cute kitten playing with the dog video and seem captured by the joy of almost commonplace events. So what happened between the 13th century and now to color our perception and make us think that going viral is a good thing?
Well, a lot has happened to allow us to use the term going viral either as a terrible concept or to one of total acceptance. The key to understanding the mechanics of this dichotomy lies in our ability to communicate information. We use meme theory to explain how various cultures and sub-cultures learn new information and pass it along. We can think of the time before the internet and remember that we have heard urban myth, gossip, rumor, and strange ideas. A good example is the story where a woman decides to dry her cat in the microwave and it explodes. The idea has to have some plausibility but does not have to be factual in order to spread. This is also the basis for religious cults and fanatic groups to be able to perpetuate and grow.
But, we are now going viral at warp speed with the exponential growth of social media. But, if a video goes viral with 1 million hits, that is a small number considering that Facebook alone has almost a billion members. And, like the cat, all videos are not factual. Many Youtube videos are staged and designed to "go viral". So, as in the past, it is best to question all of these alleged facts, and don't pass along these useless and fairly spurious parcels.
What is more interesting to me is how national TV shows follow some videos and have the subjects appear to perform for a major audience. And next comes a reality show for the "viral sensation". The trend? A lot more of the same with higher risk events. I think that I will wait for the next pandemic. Just a thought...

Generally we really do not have to think about the age of the tires on our vehicles. They eventually wear down to the point that they need to be replaced, and we buy new tires. But, as we will soon see, size matters, but so does age. But the  dirty little secret in selling accessories, called TBA in the industry, (Tires, Batteries, and Accessories), is that most of the money made in aftermarket sales comes from these consumables. Most sellers of TBA's have very high markups but not always high turnaround. They may have stock in hand that has been in inventory for a long time. And, while it may not matter how old a new light bulb is, it does matter how old a tire or battery may be. But for this post we will consider the age of "new" tires and consider batteries in another post.
I recently saw a promotion at a major nationwide seller of automotive parts that seems to be a very common marketing ploy. "Buy three tires and get the fourth free"! Right! So, I went in to look at the tires and as expected, there were a lot of caveats. But, that was not what I was there for. I asked the salesmen how new the tires were and I was told that these were all recently delivered within the last week. So, I checked the date codes and they were all different, and worse, several of the tires were manufactured in 2009, and 2010. So why is that a problem? Because tires dry out and deteriorate over time. So, the tires on sale were already "aged" by four and three years respectively. And, dry tires tend to have hairline cracks that can lead to failure. So. how did I know when the tires were manufactured? Easy!
Since 2000, the Department of Transportation has required tire manufactures to supply a lot of information on the tire. By simply looking for the DOT designation with between 10 and 12 letters or numbers, it is easy to date the tire. The last 4 digits have the week and year of manufacture. In the photo on the right above we see 5107. This means that the tire was made during the 51st week of 2007. Also in the photo you can see that the temperature is "A". That is the best rating that goes from A to C. But, there is a lot more information about your tire. M+S is mud and snow, the manufacturer's name and more. There is a complete breakdown of the information on the National Highway Safety page from the DOT here. One caution I should mention is that the tire pressure relates to the maximum safe pressure for that tire, but is not the recommendation for your vehicle. Check your manual or the sticker on the driver's side door jamb for your car.
So, before your rubber hits the road, check for the age and other useful information. It could save your life!

As Google introduces Google Glass, the Explorer version, there are some serious questions about privacy and distraction possibilities. The first 8000 are going for $1,500 now and the real product will be available to the general public at the end of the year or in early 2014, presumably at a lower price. 
The not so trendy eyewear is Android based and can be either WiFi or tethered via Bluetooth to your phone. The small screen displays the web, email, maps, and any other web-based or phone application. It responds to Google voice, can take photos or video, and has GPS. 
From most of the comments that I have read so far, the big issue seems to be that of privacy. With video capability, anyone can be captured and the image used in some nefarious way. But, let’s get real for a moment. There are so many phones and surveillance cameras already in place that our privacy in public places has already vanished. The only question is how the images will be used.
My biggest fear is in the distraction aspect of this new method of wasting time. We already have people getting hit by cars, running into lampposts, hitting other people, all while walking on the streets checking texts and maps. But, what will happen with their playlist synced to the car radio, GPS instructions, and reading email on the Google Glass at 60 miles an hour? Sounds like a disaster to me.
Rather than tracking my email and suggesting what I want to buy, and highlighting paid advertisers and anticipating my search criteria, I wish that Google would improve the search algorithm and spend their billions on devices for the handicapped, and open their data to an open source. The trend? There will be no change in corporate policy, no open source, and more “innovative” products.
Of course it will not take long for the Chinese to reverse engineer and offer a knockoff on DealExtreme for $49. There is a link to the Google Glass technology here.