It’s worth a read in its entirety, as Mr. Johnson has a number of interesting insights. I particularly liked the following two excerpts:

Q. Who are the chain’s competitors?

A. Our number one competitor is ourselves and our way of thinking, which is informed by decades of experience. It’s not another store; it’s not another format like the Internet. Our competition is ourselves and our best friend is our imagination.

 …

Q. What ideals have you embraced from Steve Jobs?

A. The importance of doing everything you do to your very best. And that the journey is the reward. If you do things well one at a time, you end up in a really good place. Don’t get ahead of yourself. Control the things you can.

The basic idea of Dr. Andrulis’ framework is that all physical reality can be modeled by a single geometric entity with life-like characteristics: the gyre. The so-called “gyromodel” depicts objects—particles, atoms, chemicals, molecules, and cells—as quantized packets of energy and matter that cycle between excited and ground states around a singularity, the gyromodel’s center. A singularity is itself modeled as a gyre, wholly compatible with the thermodynamic and fractal nature of life. An example of this nested, self-similar organization is the Russian Matryoshka doll.

Talk about thinking outside the box! The abstract of Dr. Andrulis’ paper provides an even better summary of his theory:

Abstract: Life is an inordinately complex unsolved puzzle. Despite significant theoretical progress, experimental anomalies, paradoxes, and enigmas have revealed paradigmatic limitations. Thus, the advancement of scientific understanding requires new models that resolve fundamental problems. Here, I present a theoretical framework that economically fits evidence accumulated from examinations of life. This theory is based upon a straightforward and non-mathematical core model and proposes unique yet empirically consistent explanations for major phenomena including, but not limited to, quantum gravity, phase transitions of water, why living systems are predominantly CHNOPS (carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and sulfur), homochirality of sugars and amino acids, homeoviscous adaptation, triplet code, and DNA mutations. The theoretical framework unifies the macrocosmic and microcosmic realms, validates predicted laws of nature, and solves the puzzle of the origin and evolution of cellular life in the universe.

The abstract and a link to the 105 page article (PDF) is provided here. I skimmed through the PDF, and could probably develop a decent understanding of the theory if I spent the rest of my life on it. But I think I’ll wait for the Cliff Notes version.

Anyway, this is a totally new approach to looking at the origin of life, and a totally new way of modeling quantum gravity. Further development of the theory could lead to the theory of everything that scientists have been seeking for about a century. Who knows … given that the gyre has life-like characteristics, maybe the theory can even explain consciousness, which is perhaps the greatest mystery of all.

Dr. Anrulis’ work confirms that we sometimes have to get way outside the box to make advances in thinking and understanding.

Update: An Ars Technica article is very critical of the theory and the “peer review process” that allowed it to not only be published but also promoted. It does seem a bit incredible, and does not really propose any means of testing its validity. Hence, while innovative, it probably lacks what it needs most: some resemblance to the truth of how things really are.

This is made possible by OnLive Desktop and its associated, inexpensive iPad app. The iPad allows you to open Word, Excel, and PowerPoint documents that you have uploaded to your OnLive account. You can also create new documents using the app. OnLive uses the 2010 versions of the Microsoft apps I’ve mentioned herein.

You can also use Windows Paint for creating/editing graphic files, and there is a sticky notes app you can use for reminders. There are also a few games you can play.

You can sign up for a 2 GB storage account for free, or you can soon choose the pro account ($9.99 per month) which gives you 50 GB of storage, priority access, and the ability to add other Windows applications. This sounds especially promising, since there are two Windows products that Apple has never matched: Access and Outlook. Being able to install those (and/or FrontPage and OneNote) would make OnLive very attractive.

I found the experience of setting up an account and uploading some files to be very easy. The iPad app is also very nice, and easy to use. I did have a bit of difficulty finding the keyboard at first (it resides in the upper left corner), but that was the only difficulty I had and it was minor.

I recently complained that Google has instituted a requirement that new users of Gmail also sign up for Google+. I was mostly upset with this because my experience with G+ was not great, and I received spam from G+ after deleting my G+ account. But in looking at this now, I do not see Google’s policy as unfair or dishonest. Basically, they are saying that instead of signing up for just Gmail now, you sign up for Google itself … maybe it should have even been that way all along. It could be argued that this sort of “bundling” gives Google an unfair edge over Facebook. But, when I see that President Obama has 24 Million Facebook followers and less than 300,000 on G+, then I don’t think the “bundling” argument is very strong.

What has gotten a lot more bad press from tech bloggers recently is Google’s Search Plus Your World feature. Danny Sullivan discusses this at some length, and notes that there is a browser bookmarklet that will help you overcome the “evilness” of SPYW. What SPYW claims to do is to open up search results to include relevant results from social media. What it does in practice is to limit the social media results to those that come from G+, meaning that you could miss a ton of pertinent information that is available on Twitter and Facebook and elsewhere.

At first blush, this seemed to me to be a dishonesty on Google’s part, and at the very least, a disservice to customers (users of SPYW). So, I decided to try it. Turns out that to try it, I had to sign up for Google+ again. What a pain in the ass. I ran some searches and clicked on the “include personal results” link, then clicked on the “don’t be evil bookmarklet” and didn’t see a lot of difference in results for the simple searches I used. Others have complained that the difference can be substantial, though, and I can see where it would be.

I think the problem with what Google is doing here is not so much that its intentions are “evil,” but that it has a reputation for showing results that are relevant and that represent data from all over the web, and it is not living up to that reputation with this new product. In a sense Google is misrepresenting the product, not in terms of the language they use to describe it, but because they should know that people have come to expect that Google always includes all pertinent information, and Google knows it’s not doing so.

Does it matter? Well, as long as you use the “don’t be evil bookmarklet” along with SPYW, then no: you get all the data you could expect to get. If you don’t use the bookmarklet, you will at least sometimes not get all the data you would expect. MG Siegler argues that the problem is not so much that Google is evil, as it is that they are making themselves less relevant. I think is right on target.

It seems to me that we are going to be seeing a lot more of this sort of thing. Apple, Google, Facebook, Amazon, and Microsoft are all trying to get as much market share as possible. Today Apple announced a quarterly revenue that is the highest by any company in history. No doubt we can expect to see Google, Facebook, Amazon, and Microsoft being more aggressive in response to this. So, be on the lookout!

The bottom line for all of these companies is: the one that best serves the needs of its customers will be the winner. Right now the winner is Apple, and Amazon probably comes in second (their financial stats are not as impressive as Google’s, but they will probably outlast Google as long as they keep their strong focus on customer satisfaction).

Mark didn’t make his book by selling books filled with New Age mantras on how to get rich. He earned his money by working hard, being open to seeing opportunities and having the guts to seize on them, and by focusing on what he could do now and not spending time regretting the past.

Mark shares a lot of his philosophy and “secrets” on his blog and in his new ebook (which is only $2.99). I highly recommend spending some time on his blog and/or in his ebook. He’s a totally no-nonsense guy.

So can anything be done to increase willpower?

It appears so. As this Wired article indicates, being good at shifting attention away from a temptation appears to be what makes willpower work:

Mischel discovered something interesting when he studied the tiny percentage of kids who could successfully wait for the second treat. Without exception, these “high delayers” all relied on the same mental strategy: they found a way to keep themselves from thinking about the treat, directing their gaze away from the yummy marshmallow. Some covered their eyes or played hide-and-seek underneath the desk. Others sang songs, or repeatedly tied their shoelaces, or pretended to take a nap. Their desire wasn’t defeated — it was merely forgotten.

Mischel refers to this skill as the “strategic allocation of attention,” and he argues that it’s the skill underlying self-control. Too often, we assume that willpower is about having strong moral fiber or gritting our teeth and staring down the treat. But that’s wrong — willpower is really about properly directing the spotlight of attention, learning how to control that short list of thoughts in working memory. It’s about realizing that if we’re thinking about the marshmallow we’re going to eat it, which is why we need to look away.

Further, from the reviews I’ve read of the recent book Willpower, its thesis is that willpower depends strongly on glucose levels. (As I understand it, any significant cognitive activity requires glucose for fuel.) However, there is some disagreement as to whether glucose is a “magic pill” for willpower.

So, if you need to improve your willpower, further research of these topics could do you some good. Personally, I think there is a lot to the attention-shifting method, but have my doubts about the glucose, since I really don’t recall any of my high-willpower friends being candybar-aholics.

But both companies have recently shown their bad side, too:

• Apple’s end user license agreement (EULA) for its new iBooks Authoring tool is insanely restrictive. As Ed Bott notes in the linked article, it is as if Microsoft placed restrictions on how you used its Word product and also took part of any money you made from using Word. It is this sort of greed that has driven a lot of people from using Apple products to using Android products. It’s Apple’s “walled garden” philosophy.
• Google now requires all new users of its products to register for Google+  … if you want to sign up for Gmail, you must also sign up for G+. Greg Finn treats this in some depth in this Marketing Land article. On top of that, even deleting your G+ account will not prevent you from getting spam from Google+ (if those who have you in their circles decide to share a post with you).

While I expect every company to act in its own self-interest, I prefer companies that do so by working in the best interests of its customers, not by trapping their customers with gimmickry.

I keep postponing getting a new phone. For one thing, even if I get another iPhone, I am not convinced that Apple has solved the battery problems with the iPhone 4S (although I am sure they soon will). And, for another, I still wonder if it’s time for me to break away from iOS and give Android a shot. I know Android has its share of technical problems, too, but maybe it’s time for a switch. After all, I am fairly pleased with the Kindle Fire, which is based on a version of the Android OS.

Anyway, it’s interesting that Woz is as positive as he is on Android. More food for thought for me.

Danny’s article mocks the supposed “open nature” of Android, calling it “clopen” (for kinda closed and kinda open).

Paris’ article hits on some of the same points, but also gives a history of Android, and highlights what a joke Google’s “don’t be evil” mantra is.

I’m glad I got a Kindle Fire before reading these articles, or I might have continued to put it off. I’ve actually been very pleased with the Kindle Fire, and it has proved to me that Android does have some appealing features. (The Fire runs an Amazon version of Android.) I definitely cannot say that I will never get an Android phone. I would like to see the issues that Danny and Paris point out addressed, but it is not a perfect world, so I may “cave” at some point. After all, I don’t like some of the games that Apple plays, either.

Although many people find that G+ is the ideal social platform for them, I deleted my G+ account because it was nothing more than a distraction to me. Yet, people who followed me on G+ are still allowed to “share posts” with me, and I receive an email notification whenever someone does so.

Fortunately this has only happened a half-dozen or so times, but it is more annoying to me than other junk mail because I specifically asked to have my G+ account deleted.

I used to be very impressed with Google, but I’m less impressed these days.