”Amgen’s osteoporosis drug Prolia not even approved yet,but co has full-pg Parade mag ad:”Discover Truth About Osteo” $AMGN via @mhuckman.”

If you’re discussing something Google is doing with its algorithm or Google labs, why not include $GOOG? If you’re discussing Windows 7 or Bing, why not include $MSFT? Or $RHT if you’re tweeting about Linux OS? Like something Amazon did? When you tweet, include $AMZN.
In this case it serves as a type of hashtag in speaking to a larger readership (such as the people following conversations about those stocks in their portfolio). The twitter third-party app “Stocktwits,” created by Howard Lindzon, which is incorporated within Tweetdeck, serves as a clearinghouse for all stock ticker symbol-related tweets.

Obviously this should only be used if you are actually conversing about the company in question: you’re providing news and information about the company, either first-hand or by repeating from a news source, so this can useful to investors. If you’re an officer of the company, there may be reasons why you might not want to include your ticker symbol in tweets about internal news, projects, ventures: possibly SEC communications regulations involved there, about how and when news can be transmitted to avoid the appearance of a ”solicitation to buy stock.”

But for most of us, a legitimate value-add to the inclusion of the stock symbol is knowing you’re joining a larger conversation and can add something to it. Your reward for the effort is a much, much higher probability of your tweet being indexed by the ‘bots. If your tweet links specifically to a relevant blog post, this has SEO value (provided your shortener is the right type).

Lastly, if you’re doing work with a non-profit and you want to broadcast thanks to a publicly-traded sponsor, while also promoting the non-profit’s work to new readers, including the ticker symbol in an appropriate context within the tweet can help you  accomplish both.

Recently a friend on Facebook, Jeff Collins (myHaberdasher.com), posted a status update about his intention to donate bone marrow. Several people gave praise for his action (which he definitely deserved). One wrote: “That is one of the most selfless, courageous things I have ever heard.”
He responded:

Donating bone marrow isn’t what people think it is, i.e. painful. They do not have to tap into the pelvic bone anymore. Over a few days they give you an injection of Filgrastim which causes increased stem cell production & they then flow through your blood stream. They do apheresis (like in platelet donation) to cycle your blood through a machine where they collect what they need and send the rest back to me. It’s a few hours off work and some flu-like achiness but that is about it.

It’s easy to get on the registry because all they need is a cheek swab to get your DNA. And it is one in a bunch to even get called. Here’s how you can look into registering: http://www.psbc.org/programs/marrow.htm

What he did was compassionate and caring: someone is going to live because he was willing to sacrifice time, take medication, endure some pain and discomfort, and give his life’s blood to someone not close to him.

An organization called the Institute for Justice recently began making the case that many more patients are in need of bone marrow donations than are available; there are too few people making the sacrifices Jeff did.

If they could only be legally compensated, the IJ contends, more people would do it:

From  IJ’s Bone Marrow Case: An Intro:

Bone marrow transplantation is a lifesaving treatment for 70 deadly blood diseases, including cancers such as leukemia and lymphoma.  Most people who need a transplant need one from a stranger, and tens of thousands have died because they lacked donors.  Our clients want to increase the number of unrelated donors by having a charity offer them a $3,000 scholarship, a housing allowance, or gift to the donor’s favorite charity.  Unfortunately, using scholarships to save lives is considered organ-selling under NOTA, a major federal crime….

Congress didn’t intend to criminalize compensation for renewable cells such as blood or sperm.  In fact, the Conference Report the House and Senate jointly sent to President Reagan with the bill he signed said so.Congress included bone marrow in the statute by mistake.  A “bone marrow” transplant involves the collection of immature blood cells, not the removal of an organ or tissues.  Most marrow cells are now collected using the same equipment and methods for blood donation.  Donating marrow cells is safe and they quickly replenish themselves just like donated blood.  Bone marrow wasn’t discussed in the legislative hearings and was inserted in the statute at the end of the drafting process, probably by a staffer….

Hard to imagine anyone on the floor of the House or Senate arguing against this… however the IJ is taking a judicial rather than legislative route. I hope someone in Congress decides to take this on: if another member attempted to employ a “slippery-slope” fallacy, the fact that it’s not much different from giving blood should stifle any animus. Who could be bombastic about preventing an outpatient procedure that causes no negative health effects?

The compensation is pretty tame, too: scholarships, credits, or charitable donations. I would support legal compensation for bone marrow donation even if it were plain old cash!  It’s purely rational. Objective reality should factor in at least the time-cost to the donors. Many sick and hurting people would be helped by lifting the ban.

In the meantime, I hope more people follow Jeff’s lead.

Here are some other articles about the case:

• IJ’s Bone Marrow Case: History of NOTA
• IJ’s Bone Marrow Case: Judical Engagement, Not Activism
• IJ’s Bone Marrow Case: Rational Basis Test

I think that’s how they used to answer the phones: “Google, don’t be evil, how can I help you?”

But it occurred to me one day as I was forwarding an important document via my Gmail account… that a young megalomaniac in training would be smarter to set their ambitions on gaining control of Google, than a country. I’m not pondering if Google is evil, in fact, let me go on record as saying I don’t think they as a corporation are… but what if they were made to be? What if nefarious and sinister forces, even an individual,  set their sights on control over this private corporation?

Consider the massive amount of information Google now has effective access to, and control over, worldwide. “But it doesn’t belong to them!” If it’s been on their server, it may as well.
Even looking beyond the colossal search engine and advertising leverage they have, and ability to spotlight causes or ideas at will, no small amount of the world’s financial data is stored in their server farms: accounts, balances, transactions, insider info, not to mention intellectual property, ideas, designs, drafts, documents. This comes from Gmail accounts, Google Desktop, Google dashboard, Google docs, and of course, their network of applications.
I have a considerable amount of a novel in draft in my Google account for a simple reason: I can access it anywhere in case I  lose my thumbdrive, or my hard drive crashes. I’ve sent ideas for businesses, ideas for plays and scripts, commercial proposals, all through my gmail account at times when my private hosted email wasn’t available or accessible.

The power they have is the power we’ve yielded. Andrew Grove, a tech giant in his own right, wrote: “Only the paranoid survive.” Should we all be at least a little more cautious with our private data?

And yes, I’m aware it’s not just Google: Microsoft, Facebook, and a multitude of hosting companies also have direct access to billions of pages of private (by that, I mean intentionally kept secret)  information and data.

Same rules apply… however, if you really wanted to blackmail the world….
Well, let’s just say Dr. Evil with his pinky to his mouth might just as well hover his finger over a “MAKE PUBLIC” button to everyone’s private data, as he might over a missile launch button.  Panic in the streets is still panic in the streets.

For further reading, check out:

• The Media Equation – How Good (or Not Evil) Is Google? – NYTimes.com
• Social Media and War – “Do No Evil” sounds good now.
• Google launches Dashboard privacy controls

Many people leaving a 3D film retain the glasses. Maybe they figure they’ll need some sunglasses for a costume party… but does that mean people can view 3D clips via YouTube?

I was surprised to find so little in the way of 3D (stereoscopic) content on the web: what I was able to find were a few web videos were made using the red/cyan filter method, which has been widely replaced with the orthogonal polarized filter method (which actually used to be the technique from 1952-1955).

Apparently it’s a matter of the nature of video technology: current monitors can’t send two different polarities of light simultaneously, that must be done via projection off of a reflected surface (silver screen).

HD technology with adjacent micro-OLED’s with different polarities could solve the problem, but the cost would be prohibitive. Current workarounds are Head-mounted displays, formerly known as virtual reality goggles.

In light of these technological limitations, with more and more new movies being produced in 3D, projection screen TV’s could make a comeback if there’s enough of a demand!

The HD monitor manufacturer (along with  graphics card design firm) that enables polarized technology on a computer screen is going to have an instant market. Here’s to hoping the USA gets there first.

From Popular Mechanics: