Neither ID nor Evolution is science

The process of science is like this: first samples of observations, or empirical evidence are collected. A hypothesis is then set in order to make sense about these observations. The next step is to design experiments are to test that hypothesis. Depending on the test results, the hypothesis will be either rejected, accepted, or modified. If a hypothesis is correct, it should have predicting power. Only after the hypothesis is tested to be correct through experiements, can it be accepted as science.

Intelligent Design (ID) is a very reasonable postulation about the origin of life. It may be true, and in fact I strongly believe it is true, but it is not science, because it can never be tested, repeated or verified through experimentation. So it does not belong to science.

Evolution is also a reasonable hypothesis about the origin of life, based on a lot of observations. However, the hypothesis of evolution has yet to be tested in experiments., or attempts to do so have so far failed. In early days, there were attempts to design experiments to repeat the "natural" process of producing organic materials from inorganic elements. But those experiments were not inconclusive about whether there were natural conditions in which inorganic elements can "evolve" into organic materials, which make up all living things.

As to the question how life was formed, proponents of evolution theory have never been able to show in experiments that certain "natural" conditions exist to produce life out of lifeless materials. These experiments were never attempted, and may never be done.

Empirical evidence does not support evolution, either. If evolution is at work, why we are not seeing any new species (new living organisms) evolving from less "advanced" species. Not only we are not seeing new species springing up, we are in fact are seeing existing species dying out!

To reconcile this, some evolutionists (smarter ones) proposed yet another hypothesis, so called "punctuated" evolution. They argue evolution happened only during certain periods of time throughout the history. It does not occur continuously or gradually. So we should not be surprised that TODAY, RIGHT NOW, we are not seeing any evidence of evolution. This argument sounds no different from the argument that God created the world in 6 days and then everything was set. Neither can be verified by experiments.

So if you honestly investigate the facts about evolution theory, not just dwelling on the superficial level (majority of the people, scientists included, are on this superficial level), you will find out evolution does not stand the rigorous test as a scientific theory. It is still a hypothesis, or speculation, which has yet to be proved or dis-proved with experimentation. Until one day scientists can create a condition in which new life can be produced, evolution remains a hypothesis, no different from ID.

Search function is central to the Internet

Search, seemingly simple, is absolutely central to all things on the Internet. Last week, Google announced music search via lyrics. Imagine you can search your favorite songs by typing part of the lyrics, and then be able to purchase it right away. That'll kill iTunes. It seems that iTunes ought to have a similar searching capability built in. Steve Jobs should take notice of what Google is doing.

There are many old recordings that have yet to be digitized. If one can use voice recognition technique to automatically transcribe those recordings and provide text searchability, that will be a killer app. I bet Google is doing just that. Here again, Audibles and iTunes should provide a more robust search function.

It is obvious, search is a launching platform for Google to get into all kinds of businesses. Search an item to buy on the web, or a place to travel to, etc. You get the picture. The value potential of search is unlimited.

Every other company should be scared of Google.

Targeted advertising

TiVo probably started the slow-death process of the advertising model as we know it today.

The current advertising model does not work any more. The kind of in-your-face advertising is not only ineffective, but also sometimes turns people off. TiVo has given us a tool to revolt against such an advertising regime.

The Ad industry should think really hard and starts to change its practice. The era of targeted advertising is coming, and the ad industry needs to adjust to it in order to survive. The media companies that rely on ad revenue also need to readjust to survive.

They should learn from the success of an old advertising model, the Yellow Pages, and the new Internet model, Google. When people open the Yellow Pages, they are searching for useful information. Advertising in that context is targeted to a real need, and provides useful information and value. When people type in "travel" in google search, they expect to see advertisements about travel services. That is the kind of advertising that people want.

The old force-feeding advertising is dying.

Three essential elements for business success

For a business to be successful, it needs three essential ingredients:
1) A right long term strategy
A business without a good long term strategy won't succeed in long term.

2) A strong product development capability
A successful business brings in products and services that create value for the consumers. Business need to know what customers want, and anticipate what customers may want in the future.

3) Operational excellence
In the end, day-to-day operation is key to success. You can have a great vision, excellent product portfolio, without a tightly controlled operation, the business may not be able to make any money. A business that cannot make money is not sustainable.

Here are a few example of businesses that possess all the above three ingredients: Apple Computer, General Electric, 3M, Starbucks, eBay, Intel, QualComm, and Corning.

Here are a few companies that do not have all the ingredients:
HP under Carly Fiorina, having only grand vision, but lacking operation control.
Motorola under Chris Galvin, lack of all three.

Complete victory in Iraq – a dialogue between Bush and reporter

Confidently, Bush: “We will not pull out of Iraq until we have a complete victory.” Wink, wink.

Reporter: “Mr. President, how do you define complete victory?”

Bush: “Complete victory means our soldiers are ready to come back home.”

Puzzled, reporter: “But excuse me Mr. President, when will our soldiers be ready to come back home?”

Disgusted, and shaking his head, Bush: “I have told you, our troops will come back only when we have a complete victory in Iraq. Get it?” Still shaking his head.

Dumbfounded, the reporter: “Gasp.”

What to expect from Macworld in Jan 06

There are a lot of speculations about which product lines Apple will announce to use Intel chips. Some say the iMac, some say the PowerBook (Rich Gardner of Citi).

I don't think it will be either. Apple just refreshed its iMac, PowerMac and PowerBook in Oct. I definitely do not expect these product lines get shelved so quickly. Besides, it will take a while to fully migrate a lot of the applications that currently run on PowerMac and PowerBook to Intel-based systems.

I think iBook and miniMac will get refreshed with Intel-based systems. These two products were last refreshed in Jan 05. It is also less risky to start from the low-end with Intel. The Intel-based miniMac will probably use some elements of the Viiv platform of Intel's media PC. It will be great if Apple can put a dock for iPod on the miniMac. MiniMac will have FrontRow and work like an entertainment PC. IBook is long due for a refresh. I bet Apple will have an ultra-slim iBook that is going to be as hot as the iPod Nano, thanks to the power-efficiency of Intel's Yonna chip (Pentium M on 65nm).

More video content deals similar to the one announced today with NBC will also be possible. ESPN was rumored to be the next one in line. I really can't wait.

Apple is indeed starting a revolution in the media industry. Apple has created the type of applications that will drive more broadband demand and penetration.

Why Bush does not want to pull out of Iraq

It is quite simple. There are many unfinished businesses in Iraq, literally. That is why President Bush does not want to pull the troops out of Iraq.

If we pull out, who will be there to protect our oil companies, our private contractors? If we pull out, our private military contractors will lose their jobs. "America's economy will suffer," Dubya might say, "We cannot make the same mistake we made in Vietnam, by pulling out pre-maturely."