Are Apple and Microsoft Being Evil?

It seems as if computer giants Apple and Microsoft have begun experimenting with unavoidable software advertising, as Apple filed a patent application for technology that would plant advertising in its products and test to see whether users were paying attention.

Microsoft, meanwhile, has begun tinkering with the idea as well, announcing plans to release a product called Office Starter 2010 early next year that will include bare-bones versions of popular Office programs, but also include a tiny Microsoft ad in the screen's corner.

These invasive forms of advertising seem to be the next precursor of spyware and adware, but they beg the question of "Why would a user pay to be advertised something that they likely already have?" Unfortunately, today's advertisers and technology manufacturers have created a "Next Big Thing" culture that demands consumers buy the newest innovation, ignorant of the price and whether or not it actually offers any sort of improvement.

More often than not, these technologies offer a step backwards for the programs, as they ignore the adage of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." For prove of that, just look at Microsoft's Windows Vista, which represented a gigantic step back from Windows XP. If the companies are right, though, people will buy the new software, fully cognizant of the fact that it includes these pesky and demanding ads, simply putting up with the demands in order to have the shiniest product.

Unfortunately, they may very well be right. Consumers have begun to define themselves as "Apple" or "PC" people, meaning that they place all of their trust in one of the companies, defending its decisions at any cost and ignoring the actual repercussions of them. Ultimately, though, they end up looking extremely similar in their battle to constantly one up each other, meaning that their competition is little more than manufactured entities to drum up interest in their newest products.

Is Will Ferrell the Worst Leading Man in Hollywood?

Forbes Magazine released its annual list of Hollywood's Most Overpaid Stars yesterday, with Will Ferrell supplanting Nicole Kidman as the list's "winner."

The list complied its rating by taking the 100 biggest stars in Hollywood, meaning they must have starred in three films that opened in 500 theaters or more over the last five years. They then took all of those actors' last three films, found the operating income of those films, and divided that by the stars' total compensation for their work, creating a return on investment number. Ferrell's return on investment was a paltry $3.29 for every dollar he earned, while second-place Ewan McGregor's was $3.75.

Ferrell's time as a comedy king is clearly coming to a rapid end, as the star has performed essentially the same role in all of his recent films, including box office clunker Land of the Lost, the disappointing Semi-Pro and the successful Stepbrothers. The actor is constantly reprising the role of the idiot guy who simply refuses to grow up.

At some point, though, that role stopped being funny, as people grew tired of paying between $6.50 and $10 to watch the same movie in a different locale. Some could even argue that the last truly funny Ferrell film was Talladega Nights, while his last great role was his guest appearance as a funeral crasher in Wedding Crashers.

America's audiences simply can't afford to laugh at the same joke over and over again and, at some point, Ferrell needs to realize that before audiences begin laughing at him instead of with him or, even worse, rendering him irrelevant.

Chipmunks are the new money saver, really?

If there is one certain bet in Hollywood this holiday season, it is that Avatar will be panned by critics despite all of its supposed innovation. Fox seems to have realized this and anticipated something of a box office flub for the James Cameron film, which cost somewhere over $200 million to make and possibly as much as $300 million more to market.

The manner in which the company is hedging its bet, though, is odd, as it is relying on an old staple-"Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakuel." The first Chipmunks movie earned $217 million at the box office in 2007, proving to be a huge money earner for Fox, which only paid around $60 million to make the film.

The concept of some type of financial padding is very interesting for the movie industry, as box office flops like "Kingdom of Heaven" have done so poorly that they put entire companies out of business. Granted, Avatar doesn't carry that kind of risk, but Fox wants to ensure that it ends up earning money this year, so it is releasing a movie that it knows will be a hit just in case its absurdly expensive blockbuster doesn't pay off (and just because critics will hate the film's merits, moviegoers will almost certainly fall in love with the fictional world of Pandora).

It is reflective of the current economic climate (and, yes, we are recovering, but that doesn't mean we're safe yet) that even movie companies are making sure they aren't hit too hard by any type of failure, even with what should be one of the biggest box office hits since Cameron's other hit, "Titanic."

World Series represents the benefits of good management

Football may have supplanted baseball as America's game, but baseball still represents the economic norms of America better than its more violent cousin. This year's World Series, more than any other in recent memory, is indicative of that.

Both the New York Yankees and the Philadelphia Phillies are amongst the game's more venerable institutions, but both have reversed their trends and made significant changes to their typical way of taking action in order to achieve a new level of success.

The Yankees, run for years on George Steinbrenner's money are giving their ancient owner, whose health is as much of a secret as Fidel Castro's, at least one more chance to see the team he has invested so much money in play for the trophy its won more than any other. Players like Derek Jeter, Jorge Posada and Mariano Rivera are still performing at high levels for the Bronx Bombers, but newcomers like C.C. Sabathia, A.J. Burnett and Joba Chamberlain are just as important to the team's success.

Until this year, though, the Yankees were associated with a prickly, almost mechanical kind of winning. They may have been good, but the team was completely devoid of personality. By bringing in some more interesting personalities and playing a different type of baseball, one predicated on pitching shutouts when Sabathia or Burnett start and outhitting the team whenever someone else pitches, the Yankees have, as ESPN's Bill Simmons noted in a recent column, come to represent the thrilling Red Sox teams of a few years ago.

The Phillies, on the other hand, have a lengthy history of losing. Until the Pirates broke their record this past season, the club had endured the longest streak of futility in the history of professional sports. Like the Yankees, the Phillies have a homegrown core - namely Jimmy Rollins, Ryan Howard and Chase Utley - that they added to through trades (ace Cliff Lee) and free agency (sluggers Jayson Werth and Matt Stairs). (It is worth noting that Lee and Sabathia were both in the Indians' starting rotation two seasons ago and now are pitching against each other for the game's biggest prize in what has to be a somewhat uncomfortable situation for both of them.)

Both teams have had their bad times (granted, bad times for the Yankees are the equivalent of winning the lottery for most of the teams in the game), but by developing their own cores and then adding to them when necessary and completely changing their mindsets, these two teams have shown themselves capable of reaching the game's ultimate moment and putting themselves in the position to win a championship.

Rand's message isn't accurate anymore

The thoughts of an expatriate are regaining importance to many Americans this week, as a new Ayn Rand biography is released. Rand, whose philosophies have come to represent an entire generation of conservatives, is closely followed by modern conservative power brokers such as Glen Beck and Alan Greenspan.

Many of Rand's ideas involve thinking that government is little more than a concentrated power sucker and that individual freedoms are central to living life as it is. Ironically, however, Rand refused to allow her followers to think for themselves, meaning that she didn't follow the typical notion of practicing what you preach.

Rand's philosophies may have some merit in modern America, as it is beginning to look more and more like a country in desperate need of hope may have crowned a false messiah. The basic problem with Rand's ideas, though, is that when put into effect result in little more than chaos, not some paradise where all men are created equal.

Rand's ideas are so popular because they emerged from the fringe, from a spot where a young girl watched her father's pharmacy taken from under his nose by the government that was supposed to be protecting him. They did not, however, anticipate a world with the complexities and sophistication that ours has. It isn't an understatement to say that the last decade have been the busiest in human history.

Unfortunately, nobody quite knows the answers to the questions that need to be asked about the economy, or the environment or other tricky issues. Part of this is that we are still figuring out the questions that need to be asked.

Unfortunately for Rand and her followers, though, the answer is not a return to some archaic mode of thought. The world isn't going to get any simpler, as the webs that link us all are going to become more and more intertwined in the near future. The answer to solving the weaknesses in those webs is not to burn them down and walk away, but to take a step back and realize what needs to be solved.

Rand makes some valid points, but ideas that may have made sense in a cleaner world only further muddy the scene today.