Ivory Terminal

 The Windows 7 Beta is currently out, and I am having trouble understanding what all of the fuss is about, positive and negative. Poking around, it seems perfectly fine, and frankly, does not feel like a beta version. It looks a lot more like Vista than anything else, and it is hard to imagine that a lot of code is not shared.

One thing surprising me is the reaction. Everyone seems to have glowing things to say about the beta, at the same time smashing Vista yet again. These days, I do not do anything very intensive on personal Windows systems, and I have to admit that I rather enjoyed Vista as an alternative to OS X and Linux on my laptop. The Windows version on my personal computers is mostly XP Pro, an OS that I am comfortable and happy with, but when it came time to set up a laptop for my return to school, I armed it with Vista Home Premium, as was recommended by my department. Based on my reading about the OS, talks with Windows users, and the simple fact that I had never really used Vista, I was ready for armageddon. I was prepared for it to drive my ultralight laptop to a halt, not work with any of my software, and crush my integrated GPU. Then I started using the OS. Initially, I turned off every bit of eye candy, like XP classic, visually approximating Windows 2000. However, after a few weeks, I began turning features on one by one and realizing that there was almost no perceptible performance hit. Eventually, I left Aero on, and came to enjoy the look of it. My use of Windows is more or less limited to the Office Suite and statistics platforms, but my experience with Vista has been flawless.

I was unable to understand the terrible reviews and constant complaints, until I used an enterprise version. I think a lot of enthusiasts forget that their hardware is usually far superior to anything found in most offices/computing centers, and I was blindsided by the terrible performance of the OS in my school’s computer lab running on RAM-starved VPro systems. Suddenly I understood where all of the complaints were coming from. Access times were slow, weird bugs dominated my experience, and every time I attempted to add a column in Excel my program crashed. The experience was so intolerable that I ended up giving up on the lab, and moving to an alternate room with XP, where all of the same programs ran just fine on the same hardware. I do not know whether to blame the OS or the system management or both, but the difference was striking.

I want to wait and see whether the user experience will be any better for 7 on systems like the computer lab. It runs well on my amply-specced machines at home, that are tuned, cared for, and painstakingly set up to make sure that hardware and software are interacting correctly. My experience there is great, as it was with Vista and XP. Before showering praise on 7 and burying Vista, I want to see how it does in the lab, where dozens of novice users do their worst to the machines, and the OS is starved for hardware. I worry that 7 will enjoy praise simply because it had a couple extra years before it was tossed on current low-end hardware. In my opinion, Microsoft has brought out three consecutive versions of Windows that are usable, solid, and even fun; as long as capable hardware is used, and some basic care is given to system setup and maintenance. Forgetting the marketing for a moment, and realizing that Windows, OS X, and Linux all require a great deal of TLC to run at their optimal performance levels, the playing field begins to level. The positive reaction of 7 may once again shift the tides of the rise of OS X and Linux on the desktop. Both communities should have been aware that the Vista reaction was a one-time pass, and I look forward to seeing the feature build-out in response to a positively reviewed Windows.

Apple and Computing:

This evening, the Apple share price dived until after-hours trading was halted, because of the unfortunate news that Steve Jobs is taking a leave of absence for health reasons.  Every time I try and model the valuation of Apple shares, I give up, unable to conclude that the shares are fairly valued, and will reliably trend upward as market share improves.

From a casual standpoint, I think it is clear that Apple will continue growing (albeit with lower profit margins and total revenues per new “non-enthusiast” customer), but I feel confident that the fairyland valuation is going to drop Citi-style tomorrow morning.

I hope that Steve turns out to be fine, but regardless of his health, the immediate future of Apple will look pretty bleak on the ticker as the stock returns to a level explainable to the quants (but still a fantastic return for relatively long-term investors). Apple has a talented and deep management team. They are not going to fail by any definition, they may just fall back to earth as the Jobs Distortion Field weakens.

I am still not going to invest until I can explain, but I am excited for the future of Apple regardless of the CEO. It is now possible to imagine OSX being freed from Apple hardware (which will always have an audience, probably including myself) to do battle with an exposed Windows and strengthened Linux community. As we continue into the young era of multi-core computing and virtualization in the home, Apple has an opportunity to expand their OS and program market shares exponentially. Creating an obvious continuum from the gateway of the iPhone/Touch to a netbook/tablet to OSX machines could funnel new users to the high-dollar products at a fantastic rate.

Apple used to live in fear that their hardware would be abandoned if their code was freed, but now more than ever, it is clear that their software offerings would survive on their own merit. They will no longer be the underdog with an uncertain future, and as such, they will become a little more “boring”; but I think they are due a hearty congratulations, along with the Linux community and even Microsoft, for communally contributing to a fantastic decade in computing.

Citi and Financials:

Elaborating on “Citi-style” above, big C is getting slapped up and down the block this week, as the management team finally begins to take a realistic inventory of the units under the “umbrella” and realizes there is not much there (I suppose it is still fair to use).

I assumed SSB would publicly go on the block since November, and it is quite possible that the management team refused to acknowledge the necessity of a sale. The remaining question will be if Citi can operate profitably as a bank? Part of the Citi model was always rapid growth by acquisition, not possible in the foreseeable future.

We have now entered the beginning of the earnings season, which is not likely to happily surprise. Several companies are moving forward the dates of their disclosures, and Citi and JPM will weigh in tomorrow and Friday (both early), just in time to terrify the financial markets on the eve of the inauguration festivities. Everyone has their own theory about why the skirts are getting lifted early, and my guess is a Seven Year Itch style backdraft from the impending short squeeze. BofA is reported to be asking for more funds already, and is sure to be followed by its peers in the financial-conglomerate industry. Considering there are already rumblings of an Obama veto to shove the remaining TARP funds through if necessary, I think the smart money already knows what is coming.

This Tuesday is the annual continuation of the event that launched the MacBook Air last year. Originally, I was puzzled by the computer, and made fun of it as a “vanity project” that would spend most of its time being shown off in coffee shops. Then, I became a student again, and found myself walking miles a day with my suddenly heavy MacBook Pro. I bought a MacBook Air four days after beginning class. I suddenly understood.

It is entirely possible that I will miss the point the product(s) released on Tuesday. At first, I felt the same way about OS X as I did about the MacBook Air. I use Windows and Linux heavily when they seem to be the best choice for a given activity, and still use a Blackberry to accomplish many of the tasks when the iPhone is pitifully lacking. I first used OS X very reluctantly when Apple purchased E-Magic, and ceased Windows development for my favorite sequencer, Logic. My first Mac, a PowerMac G5, enraged me. I did not understand the operating system, there were keys in the wrong place, CD’s had to be ejected on the keyboard, and the mouse was insultingly bad (thrown out on the first day). I used the computer only for music. Everything changed when Apple announced they were adopting Intel processors and Windows was going to be an option on the computers. I held out until the first Core2Duo Macbook Pro was released, and for the first time since the 1990’s, I bought a laptop that was not a Sony Vaio. Originally, I used Windows about 80% of the time, but over the course of a year, I learned about OS X, and found that there were a lot more likes than dislikes. Today, by choice, I use OS X for a majority of my work and personal tasks. I think of it as a compromise between the ease of use and acceptance of Windows, and the power and customization of Linux. I use it because it is the best fit for me and my unconventional needs. I am excited when products are developed to recommend needs that may not even be conscious. Lately, smartphones, netbooks, ultralight computers, and multi-core processors have all matured and diversified, filling needs that did not exist a few years ago. If you think that computing has changed a lot in a decade, spend some time looking at the history of cell phones. Some of the ultralight Vaios from the late 90s are still attractive machines by today’s standards. See if the same holds for cell phones. Ten years ago, the Blackberry did not yet exist. Text messages were just being born, and mobile browsing remained a fringe idea for many more years. Today, even casual users consider hosts of then non-existent features to be absolute necessities.

I hope that Apple releases new directions Tuesday as much as new classes of products. There are many people predicting what will debut, but I am more interested in what should be released and why. Apple prides itself on being an innovator, and I think they should focus on what makes their lines completely different instead of what makes them marginally better.

The first platform Apple needs to commit to is multi-touch computing. They now have tens of millions of products that use the FingerWorks derived multi-touch, and it is time to allow the platform to mature. 2007 should be viewed as the start of a ten year period of multi-touch innovation, and if the execution is correct, in 2017, we should look back on the original iPhone as a primitive device that was only the beginning of a new era. When I think about what it is that will keep me locked-in to buying Apple laptops, it is no longer the design, or even the operating system. There are other computers are as visually appealing, often with hardware specifications that I would prefer. At this point, if I was motivated enough, I could put a legally purchased copy of OS X on almost any laptop. What will keep my buying Apple laptops exclusively is the iPhone hardware multi-touch trackpad. At this point, I do not want to go back to the Windows style trackpads, and I find myself frustrated in Boot Camp Vista when I am unable to use the gestures. It should be mentioned that Apple deserves a demerit for trying to limit capable hardware on previous generations of notebooks like the MacBook Air and MacBook Pro, but again, that was solvable with a few minutes of basic hacking thanks to the ever-enthusiastic user-base. If multi-touch is what is going to lock users like me into OS X on laptops, then the lock-in feature should be extended to desktop computing. I am not ready to give up the mouse yet, but when I am at my desktop, I sometimes find myself gesturing on my glass surface. I think it is time for multi-touch trackpads to be integrated into the Apple desktop keyboards. It should be possible to limit their use to OS X through a hardware handshake, which I do not support, but if it is what is necessary to make these products exist, then so be it. I would like one with a number pad and a wire for my desktop, and one added to the smaller bluetooth version for my couch. The addition of these products, or even a multi-touch pad on its own would round out the ipod/phone/laptop/desktop line. In order to add an item to the product line, I think that Apple needs to adopt the Atom platform, and since they are not limited to the current Windows XP netbook rules, create a multi-tough tablet that is more useable than the iPhone, but not a true laptop replacement to prevent cannibalization of sales. I have been predicting the arrival of this tablet since the existence of the Atom netbook, and I have been continually disappointed that it has not arrived in event after event. I am not going to say that this product is coming out on Tuesday, but it should. It would make sense, and engrain the patented multi-touch technology in additional users. Running a glorified version of the iPhone operating system, the tablet would be a bridge between the phone and the laptop, and provide an innovative competitor to the current crop of basically identical netbooks. Even if a new product is not released, Apple needs to release more and more of the FingerWorks gestures and apply them to all capable devices. New gestures are likely not enticing enough to make a user buy a new piece of hardware on their own, but increased use of multi-touch will contribute to lock-in of Apple products when it is time to buy a new device.

Also, to encourage true progress on the iPhone/iPod Touch platform, Apple needs to open up the SDK much more.  Whatever it takes to get professional applications such as Office Suites onto the devices (without the requirement of third-party online transfers to send files) needs to be done as soon as possible.  This is a major hinderance in the adoption of the iPhone for corporate and power users.  Personally, I will not surrender my Blackberry until an Office suite is available for the iPhone, and I am sure I am not alone.

The next platform is the living room. The Apple TV that is currently available is a not a mature product. The movie studios obviously do not want Apple to gain control of the digital movie market with the same monopoly power as the iTunes music store, so there will be some huge hurdles to overcome, but there is currently a huge hole in the video rental market. The clear market winner so far is “on demand” videos from cable providers. As someone that has never subscribed to cable, I do not find this to be an efficient service. Physical video rental stores are dying at a rapid pace, and the Netflix online platform has a long way to go before it is a viable option for digital only use. By making a more competitive video rental store coupled with a device a little more powerful than the Apple TV, Apple could make a drive into the living room to compete with Sony’s PS3, Microsoft’s Windows Media Center, and the Netflix-based Roku box. Making it possible to couple an Apple TV with a keyboard and mouse, allowing for fast and direct rentals/purchases from the living room would make Apple a major player. This would position Apple to sell the hardware for a user from mobile media to computers to the living room, and be an additional opportunity to lock in users to multi-touch technology. A multi-touch remote for the living room would stomp on the current touchscreen remotes available. Even allowing an iPod Touch or iPhone to function as a dedicated home media remote would go a long way to locking-in multi-touch.

Continuing the living room theme, Apple needs to announce a home server soon. Apple already has multiple products that could be tweaked slightly to offer home server capability, and if they are uninterested in making the hardware, then a software solution would be warranted. The Airport Extreme router has a USB port and is ready for hard drives, but the interface is full of bugs, and hard drive sharing is much different from “home server” capabilities. The ideal system would offer two way backups and media sharing as the user desired. Being able to attach a Drobo or other device to an Airport and serving content to the different areas of my home while also being able to use the central storage as a Time Machine backup drive would simplify and combine several different activities and drives that I use now. Again, allowing a multi-touch device to control the data stored would make users more familiar with the technology.

This ended up being much longer than I intended, and I apologize for the casual path to the conclusion. The summation of the argument is this: If Apple wants to provide a truly unique platform for computing and entertainment, they need to accomplish it through the creation of a truly integrated home. The most obvious way to accomplish this is through the adoption of their exclusive multi-touch technology, which means that multi-touch needs to start showing up on all Apple platforms, and not limited to the mobile devices. Also, Apple cannot afford to reduce the size of their multi-touch population by refusing to release gesture updates for previous devices if they are capable of using the technology. Apple is sitting on a potential lock-in gold mine, and it is their audience to lose.

To all concerned,

When you store data on recordable optical media and reformat the original disk because you are, “scared of sound coming from the mechanical HDD”, please do not put a Post-It note directly on the surface of the back-up (actually, primary…) disc.  

Thanks and happy holidays, 

Eric

In an e-mail to a colleague today, I found and replaced “fail” with “fAIG”.  It is only one letter off, and 75% right would be a salvation for these folks.  You can read endless copy by people more qualified than myself regarding AIG and the bailout in general, but very few seem to be associating the AIG funds with failing companies.  If AIG is on the other end of default swaps, and companies keep failing because they do not have access to credit, we may well enter a downward spiral.  The management at AIG should be told in clear words to pack their things by the 79.9% stake-owner.

The arrogance of the management suggesting that they are going to quickly repay their ~$150B “loan” is almost comical.  Who in the market would move that kind of money towards the pariah at anything resembling “favorable” terms?  Buffet’s stake in Goldman would seem like the bargain of the century in comparison.

It will be interesting to see how much more money must be shuffled to AIG in the coming months as more weaker companies call it a day, and each bankruptcy announcement sends them to the money tree for a shocking multiple of the equity value of the defunct firm in good times.  If this keeps happening, the regulations on CDS’s are going to come so hard and fast that the remaining contracts might actually be worth something as financial collector’s items.

Things are beginning to look a little one-sided. All else equal, I will always side with the quants. Here are three services that have done their homework, and are starting to trend together:

FiveThirtyEight (Dem biased quant, poll aggregation): Obama 95.8% Prob. 52.2% popular vote. (361.4 electoral votes, a McCain win is several SD from the mean)

Intrade (International real money “futures”): Obama 80.2% Prob. (364 electoral votes), no nationwide popular vote, but FL priced at 75% Obama, PA 88%, VA 77%, CA 96%, NY 97%, etc.

Iowa Electronic Markets (Domestic real money “futures” [I bought Obama in low 60s, best performing asset for me this fall, too bad there was a $500 limit!]): Dem 81.2% Prob. 53.5% popular vote.

It does not appear that anyone has been running side by side Dem/Rep and Obama/McCain polls recently to show the externalities like racism. Coming into the last debate tonight, it will be interesting to hear the subtle (or not) personal associations mentioned about each candidate. It appears that the issue platforms have resulted in an endgame, so it is shock and awe time. Anyone have a hole card left?

Currently, the front page of Amazon has a comparison between the book sales of Sarah Palin and Joe Biden.  Palin is currently winning the contest, 62% to 38%.  On the surface, this looks like a landslide.  Skeptical, I took a look at both books, and then things got exciting!  Please see vitals below:

Author:  Biden, Joe Biden.  Palin, Kaylene Johnson (with no assist from Palin).  Winner:  Biden.

Length:  Biden, 400 pages.  Palin, 159 pages.  Winner:  Biden.

Amazon Reviews:  Biden, 42, 4.5 stars.  Palin, 16, 4 stars.  Winner:  Biden.

Amazon Price:  Biden, $12.75.  Palin, $8.77.  Winner:  Palin.

Honorable mention that would have been a point deduction if tied:  The Palin book has “hockey mom” in the title.

Point score of Eric’s unscientific IT test:  Biden 3, Palin (should be Johnson…) 1.

I expect better from Amazon…

I’m an Eastcoaster.  Born and bred.  Although I’ve never been a city slicker, I’ve lived more or less in the Mid-Atlantic ‘burbs for my entire life.  This, however, is about to change as I am contemplating a move to Colorado.  While I’ll still be in the suburbs of Denver, I’ll have an entire Western wilderness which I intend to use as much as I can bear.

I am also a bit of a die-hard rock climber.  While I have no illusions that I am really any good at it, climbing occupies the center of my universe.  Particularly a form of climbing called bouldering which involves shorter climbs (about 15 to 25 feet high), but does not involve a rope.  I especially like finding new boulder problems.  But, alas, living on the East Coast does not lend itself to really finding anything new.  Especially boulder problems.  While there are a few areas within a two- or three-hour drive from where I live that have a relatively unexplored wilderness of boulders, many of these problems have already been pioneered by locals.

Enter Colorado.  There is a LOT of rock in Colorado.  If any real rock climber happens to read this post he’ll be thinking that: “Focusing on bouldering in Colorado–or the West in general–is akin to jerking off in a whorehouse.”  Regardless of stigma, I am fully prepared, and quite willing, to spend a great deal of time on routes that top out under 25 feet.  And, like I mentioned before, I am really excited to do some exploratory bouldering in the unexplored areas of the Eastern Rockies from Colorado north into Wyoming.

“So,” you ask, “what’s up with the Desert Eagle thing?  After all, I’ve been reading this stupid story about your boring rock climbing with no mention of the gun that compelled me to click this link in the first place.”  One thing about the areas around the Western Continental Divide, especially in Wyoming, is the presence of bears.  Namely, grizzly bears, which I’m terrified of.  As far as I’m concerned, grizzlies are the closest things to monsters on the face of the earth.  Naturally, I’ll want some protection, and a .44 Magnum would work quite well.

Now the manic progression in firearm selection.  Initially I wanted to get something light since I will be carrying it around on relatively long backcountry excursions.  Taurus makes a lightweight .44 that weighs less than 29 ounces.  This was certainly satisfactory in that it was both light and chambered the .44; additionally, the Taurus is a revolver–low maintenance–and comes in stainless–since I’ll undoubtedly drop it in some body of water.  Good solution.  Decent price at under $700 msrp.

But, of course, I couldn’t stop there.  I’m a bit worried, whether justifiably or not, that the lightweight Taurus frame will make shooting it a pain.  Literally.  I’ve shot a heavyweight .44 and it really beat me up.  So, following the Western theme, I thought a nice single-action six-gun would be nice.  I feel that I’d actually enjoy the novelty of shooting a single-action six.  Finding a good-quality .44 Mag in single-action that is a pure cowboy gun, however, is difficult.  U.S. Firearms makes a very nice six-gun called the Rodeo Gun, but it only chambers the .45 Colt which isn’t really powerful enough to take down a grizzly; many internet “experts” assume as much, anyway.  So, after some more looking around, I found the Ruger Super Blackhawk which is a very nice single-action six that chambers a .44 Mag.  To boot, it comes in stainless, is a nice weight at 45 ounces, and is fairly inexpensive at $650.  Possibly a better choice.  Possibly the best choice.

Now the real leap of faith.  I mentioned before that I like novelty.  While contemplating the two guns mentioned above and comparing their merits, an idea popped into my head: Desert Eagle.  This is the gun of Snatch (Bullet-Tooth Tony) and mid-90s Gangsta Rap fame.  The typical chambering is .50 Action Express (AE) which is an absolutely enormous round with some ballistics traits that are similarly off the charts.  It kind of makes the .44 look like a baby.  Contemplating this for a moment, however, I realized that the .50 AE is a little big and bullets cost $2 a piece.  The $2 per shot thing is actually what turned me off.

But, for poor climbing bums like myself, the folks at Magnum Research, who manufacture the semi-auto Desert Eagle, also sell a .44 Mag variety.  Now we’re talking.  Yet, despite this wonderful find, I was quickly brought down to earth by the fact that the .44 Eagle weights about 70 ounces (that’s almost four-and-a-half pounds) and costs between $1,000 and $1,500.  Additionally, I think a ranger would be much more understanding if he or she found me wandering around the backcountry a single-action .44 rather than the notorious Desert Eagle.  But let’s not write it off so quickly.  That’s what I tell myself, anyway.  I’ve always wanted an excuse to buy a Desert Eagle.

So, over the next few months I will contemplate which gun I should purchase to take down the bear which will most likely never attack me.  More importantly, I will have to find a way to scrape together the funds to buy any one of these.  We shall see.  I suspect I’ll end up with the Ruger.  That’s if I end up with any of them.

Recently, it was announced that double-amputee sprinter, Oscar Pistorius, has won an appeal allowing him to compete with “able-bodied” athletes in sanctioned sporting events.  

The summary can be read almost anywhere, but I would like to congratulate Oscar and his team for their enormous accomplishments in athleticism, sportsmanship, and engineering.

I believe technology, determination, and accompanying dissemination of knowledge can alleviate seemingly insurmountable obstacles, and this has become a prominent success story.

Intro

Last night I had the privilege to be present for a talk by Shell Oil’s president John Hofmeister. He outlined a 12 point plan that seeks to create an energy supply roadmap for the United States. Shell’s main goal, of course, is to increase the amount of liquid fuels being burned while decreasing the amount of other fuels being burned. This is a bit clouded by the fact that the 12 points address other energy sources in a way that seems to favor diversity, but closer reading will show that the emphasis is on decreasing the consumption and increasing the efficiency of electricity while sticking to the conventional track with oil consumption.

Hofmeister made it very clear that Shell advocates the conservation of the American lifestyle rather than any effort to conserve energy by altering the American lifestyle. This is certainly a popular idea with all of us and most of us are eager to allow technology fill the gap between resources and desires. Over the next few weeks I will work to analyze these 12 points and provide some information as to what they really mean.

Point 1: “Allow more access to conventional oil and gas.”

Point 1 calls for opening up areas in the U.S. that are currently closed to oil exploration. These areas include places like the outer continental shelf and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, also known as ANWR. Hofmeister claims that 85% of the areas where oil reserves could be found within U.S. territory are closed for drilling. What was not discussed is the fact that many of these areas are closed for environmental protection reasons.

Hofmeister made the point that if we keep buying foreign oil, then we are simply shipping billions dollars overseas, thus weakening our own economy. This is a valid point and must be considered in balance with our own environmental initiatives. However, we don’t get as much oil from outside of North America as one would think. That being said, our non-North American imports are still significant. Summing domestic production and imports, the U.S. produces about 40% of this total, Canada contributes 13%, and Mexico contributes 8% for a total of a little over 60% of the oil available to U.S. coming from North America.

We could certainly do a little better by not shipping 40% of what we pay at the pump overseas, but if we open up drilling in currently closed areas, what is the real gain? For Shell, there is some gain in the short term as increased supply could decrease the price of oil. Shell claims that there are 100 billion barrels of recoverable oil in the U.S. Shell also claims that our daily consumption is 21 million barrels, giving us a maximum of 13 years until the recoverable oil in the U.S. is gone. No more oil. This is not a very long time, yet it could certainly make the difference to keep us all in our current cars for the next decade. If the switch away from the conventional automotive paradigm does not come now, it will be necessitated in the near future.

I am not sure if gasoline prices are approaching the point where marginal revenue becomes negative—despite higher prices—due to decreased sales volume, but the argument could easily be made that if prices stay high, people will begin to modify their driving habits. Hofmeister counters this argument by claiming that there has only been a 1% decrease in U.S. consumption despite a doubling in price. Whether this is true at present is not an issue because we have not been dealing with very high prices for very long. However, if the price of oil and gasoline stay high and continue to increase to levels previously unimaginable, there is sure to be a more significant decrease in consumption.

A major change to a more efficient fleet, investment in public transportation, and cultural shift away from driving decreases the potential for Shell to make lots of money both now and well into the future. I imagine Shell wants to avoid this type of technology switching at any cost. Increased hybrid sales and decreased SUV sales show that there is a trend to move away from technologies which consume large amounts of gasoline. Like other phenomena, the market consequences of this switch will be slow to arrive, but the decrease in consumption will be exponential going forward.

Jumping ahead for a moment, Point 9 places an emphasis on switching to a more efficient fleet in the long-term, i.e. to a fleet of hydrogen vehicles whose infrastructure Shell is poised to pioneer. Hydrogen for cars will be a boon for any current gasoline producer as these companies have the branding and the retail infrastructure to transition from gasoline to hydrogen when the time is right.

In summary, it seems that the true goal of Point 1 is to decrease the price of oil—thus gasoline—in the world’s largest market for the short term by opening up more drilling within the United States. This will keep us below the tipping point at which a true cultural shift away from liquid-fuelled automobiles occurs, ensuring Shell’s record profits will continue to pour in until a switch can be made to a non-petroleum substitute for our vehicles. It is plain to see that Shell’s business is our easy mobility under the current liquid-fuelled, automotive paradigm.