Gmail’s use of the “Conversation” causes confusion with its Filters system. If you are reading a message, aka “part of a conversation thread” then you can use the drop down menu “More Actions” => which shows a link “Filter Messages Like These.”  It’s a good feature to have—if it worked properly. But the filter page that appears after you click this option does not pertain to the specific message (example, “sender”) but rather, to the FIRST message in the thread. And often times the first message is by YOU (the user).

Here’s how it plays out; I compose a message to ten people asking if they want to join a new fake band. I get a few positive responses. I read the response from “Jerry.” I decide to Filter all messages from him so that I can Label as “fake band.” I click “Filter Messages Like These.” Instead of populating the “From” address with Jerry’s, the filter populates it with my email address.

This is all the more problematic because for some reason, Gmail does not allow you to create filters based on Contact Groups, neither from the Contact Group edit panel nor from within Filters New panel. The situation is completely ridiculous because in most other places, Google is VERY on-top of granting access to your Contact List. I’ve written about this before, specifically the consequence of having to edit a filter per email address (which changes sometimes) rather than with a Person / Contact (or Group).

Oh Google! I have grown convinced that you alone are the most high Internet company, and will always do right. And yet I occasionally confront silly user interface glitches that seemingly contradict this vision of you as Ultra Righteous. Please please see if you can find someone who can take a break from counting money and insert some pragmatism into your designs.

gmail, Google

By Tom Greenhill
Guest Columnist

The Japanese automakers are eating America’s lunch, offering well-designed cars that are light years ahead of Detroit’s offerings in terms of ergonomics and reliability. Having owned both domestic and Asian cars, I wouldn’t even consider buying from the Big Three again. By far the most dependable car I’ve ever had was my 2003 Toyota Camry. I had it for five years and it was never in the shop aside from routine maintenance. It was always in perfect running condition which is why I had such peace of mind letting the wife use it for the occasional errand. I’d have to say that my Camry was the automotive equivalent of a best friend—right up until the moment it accidentally accelerated with my wife behind the wheel, killing her, our 3-year old daughter, two bystanders, and all of my hope for a fulfilling, happy life.

I know I know: I’m not giving Ford and Chevy enough credit; each has made strides to reduce the quality gap with Japan. Years of investment in machinery and research in labor processes are paying off. In the most recent J.D. Power Rating of Initial Customer Satisfaction, three of the top ten were American. But that’s just for the first year of ownership. As we all know, within a couple years, little problems come up. And by the fourth year, little problems become big problems. The domestics just don’t have the staying power to keep you absolutely content for half a decade and then self-destruct in a bizarre and intense fireball borne of its inherent but well-concealed inability to brake when approaching a major intersection on a Thursday afternoon.

Not so with the “rice burners.” My Camry, or “Cami” as the deceased wife called it, was a workhorse day in and day out. I knew that as long as I put gas in her, she would run. I may have had more trouble with my Swiss watch than with the Toyota, or “toy toy” as my baby girl who will never again walk the earth used to so cutely call it.

There is no quick-fix that would bring the Big Three to parity with Toyota. The answer is not to have GM and Ford and Chrysler simply roll-out new cars that haven’t brakes. No, then you would expect the cars to be unable to stop, and thus wouldn’t be horrifically snapped out of suburban complacency by a frantic cellphone call from the one and only love of your life as she begs you to tell her how to stop the damn thing and your mind races through your entire experience and knowledge of automobiles, the chore made harder by the terrible cries of your unseen daughter, and you start towards the computer to Google “no brakes” but your progress is abruptly interrupted by a magnificent scream and a collision and the phone goes dead which you are suddenly certain is the fate also of your small family and you are left wondering if your beloved heard you say “I love you” and you wonder still if her “I’m sorry” was directed to you or to the unfortunate pedestrians who crossed the street, unaware of their date with the awful, full realization of intelligent design?

No, this will require a long-term commitment. The American automakers have to develop bedrock trust among its customers and a sterling reputation with the market as a whole if they can ever hope to “Jap” us with a surprise failure of a basic, core component that’s integral to any moving vehicle.

And we can’t lose sight of our priorities. Much has been said — and spent!– on developing “green” cars. That’s great as far as it goes. But will these hybrids and electric cars provide also a false sense of security? It’s not enough to reduce our carbon footprint. Our cars must also be dependable and have in them a latent ability to be the direct causal factor in the deaths of scores of innocents. But with all the politics and infighting, it’s unlikely. I’ll sooner walk my girl down the aisle than see an American-made car that marries the latest leaps in quality with the old-fashioned “unsafe at any speed” GM output that made Ralph Nader famous.

As things stand now, I just don’t see America recovering that lost ingenuity. If I can ever leave my bed, put this devastation behind me, and rejoin society, I’ll get a Prius.

brakes, recall, Toyota

John Travolta flew his own Boeing 707 to Haiti, bringing relief supplies, and a team of Scientologists.

As a result, thousands of Haitians have been standing in line to have their stress tested. The results: very high.

Haiti

NBC Chief Executive Jeff Zucker said that moving Jay Leno back to "The Tonight Show" and paying Conan O’Brien to leave the network is the right financial move.
The decision won him the Gold at this year’s "Zucker Awards," which recognize the worst decisions made by people with ‘Zucker’ in their name.
He narrowly beat out Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg’s idea to sell your photos for use in a Chapstick commercial without your permission.

Tonight Show, TV, Zuckerberg

I was in New York last week and had the privilege of meeting Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JP Morgan Chase. Dimon recently said he was “‘getting a little tired of the vilification of these people (bankers).”

MH: Hello, Mr. Dimon. I appreciate you giving up some of your valuable time.

JD: I can spare some minutes. My money is working for me. That means I can be somewhere, doing something, on a boat, or playing golf, and still be making bank. Do you understand? Do you own anything?

MH: No, I.. I did own. I understand what you say, but I..

JD: Don’t own jack shit?

MH: Well, I do.. I did.. it’s not much. It was worth more, but…

JD: But now it’s not worth as much? And you’re going to blame me? It could be a lot worse. A lot worse. My troops have kept this country in one piece. My troops have..

MH: Troops? Your bank?

JD: Kid, I don’t only have money working for me. I have a LOT of money working for me AND I have an ARMY of bankers working for me. That means lots of money and lots of control. And I haven’t even been in my New York office in a month.

MH: Well, I can respect that Mr. Dimon. I’m not in a position to buy now but…

JD:     You should be snapping things up. A young man… you should be buying these distressed, stressed old ladies’ homes. Twenty cents on a dollar! It’s all out there to be taken. You don’t want to own? You want to be a nothing your whole life?

MH:     I’d like to question you, Mr. Dimon about what you said last week about what you call excessive criticism of your bank.

JD: My people have come down, and walk among you, and the American people are neither grateful nor sympathetic. And yet, an earthquake hits Haiti – little insignificant Haiti! – and everyone’s sending money. Instantly! By cellphone! It’s ridiculous…

MH:     Regarding Haiti, Mr. Dimon, what reaction would you think would be appropriate?

JD: A proportionate response. First off, storms are gonna hit every 5-7 years. It’s natural. Second: Haiti’s total losses will be about one billion dollars. You’d hardly call that “too big to fail.” My bank has lost much much more than that.

MH:     You believe the U.S. is over-reacting to the Haitian crisis?

JD:     My worry is that by sending so many resources to Haiti, we neglect the banking systems needs and the U.S. is in less of a position to be able to ply money into Wall Street. And that would be a crisis.

MH: Your bank, JP Morgan Chase WaMu received $50 billion in TARP money.

JD: Which we’ve repaid.

MH: But you want more .. what?

JD: Short term, we just want to give and receive extraordinary bonuses, within the banking community, without the public calling it perverse or villain-like. Or taxing it.

MH: You think bonuses should not be taxed?

JD: Not at the federal or state level.

MH: Just in … New York City?

JD: That’s right. Bloomberg knows how to put money to use. He’s managed this city like none other. He’s done a first-rate job. You can’t argue with that. We’re pleased to have him in place.

MH: You supported his re-election I imagine?

JD: Support? It was absolutely necessary that he be given a third term. He’s a former banker. Can you imagine having a non-banker in office while there’s all this banking going on?

MH: I can understand your enthusiasm. But you’re implying that the Federal government cannot likewise manage money? Is that an indictment of the Obama administration?

JD: They’ve done some things right. It was important early on, to reinforce that the nation needs rich people, those who are entitled to a majority of wealth. After we lost that wealth, there had to be a way to get more money to us. So to that extent, the administration was absolutely correct. But since then, they’ve made several missteps.

MH: Such as?

JD: Such as lending the money with conditions! Such as wanting to tax our profits!

MH: But hasn’t your bank quickly made large profits based on the low-interest bailout money, which you’ve used to purchase securities and bonds with a much higher yield?

JD: Yes we did. But that was last year. Now where is the free money?

MH: Are you proposing a second wave of TARP?

JD: TARP, at the end of the day, was inefficient. Like going around your ass to get to your elbow. The best way to get money into Wall Street is to give some of us direct access to the mint.

MH: The U.S. mint?

JD: The best feeling in the world, kid, is to have streams of cold hard cash plied up your asshole. I have keys to the vaults, but not to where it’s made. Ah, to be present at the time of Creation!

MH: Thank you for your time, Mr. Dimon.

banking, Haiti, Jamie Dimon