It is hard not to wonder how current technology would have altered the events surrounding the tragic death of John F. Kennedy. On the afternoon of November 22, 1963, shots rang out in Dallas, TX, taking the life of JFK, one of the most beloved Americans. Given the same circumstances today, surely the advances in IT alone, would have drastically changed the outcome of that horrible day. Would the government have recognized that there was a viable threat looming over JFK? Would local and government agencies have been more prepared for a possible assassination attempt? Would the assortment of everyday communication devices assisted in the prevention of the assassination, not to mention, provided greater resources into the investigation? With all that the IT world has to offer today, how would it have altered the JFK tragedy?

As many conspiracy theories have rocked the foundation of the official story presented by government agencies, realization of the expansive nature of technology provides equal consideration as to how the event would have been changed had this technology been available during the time of the shooting. There were T.V. cameras, home 8mm recorders, even single shot-hand held cameras snapping away as the car caravan approached. Yet, there remains little documentation of the shooting and even less information pertaining to the precautions taken by officials prior to JFK's arrival. Theorists consider these possibilities along with how the world would have turned out had the great John F. Kennedynever been assassinated on that day.

I remember the day like it was yesterday. Pac Man had finally arrived on the Atari 2600.  It was a clear and sunny day, but it was slightly brisk. My dad drove us down to the video store about three miles from our Michigan house. If I remember correctly, the price for the game was $24.99.  It was quite expensive for the day, probably equaling a $70 game in today’s market, but it was mine. There *was* no question about it. If you purchase a game, it’s your game… right?

You couldn’t be more wrong.  With all the licensing agreements in games today, you only purchase the right to play it. You don’t actually “own” the game. 

Today, game designers want total control over the money that comes in for a game. They add in clauses that keep the game from being resold, rented, borrowed, copied, etc. All of the content in the game, including the items you find that are specifically for you, are owned by the software developer. Why, you ask, do they do this? It’s all about the money.

This need for greed started years ago, when people started modifying current games on the market. One of the first games like this was Doom. There were so many third part mods made, but because of licensing agreement, none of these versions were available for resale. The end user, or you, had to purchase Doom before they could even install the mod.  None of these “modders” were allowed to make any money off their creation.

Is it possible for anyone to give Microsoft a fair trial? The first half of 2012 is in the history books. Yet the firm still cannot seem to shake the public opinion as The Evil Empire that produces crap code.

I am in a unique position. I joined the orbit of Microsoft in 1973 after the Army decided it didn't need photographers flying around in helicopters in Vietnam anymore. I was sent to Fort Lewis and assigned to 9th Finance because I had a smattering of knowledge about computers. And the Army was going to a computerized payroll system.

Bill and Paul used the University of Washington's VAX PDP computer to create BASIC for the Altair computer. Certainly laughable by today's standards, it is the very roots of the home computer.

Microsoft became successful because it delivered what people wanted.

The iconic software company that is based in King County Washington has been getting almost universally slammed from it's recent Los Angeles press announcement about its entry into the hardware business with the convertible laptop/tablet known as Surface.

Certainly I can see the point that it is now competing with its hardware vendors/partners. Intel has done a good job in the arena creating 'reference designs' without competing with its partners.

There is another viewpoint which seems to be ignored. The cold facts are Microsoft is a public company. This puts Microsoft in a legal position of doing the most it can to return value to its shareholders. Failure to do so means somebody is going to jail.

Microsoft has a vision, which at the end of the day is, a certain way to get enough people to see enough value to hand over their money, to fulfill their fiduciary duty.