To the cloud!

I bet a bunch of you use the great Pandora app to listen to music. Now imagine instead of playing internet radio, it plays the music you have (I am being told right now that Last.fm does this). Imagine all the music you own, available on the internet for you to access anywhere by any device. No more worrying about whether that iPod will have enough hard drive space to carry all the music. Because everything will be in the "cloud"

Having music online is just part of the big picture of cloud computing. The gist of cloud computing is that instead of using a computer to do work and entertain, all you need is a portal or device to connect to the world wide web. Once there you can perform all the normal task one does with a computer such as listening to music, watch movies, word process, do projects, play games, etc. The single biggest benefit is that all your content and things will be available anywhere there is an internet connection. No more having to put things into thumb drives and having multiple devices to do different things. 

Some say it is the future of computing. In a ever connected world (if only US will catch up to Asia in terms of Internet speed) where people are as mobile as ever (cue the lady that fell into a fountain while texting), it makes sense to have the computer be on the internet, while only needing a device to connect to it for access and use. This all sounds absolutely awesome and great, but there comes the big question: do you want all your media and documents uploaded online? 

It is not hard to tell that people like to own tangible things. The digital revolution sort of blurred that line in that instead of things we can touch like physical discs, our movies nowadays are streamed to us, or in a computer file if you purchased it digitally. Cloud computing will fulfill the prophecy in that a person technically won't own any of his or her media at all! They will only have access to it since it is all stored online.

Are you going to be comfortable will only having "access" to your files? Now in the grand scheme of things it makes no difference since that same piece of music will still be able to be heard by you whether you have it on your computer of you are accessing it through the internet. But as the cliche goes, shit happens. The internet is manmade after all, and manmade things sort of not work perfectly from time to time. Anything and everything digital in essence is just ones and zeros. If a "1" suddenly gets misplaced then boom that movie file stored online no longer works. Bottom line, I am not sure if people are comfortable enough to allow the internet to keep their files and keep is SAFE.

There comes the question of accessibility as well. Not at the user end, as people are as connected as ever. People in metropolitan cities have high speed internet at home, mobile broadband on the road, and many establishments carry free wifi. Connection from the user is not the problem. The problem is the hosting end. As we all with a cell phone know that data cost money. Thus having media and things on the cloud takes up a lot of space. Having to transfer everything you connect also takes up space. Who is going to pay for the bandwidth? Everybody's favorite cloud syncing software Dropbox starts charging once a user uploads more than 2gb.

Not to mention all the computer serving power to host everything on the cloud (Watson?). Remember, just because it is off your computer and on the internet does not mean it does not have to be stored at least somewhere.

So it is still quite cost prohibitive for cloud computing to happen for anything other than documents (Google Docs), pictures (Picasa), music, books, etc. Things that are relatively small in terms of file size. Definitely won't be seeing movies anytime soon (movie editing and sharing right on the cloud? can only dream for now), much less high definition.

I don't need to mention how absurdly easy would be to SHARE stuff if things were on the cloud. Want to borrow this movie I have? Oh here is the download link. It's that easy.  

Perhaps it is the minimalist in me, but I for one welcomes cloud computing and the future it brings. The convenient and accessibility is just too damn good to not utilize. Ever have that one paper you've spent all night on but forgot to print and brine to class? Had you have done it on the cloud, then all you need to do is find a computer at school and print it out! No need for USB thumb drives or emailing it to yourself (which by the way is the one the first and primitive forms of cloud computing: it replaced physical mail).

I would love to have all my music and pictures and movies online to be accessed anywhere. Do I trust the cloud to keep my files safe from sudden acts of god? HELL NO. As with anything digital, you should always have a backup plan. Anything valuable and irreplaceable should have a second copy somewhere safe anyways. Even if things were not on the cloud, valuable files should be backed up regularly. For example my entire music collection has mirroring copies on two computers, one iPod, one backup hard drive, and another hard drive that is somewhere that is not my house (in case acts of god happens to the house, knocks wood). If that is does not guarantee the safety of my music then I deserve to lose it (and then cry).

True cloud computing for all facets of actual computing has ways to go, but I am liking the way it is headed (I dropbox all my documents and projects). People should embrace it too, and not just because Microsoft decided to use "to the cloud!" as a marketing gimmick. It has real and substantial value to the end user.     

Oil, and the automotive energy future

Other than certain Arabian countries where the oil is from, we here in the United States of America enjoy some of the cheapest gasoline prices in the world (tell it to a British bloke next time you complain about your gasoline being over over 3 dollars, or rather, a San Franciscan). It is in a large part due to the unwillingness of the Government to tax it at the rate Europeans are used to (imagine all the money the US can earn). But markets are markets after all and a couple of weeks ago the price of oil (re)crossed the $100 dollar mark, hence gas prices have gone up lately.

Economist predicts that it will only get worst throughout the year. Of course I am unhappy about the gas price (even though it is aforementioned, relatively cheap). Even though I drive a small and absurdly fuel efficient car (for a non hybrid anyways), those extra dollars at the pump adds up over the year (just like cell phone bills - compound your monthly bill into a yearly and be shocked much you are forking over). I even switch from the better Chevron gas to the cheapest (in price) around: Costco! Thank heavens I share membership with my father and I also do credit banking with American Express. Even driving a little out of my way just to get to a Costco is worth it. 

On the other side of the coin I kind of wish gas prices continue to go up? I think America is in need of a shock with regards to the price paid for oil. As long as it is still on par with a gallon of milk, no one here will bat an eyelash and evaluate the alternatives. It takes almost alarm level for Americans to act (being pro active definitely not in the vocabulary). 

Remember a couple of years ago when gas was way over one hundred a barrel and gas prices in the US was threatening the four dollar mark? That was when people sort of woke up. Instead of buying large gas guzzlers, people started looking for smaller and more fuel efficient cars. Instead of driving that giant truck and never haul anything, people bought automobiles that actually FIT their lifestyle. Automakers, even though it is partially marketing spin, vowed to research and develop fuel efficient technologies so that the masses will not be encumbered with the high gas cost (some of the fruits of that labor is slowing but surely trickling down into the automotive market today with hybrids and diesels). 

I think America is really for a European like renaissance in terms of the automobile market. Everybody will only buy the car they need (which most of the time means small), and car makers will make cars that are as fuel efficient as possible (before the gas price scare the motto was as big as possible). It is just a shame that it will take another gas price scare (and probably permanent) for this change to come. This is not to say that high performance or large vehicles won't exist. Those types of cars will still exist for those who can not only afford them, but also put gasoline in them. I would think twice about getting a 2 ton truck just to daily drive to and from work if it takes over one hundred dollars just to fill it up with gas. 

To go further, I am a big fan of electric cars, which like it or not is clearly the future, whether be it by batteries or hydrogen. People need to remember that the internal combustion engine is highly inefficient - only one out of the four strokes provides the motivation power. With electricity powering the cars it can be as efficient as needed because technology in terms of power delivery and power production can be managed. Meaning this does not preclude high performance and fast electric cars (the Tesla Roadster anyone?). Again, I think a gas price crisis will scare the government and automakers to push for electric cars on a faster tract than it is now. 

But for the foreseeable future, I think gas prices will stay at a elevated level, and automakers for the time being will try to build cars that are as light and fuel efficient as possible. Technology is available, and I think automakers should leverage as much of it as possible instead of staying with the status quo just because it "sells". The reason Apple stays ahead of the growth curve amongst consumer electronic and PC makers is because they are always thinking of what is next and using the latest and greatest technology. Carmakers should do the same. 

Cannot say I am not happy about getting 32mpg average in my corolla. Guess I will be keeping it for awhile. Faster cars can wait until I have money for gas. 

Why I do homework at home

So my last semester of undergrad has begun. Yay. I guess. In five short month I will have a degree, be unemployed, and in debt (the American dream?)! Hard to imagine but that will soon be the reality. But perhaps I should concentrate on actually passing the rest of my classes before I make such bold predictions? Like I have said before my concentration within the business major is not a walk in the park by any means (what do you mean I can still get an F?)

SFSU students will notice that the ongoing renovation of the library is still, ongoing. But hey at least it is looking like something. It is too bad I will never get to use it since I will be long gone when they finally do finish the project. Unless of course I also go to state for my graduate studies, which is a high possibility.

But the library still not finished means more time spent once again studying at the giant bubble called the "annex". Though I personally don't see the point of going there to do homework other than meeting up in groups. Even doing group meet ups is a horrible prospect since library is still library and you must be quiet lest having the library walk the length of a football field just to tell you to shut up or leave.

I use to go the annex often, you know like everybody else does to get away from the chatter of home in order to better concentrate. Well I quickly realize that don't work out for me very well. First of all I actually have to commute there because I live on the other side of the city, so that is like 40 minutes gone total. The chairs there are not as not nearly as comfortable as my $600 dollar ergonomic office chair. As I have said before, if you are going to sit on your ass for the majority of the day (and most of us will), INVEST in a comfortable chair that will LAST (you know, the cushion won't go flat after a month).

Being mobile means I am force to use my macbook's tiny screen, which when I am having a gazillion windows open full of web pages, the entire Microsoft office suite, and itunes, it just does not work very well. Last but not least, most people go with classmates or friends to work on assignments together. To honest we end up chatting more than actually getting work done. The whole going to the library to do homework for me is counter intuitive.

I much rather stay at home, sit on my absurdly comfortable chair, stare at a ginormous monitor with space to fit multiple application windows, and have access to drinks and snacks at just paces away.

Not to say going to the library to do homework does not work for other people. Hey, at long as it gets done, like Malcolm X said, by all means necessary... except for cheating... sometimes...

Thoughts on the 2011 SOTU address

I thought it was pretty okay. After two years at the helm of a once sinking ship that is America, one cannot really expect anything spectacular out of our commander in chief at the annual State of the Union address. Obama appears to be a resolved man, a man who realizes that he only has two years left to do all that he promised to do. With a new congress that promises to be even more incompetent that the last (if that is even possible), I think the president is going to stop pushing his own agendas down congress' throats and try to work with everybody. He has to really, because the last congress barely passed anything (Democrats, you had absolute iron clad majority in both houses and all you pushed through worth mentioning was a flawed health bill?) other than the lame duck December period (still no Dream act, really?). That is why the president mostly spoke in absolutes, things that both side agree on in order to leave a positive impression.

I have no idea why congress is even spending time trying to overturn the health bill. Everybody knows it will get dead locked in the Senate. And even if somehow someway it pass the senate, Obama said during the address that he will for sure veto it. This is our tax money at work my friends. I understand Republicans that this is what you promised as you retake the house, but I am sure they also realize that it will just never happen. What a fine use of time to grand stand and uphold a moot point. I think they should just move on with it and pass bills that fix the flaws in the health bill and let it be. Unless Republicans get absolute iron clad majority in both houses and a Republican president, overturning the health bill is just not going to happen.

The whole "Sputnik moment" (I bet a good chunk of Americans don't even know what that is) and waxing on about the ability of China was an absolute back handed compliment to the Chinese. Clearly the US sees China's rise from developing industrialized nation back to super power status (before European imperialism, China once had the world highest GDP) as a threat. All the modernization, infrastructure, economic, and military growth the China has been experiencing are seen by the US as taunts and pea-cocking. Since when were the two countries enemies? The World's stability on all fronts depends on US and Chinese relations and PROSPERITY.

What Obama said during the address basically confirmed to me that the US thinks of China as Russia of the cold war. That the US cannot risk China getting ahead of us (I am sorry, China owns you in math, and they built a 26 mile bridge in 4 years while the Bay Bridge took a decade plus and it is still not finished). That is why the President made the reference to Sputnik. Don't get me wrong, I think the US should definitely step its game up on all the fronts the President indicated, but at the expense of relegating the Chinese to a subservient level? Does it have to be the cold war all over again, that China have to go bust and back to a developing country status (the huge economic bubble in China notwithstanding)? Again, I think it does the two countries and the world good if US and China are on the same level. Besides, China will never "threaten" the US, US owes them too much money.

But maybe I am wrong. Maybe Obama is just using a metaphor poorly in order to push congress and the American people to start catching up to not only China, but the rest of the world. In that case I think he has a point. But I think he himself knows that it will take such a monumental paradigm shift that it will outlast his presidency, even if he is lucky enough to get a second term. Because transformations like that are count in decades, not years (who wants to tackle education, anyone?).

Lastly I want to say to the Republicans rebuttal on how Obama wasted tax dollars on the stimulus and unemployment is still high. I am starting to think that there are no economics graduates within the GOP ranks. Because anybody with any sort of economics education will understand that the stimulus (including the BUSH ones, which Republicans so conveniently forget) was absolutely necessary to keep the economy from going into a depression. Credit was absolutely dried up so practically the government was the only entity with enough power to keep it relatively flowing. The US is a consumer economy, and credit must be abundant and free flowing for it to thrive. Do Republicans not realize what will have happened had the Obama administration done nothing?

The GOP also likes to harp on the still high unemployment rate. Again, anybody with an economics textbook can tell you that unemployment is a LAGGING indicator. Meaning even when the economy rights the ship and starts booming again, the unemployment rate will still take some time much later before it follows the same trend. I think it is wrong for Republicans to criticize the Obama administration for something that is economic fundamentals.

Do the government need to cut back on spending? Sure! I would like to see who has the BALLS to touch Social Security, Medicare and Mediaid, Defense, and food/oil subsidies. I guaranteed you that the congress that does it will not get voted back in. Too much lobbying power these groups have.

So my hope for the US government in the next year? Compromise and at least get SOMETHING meaningful done.