It may be a sign of desperation. Sun today announced it is putting its JES out for free, along with free developer's tools, and N1 management software. Now the complete stack of SUN's software is free and open (sort of).
Clearly, SUN knows it can't remain proprietary and stay viable. So in it last attempt for survival, it offers everything for free, hoping it can become a Redhat for the Unix world. This may not be a bad strategy. Unix has a much larger installed base than Linux. If Sun succeeds in solidifying its position in this segment, it should be worth a lot more than Redhat, which is currently valued over $4B. Sun's market value is about $13B. Sun also has the hardware business that is getting increasingly interesting. The new Galaxy servers seem to signal that Sun is really serious about x86.
Last year, if you ask, I would say Sun was definitely going down the westhill. Now it appears that after all, it might not go down that quickly. We shall see.
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
Yahoo's RSS email push ushers in era of "personalized news"
Today Yahoo introduced beta trial of RSS news feeds into its popular yahoo webmail. Yahoo has made RSS available since early 2004. But making RSS available for its >250m email users will vault RSS from the techie world into mainstream. If Yahoo can popularize RSS through this endeavor, this will be a landmark event, marking beginning of death of the newspapers.
Getting news from newspaper is so inefficient. First of all, you don't get to choose what you want to read. Many parts of the newspaper you probably have never read. Yet you have to spent the time to flip through the pages. It is such a waste of time. Second, you don't get news in real time. You get stale "news" from yesterday. Third, you can't get all you want from a single newspaper, because it is so full of junk that it does not have enough space for really valuable stuff.
RSS will change all that. By subscribing to RSS feeds, you get the news that you want in REAL TIME. You don't have to wade through the junk that you are never interested in reading. You get to choose what you want to read. It is completely "Personalized News", just for you.
It baffles me that the newspaper companies don't get it. They are so wed to the newsPAPER business and forgot that they are really in NEWS business, not the paper business. Paper is just one of the media for news distribution. It happens to be the very inefficient way, being replaced by the more efficient Internet.
The newspaper companies guard their content so closely, and don't want to make it freely available on the net. That is so short-sighted. I can understand charging a fee for newspaper, because there is printing the distribution costs. But why charge for distributing news online, where there is almost no cost in distribution, and ad-based business model should suffice?
Getting news from newspaper is so inefficient. First of all, you don't get to choose what you want to read. Many parts of the newspaper you probably have never read. Yet you have to spent the time to flip through the pages. It is such a waste of time. Second, you don't get news in real time. You get stale "news" from yesterday. Third, you can't get all you want from a single newspaper, because it is so full of junk that it does not have enough space for really valuable stuff.
RSS will change all that. By subscribing to RSS feeds, you get the news that you want in REAL TIME. You don't have to wade through the junk that you are never interested in reading. You get to choose what you want to read. It is completely "Personalized News", just for you.
It baffles me that the newspaper companies don't get it. They are so wed to the newsPAPER business and forgot that they are really in NEWS business, not the paper business. Paper is just one of the media for news distribution. It happens to be the very inefficient way, being replaced by the more efficient Internet.
The newspaper companies guard their content so closely, and don't want to make it freely available on the net. That is so short-sighted. I can understand charging a fee for newspaper, because there is printing the distribution costs. But why charge for distributing news online, where there is almost no cost in distribution, and ad-based business model should suffice?
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
Will cable go a la carte
Today, FCC chairman Kevin Martin, appearing before Senate committee on Commerce Science and Technology, called on the cable and DBS companies to offer a la carte channel option for consumers. Basically, consumers should have the choice to choose what channels they want to subscribe to and pay for.
I have long thought a la carter is only reasonable and fair. Why do I have to pay for channels that I never watch. Besides, many channels are garbage anyway. If consumers can choose, we can let the market force weed out low-quality programming.
But the cable industry is strongly opposed to this idea. They thought this would result in less viewership, and therefore, less ad revenue. That is so short-sighted. I think offering a la carte option will increase viewership because those are the channels they want to watch anyway.
The other issue is about the programming content. I am not subscribing to cable or DBS, because there are many channels there I deem unfit for my two young children. I believe there are many out there who are like me. If a la carte option is available, I think cable companies will see increase in subscription.
If cable and DBS keep resisting to this, they will dig a grave for themselves. I believe there will be companies which will offer a la carte video service over the Internet using IPTV technology. Yahoo and Google can do that. If SBC and Verizon are smart, they should start offering a la carte, to differentiate themselves from the cable and DBS companies.
IPTV technology, in theory, can offer infinite number of video programming channels. It will be up to the consumers to choose what they want to watch. Consumers have total control and choice. Finally, we consumers are not only lectured on by the media. We can "vote" out the bad media. That is what I call "democratization of the media".
I have long thought a la carter is only reasonable and fair. Why do I have to pay for channels that I never watch. Besides, many channels are garbage anyway. If consumers can choose, we can let the market force weed out low-quality programming.
But the cable industry is strongly opposed to this idea. They thought this would result in less viewership, and therefore, less ad revenue. That is so short-sighted. I think offering a la carte option will increase viewership because those are the channels they want to watch anyway.
The other issue is about the programming content. I am not subscribing to cable or DBS, because there are many channels there I deem unfit for my two young children. I believe there are many out there who are like me. If a la carte option is available, I think cable companies will see increase in subscription.
If cable and DBS keep resisting to this, they will dig a grave for themselves. I believe there will be companies which will offer a la carte video service over the Internet using IPTV technology. Yahoo and Google can do that. If SBC and Verizon are smart, they should start offering a la carte, to differentiate themselves from the cable and DBS companies.
IPTV technology, in theory, can offer infinite number of video programming channels. It will be up to the consumers to choose what they want to watch. Consumers have total control and choice. Finally, we consumers are not only lectured on by the media. We can "vote" out the bad media. That is what I call "democratization of the media".
Wednesday, November 23, 2005
Chinese copper trader
News has surfaced about the huge short position a Chinese government commodity trader has made on the copper future's market. The vultures in London are all over this and are driving up the copper price. As reported in Financial Times today, the loss on these short positions now amounts to over $100M.
This follows a similar debacle earlier this year when a Chinese SOE oil trader incurred huge loss by shorting crude oil future.
I have checked the Chinese news websites. I saw scant report on this event. If this happens in the US, the news media will be all over it. An investigation will immediately follow, and report the results to the public. But that is not going to happen in China.
I am so disgusted by the corruption and lack of accountability and transparency in China's political system. A reform is way over-due. I am NOT advocating China to move to a western political system, as that may not be suitable for China. But a basic element of check and balance in the system is woefully needed.
President Hu, it is time for political reform.
This follows a similar debacle earlier this year when a Chinese SOE oil trader incurred huge loss by shorting crude oil future.
I have checked the Chinese news websites. I saw scant report on this event. If this happens in the US, the news media will be all over it. An investigation will immediately follow, and report the results to the public. But that is not going to happen in China.
I am so disgusted by the corruption and lack of accountability and transparency in China's political system. A reform is way over-due. I am NOT advocating China to move to a western political system, as that may not be suitable for China. But a basic element of check and balance in the system is woefully needed.
President Hu, it is time for political reform.
Google's business model
The price of Google stock is now more than $400. Its market value exceeds that of Cisco. Many people are speaking the "B" word (bubble) again.
It is impossible to ascertain what is the "true" value of Google shares. But one thing is certain. Google is no dotcom bubble.
If I would describe Google's business model, I would say it is the "Yellowpage" for the web, or directory of the web. Like Yellowpage, Google is free to everyone. It is an ad-supported business model. As the web keeps expanding, a searchable directory is of the number 1 importance. Google has the best web search engine, and that is why majority of people use it for get information from the web.
Google is not just "yellowpage on the net". It is more dynamic, more flexible, and more expansive than that. It creates a self growing user community, and is gradually becoming the gateway to the internet. If you believe the Internet will become the primary medium for content delivery, then you can appreciate the enormous potential for google.
It is impossible to ascertain what is the "true" value of Google shares. But one thing is certain. Google is no dotcom bubble.
If I would describe Google's business model, I would say it is the "Yellowpage" for the web, or directory of the web. Like Yellowpage, Google is free to everyone. It is an ad-supported business model. As the web keeps expanding, a searchable directory is of the number 1 importance. Google has the best web search engine, and that is why majority of people use it for get information from the web.
Google is not just "yellowpage on the net". It is more dynamic, more flexible, and more expansive than that. It creates a self growing user community, and is gradually becoming the gateway to the internet. If you believe the Internet will become the primary medium for content delivery, then you can appreciate the enormous potential for google.
Monday, November 21, 2005
Four economic measures you can ignore
1. Unemployment rate
You should use the payroll number and Initial Jobless Claim, rather than the employment rate number.
2. Consumer Price Index
This is probably the worst among the four. CPI is really fraught with mis-information.
3. Current account
Foreign retained earnings is the biggest portion not captured.
4. Savings rate
Again, this is another misinformation. Education spendings, R&D spendings, brand investments, etc., are all by their nature savings, but not included in the saving rate calculation. Asset appreciation also effectively increases personal savings, but is not reflected in the saving rate number.
If we take out the mis-information created by the above four measures, we will see that the US economy is in great shape. Not recognizing this, I think people will miss out on the next big rally in the equity market.
You should use the payroll number and Initial Jobless Claim, rather than the employment rate number.
2. Consumer Price Index
This is probably the worst among the four. CPI is really fraught with mis-information.
3. Current account
Foreign retained earnings is the biggest portion not captured.
4. Savings rate
Again, this is another misinformation. Education spendings, R&D spendings, brand investments, etc., are all by their nature savings, but not included in the saving rate calculation. Asset appreciation also effectively increases personal savings, but is not reflected in the saving rate number.
If we take out the mis-information created by the above four measures, we will see that the US economy is in great shape. Not recognizing this, I think people will miss out on the next big rally in the equity market.
Saturday, November 19, 2005
Get our boys out of Iraq, John Murtha says
Yes, it is time to get our daughters and sons out of Iraq. We made a mistake going into the war. Now let's not continue the mistake by staying there too long. Our presence in Iraq has been a rallying force for the anti-American sentiment in Iraq.
My answer to the critics who are against the pull-out. People sounded the same warning/caution against pulling out of Vietnam: "leaving the whole southeast Asia to the Viet Con and red communist China." "The world will never see peace again." "US interest in southeast Asia will be greatly damaged if we pull out." Now more than thirty years later, has Vietnam become a threat to US?
We entered Vietnam war because we believed "the communists" were a great threat to the free world. We entered the Iraq war, for similar reason, that the terrorists could use Iraq as a launching pad to attach US interest. History may once again prove that we are overly paranoiac, as we were in the case of Vietnam.
(An after note: yes, I am an American citizen. "We" refers to We Americans.)
My answer to the critics who are against the pull-out. People sounded the same warning/caution against pulling out of Vietnam: "leaving the whole southeast Asia to the Viet Con and red communist China." "The world will never see peace again." "US interest in southeast Asia will be greatly damaged if we pull out." Now more than thirty years later, has Vietnam become a threat to US?
We entered Vietnam war because we believed "the communists" were a great threat to the free world. We entered the Iraq war, for similar reason, that the terrorists could use Iraq as a launching pad to attach US interest. History may once again prove that we are overly paranoiac, as we were in the case of Vietnam.
(An after note: yes, I am an American citizen. "We" refers to We Americans.)
Thursday, November 17, 2005
Evolution vs intelligent design (part 3)
Evolutionists claim that mutation and natural selection are the driving forces for evolution. Evolution may seem to be random, but in the vast span of time (tens and hundreds of billions of years), anything could happen, so they claim.
Let's suppose they are right, and attempt to calculate how much time it needs for mutation to produce new species.
For simplicity, let's suppose there is only 100 base pairs of differences in DNA sequence between modern human and its "ancestor" ape (the differences are in fact in tens of millions of base pairs). We know there are only four different elements (A T G and C) that make up the sequence of DNA. So the probability of a single generation of mutations to "evolve" ape DNA into human is one in every 100th power of 4. That equates to one in every 1.6X10^60.
Now let's again assume a single generation of mutation takes only one hour (but in truth, a generation equates at least tens years for the apes). So for the mutations to produce human DNA sequence from Ape DNA sequence, it will take 1.8X10^54 years. The age of the universe is about 10^10 years. So in the whole history of the universe, mutation cannot even generate 100 base pair of exact DNA, let alone change an ape into human.
Moreover, nature has a mechanism of preventing mutations from occurring. Every living organism has a proof-reading mechanism for reproduction, so that a chicken will bear a chicken, and a big will bear a pig. In fact, even a single mutation may proves to be fatal. I am wondering at what point of the evolution process did this proof-reading mechanism come to being? Why is this mechanism universally present in every organism, even those considered very primitive (such as virus and bacterium).
Evolution is simply wrong!
Let's suppose they are right, and attempt to calculate how much time it needs for mutation to produce new species.
For simplicity, let's suppose there is only 100 base pairs of differences in DNA sequence between modern human and its "ancestor" ape (the differences are in fact in tens of millions of base pairs). We know there are only four different elements (A T G and C) that make up the sequence of DNA. So the probability of a single generation of mutations to "evolve" ape DNA into human is one in every 100th power of 4. That equates to one in every 1.6X10^60.
Now let's again assume a single generation of mutation takes only one hour (but in truth, a generation equates at least tens years for the apes). So for the mutations to produce human DNA sequence from Ape DNA sequence, it will take 1.8X10^54 years. The age of the universe is about 10^10 years. So in the whole history of the universe, mutation cannot even generate 100 base pair of exact DNA, let alone change an ape into human.
Moreover, nature has a mechanism of preventing mutations from occurring. Every living organism has a proof-reading mechanism for reproduction, so that a chicken will bear a chicken, and a big will bear a pig. In fact, even a single mutation may proves to be fatal. I am wondering at what point of the evolution process did this proof-reading mechanism come to being? Why is this mechanism universally present in every organism, even those considered very primitive (such as virus and bacterium).
Evolution is simply wrong!
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
Prewar Intelligence
There is no question that the White House twisted the intelligence to justify its war against Iraq. Scott Ritter has been telling everyone that Saddam did not have any chemical or WMD at all. But no one listened. Who dared to risk his or her reputation to defend Saddam? No politician, no news reporter, no diplomat, would ever want to be perceived as defending Saddam by saying he did not have WMD.
Now the democrats want to investigate Bush for misleading us into the war. Come on. You knew along the intelligence was wrong. You just did not have the guts to point it out when Bush's approval rating was sky high and he had geared up the whole nation ready to go to war with Iraq. You knew that, if you did not agree with Bush, you would risk your election. So you, again, played political cowardice. No wonder many people have been disillusioned by your party.
My suggestion to the democrats: if you supported the war, shut up now! Next time, say what you believe. Have some principles.
What I like about the right-wingers is that they are not scared of the polls. They dare to abide by their principles (unfortunately a set of wrong principles). But no democrat dares to stand up to the principles. I wonder they have any. Maybe they only know the polls.
Just look at the wasteful spending the White House is lavishing on the private contractors in Iraq. Just look at the fragrant violation of justice and humanity perpetrated by CIA and the pentagon in conducting the War on Terrorism and the War in Iraq. No one, I mean NO ONE in the democratic party dare to speak out. No main stream News Medium dares to speak out, either.
Where is your conscience!!!
Where is America's conscience, the land of liberty, and justice!
Now the democrats want to investigate Bush for misleading us into the war. Come on. You knew along the intelligence was wrong. You just did not have the guts to point it out when Bush's approval rating was sky high and he had geared up the whole nation ready to go to war with Iraq. You knew that, if you did not agree with Bush, you would risk your election. So you, again, played political cowardice. No wonder many people have been disillusioned by your party.
My suggestion to the democrats: if you supported the war, shut up now! Next time, say what you believe. Have some principles.
What I like about the right-wingers is that they are not scared of the polls. They dare to abide by their principles (unfortunately a set of wrong principles). But no democrat dares to stand up to the principles. I wonder they have any. Maybe they only know the polls.
Just look at the wasteful spending the White House is lavishing on the private contractors in Iraq. Just look at the fragrant violation of justice and humanity perpetrated by CIA and the pentagon in conducting the War on Terrorism and the War in Iraq. No one, I mean NO ONE in the democratic party dare to speak out. No main stream News Medium dares to speak out, either.
Where is your conscience!!!
Where is America's conscience, the land of liberty, and justice!
Evolution vs intelligent design (part 2)
As I stated in my last post, I don't think it is advisable to include "intelligent design" in science curriculum. It still belongs to philosophy and religion.
But the debate over the theory of evolution should be encouraged. I think evolution has become a hindrance for scientific advancement. The concept of evolution has been invoked wherever a biological process cannot be easily explained. For example, to explain why dogs have such a great olfactory sense, many people would conveniently use evolution to explain that the super olfactory sense helps dogs find foods for survival. (It begs the question why pigs did not have such a sense through "evolution"). Similarly, human acquired so many new functions that are lacked in other primates because these functions are supposed to improve human's survival. "The fittest survives". But without these functions, monkeys and chimpanzee are surviving nonetheless. They may even have better survival skills than us. If you tour a wild animal park, you will find every animal has endowed skills to survive. If only the fittest survives, how do we explain bio-diversity? Natural selection would lead to few species, not the origin of many species.
Evolution was a theory that arose from a wide-spread anti-Christianity sentiment back in the 19th century. It was part of the anti-religious movement that swept through Europe and later the New World, along with Freudism and Marxism (Communism). Evolution is more of a religion than science.
But the debate over the theory of evolution should be encouraged. I think evolution has become a hindrance for scientific advancement. The concept of evolution has been invoked wherever a biological process cannot be easily explained. For example, to explain why dogs have such a great olfactory sense, many people would conveniently use evolution to explain that the super olfactory sense helps dogs find foods for survival. (It begs the question why pigs did not have such a sense through "evolution"). Similarly, human acquired so many new functions that are lacked in other primates because these functions are supposed to improve human's survival. "The fittest survives". But without these functions, monkeys and chimpanzee are surviving nonetheless. They may even have better survival skills than us. If you tour a wild animal park, you will find every animal has endowed skills to survive. If only the fittest survives, how do we explain bio-diversity? Natural selection would lead to few species, not the origin of many species.
Evolution was a theory that arose from a wide-spread anti-Christianity sentiment back in the 19th century. It was part of the anti-religious movement that swept through Europe and later the New World, along with Freudism and Marxism (Communism). Evolution is more of a religion than science.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
