I don’t think I’ve once strayed from the tradition of referencing the Globe and Mail’s Report on Business, nor is my life exciting enough for me to lead that start. Strange also is the fact that I write on just about two things - technology and the economy. I have come to the conclusion that I’m somewhat of a boring person, so when I ran across this image of two rather gloomy gentlemen, naturally I thought of linking the article following: i4i won a huge victory. But at what cost?. Well, I suppose I will take my last statement back, since Mr. Owen is smiling - after all, he had just won a $290-million lawsuit against Microsoft.

One of the comments I spotted below the article is as thus:
“After reading this, I’m not sure why anyone should feel guilty about downloading or sharing unlicensed versions of Word and other Microsoft products. If they don’t obey the law, why should we?”

My thoughts, originally on the economic implications of such a patent ruling (Microsoft is to permanently remove all i4i technology from its products), but this comment led me more into thinking about the ambiguous grey shades of modern day ethics. It reminded me, suddenly, of this image. I have never gotten into the habit of embedding pictures on this blog, and since this one has some rather crude (but mainstream nonetheless) language I will refrain from varying that trend.

Anyhow, back to our Microsoft woes. Do we really feel sympathetic towards a software giant that semi-monopolizes the world PC market? I myself, for one, is hardly acquainted with anyone that has actually purchased Microsoft products. The same goes for Adobe, and probably a few other application suites I can’t think of at the moment. Does Microsoft’s decision to (perhaps?) pilot XML technology without paying for the patent license justify our actions in (let’s be honest here) pirating software together, are commercially worth thousands of dollars? It sounds to me like we’re trying to make a right with two wrongs. That, or capital punishment, more or less. And… in the end, no one has been justified, except perhaps i4i, for providing with us yet another “Microsoft owned” anecdote for generation(s?) to come.

Aside from this article, the Report on Business was a mire of boredom, depression, and some spontaneous outbursts as usual - it would have continued to be a sleepy morning, wherein I sip green tea and watch the clock. However, when I came across the news that Google was tackling a new OS, I felt that I had to write something, if not substantial, then insignificant, to depict my… interest, I suppose that’s what I would call it.

Read here for how Google has announced the development of the Google Chrome OS for Netbooks and possibly later, PCs. Of course, as the Google business model is largely based on advertising, the operating system is likely to be very cheap or even free. Now there’s an idea - the cheapest Vista suite currently markets at about $260 (the $199 Home Basic version doesn’t count as it doesn’t even have the overrated Aero we used to ooh and aah at). At UofT, you can get the system at a much cheaper price through the student discount, but if I recall correctly, it is still an amount that would make you stop and do quality/price comparisons. At least in my world.

Oh, and there is also this photo.

After all the hype about Android (and the unfortunately not so innovative HTC Magic - chic, HTC calls it… - and T-mobile G1), I have some skepticisms about how exceptional a Google OS would be, albeit Google project management declares that OS’s need to be re-thought in an era in which the web is our life. I currently type as I browse in Chrome 2.0. It is my default browser both at home and work, and for good reasons. However, this little description pretty much shouts out all my existing dissatisfactions with Chrome - anorexia. I am hopeful that later versions of Chrome will boast more common browser features, but I do keep in mind that I chose it for the very minimalism it embodies. While I can always open up Firefox (memory dump… yikes) for the occasional rare task, it would be vastly inconvenient to switch OS’s in the middle of your work day. What is the concept of Google Chrome OS? To that I both look forward and remain slightly apprehensive.

Some annotated notes from my copy of the Canadian Student Review, aka publication of passable quality by the Vancouver-based right-winged facists - er, I mean, the Fraser Institute:

• Thorn, Thomas. “Breaking the cycle of financial regulation” Canadian Student Review Spring/Summer< (2009): 6-7.

  While financial regulation is necessary, it is not a sure cure for problems that plague today’s market. Investors run risks they are unaware of when they are convinced that companies are bound by well-enforced regulations. New regulations are constantly being propped up after heinous scandals, in an effort to mend the problems, yet if regulators do not stop “fighting the last war” and proceed to approach regulation differently, financial markets will continue to slowly lose efficiency.

• Gervais, Patrick. “How effective are GST cuts?” Canadian Student Review Spring/Summer< (2009): 8-9.

  By common sense, tax reductions should focus on taxes that impose the highest marginal efficiency cost, which for consumption taxes (GST), is only $0.10 per dollar compared to $0.45 for corporate income tax and $0.30 for personal income tax. The amount of revenue lost from GST cuts would be made more efficient when applied to the reduction of income taxes. Trumped by politics, anyone?

• Vermeulen, Courtenay. “Things folks know that just ain’t so, Why it ain’t so…” Canadian Student Review Spring/Summer< (2009): 10-11.

  “When welfare is associated with a low cost or high benefit, it will experience higher demand. If welfare is more generous than a low-paying job and is unlimited, the incentive for people to work and eventually achieve upward financial mobility is diminished.” By the simple economics of opportunity cost, we can see that as opposed to the common belief that making welfare less generous creates more poverty, this acts in the exact opposite way.

I love this headline - “Carbon dioxide emissions to increase by 40% in 20 years”. It’s one of those perfect excuses to tell your spouse: “This is why we’re never having children.” Looking at it logically, who would want to be born into a doomed world of cancer, death, and destruction of beauty?

Yet we are experience unprecedented industrial growth in developing countries, especially the giants, China and India. The economic crisis of today makes the G20 look upon China as some sort of dictatorial saviour, as if the powerhouse of the East will somehow patch up all the holes that have effected from our ingenious subprime financial system. We applaud growth, we denounce pollution. We contradict ourselves.

My favorite economics professor boldly suggested that the most efficient method is the method taking place right here, right now - it is the lack of incentive and presence of opportunity costs that prevent us from bringing about change. Surely we would all like to drive hybrid cars (well, I do know obstinate fews who insist BMWs are essential luxuries of life, but besides that, most of us), but the cost, the trouble, the lack of supporting infrastructure all make it impossible for a society-wide switch to more environmentally-friendly vehicles. Surely we would all like to reduce the use of plastic, but convenience and utility prevent us from being more considerate when it comes to dumping out garbage that will not decompose for eras to come. Surely we would all like to reduce carbon dioxide emission levels, but underlying factors have it: unless there is drastic change in societal values, changes cannot, and will not, take place.

It is simple as that. People get lung cancer but do not stop smoking. The Japanese have not stopped eating whales.  We do not have societies full of David Suzukis. Read here for a glimpse into our gloomy future.

Well, we all probably know what’s happening. North Korea just launched their second nuke test, it fared a bit better than their first one, and all the big nations are in alarm mode at this time. Russia and China gave North Korea strong criticisms and said that they’re absolutely opposed to this. Meanwhile, Obama has his hands full, again. What difficult times it must be for him.

Apparently the real worry is not that North Korea might launch nukes at other countries, but that they’ll sell nuke material on the black market i.e. open a way for terrorists to get their hands on weapons of mass destruction. This crisis is a bit like global warming, just not having gathered enough media attention. Well, the media is all over it, but in most people’s view, it’s probably not an urgent issue, at least it’s not an issue that would have any impacts on their lives.

And this is what’s scary about it. North Korea seems a bit pissed off at the fact that all other countries are pissed off at it. They’ve launched two missile test in response to the world’s criticisms, signifying that they’re not going to cave into the world’s demands, and Obama - heck, anyone - would face the tough problem of how to get them to listen. If they don’t, well, it could very well lead to warfare as it would just be a matter of time, given that North Korea’s attitude doesn’t change. How troublesome.

Meanwhile, all these events happening also once again brought up the question of nuclear weapons. It’s a simple question of control, but not an easy question to answer. The thing with control is that it requires authority, and authority are human, and humans are not absolute, so the control can never be flawless. No flawless control means there’s always the possibility that control will be lost. And an event of any nonzero possibility will happen if you run the experiment long enough. What would happen then? A scary thought.

And to make matters worse, this is one of the world’s concerns that the average person can do nothing about. I guess all we can do is to lay back, watch history, and hope for a good ending at least for the foreseeable future.

(title credit goes to a commenter of the article quoted)

Here’s a little story from the Globe.

The more I hear these stories, the more I am reminded of the fact that people are not fully understanding the implications of new technologies quickly enough. This is usually a bad thing, but maybe not in this case where it picks out dishonest people and slams their dishonesty in their face.

The Internet is huge and uncontrolled, and in this day and age, the Internet is also an important and irreplaceable portion of our lives. Inevitably, our personal information - bits and pieces of our lives, will end up on the Internet. And of course, what ends up on the Internet will stay there, especially since there are websites like The Wayback Machine that permanently keep track of the Internet’s history. The only way to prevent anyone from accessing these bits and pieces of our lives is to be flawless in our control of security features like passwords and privacy settings, but of course, nobody is that perfect, and oftentimes the effort of ensuring privacy isn’t really worth the gains, depending on how afraid-of-public you are.

There’s one solution though: Simply live a good and honest life, and do nothing that you’d be ashamed of if it goes public. It’s not that hard. There are many bosses out there who wouldn’t hire people if they see evidences of drug use on facebook accounts - don’t do drugs. There are many opportunities that you may be denied if there are traces of distasteful language used by you - don’t swear excessively and certainly don’t be a bigot. Be honest at all times, and don’t do things that piss off other people whom you don’t want to piss off. Live a good life, and then no matter how open your life becomes, the possibility for backlash should still be low.

Maybe one good thing about these social network websites is their ability to keep people honest and responsible for their own lives.

Business news never ceases to amuse me. This may be a rather esoteric reference - but the situations seems to resemble those in 南家 (Miname Ke), an anime series I used to watch, in the way that every little detail is made dramatic: 

*Sound of raindrop* - main character looks up at the ominous sky and gasps that life has suddenly become dark. The mood in the living room immediately changes to a melancholy one, and flashing before our eyes are mournful deaths of mistresses and hara-kiri by shamed warriors - *Further sound of raindrop*

I had wondered to myself if it indeed was possible to view real life in such a way, and as of this morning, I happened to have been enlightened. 

Titles can be misleading; the articled named “Wall Street poised for a mixed opening” (ReportonBusiness.com) is not what the verbal attempt represents. At least, when I finished glancing through the article, several keywords surfaced:

• Going gaga over news of profit
• Going gaga over expected profit
• Going gaga over expected recovery of economy
• Going gaga over expected renewal of wealth

This is much more enjoyable than the depressing items I have been subjected to reading in the past few months, and I don’t mean to make anyone seem shallow, but to me it seems that the correlation between “going gaga” and “money” is quite strong.

Another example from the same day is “CIBC sees S&P/TSX at 10,500″ (ReportonBusiness.com). This article begins with some astounding words: “Anyone worried that they missed the market bottom can take a deep breath, according to CIBC World Markets, because the markets are heading back down before a…” Life is filled with opportunities, but have we all not been told to never seek to become opportunists? I wondered if this website was meant not for ordinary citizens of the state but some kind of guru of profit maximization, lowly and simple as my portfolio is. Let’s have some keywords:

• Going gaga over money earning opportunity
• Going gaga over possibility of becoming rich

Yes yes I know this is a financial newspaper, yet I have expected there to be something other than money, money, and more money. Personally, I value money a great deal. I spend much of my life poring over making money, spending money, and saving money, yet I do uphold some common sense that people should not toil under the slavery of having money blossom and bear fruit. If our sky exploded into money crackers, I foresee everyone scrambling on the ground, kicking others out of the way, foraging for savoury bills. 

This was perhaps written with too much bias, a bias against rather than for the green moolah.

Prelude

I hope that this article with which I am launching the new mimiuchi.NET blog with won’t fall too much into the domain of junk. As Fdel and I have previously agreed upon, writing anything of quality regularly and consistently is very difficult, and the brave goal to host intellectual opinions and perspectives on current issues is, well, a challenge that requires much stamina and light-hearted attitude.

P.S. I took so long to write this article that now Fdel has beaten me to it, and of course this is no longer this first post. Life does drag on sometimes.

March 16, 2009

Being a cynic about the market and such, I cannot help but feel that extremist views of any kind are rather distasteful. It is as if one party is floundering and drowning in the pool’s deep-end, while the other party looks ridiculous attempting to swim in 2 inches of shallow water - both are non-ideal situations.

Today’s inspiration was the headline below:

AIG bonuses an ‘outrage’, Obama says - Report on Business, The Globe and Mail

First things first: By bringing up such matters concerning the current economy, I’m pretty much shooting myself in the foot. Secondly, today’s media always trys to keep too much opinion and controversy out of news articles, but I have yet to come across a major Canadian publication that does not zealously advocate Obamian ideology and bombard American stupidity. This week’s copy of The Economist hasn’t come in the mail yet, so I am still waiting to read some of what I consider to be well-written opinionated articles.

Picking up from where I last left off, I am not sure if I can recall all the strains of brilliance that had before been bestowed upon me. I believe that my initial point was going to be the relativity of morality. Suppose oneself to be in the position of an AIG executive. Suppose you make numerous wrong business decisions based on current market trends instead of decisions that would be considered “ethical” and “abiding-by-some-invisible-rule-of-good-decision-making-that-somehow-does-not-take-other-business-decisions-into-account”. It is often said that mob mentality will get us nowhere. Accordingly, behaving as the market behaves is also a crime.

Surprisingly, the market is not some holy entity by itself - it is instead made up of people.

The point of all that, of course, was that these executives should be boiled, grilled, and eaten.

Secondly, the most recent episode of South Park I watched was a treasure. The amount of economic and market criticism is phenomenal. I don’t remember which character it was, but amidst the chaos of the crowd one of the most intelligent remarks I caught was “This is all the government’s fault! The Feds kept the interest rate too low and banks were forced to make sub-prime loans!”. I almost choked on the piece of watermelon I was eating, half out of laughter, and half out of shock. Not that I doubt the philosophical solidity of the show, of course, but simply the fact that someone dared to put it into real words and put it on real television.

What it comes down to, is that the economic crisis is probably our own fault (cynicism yet again). There is a reason why the Federal Reserve does not up the interest rate, and there is a reason why banks do not act irrationally in response to an unchanged, low interest rate. We like to blame everything on big CEOs that are greedy - what is the few million that they receive in bonus when we compared the billions we have lost? To see extravagance as an archnemesis is perhaps one of the most dangerous things to do.

No, I do not approve of gratuitous bonuses for executives who have encouraged poor business models and made poor business decisions, but I also think that we are not as innocent as we think ourselves to be. I once encountered a so-called “animal-right activist with a post-secondary degree” on the subway train. She was fairly disagreeable to all of us, but I think she did have a minor point when she said “we are the ones tearing the earth to pieces”. By that, I mean that we are responsible for everything that happens to us, as a whole, as humanity. There exists no innocent bystander waiting to be saved by Mr. Barack Obama.

I do not have anything against President Obama, but perhaps it is time to stop clinging to him as the Messiah that will revive humanity. I truly believe in the importance of taking reality into our own hands.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/30/technology/30game.html

Looking at articles like this makes me remember how people still treat video games as one huge object, a “video game lump” of sorts, when a more practical model might be a few separate entities based on genre. For instance, games on a handheld are in a whole different market category than games on a console, and both exclude random little flash games on the Internet. If you’re getting a console game, then you’re going for an immersive experience that high definition graphics and a bigger screen can bring, and no handheld or Internet can satisfy that kind of need.

This is why I’d rather to see them focusing their strengths more on developing new business models than considering the option of making tiny little games for iphones or websites. I certainly wouldn’t mind more competition for console/PC blockbusters, as this would mean higher chance for us to see awesome games that blow minds away, instead of petty games that we waste time on because we’ve got nothing better to do.

OnLive was pretty big in the news last week. It claims to be able to have people play console/PC-quality games over the Internet. Now if they’re able to do all those calculation-intensive tasks like rendering graphics or collision detection reliably over the convoluted protocols that define the Internet, whatever technology they’re using might be applicable to MMORPGs to push them up a tech level. OnLive would have to be able to respond and do lots of calculations while maintaining real-time responses for the users. MMORPGs, on the other hand, don’t have to be as calculation intensive per game instance (no need for graphics processing, for one), but it has many game instances, so maybe it balances out.

Whatever happens, I will continue to hope for awesome super immersive blockbuster games for consoles and PCs, and I will continue to hope for technological breakthroughs in MMORPGs.