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.