Berkshire Hathaway Inc owner Warren Buffett doesn't quite know what to do with his 46.7 billion dollars, reported by Reuters today. Well I didn't know before that British based ScottishPower actually owned US based PacifiCorp. Now it seems the tables have turned, with the $ 5.1 G sac, PacifiCorp child MidAmerican Energy already owns CE Electric UK. It's a very strange concept to me for a billionaire from one country to be able to turn off another country's lights.
The Washington Post says that the US Senate 's committee of compromise has come to allow filibustering on some judicial nominees (William G. Myers III of Idaho and Henry Saad of Michigan ) , but not others (Owen, of Texas, Brown, of California, and Pryor, of Alabama).
Senate Majority Leader Frist from Tennessee has said that this is a mix of "some good news, and it has some disappointing news." No kidding. Some people are just never happy with the monopoly their political party has; they just have to prevent the other side from doing something about it as well.
The senate Minority Leader, Reid from Nevada, speaks of the vote to ban filibustering of judicial nominee selection, "Abuse of power will not be tolerated, and attempts to trample the Constitution and grab absolute control are over. We are a separate and equal branch of government. That is our Founding Fathers' vision, and one we hold dear." The point raised here is about the apparent take over of the government. The Bush Administration is attempting to gain complete control, using its majority in the Senate to pave over the minority, and at the same time trying to secure convenient appellate judicial positions. Granted, the GOP is acting naturally, spreading as far as possible until the other side says stop.
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
What to do with money and judicial nominations scuffle
Monday, May 23, 2005
Thursday, May 19, 2005
Steve Ballmer's predictions from last Thursday
Softpedia news posted a brief about MSoft CEO S Ballmer's predictions for the future. It mentions that search tools will be an essential part of the "totally different" computing systems that we will see half a decade from now. Next it is mentioned that Google will meet its demise near this time. If search will be so important, then why would a company that thrives on the technology be ousted? This online news may just be paraphrasing with some mistakes.
I do see a sense in Ballmer's argument that , "the hottest company right now -- the one nobody thinks can do any wrong -- may just be a one-hit wonder" (Business Week). Though I think Google is too versatile to be marked temporary, it may be true that the hotspot search technology bubble will burst. Did the online businesses of only a few years ago pop because of fatal trends or wwere there sudden events that dramatically pulled the curtains shut? Now we have many online stores, but they are of a different flavor and are often not small scale.
Today's online markets are branded with daily evolving user demand, in the form of ebay-style direct user-buy-sell transactions--immitated by Amazon and B&N within their online stores. But online stores are often offshoots of larger scale enterprises. You will find products at MSN, but I would assert that this company makes its money in many other areas. Broader, nonauction types sustain themselves by large connected queried networks. Froogle will connect you to cached deals from among items priced all over, spanning a dozen online stores. Even specialty, say, computer supply CompUSA or office supply Staples products online divisions will be searched through Yahoo. Stores do not exist by themselves, but reach us through query chains and adspace.
Google has found a way of supporting itself without posting annoying ads: they post ads that aren't annoying, and lots of them. Not only that, but any internet site can make money off of Google AdWords, advertising without as much eye hassle, while silently supplying el Goog from behind. This company will very likely sustain itself into the future years, especially if other businesses make the money for it, and offering its services for free to keep its users.
Sunday, May 08, 2005
On the essence of being tired; work ethic
I can usually put it off, informally expressing that I would not. There are too many other delays and interruptions breaking apart my work capacity. By Gladwell's Law of the Few (check out The Tipping Point), I can all too well accept that the majority of the work I do can be concentrated at the tip of a work cycle, a work cycle for this paper I have, for example. Take an off-the-shelf human: the evolution that led to the genetics of this human was generously accumulated at the very end of the Earth's total time-in-existance, according to some accounts. The majority of this time was used to set up the conditions to provoke life. In the same way, the majority of my week will likely contain scattered intentions and sub-efforts but be bland without meaningful work-ful-ness.
What am I doing now? You guessed it, avoiding work.
Can we challenge our undesired ineffective states? Cold water to the face will be temporary. Cold air to the face will last longer. Cold walks to the feet will be most use-procuring, but will require hunger-neutralization.
Another offer of a solution is the power nap. Has anyone been able to make 15 minutes to work effectively? This is recommended to the drowsy on the road to avoid sleep related accidents, but day delirium usually multiplies fifteen minutes a few times, leaving you ever-many-minutes-fallen-asleep and even more tired, because excess sleep inspires a continuation of unconsciousness.
Laters.
Thursday, May 05, 2005
Google, Gates, the power struggle
fortune.com has a recent article, "GATES VS. GOOGLE", where columnist Fred Vogelstein writes that Google "has morphed into a software company and is emerging as a major threat to Microsoft's dominance." Microsoft herein has to assert itself as the influential giant entity that it is.
Among my friends at my engineering-dominated university, Poly, Google has become a hot commodity. We don't realize it now that practically anyone with a computer and a connection can get a gmail account, but several months ago when it came out, it was hardly mainstream. The social engineers at Google found that they could build popularity in their product by simply making it unreachable. Even by then Google was the only search engine you would cite if you wished a peer to appreciate that 'yes, you too were tech savvy.' And the creators of Windows have to put up with this.
Myself in the business of looking for a job, I would like to extend an appreciation for this high up power struggle. In the words of Tyler Durden, "We're the middle children of history, man--no purpose or place. We have no great war. No great depression. Our great war's a spiritual war. Our great depression is our lives. " (grabbed here) But now, our great war is in front of us, being staged on a net bigger than Spidey can cook up. And Google is able to battle without requiring the users that make it popular to pay up. Microsoft does have a $40 billion revenue, but this is "thanks to its core Windows, Office, and server products", as mentioned in the former article.
Google Ads has tapped into the web advertising industry, much more like public television broadcasters tap media providers for money for airtime.
Let's just appreciate what we are part of, and hope that some of us will be lucky enough to really participate on the front lines on staff. Hey, if Microsoft is now second best, it just makes it slightly easier to jump on the production team that is still one of the world's highest grossing. In the tech locker rooms in universities and internet lounges, you can still give the softies verbal downplay for their sub par [free] products, but you can't deny that they still have been extremely successful. But will Google top that market share arse?
