"Internet Time" is the concept that time moves faster or events compress in time on the Internet much faster than they do in "real life." An interesting event occurred yesterday that brought this home: the YouTube domain was registered on February 15, 2005, making yesterday the third anniversary. In that time, YouTube was purchased by Google a year and a half later (October 16, 2006) for $1.65 Billion (which represented a capital appreciation of $6.8 Million PER DAY by the way); now serves more than 100 million videos per day; has changed the way police departments identify criminals (alleged criminals); has changed the way politicians communicate and are questioned in debates; and has become the 4th most visited Web site in the Internet.
That's hard to compete with using traditional business models.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Saturday, February 2, 2008
Alternative Energy--A Clash of Cultures?
As wind farms and solar farms sprout up around the world, there is an increasing chorus of complaint about the impact that whirling wind generator blades will have on birds, and about the impact that large areas covered with solar cells or solar concentration mirrors will have on animals. While it is a valid question that should be asked, those protesting this move to renewable energy seem to lose sight of a larger picture.
Sure, these installations will have some impact on birds and animals (let's not forget the little bugs either). However, continuing to rely on carbon-based fuels and continuing to spew hydrocarbons into the atmosphere will also have an impact on the birds and animals--and one of those animals is us.
Personally, I believe that propagating switchgrass across the mid-west is a great idea. It basically begins the process of reintroducing native plants back into the ecology, not to mention controlling erosion on marginal lands. It also offsets the dependence on corn for ethanol production which is a good thing considering that corn is a primary food source for the world. Introducing this one "crop" back into the ecology creates an improved environment for a variety of native mid-west animals and birds. That's not a bad thing.
Introducing wind farms and solar arrays offsets the need to generate energy through coal-powered plants, one of the most polluting machines in use today. Substituting birds who can't fly certain routes for birds who can't breath seems like a fair trade off.
Substituting electric power from solar for gas burning engines in cars seems like a fair trade off to me. I imagine that many of these same arguments went on when there was a move from horse power to steam power and then gas power. I'm sure the lantern fuel providers had a problem with the "environmental" impact of electric lights. The point is that any new technology has its advantages and disadvantages. The determiner of whether that new technology will be adopted depends on demand. If there is suitable demand, it survives and thrives. If it doesn't, it dies. Adam Smith's laws of economics are still valid.
The fact is that wind energy and solar energy are taking hold simply because the cost is rapidly approaching that of traditional energy production. The difference this time is that even the individual can get in on the action. That is, the individual land or homeowner can be a power generator--either by installing their own energy sources or though leasing a energy production capability.
I suspect that it is this individual control over energy production that is the real issue, not the environmental issues.
Sure, these installations will have some impact on birds and animals (let's not forget the little bugs either). However, continuing to rely on carbon-based fuels and continuing to spew hydrocarbons into the atmosphere will also have an impact on the birds and animals--and one of those animals is us.
Personally, I believe that propagating switchgrass across the mid-west is a great idea. It basically begins the process of reintroducing native plants back into the ecology, not to mention controlling erosion on marginal lands. It also offsets the dependence on corn for ethanol production which is a good thing considering that corn is a primary food source for the world. Introducing this one "crop" back into the ecology creates an improved environment for a variety of native mid-west animals and birds. That's not a bad thing.
Introducing wind farms and solar arrays offsets the need to generate energy through coal-powered plants, one of the most polluting machines in use today. Substituting birds who can't fly certain routes for birds who can't breath seems like a fair trade off.
Substituting electric power from solar for gas burning engines in cars seems like a fair trade off to me. I imagine that many of these same arguments went on when there was a move from horse power to steam power and then gas power. I'm sure the lantern fuel providers had a problem with the "environmental" impact of electric lights. The point is that any new technology has its advantages and disadvantages. The determiner of whether that new technology will be adopted depends on demand. If there is suitable demand, it survives and thrives. If it doesn't, it dies. Adam Smith's laws of economics are still valid.
The fact is that wind energy and solar energy are taking hold simply because the cost is rapidly approaching that of traditional energy production. The difference this time is that even the individual can get in on the action. That is, the individual land or homeowner can be a power generator--either by installing their own energy sources or though leasing a energy production capability.
I suspect that it is this individual control over energy production that is the real issue, not the environmental issues.
Friday, February 1, 2008
Security versus Privacy
I saw this quote in the "Good Morning Silicon Valley" newsletter and I found it interesting in light of the events that have occurred over the last eight years and the lasting impact that those events will have on the future. The quote is by security expert Bruce Schneier:
"We've been told we have to trade off security and privacy so often ... that most of us don't even question the fundamental dichotomy. But it's a false one. Security and privacy are not opposite ends of a seesaw; you don't have to accept less of one to get more of the other. ...
Since 9/11, approximately three things have potentially improved airline security: reinforcing the cockpit doors, passengers realizing they have to fight back and -- possibly -- sky marshals. Everything else -- all the security measures that affect privacy -- is just security theater and a waste of effort.
By the same token, many of the anti-privacy 'security' measures we're seeing -- national ID cards, warrantless eavesdropping, massive data mining and so on -- do little to improve, and in some cases harm, security. And government claims of their success are either wrong, or against fake threats.
The debate isn't security versus privacy. It's liberty versus control."
In this political season, his perspective is certainly food for thought.
"We've been told we have to trade off security and privacy so often ... that most of us don't even question the fundamental dichotomy. But it's a false one. Security and privacy are not opposite ends of a seesaw; you don't have to accept less of one to get more of the other. ...
Since 9/11, approximately three things have potentially improved airline security: reinforcing the cockpit doors, passengers realizing they have to fight back and -- possibly -- sky marshals. Everything else -- all the security measures that affect privacy -- is just security theater and a waste of effort.
By the same token, many of the anti-privacy 'security' measures we're seeing -- national ID cards, warrantless eavesdropping, massive data mining and so on -- do little to improve, and in some cases harm, security. And government claims of their success are either wrong, or against fake threats.
The debate isn't security versus privacy. It's liberty versus control."
In this political season, his perspective is certainly food for thought.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
