Icon amphibious aircraft featured in Neiman Marcus catalog
Kirk Hawkins, the founder of Icon, described the Icon A-5, a two-seater amphibious aircraft that is featured in the Neiman Marcus catalog this year. The aircraft features retractable wings and sells for a base price of $139,000. CNBC (10/15)
martes, 20 de octubre de 2009
busco universdades en las que México ofrece becas
El buscar universdades en las que México ofrece becas no es la mejor manera de lograr el propósito de una educación de excelencia.
Hay miles de oportunidades de financiar sus estudios: OEA, Fullbright, Marshall Plan, etc. Y todas las universidades tienen sus propios planes de apoyo financiero para estudiantes QUE SE LO MERECEN.
El Prez B. Obama es un ejemplo que todos conocen: ni el ni su familia tenian el dinero que cuesta Columbia University, donde hizo su Bachillors, Ni el dinero que costaron sus 3 años de Leyes en Harvard. Pero era muy buen estudiante...
Así que para lograr apoyo hay que ser buen estudiante...pero no solo en NOTAS, sino en actividades CÍVICAS o deportes. Y luego hay que ser admitido por una universidad de excelencia. Una vez admitido, la universidad y todo su aparato de fomento ayudara al financiamiento...
Una de mis leyes dice: nadie deja de estudiar por falta de dinero, deja de estudiar por falta de empeño!
Demuestren me que es errónea mi ley! Pero con hechos...no por lo que dicen...
Solo de los valientes es el mundo- no de los que NO se atreven...
Hay miles de oportunidades de financiar sus estudios: OEA, Fullbright, Marshall Plan, etc. Y todas las universidades tienen sus propios planes de apoyo financiero para estudiantes QUE SE LO MERECEN.
El Prez B. Obama es un ejemplo que todos conocen: ni el ni su familia tenian el dinero que cuesta Columbia University, donde hizo su Bachillors, Ni el dinero que costaron sus 3 años de Leyes en Harvard. Pero era muy buen estudiante...
Así que para lograr apoyo hay que ser buen estudiante...pero no solo en NOTAS, sino en actividades CÍVICAS o deportes. Y luego hay que ser admitido por una universidad de excelencia. Una vez admitido, la universidad y todo su aparato de fomento ayudara al financiamiento...
Una de mis leyes dice: nadie deja de estudiar por falta de dinero, deja de estudiar por falta de empeño!
Demuestren me que es errónea mi ley! Pero con hechos...no por lo que dicen...
Solo de los valientes es el mundo- no de los que NO se atreven...
paper batteries? Yes!
A battery made from cellulose Paperweight Oct 14th 2009 From Economist.com
A lightweight battery that could be used to identify and track objects
Shutterstock The raw material
MANY an engineer has dreamed of making a battery as light, thin and flexible as paper. Such a device would dramatically trim the weight and dimensions of whatever it powered. Now Albert Mihranyan of Uppsala University in Sweden and his colleagues have built a battery that is, in essence, made of paper. It is lightweight and slim, and although still unsuitable for everyday use, could be employed to trace products supplied to shops or baggage passing through airports.
Batteries work by electrochemistry. Each contains two electrodes (an anode and a cathode) immersed in an electrolyte. A lithium-ion battery, the sort that powers mobile phones and laptop computers, typically has an anode made of carbon, a cathode made of lithium cobalt oxide and an electrolyte of a lithium salt in an organic solvent. When the battery is being charged, electrons are pumped into the cathode. That forces lithium ions to move away from it and into the anode. When the battery is being used, drawing the current pulls the lithium ions out of the anode and back to the cathode.
The device developed by Dr Mihranyan and his colleagues, which they describe in NanoLetters, is based on cellulose—the material from which paper is made. This is not any old cellulose, though. It is extracted not from trees or cotton, as the cellulose used in paper is, but from algae. Dr Mihranyan used algal cellulose because its fibres are wispier. That gives it a greater surface area and thus allows it to store more electric charge.
Cellulose does not, however, conduct electricity, so Dr Mihranyan needed to coat it with a substance that does. He chose a polymer called a polypyrrole which, soaked into the algal cellulose, produced a combination that conducted electricity well. He then fashioned the anode and cathode of his battery from the stuff. For the electrolyte, he used filter paper soaked in brine.
The battery thus consisted of this brine-soaked filter paper sandwiched between two cellulose electrodes that were, in turn, held between two glass slides. Platinum strips attached to the electrodes provided electrical contacts to the outside world. The electrical energy itself was stored and released by chemical changes in the polypyrrole. This molecule can exist in two forms, known technically as “oxidised” and “reduced”, and a current will flow between the two when they are part of a circuit. The result was a one-volt battery that could be charged in seconds—and charged and discharged 100 times without serious loss of performance.
Dr Mihranyan is now seeking to commercialise the technology. Although algal batteries cannot replace lithium-ion ones, because they are only about a third as efficient, they could be used for niche applications. That might include luggage tags containing small radios that broadcast their location to baggage handlers. “Smart” packaging materials such as cereal boxes that include electronic displays are another possibility.
In addition, other researchers have recently made paper-based transistors. Dr Mihranyan’s battery could power electronics based on these. That would represent a neat reversal of the idea that technology will lead inevitably to the paperless office.
A lightweight battery that could be used to identify and track objects
Shutterstock The raw material
MANY an engineer has dreamed of making a battery as light, thin and flexible as paper. Such a device would dramatically trim the weight and dimensions of whatever it powered. Now Albert Mihranyan of Uppsala University in Sweden and his colleagues have built a battery that is, in essence, made of paper. It is lightweight and slim, and although still unsuitable for everyday use, could be employed to trace products supplied to shops or baggage passing through airports.
Batteries work by electrochemistry. Each contains two electrodes (an anode and a cathode) immersed in an electrolyte. A lithium-ion battery, the sort that powers mobile phones and laptop computers, typically has an anode made of carbon, a cathode made of lithium cobalt oxide and an electrolyte of a lithium salt in an organic solvent. When the battery is being charged, electrons are pumped into the cathode. That forces lithium ions to move away from it and into the anode. When the battery is being used, drawing the current pulls the lithium ions out of the anode and back to the cathode.
The device developed by Dr Mihranyan and his colleagues, which they describe in NanoLetters, is based on cellulose—the material from which paper is made. This is not any old cellulose, though. It is extracted not from trees or cotton, as the cellulose used in paper is, but from algae. Dr Mihranyan used algal cellulose because its fibres are wispier. That gives it a greater surface area and thus allows it to store more electric charge.
Cellulose does not, however, conduct electricity, so Dr Mihranyan needed to coat it with a substance that does. He chose a polymer called a polypyrrole which, soaked into the algal cellulose, produced a combination that conducted electricity well. He then fashioned the anode and cathode of his battery from the stuff. For the electrolyte, he used filter paper soaked in brine.
The battery thus consisted of this brine-soaked filter paper sandwiched between two cellulose electrodes that were, in turn, held between two glass slides. Platinum strips attached to the electrodes provided electrical contacts to the outside world. The electrical energy itself was stored and released by chemical changes in the polypyrrole. This molecule can exist in two forms, known technically as “oxidised” and “reduced”, and a current will flow between the two when they are part of a circuit. The result was a one-volt battery that could be charged in seconds—and charged and discharged 100 times without serious loss of performance.
Dr Mihranyan is now seeking to commercialise the technology. Although algal batteries cannot replace lithium-ion ones, because they are only about a third as efficient, they could be used for niche applications. That might include luggage tags containing small radios that broadcast their location to baggage handlers. “Smart” packaging materials such as cereal boxes that include electronic displays are another possibility.
In addition, other researchers have recently made paper-based transistors. Dr Mihranyan’s battery could power electronics based on these. That would represent a neat reversal of the idea that technology will lead inevitably to the paperless office.
Prize - many pay more
The cash value of awards Prize money Oct 13th 2009 From Economist.com
How much do big awards pay?
THE Nobel prizes are probably the best-known of the many annual awards for excellence in a particular field. They offer great prestige and a sizeable cash reward, paying around $1.4m to the winner. Other awards deliver more money, however. The Ibrahim prize rewards African leaders for governing well with $5m over ten years, and another $200,000 each year thereafter. The X Prize, offered in a number of categories, is even more valuable but is handed out for one-off achievements. Writers and thinkers wanting to supplement their bank accounts handsomely may wish to turn to spirituality or a Spanish-language novel ( Planeta ) rather than journalism.
Shutterstock
Readers' comments
How much do big awards pay?
THE Nobel prizes are probably the best-known of the many annual awards for excellence in a particular field. They offer great prestige and a sizeable cash reward, paying around $1.4m to the winner. Other awards deliver more money, however. The Ibrahim prize rewards African leaders for governing well with $5m over ten years, and another $200,000 each year thereafter. The X Prize, offered in a number of categories, is even more valuable but is handed out for one-off achievements. Writers and thinkers wanting to supplement their bank accounts handsomely may wish to turn to spirituality or a Spanish-language novel ( Planeta ) rather than journalism.
Shutterstock
Readers' comments
International view of Mexico
Business.view Down Mexico Oct 13th 2009 From Economist.com
Brazil-envy is rife in Latin America’s other big economy
WHEN Brazil was not only included but named first among the BRICs, the widely used acronym for the leading emerging economies, Mexican business leaders protested that their country should also have been there. Well, maybe. But adding an "M" to the initial letters of Brazil, Russia, India and China would have made the name much less catchy (MBRICs? BRIMCs?). And the man who coined the acronym in 2001, Jim O’Neill of Goldman Sachs, has said that Mexico (along with South Korea) was in fact considered, but did not quite fit.
Mexico’s Brazil-envy is more intense than ever, as this columnist discovered last week in Mexico City. One local business leader said he was optimistic about the economic outlook, but that was because “I choose to be, because I don’t want the alternative—and, besides, next year can’t be any worse than this, can it?” Others mostly seemed worried, predicting several difficult years ahead.
Alamy
A lament for Mexico
The Mexican economy was hit hard by the slump that followed the collapse of Lehman Brothers last year. Brazil’s economy suffered much less—and is already roaring back, in sharp contrast to Mexico’s. This is symbolised by the strength of Brazil’s stockmarket. Last week Santander, a Spanish bank, raised $7 billion by selling shares in its Brazilian subsidiary, the biggest share offering the country has seen. In June the initial public offering (IPO) of Visanet, a Brazilian credit-card firm, raised almost $5 billion, and there are several other big local offerings in the pipeline. By contrast, the most recent IPO in Mexico was in June 2008.
Part of the problem is that Mexico, especially since the creation of the North American Free-Trade Area, has increasingly specialised in making things cheaply for export to America, a strategy that looks less than brilliant now that the American consumer is on strike. Meanwhile, commodity-rich Brazil is benefiting from exporting to China, which has made up for weaker exports to America with a domestic spending binge which, among other things, requires lots of imported materials to build new infrastructure.
But that is by no means the only difference between the two economies. Mexico has lately been plagued by some serious management gaffes. Cemex, a cement firm that was not so long ago an exemplar of the trend for world-beating multinationals to emerge from developing economies, is suffering serious indigestion after borrowing heavily to make foreign acquisitions at the peak of the market.
Comercial Mexicana, the country’s third-largest retailer, lost a fortune after a currency hedge moved against it when the dollar soared during the financial crisis. This presented an opportunity to Wal-Mart, an American retailer which is the market leader in Mexico. It has taken advantage of its rival’s weakness by expanding rapidly, opening a couple of hundred new stores in the country this year. The only other business with such ambition in Mexico at the moment is the empire of Carlos Slim, a telecoms magnate, which has also been busy expanding during the crisis. More success for the powerful Mr Slim—now perhaps the richest man on earth—is regarded even by Mexicans as something of a mixed blessing.
Mexican business people are also depressed by growing fears for their own security. Violence is increasing in the country as the government takes on the illegal drug cartels, prompting them to retaliate brutally. Mexico is now close to the top of the list of countries where kidnapping is likely. Crime in Brazil’s cities is also bad, but it does not seem to be getting notably worse.
Pemex continues to decline as Brazil's oil reserves, and its state oil firm, Petrobras, soar
In the eyes of business leaders the government’s lack of success against organised crime is on a par with its failure to reform the economy. Although some business people are content that the Mexican economy is dominated by a small, powerful clique, many feel that the lack of competition is a serious problem. Many also lament the failure to reform the sluggish state oil and gas monopoly, Pemex, which continues to decline as Brazil’s reserves, and its state oil firm, Petrobras, soar. Just as worrying is the slow progress in revamping the tax system. Mexico has one of the world’s lowest ratios of tax collection to GDP, which deprives the government of the funds it needs to do its job properly.
Brazilian entrepreneurs found that President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and his Workers’ Party were much less hostile towards business in office than in opposition. Lula’s most likely successor in next year’s election is an experienced figure from the business-friendly Social Democrats, who in their last stint in the presidency passed vital reforms that laid the foundations for Brazil’s recent strong growth.
In Mexico, judging by the mood at last week’s Economist conference in Mexico City, President Felipe Calderón may frustrate the business community, yet business leaders have little enthusiasm for the favourite to succeed him, the soap-star-dating governor of Mexico State, Enrique Peña Nieto. Still, at least they take some comfort from the fact that the hard left’s candidate, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, who so nearly defeated Mr Calderón for the presidency three years ago, is lagging in the polls.
Mexican business leaders fear that their president, following his party’s heavy defeat in recent parliamentary elections, may see out his remaining three years as a lame duck. The one hope is that, seeing how bad things look, Mr Calderón may be provoked into embarking upon the fundamental reforms that the economy so badly needs. In that light, what could be more encouraging than the government’s decision on October 12th to take on one of Mexico’s most powerful unions by closing down a big, state-run electricity provider? If this battle is won, perhaps Mexican business people can start believing that their country has what it takes to become more competitive and powerful than its big rival down south. If not, plenty more gloom and doom are likely to follow.
Brazil-envy is rife in Latin America’s other big economy
WHEN Brazil was not only included but named first among the BRICs, the widely used acronym for the leading emerging economies, Mexican business leaders protested that their country should also have been there. Well, maybe. But adding an "M" to the initial letters of Brazil, Russia, India and China would have made the name much less catchy (MBRICs? BRIMCs?). And the man who coined the acronym in 2001, Jim O’Neill of Goldman Sachs, has said that Mexico (along with South Korea) was in fact considered, but did not quite fit.
Mexico’s Brazil-envy is more intense than ever, as this columnist discovered last week in Mexico City. One local business leader said he was optimistic about the economic outlook, but that was because “I choose to be, because I don’t want the alternative—and, besides, next year can’t be any worse than this, can it?” Others mostly seemed worried, predicting several difficult years ahead.
Alamy
A lament for Mexico
The Mexican economy was hit hard by the slump that followed the collapse of Lehman Brothers last year. Brazil’s economy suffered much less—and is already roaring back, in sharp contrast to Mexico’s. This is symbolised by the strength of Brazil’s stockmarket. Last week Santander, a Spanish bank, raised $7 billion by selling shares in its Brazilian subsidiary, the biggest share offering the country has seen. In June the initial public offering (IPO) of Visanet, a Brazilian credit-card firm, raised almost $5 billion, and there are several other big local offerings in the pipeline. By contrast, the most recent IPO in Mexico was in June 2008.
Part of the problem is that Mexico, especially since the creation of the North American Free-Trade Area, has increasingly specialised in making things cheaply for export to America, a strategy that looks less than brilliant now that the American consumer is on strike. Meanwhile, commodity-rich Brazil is benefiting from exporting to China, which has made up for weaker exports to America with a domestic spending binge which, among other things, requires lots of imported materials to build new infrastructure.
But that is by no means the only difference between the two economies. Mexico has lately been plagued by some serious management gaffes. Cemex, a cement firm that was not so long ago an exemplar of the trend for world-beating multinationals to emerge from developing economies, is suffering serious indigestion after borrowing heavily to make foreign acquisitions at the peak of the market.
Comercial Mexicana, the country’s third-largest retailer, lost a fortune after a currency hedge moved against it when the dollar soared during the financial crisis. This presented an opportunity to Wal-Mart, an American retailer which is the market leader in Mexico. It has taken advantage of its rival’s weakness by expanding rapidly, opening a couple of hundred new stores in the country this year. The only other business with such ambition in Mexico at the moment is the empire of Carlos Slim, a telecoms magnate, which has also been busy expanding during the crisis. More success for the powerful Mr Slim—now perhaps the richest man on earth—is regarded even by Mexicans as something of a mixed blessing.
Mexican business people are also depressed by growing fears for their own security. Violence is increasing in the country as the government takes on the illegal drug cartels, prompting them to retaliate brutally. Mexico is now close to the top of the list of countries where kidnapping is likely. Crime in Brazil’s cities is also bad, but it does not seem to be getting notably worse.
Pemex continues to decline as Brazil's oil reserves, and its state oil firm, Petrobras, soar
In the eyes of business leaders the government’s lack of success against organised crime is on a par with its failure to reform the economy. Although some business people are content that the Mexican economy is dominated by a small, powerful clique, many feel that the lack of competition is a serious problem. Many also lament the failure to reform the sluggish state oil and gas monopoly, Pemex, which continues to decline as Brazil’s reserves, and its state oil firm, Petrobras, soar. Just as worrying is the slow progress in revamping the tax system. Mexico has one of the world’s lowest ratios of tax collection to GDP, which deprives the government of the funds it needs to do its job properly.
Brazilian entrepreneurs found that President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and his Workers’ Party were much less hostile towards business in office than in opposition. Lula’s most likely successor in next year’s election is an experienced figure from the business-friendly Social Democrats, who in their last stint in the presidency passed vital reforms that laid the foundations for Brazil’s recent strong growth.
In Mexico, judging by the mood at last week’s Economist conference in Mexico City, President Felipe Calderón may frustrate the business community, yet business leaders have little enthusiasm for the favourite to succeed him, the soap-star-dating governor of Mexico State, Enrique Peña Nieto. Still, at least they take some comfort from the fact that the hard left’s candidate, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, who so nearly defeated Mr Calderón for the presidency three years ago, is lagging in the polls.
Mexican business leaders fear that their president, following his party’s heavy defeat in recent parliamentary elections, may see out his remaining three years as a lame duck. The one hope is that, seeing how bad things look, Mr Calderón may be provoked into embarking upon the fundamental reforms that the economy so badly needs. In that light, what could be more encouraging than the government’s decision on October 12th to take on one of Mexico’s most powerful unions by closing down a big, state-run electricity provider? If this battle is won, perhaps Mexican business people can start believing that their country has what it takes to become more competitive and powerful than its big rival down south. If not, plenty more gloom and doom are likely to follow.
domingo, 18 de octubre de 2009
Battle of the clouds Computing
Computing
Battle of the clouds Oct 15th 2009 From The Economist print edition
The fight to dominate cloud computing will increase competition and innovation
THERE is nothing the computer industry likes better than a big new idea—followed by a big fight, as different firms compete to exploit it. “Cloud computing” is the latest example, and companies large and small are already joining the fray. The idea is that computing will increasingly be delivered as a service, over the internet, from vast warehouses of shared machines. Documents, e-mails and other data will be stored online, or “in the cloud”, making them accessible from any PC or mobile device. Many things work this way already, from e-mail and photo albums to calendars and shared documents.
This represents a big shift. If you store more and more things online, and access more and more software through an ordinary web browser, it suddenly matters much less what sort of computer you have, and what kind of software it is running. This means Microsoft, which launches the newest version of its Windows operating system this month, could lose out—unless, that is, the software giant can encourage software developers and users to migrate to its new suite of cloud-based services. Its main rival is Google, which offers its own range of such services, and continues to launch new ones and interlink them more closely. Yahoo!, which is allied with Microsoft, and Apple also offer cloud services for consumers; specialists such as Salesforce and NetSuite do the same for companies. Amazon has pioneered the renting out of cloud-based computing capacity. Some firms will offer large, integrated suites of cloud-based services; others will specialise in particular areas, or provide the technical underpinnings necessary to build and run clouds.
But battle has been joined
Life among the clouds
The new approach has great promise. It makes life easier for consumers (no need to install any software) and cheaper, too: many cloud services are free, supported by advertising or subsidised by a minority of users who pay for a premium service. Using a cloud-based e-mail service means you do not have to worry about losing all your e-mail if your laptop dies, and you can access your mail from any web browser. As cloud services expand, the same will be true for other documents and data.
There are also benefits for companies. By switching to cloud-based e-mail, accounting and customer-tracking systems, firms can reduce complexity and maintenance costs, because everything runs inside a web browser. Providers of cloud services, meanwhile, can benefit from economies of scale. Why should every company or university set up and maintain its own mail server, when Google or Microsoft can do it more efficiently? Companies are already happy to rely on utilities to provide electrical power, after all. Cloud computing will do the same for computing power.
The ability to summon computing capacity from the cloud when needed will also give the software industry a shot in the arm. During the dotcom boom, the first thing a start-up had to do was raise the money to buy a room full of servers. If a website experienced a sudden surge in popularity, more servers were needed to meet demand. Today a capacity can be rented as needed, allowing cloud services to scale up smoothly. This lowers barriers to entry and promotes innovation and competition. It also presents an opportunity to Microsoft, Amazon and other companies that are hoping to create the cloud platforms on which other firms will offer services.
To anyone familiar with the history of computing, there is an obvious concern: that one company will establish a dominant position and attract the attention of antitrust regulators. What IBM did in the mainframe era, and Microsoft did in the PC era, one of the new challengers may succeed in doing in the cloud.
Regulators are already acting to head off incipient problems. They are signalling worries about, for instance, overlapping board members at Apple and Google, or the indefinite retention of search histories by search engines. So far none of these skirmishes has led to a big court battle—something technology firms, which are keenly aware of the industry’s history, are anxious to avoid. But there are three areas where users of cloud services should be vigilant, and providers must be responsive, or regulators may yet step in.
A storm brewing?
First is the familiar risk of technological lock-in, as rival companies promote their own, mutually incompatible, standards and formats, as they have done in the past. Moving data from one cloud-based storage system to another, for example, is not always easy. Buyers of cloud services must take account of the dangers of lock-in, and favour service providers who allow them to switch between services without too much hassle.
Second, storing so much personal information, and using it to target advertising, has privacy implications. Consumers who are unwilling to pay for cloud-based services will have to put up with some advertising based on their online activities, since it pays the bills. Most users will be happy to trade some privacy for free services, but they should have control over their personal data, and be able to amend the profiles which service-providers compile and use to target advertising.
Third, data stored in the cloud may not be safe. This month tens of thousands of people with Sidekick smart-phones, for example, lost their address books, calendars, photo albums and other personal data, all of which were being stored in the cloud by Danger, an aptly named subsidiary of Microsoft. But a disaster on this scale is unusual: occasional outages are more common. Ensuring that cloud-based systems become more reliable is in the best interests of the firms that provide them, if they want to attract and retain customers.
Prodded by users and regulators, providers of cloud services are gradually moving towards new standards and greater transparency and reliability. If they do not move fast enough, regulators may yet have to intervene more forcefully. But cloud computing’s advantages already outweigh its drawbacks for many consumers and business users. In contrast with previous computer-industry battles, a single victor seems unlikely this time around. May the best clouds win.
Battle of the clouds Oct 15th 2009 From The Economist print edition
The fight to dominate cloud computing will increase competition and innovation
THERE is nothing the computer industry likes better than a big new idea—followed by a big fight, as different firms compete to exploit it. “Cloud computing” is the latest example, and companies large and small are already joining the fray. The idea is that computing will increasingly be delivered as a service, over the internet, from vast warehouses of shared machines. Documents, e-mails and other data will be stored online, or “in the cloud”, making them accessible from any PC or mobile device. Many things work this way already, from e-mail and photo albums to calendars and shared documents.
This represents a big shift. If you store more and more things online, and access more and more software through an ordinary web browser, it suddenly matters much less what sort of computer you have, and what kind of software it is running. This means Microsoft, which launches the newest version of its Windows operating system this month, could lose out—unless, that is, the software giant can encourage software developers and users to migrate to its new suite of cloud-based services. Its main rival is Google, which offers its own range of such services, and continues to launch new ones and interlink them more closely. Yahoo!, which is allied with Microsoft, and Apple also offer cloud services for consumers; specialists such as Salesforce and NetSuite do the same for companies. Amazon has pioneered the renting out of cloud-based computing capacity. Some firms will offer large, integrated suites of cloud-based services; others will specialise in particular areas, or provide the technical underpinnings necessary to build and run clouds.
But battle has been joined
Life among the clouds
The new approach has great promise. It makes life easier for consumers (no need to install any software) and cheaper, too: many cloud services are free, supported by advertising or subsidised by a minority of users who pay for a premium service. Using a cloud-based e-mail service means you do not have to worry about losing all your e-mail if your laptop dies, and you can access your mail from any web browser. As cloud services expand, the same will be true for other documents and data.
There are also benefits for companies. By switching to cloud-based e-mail, accounting and customer-tracking systems, firms can reduce complexity and maintenance costs, because everything runs inside a web browser. Providers of cloud services, meanwhile, can benefit from economies of scale. Why should every company or university set up and maintain its own mail server, when Google or Microsoft can do it more efficiently? Companies are already happy to rely on utilities to provide electrical power, after all. Cloud computing will do the same for computing power.
The ability to summon computing capacity from the cloud when needed will also give the software industry a shot in the arm. During the dotcom boom, the first thing a start-up had to do was raise the money to buy a room full of servers. If a website experienced a sudden surge in popularity, more servers were needed to meet demand. Today a capacity can be rented as needed, allowing cloud services to scale up smoothly. This lowers barriers to entry and promotes innovation and competition. It also presents an opportunity to Microsoft, Amazon and other companies that are hoping to create the cloud platforms on which other firms will offer services.
To anyone familiar with the history of computing, there is an obvious concern: that one company will establish a dominant position and attract the attention of antitrust regulators. What IBM did in the mainframe era, and Microsoft did in the PC era, one of the new challengers may succeed in doing in the cloud.
Regulators are already acting to head off incipient problems. They are signalling worries about, for instance, overlapping board members at Apple and Google, or the indefinite retention of search histories by search engines. So far none of these skirmishes has led to a big court battle—something technology firms, which are keenly aware of the industry’s history, are anxious to avoid. But there are three areas where users of cloud services should be vigilant, and providers must be responsive, or regulators may yet step in.
A storm brewing?
First is the familiar risk of technological lock-in, as rival companies promote their own, mutually incompatible, standards and formats, as they have done in the past. Moving data from one cloud-based storage system to another, for example, is not always easy. Buyers of cloud services must take account of the dangers of lock-in, and favour service providers who allow them to switch between services without too much hassle.
Second, storing so much personal information, and using it to target advertising, has privacy implications. Consumers who are unwilling to pay for cloud-based services will have to put up with some advertising based on their online activities, since it pays the bills. Most users will be happy to trade some privacy for free services, but they should have control over their personal data, and be able to amend the profiles which service-providers compile and use to target advertising.
Third, data stored in the cloud may not be safe. This month tens of thousands of people with Sidekick smart-phones, for example, lost their address books, calendars, photo albums and other personal data, all of which were being stored in the cloud by Danger, an aptly named subsidiary of Microsoft. But a disaster on this scale is unusual: occasional outages are more common. Ensuring that cloud-based systems become more reliable is in the best interests of the firms that provide them, if they want to attract and retain customers.
Prodded by users and regulators, providers of cloud services are gradually moving towards new standards and greater transparency and reliability. If they do not move fast enough, regulators may yet have to intervene more forcefully. But cloud computing’s advantages already outweigh its drawbacks for many consumers and business users. In contrast with previous computer-industry battles, a single victor seems unlikely this time around. May the best clouds win.
lunes, 12 de octubre de 2009
México tiene 500. Y defiende Proteccionismo.
Apreciado lector.
2 consideraciones para que Ud. tenga temas para su tópico a discutir entre los muchos del día:
1- India, la democracia más grande del mundo y con una población de por lo menos 10 veces la de México tiene un congreso de poco más de 500 representantes. México tiene 500,200 por elección popular y 300 por partidos. Poquísimos de los 500 expresan opiniones propias, sino que votan por líneas partidistas. Hacen pues falta 500 ?
2- Leo y oigo cada vez más que México debe de comprar, consumir y proteger lo Mexicano. Proteccionismo le sale muy caro al consumidor- no importa en que país viva. Además ningún país puede ser autosuficiente. Para tener una buena cosecha de maíz, México necesita fertilizantes y herbicidas que no se fabrican aquí. Y ¿ que haría México si no podría vender su petróleo?
Comenten me, después de leer a los mercantilistas y su desastres, A. Smith, D. Ricardo, y que es lo causo la 2ª guerra mundial en 1939. M. Kaynes escribió sobre ello y otros también.
2 consideraciones para que Ud. tenga temas para su tópico a discutir entre los muchos del día:
1- India, la democracia más grande del mundo y con una población de por lo menos 10 veces la de México tiene un congreso de poco más de 500 representantes. México tiene 500,200 por elección popular y 300 por partidos. Poquísimos de los 500 expresan opiniones propias, sino que votan por líneas partidistas. Hacen pues falta 500 ?
2- Leo y oigo cada vez más que México debe de comprar, consumir y proteger lo Mexicano. Proteccionismo le sale muy caro al consumidor- no importa en que país viva. Además ningún país puede ser autosuficiente. Para tener una buena cosecha de maíz, México necesita fertilizantes y herbicidas que no se fabrican aquí. Y ¿ que haría México si no podría vender su petróleo?
Comenten me, después de leer a los mercantilistas y su desastres, A. Smith, D. Ricardo, y que es lo causo la 2ª guerra mundial en 1939. M. Kaynes escribió sobre ello y otros también.
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)
Entradas
