A race against time

Global warming is now all but universally accepted by scientists, and even the public is starting to (slowly) come around to recognizing the crisis.  While many big corporations are spending millions of dollars denying climate change, trying to protect their profits from regulations that might limit their emissions, their efforts have not been entirely successful.  Extremist right-wing groups are trying to convince Americans that climate change is a scientific conspiracy trying to force people into accepting a "green lifestyle".  While this claim doesn't make a lot of sense, it still has a decent acceptance rate.

While scientists and environmentalists are begging people to take a stand against climate change and adopt a sustainable lifestyle, it would look like people aren't yet doing enough.  Global carbon dioxide emission levels this year increased 2.6% from last year, and 58% over 1900 levels.  While this is below the average increase since 2000, it is still considerably above the annual increase in the 1980s and 1990s.  Due to the rapid increase, scientists are now predicting that their earlier estimate of a 2C global temperature rise may have been too optimistic.  Worse, the rise is highest at the poles, which means that we're more likely to see large amounts of ice melt, raising the sea level.  For low-lying countries like Denmark and the Netherlands, this will be problematic indeed.

New evidence is suggesting that increasing global temperatures could have a much larger-than-expected impact on forests.  It has long been known that climate change, with droughts and higher temperatures, could have an unpleasant affect on plants, particularly those in challenging climates.  A new study has shown that many more tree species than expected are already operating on the brink of collapse, and that we will likely lose many of them to climate change in the coming years.

The vast majority of global warming comes from the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas).  These release great amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere--far more than can be easily absorbed by plants and re-stored.  Nuclear power would make an excellent solution to this--while it is not perfect, as there is the radioactive waste, the carbon output is extremely low.  However, poor public opinion makes this an unlikely path to prosperity.  Forward-thinking countries like Germany are embracing clean energy sources such as wind and solar--but such methods have little support here in the United States (and are widely regarded as too expensive in developing countries like China and India).

There have been some moves to use carbon sequestration technologies in order to lower the environmental impact of coal, but this is fundamentally not the right way to go about things.  While it is better for the environment than no such features, the benefit is relatively small and the cost high.  Fundamentally, there is no way to make coal a clean energy source--we need to move away from it as fast as possible.

The danger of climate change are real and considerable.  While it is not fully known what will happen when the planet warms, scientists realize that it will mean bigger and more frequent hurricanes, the extinction of some species, and the inundation of low-lying areas.  It is up to all of us to take steps to solve this before it is too late.

A need for change in the way we get internet access

On the surface, American internet access looks entirely tolerable.  At this point, it's not too hard to get a solid ten megabits/second download connection and a five hundred kilobits/second upload connection.  However, a broadband connection is expensive--frequently $50 a month, and coverage isn't great in rural areas.  Places like South Korea offer internet access that is faster and cheaper than what we get here--by enormous margins.  A high-speed internet connection in South Korea is about half the price that it is here.  Surprisingly, the average internet connection speed in Romania is higher than it is here!  Since 2009, access to a one-megabit internet connection has been considered a legal right in Finland, with a scheduled increase to a hundred-megabit connection by 2015.

Clearly, the United States is getting left in the dust.  With more and more Americans turning to cell networks for internet access both at home and on the go, we should be worried by the terrible ratings given to networks such as Verizon and AT&T.  Comcast is widely regarded as one of the worst companies to deal with in any industry, charging absurd prices, offering terrible customer support, and refusing to help deal with problems as they occur.  An increasing number of service providers are trying to install data caps, claiming that otherwise they won't be able to turn a profit.  One is forced to wonder why American providers would have to institute caps on their slower, more expensive, more unreliable networks when foreign networks do not, but I suspect that when one starts to probe this statement too deeply it starts to collapse.  Google Fiber could be the impetus that is needed for change.  While it is tragically available in only a very few markets right now, Google has some amazing deals: a gigabit connection for $70 a month or a 5 megabit connection for $25 a month for a year and then free for five years after that.  Furthermore, it comes with no data caps.  If only Google could expand coverage to more areas, the effect could be dramatic.

Why are things in such an unfortunate state?  Well, the biggest reason is that many service providers have effective monopolies in their areas.  Currently, there are two big conglomerates offering internet service: AT&T-DirectTV and Verizon-Bright House-Cox-Comcast-TimeWarner.  In large, part, the maps where these two conglomerations offer service don't overlap.  Consequently, many customers are stranded with access to only one company--either they have to pay unreasonable prices and deal with mediocre services or do without.  For example, TV, internet access, and phone service will, together, cost about $160 a month.  In France, all of that can be had for less than $40 a month, with far faster internet access and more countries covered in their free long-distance phone service.  While common sense would dictate that we need more regulation in order to break up these conglomerations and offer real competition and yearly improvements,  they have unfortunately been successful at convincing the government that they need less regulation.  Ultimately, what we need is more regulations governing how such companies can act and a break-up of the big ISPs into smaller more competitive companies.

The Successor to Windows 8

Microsoft may have jut released Windows 8 a month ago (33 days, in fact) but it's already hard-at-work on its successors.  Reactions to Windows 8 have not been excessively popular, with reviewers saying that it fails to improve on Windows 7 and OEMs saying that it isn't helping boost shipments as much as they expected (see a previous post of mine for more information).  Despite this, Windows 8 sales match early Windows 7 sales, with analysts saying that sales are "good if not great".  So far, about 40 million copies of Windows 8 have been sold.  In large part this is thanks to low-cost promotional offers, where Windows 8 could be scored for as little as $15 + tax.  Microsoft is hoping that initial customer fears can be overcome and Windows 8 will eventually be a big success.

Despite the recent release of Windows 8, Microsoft is forging ahead with a new operating system.  Likely to be called Windows 9, little to no information is available at this point.  However, Microsoft officials have confirmed that it is under way and that it will "just work".  Coming from the company that released Windows Vista and Windows 8, take that with a grain of salt.

Microsoft is also reportedly working on Windows Blue, which will be a low-cost (or perhaps even free!) version of Windows expected to be released in mid 2013.  This signals Microsoft's (attempted) transition to a yearly release cycle, as it attempts to compete with the likes of Google and Apple.  While Windows Blue will supposedly require a prior version of Windows to be eligible for installation, Microsoft seems to be counting on its low cost to lure in customers.  We'll see--if they ditch Metro and bring back the Start Menu I'd buy it.  Technology clearly changing in a big way, and this represents Microsoft's attempt to adapt to a world that is increasingly (and unfortunately) post-PC.

Amazing carbon fiber bridge

Carbon fiber has long held allure as the new super-material that could be used in building all sorts of new mechanical structures.  Carbon fiber is incredible stiff, very light, and can withstand remarkable tensile forces and high temperatures.  All of these factors make it highly sought-after for engineering projects--particularly where size and weight are a concern.  Projects that were simply impossible using steel can now be done with (relative) ease.

Now, companies are looking to use carbon fiber to build new bridges.  A carbon fiber arch tube can have incredible properties--such as a tube that is 43 feet long and 12 inches in diameter, yet only 200 pounds.  A mere fifteen of these are needed to support a medium-sized bridge--making the materials far more transportable than steel ever could be.

While the carbon fiber arches unfortunately can't be readily formed on-site, they are still easy to transport in and can usher in a new era in bridge design--completely different from anything that civil engineers have managed thus far.

Also amazing is a two-foot-long carbon-fiber and aluminum bridge made for a science competition with some incredible characteristics.  It weighed less than three pounds, yet was able to support nearly 9,000 pounds in added load.

The power of carbon fiber is truly nearly limitless.

"It's all downhill from here"

Things aren't looking too good for Apple Computer, the world's most profitable technology company.  On October 18th, Apple lost an appeal against Samsung over patents relating to the iPad (particularly, whether Samsung's Galaxy Tab infringed upon patents Apple holds for the iPad).  A UK judge ruled that Apple's lawsuit was unreasonable, and said that Apple would have to post an apology on their UK website for a minimum of six months.  Apple did post the apology as demanded, but did so in an obnoxious fashion (is anyone surprised?)

Now, the UK courts have said that what Apple did wasn't good enough.  Shortly their after, Apple was ordered to re-write the apology in a less condescending fashion.  They did this, but then went out of their way to hide the apology at the bottom of the website (cleverly employing re-sizing code so that, by default, it was always hidden).  Now, a UK judge has really gotten tired of Apple's nonsense, and has ordered Apple to pay a fine.  The judge described Apple's moves as "false and misleading" and ordered Apple to repay Samsung's legal costs.  Hopefully, this will be enough to get Apple to actually behave--although given it's August victory over Samsung in the United States, we can't be completely sure of this.

Beyond this British legal battle, there's still more trouble ahead.  Apple has agreed to pay a Swiss railway $21.05 million in compensation for stealing their clock design.  Apple stock is already down 22% from its peak this year after failing to meet investor forecasts.  High-up Apple figures have recently said that it's "all down hill from here" in terms of the company's performance.  There have been multiple changes in Apple's policy/direction lately, and not necessarily for the better.  With iOS 6, Apple dumped Google Maps for its own, inferior, product.  Even in face of consumer backlash, it still didn't back down--preferring to offer a worse experience over a competitor's products.  Furthermore, and perhaps more challenging in the long run, Apple's latest products have been severely disappointing in terms of improvements.  While the new iPhone 5 and iPad 4 are selling remarkably well, they're both very much quickly-released incremental upgrades over the previous versions.  This has not slowed down Apple, which still brands them as the best thing since sliced bread: "I don't think the level of invention has been matched by anything we've ever done", "This is the biggest thing to happen to iPhone since the iPhone."  Consumers realize that the new iPhones have little to offer, with the Samsung Galaxy SIII sales topping those of the iPhone 4S.

To me, this tastes like Justice.

The decline of the Japanese electronic industry

The past few years has seen the remarkable decline of the once-prominent Japanese electronic companies.  From Toshiba to Sony to Panasonic, most of the big Japanese electronics companies have been unable to adapt to changing technology and consumer preference, and, increasingly, foreign competition.  In the 1980s,  Japanese imports were some of the best-built and most advanced devices available.  As we saw in our reading of Neuromancer, many thought that it was only a matter of time before Japanese electronics completely overwhelmed everything else.  Sony's Trinitron TV was regarded as the industry standard.  Their Walkman was the portable music player.

Much of this, however, has changed.  Sony's debt has been downgraded again to just over "junk" status, reflecting a lack of confidence in their ability to grow and continue paying their bills.  Sharp has already been downgraded to the lowest level, and may even receive a bail-out from the Japanese government.  Clearly, the times have changed for these once profitable companies.  What happened?  In large part, it's due to competition from competing countries from competing countries.  Many of the Japanese electronic companies were enormous; upon succeeding in one market, many kept spreading out and establishing a presence in more and more different fields.  As a result, they were very slow to adapt to change, and when consumer preferences changed, they were unable to keep up.  Perhaps most prominent is Samsung Electronics, which a decade ago was seen as a manufacturer of undesirable low-cost electronics.  That has changed enormously, however, with Samsung's Galaxy smartphones and tablets some of the most coveted around.

While many of the Japanese companies tried (and failed) to adapt to newer technology, there were a variety of other issues they faced as well.  Another was the rising value of the Yen, which made Japanese exports more expensive than products produced in other countries.  Other Japanese countries were too slow to move in to new markets (particularly the mobile market).  When Apple launched the iPhone and Samsung and HTC jumped on the Android train, Sony was still trying to work with Ericsson.  Overall, time has not been kind to these giants.  Many are trying to re-structure to remain competitive; Panasonic recently announced that businesses that couldn't earn at least a 5% profit margin had no place there.  Other companies have turned away from the consumer market, instead focusing on supplying parts to other manufacturers (such as Apple and Samsung).

While it's uncertain what is going to happen to these Japanese companies in the immediate future, it is clear that their long-term outlook is not very good.  Most of them have been hemorrhaging money, unable to come up with captivating new designs.  Perhaps some of them will succeed, but what is clearest is that the Japanese electronics industry will likely never rise again.  In their wake, I expect to see American, Chinese, and Korean companies capture the stage.

Will we remain the right to sell our stuff?

The Supreme Court is now considering a case with profound implications.  In Kirtsaeng v. Wiley, the argument is what restrictions there will be on the "first sale" doctrine--which is the basis of the right to sell or lend copyrighted items that we own.  This doctrine is monumental, and it is what allows sites like Ebay and Craigslist to operate.  It makes sure that copyright holders can't deny you the ability to sell things like CDs and electronic devices that you've legally purchased.

How did this case come up?  Well, many students have recognized that textbooks are cheaper abroad than they are here in the United States.  While the international editions may be more cheaply made, the price difference can easily be half the cost of the work (or more).  Consequently, many international students studying in the US choose to purchase their books in their home countries rather than here.  This simple tactic helped make college a more affordable adventure.  Some students realized that they could purchase textbooks in mass in other countries, bring them to the United States, and resell them.  This, in fact, is precisely what spawned Kirtsaeng v. Wiley.  Thai student Supap Kirtsaeng established a business where he purchased textbooks in his native country, brought them to the United States, and then resold them at a profit.  Wiley, the publisher of the books, alleges that this violates copyright law.  Publishers argue that different pricing schemes are vital to their success, while Kirtsaeng argues that he legally purchased the books and has done nothing wrong.  Kirtsaeng has attracted the support of Ebay, Goodwill, and even libraries.  Wiley, meanwhile, has attracted the support of other publishers, software companies, and the entertainment industry.

In essence, publishers are trying to get every sale classified as a mere license agreement; in order to transfer the item to a new person, there would have to be a new license agreement with the manufacturer.  The implications of this are horrendous: what you purchase, you don't actually own.  That movie you bought?  It's actually just licensed from the studios, for your use only.  That textbook?  Licensed.  Should Wiley win, it's entirely probable that copyright holders would impose stringent restrictions on the resale of their works.

It's shit like this that makes The Pirate Bay appealing.  I hate supporting a company that behaves this arrogantly.