pavyedav | boredom and inherent curiosity, in one

Recently, I watched the national news and they had an entire expose about Solyndra, the thin-film solar company in Fremont, CA that filed for Chapter 11. The title of the piece was known as “White House Under Fire.” Now, this bothers me a lot; the piece itself wasn’t irritating, but the ideas being championed from the politicians were.

Many representatives highlighted how Obama and those in the Department of Energy made a terrible mistake in using hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to invest in Solyndra. I’m not absolving the government from possibly doing less than they should have in their due diligence, or for perhaps not being as thorough in analyzing Solyndra’s operations or finances as they should have been, but I am against the notion that the best solution is not to invest in companies like these at all.

Many politicians (goes without saying that most were Republicans) were saying how this is Obama’s fault, since he supports energy research and investment. This is very dangerous rhetoric that should not pervade the government or networks of wealthy financiers. Solyndra had a very promising technology in thin-film solar panels that could have very possibly revolutionized energy conversion. Other companies will come around that will be revolutionary, and it would be a shame if they do not get the funding and support from the government and wealthy investors that they deserve. It is great that the Department of Energy and Obama’s administration support green technologies, and it’s simply an unfortunate and unlucky turn that occurred with Solyndra.

In the end, what should be criticized is how exactly the government could believe that Solyndra had stable operations and projections of extreme growth in the future years. Not seeing the company’s shakiness before they offered money is definitely the government’s fault, and they should be rebuked for haphazard research and analysis. However, the idea that spending on energy and technology should cease altogether in order to avoid situations like these is extremely shortsighted and counterproductive. Companies like these are part of our futures; some will succeed, some won’t. We can’t sit around and wonder what could have been just to avoid risk.

I’m back. I took a little hiatus during our move and general change in schedule. I’m probably going to be doing this a little less frequently due to my not having as much time, but I’ll still do my best. Without further ado:

A recent survey has suggested that people believe Facebook is higher than the toilet on the list of things “that you can’t live without.” I’ll actually pass on discussing how inane that is; but what’s sad is that Facebook might be even higher on that list (it was #5) after their music service, allegedly dubbed Facebook Vibes, is introduced to the public on September 22nd.

This is a great move by Facebook to get into the music service industry. WIth services like Spotify and Rdio gaining traction (I’ve talked about some of those in a previous post), Facebook looks to take advantage of their already vast network and extensive experience to use in the music-sharing industry. As I’ve said before, I’m not that big a fan of Facebook, but I use it because I feel like I’ll fall behind since so many others continue to use and love it. Having said that, I think Vibes will be wildly popular and probably a pretty good service.

Knowing what others listen to has always been a great way to find new music. Just think of the radio: it’s basically a standardized forum from which we get the “popular” music right now. Facebook will now not only give us the popular music, specifically from those who dabble and like the pop/party songs, but it will also give us music from all of our friends who like the more underground and obscure artists. And odds are you have a lot of friends with whom you share similar music interests, so it may create a phenomenon like stalking photos: stalking playlists (don’t worry; it’s still all under the umbrella of general Facebook stalking.) I have seen a few services like this before, but unfortunately they haven’t been able to build a large enough network for them to take advantage of the social component. Facebook already is finished with half the battle. I think the idea is great, and maybe it’ll get me to start using Facebook more again.

I don’t know exactly how the service will be implemented or how it will be structured on the site itself, but I’m imagining something along the lines of a Pandora-type interface on each friend’s profile, with the previous song/next song in the shuffle, and probably an option to purchase the song, etc. Hopefully there will also be a music search among all your friends to find a song that you’re looking for. I’m pretty curious to see how it pans out.

It’s sad that NASA has taken such a large plunge over the last decade. It used to be a haven for scientific innovation and technological advancement, but unfortunately it is now seen as a waste of energy, resources, and taxpayer money.

They halted the shuttle program earlier this year, and it looks like NASA’s future looks bleak. In the 1960s, it was the symbol of American achievement and spurred global competition, but for some reason, it gradually diminished over the decades. Perhaps it was because we accomplished so much so early. We had a man on the moon, which probably was thought impossible at the time. Then, we started putting several satellites into orbit, and now satellites are taken for granted as we watch our televisions or get directions on demand. Our space endeavors happened so quickly that there left little room for exploration. Mars is the next big project, but that seems to have halted due to conditions that can’t sustain life.

I always felt like there should be agencies and organizations that exist for learning. Even if projects have stalled, many new ideas and concepts are still being discovered and understood at NASA, but unfortunately they probably will never live up to the grand precedent set in earlier decades. Agencies like NASA should stay afloat by virtue that they reward curiosity and emphasize a thirst for knowledge. After all, NASA’s mission is to “pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery, and aeronautics research.” They have certainly done that, and just because nothing revolutionary - at least to the mainstream - has come about in the past few years does not mean that they have not been utilizing resources well and satisfied their quest for scientific advancement. NASA deserves to stay afloat despite the current deficit situation.

Since I’m big into listening to music, I’ve started to do some research on online music databases.

As of now, I can’t really see a difference between Grooveshark and Spotify. Grooveshark seems to have all of the songs that anyone has ever known right in its library, in addition to a recommendation service. Spotify seems to have an extensive library too, but no recommendations. What I don’t understand is why Spotify was considered to be the game-changer for music-listening when Grooveshark was already out. The only thing I have noticed is that Spotify seems to have agreements with major record labels like Sony and Universal, while Grooveshark has gotten into several lawsuits due to using possible copyright infringement mechanisms. If anyone can enlighten me regarding the differences, that’d be great.

Meanwhile, my personal approach to listening to music is having my own library with all the songs that I like (no filler) in my iTunes, so that I can have them synced with my iPhone (or previously the iPod). I don’t like relying on having a connection in order to have music immediately. It helps me get through plane or subway rides all the time. When I get sick of my library, which doesn’t happen often because I frequently update my music, I go to Pandora and start listening. This actually helps me update my music collection further since Pandora gives some great recommendations. I also look at a lot of online blogs to discover the latest music.

Anyway, I know music is a big part of a lot of peoples’ lives, so I was curious what most people do when they want to listen to music. Do you tend to stay light and stream from services like Pandora, Grooveshark, Spotify, or do you have a dedicated library on your own system that you like to keep updated, or maybe a bit of both? It’s always interesting to see everyone’s unique approach.

Today the Department of Justice filed a lawsuit to block AT&T’s acquisition of T-Mobile. As far as I can remember, this is the only time I’ve ever seen a major corporate deal halted by the government. It’s not over just yet, but it seems more and more likely that AT&T will not be able to acquire T-Mobile, which is very much a victory for consumers since T-Mobile has always used competitive pricing to attract customers.

What this means: If this block is successful, AT&T is in a bit of trouble. Apparently T-Mobile will receive a portion of AT&T’s existing wireless spectrum and reduced roaming rates on AT&T’s spectrum. AT&T will also lose the very important 1700 MHz spectrum of T-Mobile’s that it was planning to use for LTE deployment. This is a big blow to AT&T’s future infrastructure, so there better have been a plan B for them if the deal did not go through. The company will fall further behind in 4G deployment, so they will probably lose customers in the coming year. Apart from spectrum, AT&T will also lose cash, which obviously is never good.

I think the biggest winner - again, if the block is successful - is Sprint. Sprint always had competitive pricing plans, and with their rapid 4G deployment, they looked to make moves to compete with Verizon as the future of fast cellular service. AT&T had fallen behind in infrastructure changes, so this deal was to get back into the 4G deployment race. If it doesn’t go through, Sprint will get a boost from unsatisfied AT&T customers.

I’ve written before that AT&T would not be hurt too much if this deal didn’t go through, but obviously it doesn’t help them. They now need to shore up their 4G LTE deployments quickly and make sure that handset makers are also slow to make quality 4G handsets. They’ve been playing second mover in the 4G implementation race for too long, so this block may be a call to action to start making internal changes quickly. AT&T better have a strong LTE infrastructure by the time iPhone 6 comes out; otherwise, they will lose customers by the droves.

Given how dependent we are on our devices (computer, phone, tablet, etc.), I think it’s important that we understand how exactly these devices work. Obviously it would take entire lifespans to comprehend every nook and cranny of how they operate, but more importantly, it’s about knowing how concepts are created in such an abstract field as computer science.

I really had no idea what computer science was until sometime in high school, but that was just “hearing” of it. I actually learned the basics of computer science in college, and that’s only because my major required it. In this increasingly technology-driven world, computer science can’t be a niche subject that only few know. It is imperative that the foundations of the subject be taught at an early age. The next generation will basically be using computers right out of the womb, so it would be a shame if they did not know exactly what went into these devices. Subjects that we learn when we are young stick with us the most, which is why the ideas of computer science need to be taught in elementary school.

Programming is difficult. No one’s saying to teach operating systems or computer security when young, but very simple algorithms, “Hello World” programs, and the components of a computer are as basic as addition and subtraction. Eric Schmidt, ex-Google CEO, made a speech in England recently about how the country was the birthplace of many technological advances, but they have lost traction since they are no longer a leader in any of these fields. He attributes this to a lack of emphasis on teaching computer science in the nation’s schools. 

I think the ability to code and understand the inner workings of a computer are going to be necessities for future generations, even for those who choose to go into the humanities and other fields unrelated to technology. Right now, in many nations, there are courses on how to use software, but not how software is actually made. Learning Microsoft Word will come standard when you actually know how to program off the command line. Not everyone has to make the subject his/her life (it would be a ridiculously boring world if we all did), but it is important that everyone gets a chance to learn the basics of programming and the simple ideas of computer science at a very early age. Just as we dabble all in all of these different areas of science in sixth grade, we should also be forced to dabble in computer science. That’s the only way that students will be excited about the field moving forward. What if no one went into computer science in the future? Life, as we know it, would end, so it’s important to emphasize it early.

I know everyone has probably read dozens of posts regarding Steve Jobs’ resignation, but frankly, I can’t not talk about it. 

As both an Apple fan and a tech geek, I believe Jobs’ departure from the CEO position is a very momentous event in consumer technology. But first, it must be made clear that he is still the chairman of the company’s board, so his input will continue to be invaluable to Apple’s future.

Now, let’s get into the details. How exactly does this affect Apple in the near future? In a nutshell, it doesn’t. In fact, this couldn’t have been a better time for Jobs to leave his position. A few reasons: (1) iPhone 5 is coming out in the next few months on multiple carriers, (2) a cheaper iPhone is supposedly coming out as well, and (3) there is an entire line of products, ranging from Macbook Pros to iPads, that will be launching in the near future. Apple is at the top of its game right now, and now is the best time for an inevitable change (we all knew Jobs had health issues for years) to occur. Even if there were a drop off (which I don’t believe will happen), Apple would still have extreme influence and profitability. The new CEO Tim Cook probably will not have the persuasiveness or charisma of Jobs, but he most definitely has the pedigree for the position, as he was temporarily at the helm for six months this year while Apple was skyrocketing to the top. As Cook’s e-mail to his employees said, “Apple is not going to change.”

Having said that, it is very possible that Apple will have some sort of change in business direction in later years. Jobs was known to be a disciplinarian with a vision for product design and function. He has unique qualities that Cook probably will be unable to imitate. In the next few years, there may be a difference in how Apple portrays itself. What is currently a focus on immediate innovation and trendsetting could perhaps become an emphasis on high quality products with the best design. Apple could very well become some variant of BASF in the tech world: “We don’t make a lot of the products you buy; we make a lot of the products you buy…better.” It seems like they already do that to an extent. From what I’ve read, Cook will try to sharpen Apple’s process innovation to eliminate waste and guarantee manufacturing efficiency rather than try to emphasize the end product marketing the way Jobs did.

Changes definitely could be in store down the road, but Apple isn’t going anywhere anytime soon.