pavyedav | boredom and inherent curiosity, in one

It has been noted that the range of yesterday’s earthquake in Virginia was considerably higher than any quake that occurs in California, as “shakes” were felt as far north as Maine and as far south as South Carolina.

Apparently there’s a pretty basic reason for this: the difference in crust. The main factors that determine how far a seismic wave propagates are temperature and density. In the East, the infrequency of earthquakes, along with the the crust’s being older, make it colder and denser. Meanwhile, since the San Andreas Fault is tectonically active, the crust has stretched, making the ground below much thinner and susceptible to hot rock from the mantle. This obviously warms the area up. So the colder and denser it is, the further the seismic wave can move. Apparently the author of the link is a hydrogeologist, so I’ll take his word for it.

It sounds like sixth grade science, but I didn’t really know much about this, so I feel a bit smarter today. Also, after yesterday, I realized something: cold weather and snow are to the people in the East as earthquakes are to those in the West.

It seems like Internet TV, namely from such companies as Google, Apple, and Sony, is slowly picking up steam. I wasn’t much of a believer before, because for some reason, I felt that the software interface was a bit too clunky and the box-top device itself seemed outdated. At least from what I saw of Google TV, it basically looked like Android blown up to the size of your TV, which is obviously useful, but part of me wanted something equally, if not more, powerful as my computer, given that the size of the screen was so much bigger.

Whenever I’ve wanted to watch something from the Internet on my TV, I’ve always connected it using a DVI/VGA adapter for my Mac. The TV then becomes a second monitor. I’ve found this to be a lot more flexible and scalable than the current Internet TV platforms that are out there. I think there was an Apple commercial recently that showed how you can wirelessly transfer whatever you were doing on your iPad (maybe even the computer) to your TV screen with the help of Apple TV. That is most definitely one component of Internet TV that should become a mainstay. My hope is to have all the features and capacity of the computer, not the phone, on the TV. I just never looked at a TV to be merely an extension of the phone; I always felt that a TV should be the apex of leisure technology.

At any rate, all of them seem too raw right now, but they’ll naturally get more functional and easy to use over time. Sony’s Internet TV has the right idea with WiFi build into the TV itself. Google’s Android OS for the TV would be great if it gave the user more flexibility. In other words, when I have both my phone and computer with me, more often than not I use my computer because I prefer the traditional browser appearance and experience more than I do from a mobile application or site. I think the same should apply when using the TV. Apple also has the right idea in making the interaction among all connected devices use wireless technology. I like the concept of Internet TV a lot, but it still needs some changes before it reaches critical mass.

A lot of my friends and family know that I love trains. The train is one of the coolest modes of transportation because you can travel at high speeds while still staying on the ground. They are also much more spacious than airplanes. I remember thinking while in Europe that the U.S. should have a more extensive rail system. They are so convenient and punctual.

Sadly, ours is a car-crazy nation with very little rail infrastructure, particularly track that is reinforced for future technology. I know there are a few things hindering the deployment of large scale railroads:

1.) Money to Deploy - Obviously, it will take billions and billions of dollars to lay down track and have futuristic trains built. Right now, it is difficult to justify spending taxpayer money to do so when there are other viable transportation options from city to city. Amtrak is struggling to stay afloat, but I contend that the reason for that is because it is not more convenient given that they are so slow and outdated, not that people don’t like the train.

2.) Time - If we’re talking about policy right now, it probably won’t get into the execution stage until 2030. These initiatives should have been introduced decades ago (which they might have), but policymakers refuse to support such grand projects when we are struggling to make ends meet as a country. Various projects, such as Ohio Hub and California High Speed Rail, have been proposed and approved, but have stalled or are taking much longer than expected. Legitimate train travel just does not seem to be a priority. But it never will be if the argument is always that there are better modes of transportation and that ridership would be low, which is not true. If it is available, it will be used. Just look at the Metro-North around the New York metro area.

3.) Making it Cost-Effective - In Europe, the Eurail pass was pretty expensive, virtually to the point that air travel was looking like an economical option between certain cities. Yet somehow rail is still used extensively there, probably because cities revolved around it from the beginning. But what I don’t understand is that a hundred years ago, the only method of transportation in the U.S. was train, but for some reason it died off precipitously. Since train would have speeds between a car and plane, I would imagine that its price should also be in between. Making these numbers match up is very difficult, since so many people like to drive in the U.S. and track and train maintenance is surprisingly expensive. But how are China and Japan doing it? Maybe they’re taking a financial hit for the betterment of society.

Anyway, I know there are a lot of practical hurdles in realizing legitimate train travel in the U.S. No one is saying to have a route between Chicago and San Francisco, but it is important that we can have high-speed, possibly maglev, service in the major megalopolis areas, such as Bos-Wash, the Midwest, the Texas triangle, and on the West Coast. On top of that, I feel like we already have an entire organizational infrastructure (the Interstate system) that we can use, as trains can run on the medians or on the sides of the highway. I know there are plans for this, but I’m just getting impatient as all of these projects are slowing due to political and legal issues. Train travel would be heavily used intercity in the the megalopolises, cars could be used intracity, and planes could be used for long distances. There, problem solved. If only it were that easy…

Aside: For some reason, I have a feeling that I have talked about something like this before (maybe it was just in normal conversation). I’m not sure whether it was on my blog, but I’m having extreme deja vu right now.

A recent Technology Review column brought up the idea that venture capitalists are now veering back toward investing in smaller-scale, low-risk energy projects as opposed to the large, possibly revolutionary cleantech companies that require great initial capital and structure. Governments have also scaled back in their support for these companies that require large initial costs. 

This is a sad but somewhat expected trend. Venture capitalists, at the end of the day, pursue investments with the goal of making even more money. This has never changed. Social and moral responsibility has never been a duty of theirs, so why would it be surprising for them to return to their roots? Unfortunately, ours is a society in which success is heavily influenced by money, and this has been the foundation of our country since its beginning. I would be wrong to attempt to be some beacon of moral and social goodness, since obviously one of the most appealing qualities of entrepreneurship and technology is the possibility of “making it big”; but it is a bit demoralizing that even those who seem to have all the money in the world are not willing to take a bit of risk for good causes like clean energy. This is the problem with the investing side of the puzzle.

Another article a month ago highlighted how the Bay Area entrepreneurial scene has been rife with Groupon clones and the next fun iPhone application, and that basically the motive to change the world is no longer a particularly appealing thought, but making money in some shape or form still has its lure. I am a zealous supporter of cleantech investments and energy startups. In that industry, there is a desire to improve quality of life and to help the world in which we live, but there is so much startup cost involved that software always seems like the easier, risk-averse route. Since software programming will always require only a computer (and possibly some other things), cleantech startups and other hardware companies will have a very difficult time trying to persuade venture capitalists or the government to invest a great deal into their companies. Why go for the long bomb and risk a fourth down when you can run it up the gut for a few yards and the first? It will always be a difference in philosophy, and obviously whenever money is involved at such grand scales, we tend to be more conservative. Not only are VCs scared to invest money, but entrepreneurs themselves are scared to invest that much money and time into projects, since there are easier, quicker, and more conservative ways to pursue the dream of entrepreneurship.

Again, it would be wrong of me to say that all investors and entrepreneurs should be pursuing ideas that can revolutionize the world, help the poor, etc. At the end of the day, you look out for yourself and your loved ones first, and then you start addressing more universal concerns.

I think policy changes will help. Obviously, our government is having quite a few financial problems right now, but one thing that should not be diminished is its support for cleantech startups. I’ll admit that I don’t know that much about cleantech or policy in general, but I think when the government mandates something, people/companies have to listen. Sure there will be uproar (as there was when fuel efficiencies of all cars needed to be at a particular level in a few years), but this is how change can be made when human nature simply is too risk-averse or insufficiently altruistic. There needs to be incentive or necessity for us to pursue growth in these fields, so the government can use its pull to provide that.

This morning’s biggest news headline should be “Apple and Microsoft trembling.” The reason: Google bought Motorola Mobility today for a cool $12.5 billion. It seems that Google made a surprisingly vertical move as they realized that they needed to leverage their popular Android OS in a more focused manner.

What this means now: Google is a device manufacturer - a mobile device manufacturer. They no longer are creating only software; they will now have a hardware division that will create its own incredible mobile technology. The acquisition shows a few things: (1) How important these large companies believe that patents must be owned in order to compete in the mobile industry. The acquisition was definitely a patent protection and acquisition move, since Google was basically the direct target of a recent consortium between Apple, Microsoft, and a few other companies to buy thousands of patents from Nortel Networks. Google knew they needed to act quickly before they somehow were rendered irrelevant due to legal problems. (2) How important penetration in the mobile space has become for companies to thrive in the future. Just a few days ago, Apple was declared the biggest company in the world. Why: the iPhone and iPad. Microsoft has been deemed a rising star again given the exciting prospects of Windows Phone 7. Google’s Android market share has never been higher, so the company concluded that the only way to improve future prospects is to create their own hardware too. Mobile is today. Mobile is tomorrow. It’s exciting to be in this field right now.

What this means in the future: Market analysts are already saying that RIM is in big trouble given their slow movement and clinging to old concepts (I’ll get into this more in another post.) So I think this acquisition will render RIM a non-player. What I’m a bit curious about is how this will affect such manufacturers as Samsung and HTC, who have recently thrived in the mobile business due to their adoption of the open Android OS. Those companies must be angry given that it was their hardware that helped to make Android successful, yet now Google will be in direct competition with them. Talk about feeling a bit used. Don’t be evil, right Google? “Well, Apple and Microsoft started it…”

What this means for consumers: Market analysis shows that we didn’t like the Nexus One. Despite their unsuccessful first attempt, Google will become a major hardware player. The branding of the company will be significant as they have already shown that they know how to create technology in the space that people like. We will get a greater variety of devices, which hopefully will drive prices down. I feel like Apple will probably need to get into an even lower-priced iPhone market so that it can gain some revenue in that sector. Also, I think it means that we will be seeing some pretty cool features on Google phones. Though Google has had its issues with recent experimentation (Wave, Buzz, etc.), it still has some of the brightest and most creative people in the world that are capable of producing revolutionary things. It should be an interesting road.

Aside 1: Google is claiming right now that they will keep Android open to other manufacturers, so we’ll see.

Aside 2: There are probably a lot of talks going on regarding the actual logistics of the deal, so all of this analysis could be completely incorrect.

I don’t know if I’m the only one who has noticed this, but in the past year I’ve seen pretty much every young music (often hip-hop) enthusiast rock Beats by Dr. Dre headphones. It has been absolutely appalling just how much popularity these headphones gained in such a short period of time.

I remember first seeing the commercial and thinking, “That’s great, Dre is doing other things apart from making Detox. Glad to know his priorities are straight.” Also, I have always been under the impression that with regard to true engineering quality of headphones, nothing can or will compare to Bose. So, I figured that this was a petty attempt to keep his name alive.

Then, it exploded. Apparently, Dr. Dre is still one of the most marketable figures in music, despite having not dropped an album in over ten years, and basically limiting his production on all of his proteges’ (Eminem, Snoop Dogg, etc.) albums. Now, Beats by Dre has gotten so big that HTC took a stake in it so that the latter could gain a greater American reputation and market base. I think this is the quintessential example of the importance of marketing. I’ve always tried to be in the camp that if it’s a product with different technology and true engineering quality and value, then it will be successful; I didn’t want to give marketing much credit, even though I knew it was important. But I still never thought it would be this important! I’m not sure how high-quality the Beats by Dr. Dre headphones are, but from its price I would guess that they better be good; otherwise, marketing is really paying off for them.

Anyway, if you have Beats headphones or knows someone who does, I’d like to know your honest review. Did you/he/she buy them because Dr. Dre endorsed them? Did you/he/she look thoroughly at reviews and the quality before buying them? And finally, are they worth it?

(aside: Anyone know how to center the picture on Tumblr? I tried to change the HTML, but it didn’t work for some reason.)