Google Voice . . . Just the First Step

By now everyone know what Google Voice is. Google's new voice service to rule all your phone number is very inticing to many people. That being said others are a little afraid, rightly so, that Google will have too much control over your information. While this is may be true I do not share this viewpoint. I am very happy that services like this YouMail and others are starting to become mainstream with everyone getting smart phones now.

Why you ask? This is just the first step to revolutionizing phone networks. Think about it this way. . . Does it really matter what internet service provider you have? Well is some cases yes, Comcast, becasue they block certain ports and have some other unwanted "features." But it actuality they are just pathways, or dumb pipes, for us to use to consume content on the internet. We choose wat email (gmail) we want, and other services from thrid party companies on the internet already. For the case of the cell phone network we are starting to see the need to be on specific carriers hang in the balance. With a service like Google Voice, you dont need to worry about have to port your number or anything it is in you control, similar to the way if you change internet service providers you will not need to change your email. And you will never use the comcast, or verzion email address given to you, the same way you will never use the number that they assign to your mobile phone. Another factor contributing to this is the fact that the Federal Government has seen fit to examine if handset exclusivity with respect to certain carriers (every good phone and att) is counter productive and hurts the consumer. Just wait and see we will move more and more towards the model of the internet soon enough. Eventually each carrier will just use the others network and we will always have full coverage and we will basically choose a carrier based on if we like them or not for specific service services or they will just be packaged in with our cable and internet like a FULL COMMUNICATION package or something like that.

Graduated!

Well it's all over. I finally graduated you can see some pic from the ceremony here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/njit/sets/72157618286571387/show/ . And there is a surprisingly nice site setup for it here: http://commencement.njit.edu/2009/ . Anyway now I am on the hunt for a job in the information technology field. If anyone has a connection that I could use please don't hesitate ;). On the bright side I will have more time to devote to the blog. For graduation I am going to get myself a netbook. I will be putting a review together of the 5 top netbooks, in my opinion. Hopefully I will be able to choose from there. Additionally, I would like to start to include some Android information here I am loving that phone OS.

Posted via Pixelpipe.

Too Big To Fail - TBTF

What is TBTF? The great Wikipedia says:

• "The Too Big to Fail policy is the idea that in American banking regulation the largest and most powerful banks are "too big to (let) fail." This means that it might encourage recklessness since the government would pick up the pieces in the event it was about to go out of business.moral hazard in business operations. The phrase has also been more broadly applied to refer to a government's policy to bail out any corporation. It raises the issue of moral hazard in business operations."

Maybe I don't understand it, but I feel that this sentiment is just wrong and goes against many beliefs we have as Americans. I personally believe that NOTHING is too big to fail. How does a corporation even earn that title? It seems to corrupt and unjust that one corporation or company be deemed "TBTF" by the government. Does it even seem correct let along fair? Let me try to put this another way. Lets say there is one company that has the paintball marketed pretty much locked up. There are other competitors but everyone knows that this one company is in control of about 90% of everything and all areas of the market. . . . to the point that if this company went away the sport would surley die. Then there is a saftey scare after one of their products lead to a death of a player. Now people are not wanted to buy their merchandise and don't trust the company. This company now is loosing lots of money and marketshare. It was not managed well and it will not have to go out of business. Ok, that being said, does the government have any right to go in and bail that ficitious company out with TAXPAYER money? The government says that if the company dies then the whole sport will go away. Doesn't make sense does it?

I feel that the government should stay out of our live, and let people live them on their own. We don't need to be told hot coffee will burn us, were to get out healthcare, and we should not have to be told to no buy things we could never afford. I just don't understand why something needs to be bailed out. If a large bank fails then another will take it place. . . It happens all the time in countless other industries. It just donsen't seem to register with me, maybe someone can explain it to me. I feel that this sad little arguments to save banks and institutions, which are only financial by the way, are TBTF and need to be bailed out are just made becasue people in power have their own money in mind. In addition, I feel that if these guys in government had to use just their own money and not decided that they will use everyone's, the taxpayers, moneythen they wouldn't be handing it out so frivilously. Basically what I am trying to say is that I don't think anything is too big to fail. Just like life cycles in nature when a company does not succeed then it is destroyed and then someone else assums the role of leader and life goes on. If a bank goes under another will sprout up or take its place and we will contine to live and conduct ourselves.

Peaceful Protest?

Has anyone heard of the recent NYU sit in? From what I can gather students, not just NYU students, barricaded themselves in the NYU cafeteria to protest current practices in the university. Students that participated in the protest were there to voice their opinion about how the univeristy handels some of it's finances. There were said to ask that the school discolose various donation, funds, and salaries for stuff and faculty members. In my opinion that sounds completly reasonable. The students have a right to know that information, at least the ones that attend. That is my opinio0n anyway. This is where I think it goes a little over the line. In addition to the aforementioned informaiton the students also demanded that the university donate money to rebuild a school that was destroyed in the fighting at between the terrorists and the Isralie forces. Moreover they demanded that NYU also make a recurring scholarship that will go towards a Paliastinian student. Yea I know too, it sounds a little ridicilous. Anyway it ended with a bunch of students getting suspended. I say ask for something outrageous you get an outrageous answer. There are plenty of ways to get their message across other than controlling a university building for 3 days. . . In addition, they should have had some reasonable demands, like the information being discolsed. Then maybe the school would meet them, but what they asked for was not going to happen.

via [CBS]

Racist?

So by now you should have heard of the controversial cartoon printed by the New York Post. If not, take a look for yourself and let me know what you think, it is below. However, before you scroll down hear me out. Whenever I heard about these racists comments, action, or something from these activists group I am very skeptical. I know they are usually some frivolous suit that will ultimately go nowhere and do nothing. Therefore when I heard of this one I was immediately getting ready to laugh at whatever these guys were going to say the "racist message" was. That being said, when I saw the comic I was pretty shocked.

Text: "They'll have to find someone else to write the
next stimulus bill"


Now that you know what I am talking about I would like to try to explain a point. You must take this in context. . . This artist is exercising the basic meaning of his first amendment right. He is using this cartoon as speech to criticize the government, some can construe that as Barack Obama. While people may find this offensive there is really nothing they can do. It would be wrong to try and censure something like this because then you would be violating their first amendment rights. Basically, what I am saying is that if you find something offensive then pay no attention to it. Eventually the creator will have to change his or her tune to try and get people back. You are in control not them, if some creates some offensive material and no one views it and it is in not shown to the public, who does it hurt?

Scenario for You

Lemme ask you. . . What do you think about this hypothetical situation:

A teacher asks his/her class who would like to be in the Advanced Placement class for Calculus. Almost have of the students want to be in the class and they are all sent there. A few weeks into the marking period some of the students are struggling and having a hard time dealing with the difficult coursework.

What do you think is the right course of action? Lets say this is what transpires in the fictitious school. . . The principal feels bad about those students who are not doing well. He feels as though they have a right to be in the AP class because it is prestigious. He comes up with a plan that from now on the students who have trouble in the class will be given help with the test questions. Some would even be allowed to have the answer sheet on during the test so that they could pass.


How does that sound? Reasonable? Fair? Sane? I didn't think so. Some might say that this would never happen. I would say to them just change the AP class to homes, students to homeowners, and help and tests answers to money. Now how does it seem like it could happen? Well, the president just said that this is exactly the case.