On the end of Netscape...

It is perhaps fitting, that the announcement by AOL to discontinue development and end the support of the Netscape browser is made at the end of 2007, when the year is drawing to a close. Netscape's end would cap the end of the dot-com tech bubble in the late 1990s (that the Netscape IPO christened). It also defines a new generation from Silicon Valley that prefer to talk in dollar sign rather than ideal (unlike David Packard and William Hewlett in the bygone days, eg).

The time for Netscape has long passed, although it's great to see its baton to be passed onto Mozilla Firefox which I have since switched to. Microsoft's Internet Explorer has never been my browser of choice, not least because of all its security holes, but I prefer technologies that are non-Microsoft. If you look for innovations, you do not look for it from Microsoft.

2007: Taking stock - the looking ahead part...

Ah, how could I have left out the looking ahead part when taking stock of 2007, and the hopes and dreams for 2008?!? :)

It'll be very interesting to see how the 2008 presidential election plays out. I hope Democrats make history. At this point, I prefer the woman (Hilary Clinton) in the White House more than the black (Barack Obama). It's a dangerous thing to hold caricature for a candidate, but when it comes to issues and stands, all candidates (Dems and the GOP on the other side) really are so alike that it's hard to tell apart. Well...I take it back some, since John Edwards has taken a much harder, left-of-center view on most everything. But to view the White House back, whoever it might be, has to take a more centrist view, as Bill Clinton did. But thank God, at least we won't have another run of George W Bush and Cheney, the stupid combo.

I've been thinking and thinking of my own venture. Perhaps 2008 is a year when I should stop thinking, and start doing things. More research, and an exploring trip to Asia, would definitely help clear my view. That should likely be what I should aim for, now that the kids are getting comfortable with the school nearby.

2007: Taking stock...

It's amazing, that it's a year ago this month, that I've starting blogging for my own journal, not so much (in fact, not at all) for the world to read, but as a handy reference for myself and my kids some day (if blogger is still around).

Such is a time to look back and look forward at the same time.

I was reading my thoughts from 2006 year end, and how I ditched YouTube. I don't find it particularly interesting still, after a year of watch some clips on and off (but not too often). There are movie trailers that I could have found elsewhere, but the streaming is faster on YouTube, so I don't mind watching them on YouTube. And then, I found almost the whole Walking With Dinosaurs documentary series on YouTube, which the kids love. That's probably the most useful thing I've had with YouTube. Most popular clips, like the "Leave Britney Alone" one, are just plain stupid, though partially entertaining. I bet most people watching it to make themselves feel better (since they definitely are not as stupid as those on the clips). Occasionally, there're some amateurish clips that are interesting enough, like the "Battle at Kruger" one. But, that's all I'll say about YouTube. Commercial value? Ah, it's a joke.

There's much hot air from Facebook opening up its private "network" of users for the world to see, with Facebook Ad and Facebook Beacon getting so much scrutiny that one wonders where the 23-year-old CEO is going to hide when he goes to sleep (if he can still sleep).

There's still more hot air from Google going all out offensive against the supposed Facebook platform, by proposing its "open" platform for social networking. The enemies of my enemy are my friends. Google took that motto to heart, and recruit all Facebook competitors into some alliance to promote this hastily put together competing platform.

And then there's the iPhone (the "unlocked" iPhone?!?) that starts with a bang, and ends with a fizzle (so far).

The biggest news was probably the subprime mortgage crisis that Wall Street cooked up. Talking about the growing gap between the rich and the poor, I'd say, the subprime mess is probably one of the greatest way in nature to redistribute wealth from the richer (general/stupider investors) to the poorer (subprime borrowers). It's pretty impressive to see how fast the mess played out, and how contagious it is, considering that various financial institutions (like Merrill Lynch, Citi, HSBC, among others) had need to announce billions after billions of write-down or write-off completely. But the truly richest will always be ready to buy, considering how sovereign wealth funds from the like of UAE and China have been all too ready to scoop in and "invest."

Looking back, it's good that we're "squeezed" to sell my beloved place in BH in Spring 2006. Not that I need the money, but God has a way of telling me that I shouldn't be holding onto it. So we sold, and the market started leveling, then drifting downwards maybe 3 months after the sale. Of course, when a market turns, it'll very hard to swim against the tide. I'm sure if we had waited for another 6 months, we'd be keeping the place for another 10 years, probably. Not that I mind keeping it. But the sale did free up quite some cash that could have been deployed far better elsewhere.

So, I learnt my lesson, that when the time is good, I should cash out and re-balance the portfolio. Yes, yes, those financial gurus always say this, right? The tricky questions are, when? and, am I ready to let go. When it comes to investing, unlike some of my siblings, I'm never very greedy. I invest in only the things I like. I rarely speculate. It's a good call this time with the sale of the property, incidentally. I'll jog this note in my year-end journal for review, to remind myself of this in the future.

And let go I did too, with my second job that gave me great exposure, experience, and good salary, but contributed to a depreciating quality of life. The same tricky questions in investing apply here as well. I seemed never ready to let go, so I was always delaying the "when" part. But I have a few years of good run, and I'm grateful God has given me this opportunity to broaden my view and boost my esteem (that I really can do it and do them all well).

The new venture goes slower than I have expected it. I got upset when it comes to project management (or rather, the way my husband seems to adjudicate the authority to manage the project by the web designer to deliver the web site in a more timely fashion). But I hope this is God's way to teach me to be a better and more effective communicator, to let him understand my point of view. Life is one big learning process, which can be frustrating but it can be rewarding at the same time.

On the Paypal mafia...

The Paypal mafia reporting on Fortune is an interesting read. But why is it that (1) I don't feel that these ex-paypal guys were that smart; (2) that the only thing that distinguishes them from other startups is that, they despise women and are workaholics?!?

Am I supposed to be impressed by guys like that? Should I be thinking that they're smart for starting a payment service that had been bleeding money (and never turned a profit) and didn't even know what a chargeback is?

The only thing that kept them going was luck. If eBay had not come along and bought out Paypal, it'd be long gone, together with their attitudes. They were lucky to be in the right place at the right time, and were lucky to have cashed out.

Should I be impressed that they're branching out with other startups? Not really. Like YouTube, all those startups never really have any business models. Yes, one could argue that these guys have more than their fair share of luck.

Only time will tell if the amount of eyeballs equate to brand loyalty. I would argue no. There is no lock-in for any users who might be uploading to YouTube today, to switch to any other video sharing site. And YouTube is not offering any meaningful service like eBay had been anyways.

And for guys like the eBay founder Pierre Omidyar, who would go on to take on social issues, rather than muddling through startups, I would say, that's the kind of people I would consider who has a vision and a mission. For these so-called Paypal mafia, they're just a bunch of male chauvinist pigs.

On the British move to talk to Taliban...

In terms of playing politics and the divide-and-conquer game, the Brits are far superior than the Americans.

Watch how it plays it out in Afghanistan, with the Americans move being to add (or reduce) military force to the area, essentially playing the cat-and-mouse game with the insurgents and Talibans. The Americans haven't really changed much of their game plan, because the whole thing comes out from the military's play book. It's almost like there is no hindsight or Plan B that the Americans can and will do.

Contrast that to how the Brits approach it. When the military doesn't seem to be working, politicians step in. But instead of politicians talking military talk, they try their hands to divide and conquer the opponents. Now, Gordon Brown, the newly minted PM, is suggesting that the insurgents (and in fact, Taliban) are really not one big bad guys, but a bunch of loosely defined tribes that the Brits can talk to, and negotiate with. What was left unsaid is that, the politicians knew what they play well, which is to go in, stratify the opponents, and divide them in groups, to ultimately master them.

That's the playbook that the Brits play so well in the colonial days, in India, in Hong Kong, and in Africa. That's how the Brits could maintain and rule its Commonwealth for more than a hundred years with so much success. I would argue that, ultimately, it'll be politics that win the day in Afghanistan and, indeed, Iraq.

On Giuliani defensive of his misuse of public resources...

It's quite fun watching the media grilling Rudy Giuliani, the 2008 GOP presidential hopeful, in defending why what he did as a New York Mayor was not wrong, and while whatever that might be that was under accusation, someone suggested it and not him.

What he did was the use of public resources (security details) for himself (visiting his girlfriend) and for his girlfriend (using public security for her), and how he tried to obscure and hide those details by accounting tricks (breaking down the billing to various tiny government agencies).

What was conveniently left unsaid, of course, was the fact that she would not have qualified for the protection the misdeeds took place before the affair was made public, thus no death threat at that point. The fact that he's still married man, using public resources to go about his private love affair, is just plain stupid. No doubt he could afford a ride or drive by himself, but he's acting like he's president already.

It's so true that, without 9/11, Giuliani really would have no platform - nothing to run on at all - as a GOP candidate, given his morality and character and family values. And I much doubt if the religious right is going to let a Mormon (Mitt Romney) to win the candidacy, not to mention his flip-flop on various policy positions. The closer the primaries get, the more plausible that GOP really might vote for Mike Huckabee as the GOP candidate. Now, THAT would be quite interesting.

On Bush coming to the subprime mess rescue...

I wonder who in the economic advisers in George W Bush's administration came up with this idea of coming to the rescue of the subprime mortgage crisis, by selecting picking a subset of reckless (or stupid) subprime mortgage borrowers, then forcing on investors to the securities that were backed by these mortgages to help these borrowers out by reneg'ing the terms and fixing the low teaser rates for another five years.

Critics abound on the Bush rescue. Even five-year-olds would know all too well, if you do wrong things, you suffer consequences. But in the name of politics, these people got bailed out, and those who have been prudent in not taking on excessive debts and who might have sat on the side line to wait for the market to correct in order to buy, are the real ones who get punished. This is not to mention those unknowing investors who bought in these supposedly AAA-rated securities, only to realize they might not get even a fraction of its worth back.

And this is what Bush, the "great GOP leader" who rushed to make headline-graping proclamations like, "Mission Accomplished!" and "Ownership Nation."

And this is what Bush would do to those people, who heed his call to buy properties without having the means.

And this is another mess that Bush would defer to his successor (no matter it's a Dem or GOP), to have a "rescue" of such kind, and to delay the pain for another five years, instead of having the market correction to take place now.

It's ridiculous.

On bye-bye to John Howard the lap dog...

It's befitting and predictable that John Howard, the ex-Prime Minister of Australia, to lose the 2008 election. Howard sought, perhaps all too successful, in mirroring and emulating George W Bush in all of Bush's "policies" (if you can call it that) and directions for Australia, setting the country on wrongful path. Thankfully for global growth that pushes commodity prices to new highs that benefit Australia's economy, Howard erroneously believes that it's the economy, and the economy alone, that voters would go along with him, even though they disagree with him on all other major policies like his refusal to join Kyoto Protocol for climate change, and his staunch support of the war in Iraq.

For parliamentary system like Australia or United Kingdom, the 10 year mark is almost like a threshold for a Prime Minister's hanging onto power. If we recall how Margaret Thatcher had been successful during her times, but still got pushed out after similar length of prime ministership.

Howard should realize all too clearly by now that it's not only the voter weariness of him being in the PM role for too long, but that voters do not agree with him on policies as well, witnessed by losing of his parliamentary seat in the same election. It shows how a long tenure in an ivory tower can render him so out-of-touch with the mass.

On the teen suicide after a MySpace fallout with a fake friend...

There's much talk and news lately, following the suicide of the 13-year-old Megan Meier after her fallout with a "friend" from MySpace that she thought was a boy who had hots for her and who later turned against her. It turned out that the "boy" was a fake MySpace online character from the mother of a neighbor four doors away from her.

Now, that whole community has turned against this stupid, mean 40-year-old mother who has to close her business, and receives daily death threats. To tell the truth, for such an immature, mean-spirited, and stupid grown-up woman, to have done such terrible deed on a pre-teen girl is just so wrong. It does not have mattered if this had led to her even suicide (which was the ultimate horror, of course), since the act of leading on a young girl, then trashing her like that is just plain wrong.

There was this description of this 40-year-old mother as a social butterfly in the small community. I hope she is shunned - big time - for thinking that she's above someone else, that she can do whatever she pleases, with no ramifications.

On Romney's Mormon faith and president candidancy...

With one month toward the Iowa caucuses, Mitt Romney the 2008 presidency hopeful must be feeling desperate, with his poll numbers going nowhere, albeit his vast wealth behind the campaign.

So it is, that Romney arranged this this speech of faith last night, supposedly to mirroring what JFK did back then to dispel worries that he'd take orders from the Pope instead of the American peoples. Even the location of the speech was supposed to ring some bells.

To be sure, there are similarities with JFK that Romney wishes to draw upon. They both look photogenic enough. They both suffer voter's doubts on their respective faith. And of course, they're running for the presidency.

But one thing Romney does not realize is that, not all faiths are created equal. I consider Catholicism mainsteam and Mormonism not. If, according to Romney's arguments, it would not matter what his religion is, since he's an American running for president, then would I have voted for, say, a Muslim to be President, given that that Muslim is born in America? I should think not.

Not that I'm bigot against Muslims or Islam as a religion; quite far from it, I'm pretty tolerant with diverse religions. As individuals, anyone can take up any religions. That's their choice. But if I am to elect a president to lead the country, that one person's better be someone who remain mainstream.

We've seen enough of putting a religious right (George W Bush) in the White House, and what disastrous results that lead us. He's willing to push the country to war to spread the good deeds. He would appoint justice after justice in the Supreme Court enough to eliminate (or even reverse) the choice of women and Roe v Wade. He would selectively divert fundings to religious organizations of his own faith to carry out important social functions.

While it's undeniable that there are religious charitable organizations that do amazing works, I would not want to see preferences to one religion over another. If Romney is so defined by his Mormon belief, then it would be impossible for him not to have his judgments being clouded by his religious belief. For that alone, I'll reject Mitt Romney.

On China and its environmental push...

It's both sad and predictable, reading news about China's fight to keep alive the last two known Yangtze soft-shelled giant turtles, one male and one female.

It's nascent in the article, pointing out that a growing number of turtles being sold in China as food are from overseas. I remember some time back, one of my friends (himself Chinese) commented that, should the Chinese grow in affluence, half of the endangered species in the world could become extinct. At the time, it sounds outrageous, since China was still starting out in its economic ascent. But it almost sounds like on-the-money these days.

One might argue that other industrialized nations went through the same growth phase, with their own power structure with the environment in order to jostle nature to succumb to their will. But the callousness of the Chinese since the Mao era, in their dealings with the environment and all the eco-system that goes with it, simply are too great to ignore or dismiss. The Three Gorges Dam is a case in point.

There's an old Chinese saying, that Chinese would eat anything that has its back facing the sky. Given the Chinese growing appetite to anything exotic (shark fins are just nothing, compared to bear's paws, live monkey's brain, tiger's penis...), I'm really worried about the future of biodiversity in that country.