Nano which in Latin means ‘dwarf’ is now going to do for India what ‘Model-T’ did for United States or Volkswagen did in Germany many decades ago. A symbol for hope and possibility, Nano has already generated strong public hysteria in India and is believed to level out class divisions. It represendts a history-making attempt by Tata Motors, Indias biggest indigenous automobile maker to tap into entirely new domestic market for cars. It’s base model will cost only Rs. 100,000 ( About $2,000) without tax, thus being the cheapest car in the Universe so far. After adding taxes such as road tax, excise duty, transportation costs, local taxes, insurance, registration fees etc. the price would not exceed $2,200. The Nano would soon have a competition with Bajaj Auto announcing to bring in Bajaj Lite, an ultra-compact car, which would cost around $3,000. Nano is made with less material than other cars, so it costs less to produce. Tata Motors, headed by Ratan Tata had asked its component makers to redesign their parts to minimize their weight and cost, but still perform well. Nano can do 0 to 100 km in 23 seconds. Its exterior is imported Japanese and Korean steel, and even the basic model feels roomy inside. The vinyl seats on the basic model and rough plastic door locks, however, looks cheap. What makes this car so cheap?. Well according to BBC News, it has no air conditioning, no power steering, no power windows, no air bag and the bodywork is made of sheet metal - which is basically aluminium - and plastic. The trunk is in the front and the engine in the rear according to the San Francisco Chronicle. The Nano has outside India plans too, The Nano Europa is planned for 2011 in Europe, No plans yet for the United States. Three cheers to tata group for coming up with such an innovation which I believe will bring Indians more closer to each other removing the water tight economic barriers.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Nano to remove Indias Economic barriers
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Y Google should bye Twitter
Y Google should bye Twitter
During twitter harvest times especially during lunch hour and morning rush we always get messate "Twitter is over capacity. Too many tweets! Please wait a moment and try again." which has bugged twitters all over the world. The microblogging service is simply not able to keep up.
The problem is obvious: Twitter kicked in the nitrous oxide a couple of months ago and has quintupled in popularity since late December, according to statistics from Google (Nasdaq: GOOG). Twitter isn't really making money yet, and its popularity has brought its server farm to its knees. Hardware is expensive. So is internet bandwidth, when you're dealing with millions of hyperconnected users.
I can think of a few ways Twitter can remedy this problem and return to the silky-smooth instant-broadcasting performance to which its users have grown addicted:
- Shovel more hardware into Twitter's data centers, which are managed by an American subsidiary of Japanese telecom giant Nippon Telegraph & Telephone (NYSE: NTT). This takes time, and NTT may not have the extra rackspace available immediately. And besides, how would Twitter pay for the new machines? Nope, scratch this idea.
- Move into a massive-scale hosting service like Amazon.com's (Nasdaq: AMZN) Elastic Computing Cloud. Amazon has the hardware muscle and ultraconnectivity that Twitter needs, and EC2 can also be cheaper than having your own hardware. Sun Microsystems (Nasdaq: JAVA) will open a similar service later this year, and other giants will probably follow, but that doesn't really help today. This one is plausible, but may require lots of reprogramming before Twitter's software will fit this new environment.
- Let some deep-pocketed sugar daddy with lots of Internet-facing infrastructure of its own step in and buy Twitter. Under the wing of Google, Facebook, or Amazon, Twitter could get back on its feet quickly, and go back to growing as fast as it might like. Lacking funds won't be a problem anymore.
Of all these options, Google buying Twitter makes the most sense to me. Google clearly has the traffic-handling muscle to handle anything Twitter's users might throw at it, and it's an established leader in distributing complex computing loads across a very flexible infrastructure.
Twitter runs on venture capital right now, having raised at least $55 million from firms like Benchmark Capital and Institutional Venture Partners. Those stakeholders would clearly want a large return on their investment, and Twitter might sell for as much as $1 billion.
Google is on the short list of potential buyers who could afford that kind of splurging on an exciting but revenueless business today. And that attitude is in Big G's genes, too. Microsoft(Nasdaq: MSFT) would want a profitable business plan on the table first, and Apple (Nasdaq:AAPL) doesn't buy much of anything. Cisco Systems (Nasdaq: CSCO) is both rich enough and curious enough to do it, but seems more interested in high-bandwidth video services than lower-volume text applications.
Just buy Twitter already, Google. The little birdie needs your help.
By Anders Bylund
Monday, February 2, 2009
The Gender Factor
How many of the following do you think are true?
1. A woman will dress up to go shopping, water the plants, empty the garbage, answer the phone, read a book, and get the mail. A man will dress up for weddings and funerals.
2. A woman marries a man expecting he will change, but he doesn't. A man marries a woman expecting that she won't change and she does.
3. Even the creator doesn’t understand a woman’s internal logic. A man has lots of data but he still remains clueless.
4. The language a woman uses to communicate with other women is incomprehensible. A man is supposed to help you solve your problems, but half of the time he is the problem.
5. For a five day vacation a woman needs whole wardrobe, but a man requires only a suitcase.
6. A woman bothers to remember everyone’s birthdays and anniversary, no such great problem I see in man.
7. Old friends gives women crap when they gain or loose weight, no such case in men.
8. A woman hesitates to leave the hotel bed unmade, no such case in men.
9. When your work is criticized, a woman panics that everyone secretly hates her, no such case in men.
1 A woman can hug her best friend without worrying she'll think she's gay. Guyz reminds me of dostana movie.
1 If a woman cheats on her partner everyone will assume it's because she was being emotionally neglected. If a man cheats on his partner, everyone thinks he got interested in someone younger.
12. Women know exactly what buttons to push to get exactly what they want, Men only think they know.
13. Women can get drunk quicker and cheaper than men.
14. If a woman cries, she's sensitive; if a man cries, he's a wimp.
15. Women can be groupies. Male groupies are stalkers.
16. It's cool to be a daddy's girl. It's sad to be a mummy's boy.
17. A woman worries about the future until she gets a husband. A man never worries about the future until he gets a wife.
18. A man has five items in his bathroom: a toothbrush, shaving cream, razor, a bar of soap, and a towel from the Marriott. The average number of items in the typical woman's bathroom is 337. A man would not be able to identify most of these items.
19. A woman knows all about her children. She knows about dentist appointments and romances, best friends, favorite foods, secret fears and hopes and dreams. A man is vaguely aware of some short people living in the house.
20. Men wake up as good-looking as they went to bed. Women somehow deteriorate during the night.
21. Women love cats. Men say they love cats, but when women aren't looking, men kick cats.
22. Men's magazines often feature pictures of naked ladies. Women's magazine also feature pictures of naked ladies. This is because the female body is a beautiful work of art, while the male body is hairy and lumpy and should not be seen by the light of day.
23. Little girls love to play with toys. Then, when they reach the age of 11 or 12, they lose interest. Men never grow out of their obsession wih toys. As they older, their toys simply become more expensive and impractical. Examples of men's toys: little miniature TV's, car phones, complicated juicers and blenders, graphic equalizers, small robots that serve cocktails on command, video games, anything that blinks, beeps, and requires at least six "D" batteries to operate.
24. When reminiscing about weddings, women talk about "the ceremony". Men talk about "the bachelor party".
25. Men love to talk politics, but often they forget to do political things such as voting. Women are very happy that another generation of Kennedys is growing up and getting into politics, because they will be able to campaign for them and cry on election night.
26. Men see the telephone as a communications tool. They use the telephone to send short messages to other people. A woman can visit her girlfriend for two weeks, and upon returning home, she will call the same friend and they will talk for three hours.
27. A man will pay Rs.2000 for a Rs.1000 item he wants. A woman will pay Rs.1000 for a Rs.2000 that she doesn't want.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Christianity, Judaism and Islam and may be Chinese now…!!
Perhaps one of the most sensitive issues in Global Scenario is presently is Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. In 19th century Britishers dominated Middle East. Presently , US influence for control over the region’s vast reserves of oil in which the whole European and American economy depends has been prominent. Hence, the state of Israel has been supported by the west majorly due to their own interests in oil and to ensure an ally in that region. That is why US has been supplying military aid to Turkey and Egypt (www.tiny.cc/s0Kog). The well established Jewish community in US has a great influence in US foreign policy. I believe Zionism in US is more fierce than that in Israel. After being terribly suffered dring WWII, , any criticism of Israeli policies towards the Palestinian people and other Arabs, lends well to an automatic, unfavorable label of anti-Semetic. In 2005, when Israel unilaterally withdrew from the narrow coastal territory, then-Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon promised it would make Israel safer. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice hailed the move as "historic." Israel had left behind a political vacuum, however. That, along with decisions by Israel, the U.S. and Palestinian rivals inadvertently boosted the militant Islamic group Hamas into power. Hamas is stronger than ever, and Israel's air strikes risk bolstering it further, according to current and former U.S. officials, diplomats and analysts.
According to Scot F. Stine , the best possible solution to end this conflict is that Israel and the Palestinians heading toward a one-state solution or a bi-national state. Both solutions would prohibit Israel from realizing its dream of normalization and prohibit the achievement of a sustainable level of security. For the Palestinians, either solution spells their further subjugation or expulsion from the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Right or wrong, the United States suffers guilt by association with Israel due to its strong economic and military support for Israel. Thus, it is imperative to the achievement of US interests in the Middle East that the United States takes the lead in building an international coalition capable of imposing an immediate resolution to the problem. The only solution capable of satisfying the best interests of all parties concerned is a two-state solution. The previous step-by-step approaches to peace have failed and the immediate recognition of the state of Palestine is imperative to future stability in the region. You will be able to read the full thesis at www.tiny.cc/S6U84
Bill Gerthz’s writing in the Washington Times,said that China is supplying large quantities of weapons to both Iraq and Afghanistan, through Iran. Some arms were sent by aircraft directly from Chinese factories to Afghanistan and included large-caliber sniper rifles, millions of rounds of ammunition, rocket-propelled grenades and components for roadside bombs, as well as other small arms. Now, it is definitely probable that Hamas and other millitant groups of Palestine may have or will definitely have access to Chinese Weaponary in near future. How it this development shape the Israel-Palestine conflict if it occurs is definitely the question of future. If the Chinese enter this conflict actively or passively how will it change the ways of peace process in Gaza??
US to China
There are very few communist countries now. Russia is not looking to expand communism throughout the globe anymore and China is so knee-deep into capitalism that their people are more worried about getting flat screened TV’s vs fighting a neighbour for land. The Panama Canal is in the Chinese hands de facto. USA is still not finished with the choke it has with Iraq and Afghanistan and a fantasy war with Iran. China after leading in Olympics organised in its own soil is now in everybody’s eye central. USA is being weak, retreating from it own principle of freedom and stepping everyone foot all over the world trying to extablish world hegemony and the on-going financial recession is ruining it. What we hear from CNN or other channels, are just privatized US propaganda. The things that US has over China are stealth technology, a blue water navy, more tanks and aircraft, if not men and strong allies. Most of the world is still feel China is unreliable. In case of war anywhere in the world these two titans are sure to wrestle, in future. But who is going to come victorious is still a puzzle. There were 1.3 BILLION people in China in 2006. 450 MILLION were men between the ages of 15 and 64 years old. In 2003, there were a estimated 300 MILLION Americans. Put it another way...there were 50% more men in China between 15 and 64 years of age than there were total people in the US. Yet again, knowing that there was a estimated 90 million men in the US for 2007, it can be said that there were 5 times more men in China than in the US capable of fighting. China has no reason to fight the USA, but the USA has a reason to fight China. The US is by far the largest consumer of Chinese goods, and the largest provider of food to china. The US being removed from the equation means the booming economy of China fails, and you would also see mass starvation, and quite possibly an incredible upswing in government brutality and aggression towards its neighbors to meet its needs for resources. The population of china is divided between the urban and rural. The rural Chinese historically are the ones to revolt, and in the event of a large scale war would be the most called upon for military service (kind of like the Ukrainians were cannon fodder for the soviet union). The rural Chinese would see that they are growing the food, doing the fighting, and are still being left behind by the government and would rise up again as they have before. If it ever did come to a military conflict between the US and china and stayed conventional (nuclear is a no-win situation for all involved), the Americans have the upper hand. Look at our casualties vs other soviet equipped countries (Iraq). Granted the Chinese do have higher end equipment than the iraqis, but it still wouldn't be enough to make up for the vast technological advantages of the US. Plus in a war against a truly powerful nation like china, you'd see all the secret weaponry come out that the US has. 500 billion dollar a year budget has to buy some pretty cool toys. If the economy keeps developing in the same fashion as it is doing now, in 50 years, China will possibly be one of the financial strongest nations in the world. It has an immense economic growth, due to the large amount of money invested by foreign companies. Many companies are moving into China due to the production-costs being quite low. So I suppose China certainly could pose a risk to the USA current role in the world.
