Jul 21, 2011
Installing OS X 10.7 Lion
The optical disk is dead. Or at least it is for Apple fans. The  company had been dropping DVD drives from its latest hardware and its  new operating system, OS X 10.7 Lion, is now available in digital form  only, via the Mac App Store . 
On one hand that's great — upgrading is just a matter of clicking  a button and you're done, everything is handled seamlessly behind the  scenes. 
However, the App Store method means you'll have to be running  Snow Leopard (which is the only other OS that supports the App Store),  and you'll have to download a nearly 4GB file, which can take quite a  while if you haven't got a fast internet connection. 
The other problem is that the App Store install doesn't offer the  opportunity to do a "clean" install — that is, wipe away your old  system and install a fresh copy of Lion. To do a clean install Apple  would have you wait until August, when the company will be begin  shipping Lion on USB sticks for a whopping $70, more the double the $30  App Store price. 
However, despite what Apple says, there are in fact other ways to  install Lion. Here's our guide to the various ways of installing  Apple's newest OS on your Mac without waiting until August or paying  double for the USB stick. 
Downloading Lion
The simplest way to install Lion is to download it from the Mac App  Store and then run the installer. If your connection is too slow to make  a 4 GB download practical, head to your nearest Apple Store which will  allow you to download a copy via their speedy wifi connection. It'll  still take a while, but at least you can play with fancy new Macs while  you wait. 
Don't have fast broadband or live near a Mac store? Make friends  with someone who has the broadband you need, or be patient and wait  several days for Lion to download. Alternately you can wait until August  and pay a premium for a USB copy. 
 Build your own install disk
Just because Apple wants everything to be digital doesn't mean you  have to oblige them. In fact it's dead simple to create your own DVD or  USB Lion installer. When Lion installs it will create a hidden recovery  partition on your harddrive. Should anything ever go wrong with your  installation you can always hold down the option key at start up and  boot from the emergency partition to re-install Lion.  
Given the new hidden disk failsafe, why bother creating an  installation disk? Well, you'll need it if you want to do a clean  install and it's not a bad thing to have around. If your hard drive  fails the hidden partition will fail with it and you'll be stuck  downloading Lion again. 
Fortunately creating an install disk from the Lion installer is  pretty easy. First head to your Applications folder, where you'll see  the freshly downloaded Lion installer app. Right-click on the app and  select "Show Package Contents." That will open the installer bundle in a  new window where you'll see a folder called "SharedSupport." Inside  "SharedSupport" there's a disk image called "InstallESD.dmg." The "ESD"  bit stands for "Emergency Startup Disk," which is what we'll use to  create a new Lion install disk, so copy "InstallESD.dmg" somewhere else. 
Now insert your disk — a DVD, a USB stick or an external hard drive will all work — and launch Disk Utility .  Select the drive you're using and then click the "Restore" tab. Make  sure your backup drive is set as the "Destination," and then just drag  and drop the "InstallESD.dmg" into the "Source" box. Click "Restore" and  wait for Disk Utility to work it's magic. Once it's done, eject your  disk and you're finished. Use that disk as you would any other  installation disk. 
 Over-the-air "clean" install
If something goes catastrophically wrong with your Mac, Apple has a  new hidden option in Lion that will allow you to wipe your drive and do a  clean install via the internet. That's great for recovery purposes,  should something go wrong with your install. 
To get to the new options, just start up your Mac holding down  command-R and you'll be greeted by a menu that will allow you to restore  your system to any point in time from a Time Machine backup, run Disk  Utility to check, repair or partition disks and connect to Apple via  Safari. That's the hidden recovery partition kicking in. 
Lion's so-called Internet Recovery mode lets you start your Mac directly from Apple's Servers, as per Apple's tech note: 
Note: If your Mac problem is a little less common — your  hard drive has failed or you've installed a hard drive without OS X, for  example — Internet Recovery takes over automatically. It downloads and  starts Lion Recovery directly from Apple servers over a broadband  Internet connection. And your Mac has access to the same Lion Recovery  features online. Internet Recovery is built into every newly-released  Mac starting with the Mac mini and MacBook Air. 
 Conclusion
As with in OS upgrade be sure to make complete bootable backups (and test them!) before you begin installing OS X Lion. 
Gmail Calling Now Supports Multiple Calls and Call Waiting features
If you are a regular user used to making call via Google Voice in Gmail but  craved additional features, today is your lucky day. Gmail calling now  supports multiple calls, call waiting, and hold. 
Now when you’re talking to someone you can put them on hold, accept  an incoming call, and switch between the two calls just as you can with a  real phone line that has call waiting enabled. Even if you don’t intend  to pick up a second line you can still place a current caller on hold  to effectively mute the conversation temporarily. Hit up the link below  to read more about the new features at the official Gmail blog. 
Jul 20, 2011
Google to Shut Down Google Labs :GoolgeBlog
Yesterday Google in its official blog posted that it is going to wind down its Labs service..
Last week we explained that we’re prioritizing our product efforts. As part of that process, we’ve decided to wind down Google Labs. While we’ve learned a huge amount by launching very early prototypes in Labs, we believe that greater focus is crucial if we’re to make the most of the extraordinary opportunities ahead.
In many cases, this will mean ending Labs experiments—in others we’ll incorporate Labs products and technologies into different product areas. And many of the Labs products that are Android apps today will continue to be available on Android Market. We’ll update you on our progress via the Google Labs website.
Last week we explained that we’re prioritizing our product efforts. As part of that process, we’ve decided to wind down Google Labs. While we’ve learned a huge amount by launching very early prototypes in Labs, we believe that greater focus is crucial if we’re to make the most of the extraordinary opportunities ahead.
In many cases, this will mean ending Labs experiments—in others we’ll incorporate Labs products and technologies into different product areas. And many of the Labs products that are Android apps today will continue to be available on Android Market. We’ll update you on our progress via the Google Labs website.
During the company's most recent earnings conference call, co-founder Larry Page,    who took over as CEO in April, said that the company was in the midst    of trimming its broad palette of products and services, eliminating    those that haven't proven popular and successful, like Google Health  and   Google PowerMeter, shut down in late June. 
The   closing of Google Labs doesn't affect the company's policy to    encourage employees to devote 20 percent of their work time to projects    of their own invention, the spokesman said. 
Im   frustrated that Google isnt giving us a lot of information about what    features well lose and when. If I knew what was going away, and when, I    could start researching for alternatives. Or maybe a kindly startup    could volunteer to take the feature out of Googles hands and support  it.   What do yall think? What Labs features will you miss?
Larry Summers on debt, bubbles, and Obama : transcript
MR. ISAACSON:  So was that scene in the social network true?
(Laughter.)
DR. SUMMERS:  I've heard it said that I can be arrogant.
(Laughter.)
DR. SUMMERS:  If that's true, I surely was on that occasion.  One of  the things you learn as a college president is that if an undergraduate  is wearing a tie and jacket on Thursday afternoon at three o'clock,  there are two possibilities.  One is that they're looking for a job and  have an interview; the other is that they are an asshole.
(Laughter; applause.)
DR. SUMMERS:  This was the latter case.  Rarely, have I encountered such swagger, and I tried to respond in kind.
(Laughter; applause.)
MR. ISAACSON:  So what's happening with the debt ceiling talks, do you think, and what should be done?
DR. SUMMERS:  And now for something completely different.  Look, if  we default on August 2nd, it's going to be what happened after Lehman  collapsed on steroids.  It's going to be financial Armageddon.
The idea that adults who have some agenda, whatever the merits of  their agenda, are really prepared to threaten sending the United States  into default, to pursue their agenda, is beyond belief. 
 You know, I have had arguments with my college-aged children about  spending, and sometimes we discuss whether they should spend less,  whether they should pay, whether I should pay.  We don't entertain the  option that because we can't resolve our argument, Visa should get  stiffed.
(Laughter.)
DR. SUMMERS:  And that's what's going on here.  I mean it is  outrageous.  The idea that these people are threatening to make the  country default so they can get their way is beyond belief.
 Look, on the merits of the deficit policies and the budget policies, I  obviously tend to share the President's views.  But you can make  perfectly reasonable arguments for, in the direction of what the House  majority favors.
 But threatening to make the country default?  I mean it is not something that should be treated as a civilized discourse.
MR. ISAACSON:  Do you think --
DR. SUMMERS:  My guess is, my pretty confident guess is that yet  again, Churchill's dictum will prove correct.  Churchill says the United  States does the right thing, but only after exhausting the  alternatives.
 (Laughter.)
DR. SUMMERS:  And so I think you'll see a certain amount of Perils of  Pauline stuff.  But I am very confident that on August 3rd, we will not  be in default.
MR. ISAACSON:  Do you think the Gang of Six thing is serious, just in  your outside guess of it, that they will make a deal in the Senate, the  moderates?
DR. SUMMERS:  I think it's an encouraging step in the process.  I  think the recognition that you need revenues and expenditures both; the  idea that addressing the deficit problem can be combined with a tax  reform agenda that has needed to be pushed for quite some time, towards  broadening the tax base, I think that's very encouraging.
 I think if you look at the details, you'll see that there's a lot in  the Gang of Six that is a plan to have a plan, rather than a plan.   You'll see that there's a Senate and that there's a House.  You'll see  that the proposal that actually came today didn't explicitly address the  debt limit.
 So I think it's a positive development, but I think of it more as a  positive development signaling ideological changes and ideological  evolution that may be helpful, than as an immediate response to the  current problems.
MR. ISAACSON:  Do you think that President Obama waited too long to get deeply engaged?
DR. SUMMERS:  No.  I mean I think you can make that argument.  Look, I  think the biggest problem the country has right now is not the budget  deficit.  The biggest problem the country has right now is the jobs  deficit.  Yes, there's a risk that we will misplay things and make the  mistakes of the 1970's, and have inflation and have excessive borrowing.
 But far and away the larger risk is that we will make the mistakes of  1937, and that we will not have a recovery that is sustained, that we  will make the mistakes that Japan made, and that we will have a decade  or two of stagnation.  The right question to be focused on is how to  stimulate demand.
 Look out there, guys.  The Treasury bond rate, Treasury note rate for  ten years is 2.85 percent.  Nobody is failing to invest because 2.85  percent is too much.  They are failing to invest because there are no  customers in their store.  They are failing to invest because their  factories are sitting empty.  They are failing to innovate because  they're not sure how large the market for the product will be.
 That is the problem that we need to address.  By the way, an extra  percent a year on the growth rate for the next five years will do more  for the budget than any amount of the entitlement-cutting that's under  discussion.
 So I think the President has been right to be focused, and I think he  could even focus more intensely on what is, I think, the central  problem, which is how to get enough demand and enough confidence going,  so that this economy achieves escape velocity from the recession.
 We've been flying out of the recession, but we've been flying out of  it dangerously close to stall speed, and doing something about that  should be our top priority.  I mean it is crazy.
MR. ISAACSON:  Does that mean more stimulus?
DR. SUMMERS:  Well, you can call it that.  That's one part of it.  It  is crazy if you think about it, that we have schools across this  country where we tell our kids that education is the most important  thing in the world, but we ask them to study in classrooms where the  paint is chipping off the walls.
We can borrow money to invest in fixing that, at 2.8 percent.  Twenty  percent of the people in the country who are doing construction are  unemployed, and we're not trying to do something about that, when we  have a major demand problem?  It just doesn't make any sense.
 We have infrastructure in this country -- I mean you can argue  whether we need a new high speed rail system or whether we don't need a  new high speed rail system.  But I don't know what the argument is for  letting bridges collapse.  I don't know what the argument is.
 I mean every time, and  unfortunately it's fairly often, I fly in and  out of Kennedy Airport to any other airport in the world that you might  fly to from Kennedy -- you can fly to Europe, you can fly to Asia, any  of those places, and you compare Kennedy Airport with the airport where  you land, and you ask yourself which is the airport of the greatest  country, richest, most powerful country in the world?
 I mean, and you know, you can say airports aren't that important or  whatever.  But it is symbolic of an approach to infrastructure that  probably never made any sense, and certainly doesn't make any sense when  you can borrow money at 2.8 percent and you've got 20 percent of the  construction workers unemployed.
 So I'd rather see us focus on the jobs deficit.  I'd rather see us  focus on the public investment deficit.  I'd rather see us focus on the  human capital deficit.  Those are deficits that we need to focus on  also.
 Yes, in the long run right now, thanks mostly to what happened during  the Bush administration, the United States of America taxes 14 percent  of GDP.  Fourteen percent.  That's about four and a half percent below  the average of what we've done over the post World War II period, and we  now have the oldest population that we're ever going to have, a larger  debt than we had before.
 We have, apart from the aging of the population, a public sector  that's heavily involved in health care, and in every country in the  world, health care has grown relative to GDP.  The idea that somehow 14  percent is adequate, or that the priorities starting at 14 percent  should be to cut taxes, is crazy.
 Yes, there's all kinds of reform we should do in the tax system.   There are all kinds of loopholes and evasions that need to be looked at,  but these are some of the approaches that I think we should be thinking  about, and I guess this competitive green eye shading, that is the  character of too much of the Washington debate, is pushing some policies  in favorable directions.
 But I think it's kind of a bit beside the point of what's going to  make the American economy as strong as it can possibly be in 2030 and  2040, and that seems to me to be the profoundly important question.
MR. ISAACSON:  Where are jobs going to come from in the next, between now and 2030?
DR. SUMMERS:  Look, the most rapidly growing sector of jobs over the  last decade, and in the forecasts for the next decade, is health care,  and education is in the top five.  So we need to embrace that.  We need  to figure out how to make those jobs be better targeted; we need to  figure out how to make them be better jobs; we need to do that.
 But we do need to recognize that it is those kind of service  industries that are going to be major providers of jobs in our economy.
MR. ISAACSON:  Is that a true productivity for the economy?
DR. SUMMERS:  Is it true productivity that -- you and I had a  conversation before -- is it true productivity that two months ago you  were limping around, and now you're able to go on hikes because you  replaced your knee?  Yes, I think that's -- and that wouldn't have been  possible for somebody 20 years ago.
 Yes, I think that's true productivity.  Is it true productivity that  there are a variety of cancers that we used to not be able to cure, that  we're now able to cure?  Yes.  It doesn't show up that much in the GDP  statistics, but if you look at what's happened in the life sciences and  what it's done to improve the quality of people's lives, it's immensely  important.
 That's not to make an excuse for malpractice-driven defensive  medicine.  That's not to make an excuse for doctors who are doing it to  collect the fees, for the fact that, you know, certain procedures are  done three times as often in one place as in another place, and there's  no data that's used to study it.
 So we've got to do a lot about health care.  But we've got to  recognize that the jobs that are there to be had are heavily going to be  jobs involved in providing services to each other.  The reality is that  manufacturing employment has been trending downwards for 50 years.
 That production -- there are the fraction of all the workers in the  United States who are engaged in manufacturing production right now, is  less than a fraction of the workers who were engaged in farming in the  late 1950's, and it's a very similar phenomenon.
 Spectacular productivity growth means you can produce all that you  need with relatively few people, and that frees up people to do other  things.  That's basically a positive, but it involves a lot of  dislocation that has to be sensibly managed.
 So I think as we think about jobs, we've got to think about the  service sector.  We've got to think about conditions of employment in  the service sector.  We've got to think about how the service sector can  be made a larger employment generator.  We've got to recognize that  many of the activities, where there is the greatest needs in our  society, health care.
 We don't really have a problem that there aren't enough television  sets in our society.  We really don't.  I mean we did once.  I mean it  used to be that some people had television sets and some people don't.   We don't have that problem anymore in America.
 You know, if you think about it, there aren't that many manufactured  goods that actually, even families beneath the poverty line, don't  have.  Where we have huge gaps are in the provision of services that the  people in this room take for granted, for themselves and for their  children, that actually aren't available to a large fraction of  Americans.
 So as we think about job creation, we're going to have to think much more about the service sector.
MR. ISAACSON:  Speaking of job creation and technology, the three  technologies that could be either significant or insignificant in this  process, and maybe you could rank them.  Green technology,  biotechnology, information technology.  Which will be significant and  which are rather insignificant for the future, of job growth?
DR. SUMMERS:  Look, I think it's a bit Sophie's Choice, because I  think innovation is profoundly important, and I think it's profoundly  important in all of its aspects.  My own sense, looking at them, is that  while energy efficiency technologies can make significant contributions  with respect to global climate change, can make significant  contributions with respect to our dependence on foreign energy, it's  important to remember that energy is about six percent of the economy.
 At the end of the day, if you have renewable energy or you don't have  renewable energy, you still plug their lamp in to the plug and get  electricity.  So you don't have the kind of transformation that the  automobile or the Internet represented, where people are able to do  things that they had not previously been able to do.
 In contrast, if I look at information technology, what I see is that  whether it is manufacturing or retailing, whether it is -- whether it is  publishing or wholesaling, I cannot see a sector of the economy that is  not being profoundly transformed by what information technology is  making possible, and that again and again with respect to information  technology, it's not -- it is that things we used to do are becoming  easier to do.
 But it is even to a much greater extent that things that we didn't  used to imagine thinking about doing now becoming possible because of  information and technology.  So it seems to me that when this era is  looked back on, the revolution in information technology will be a very  large part of it.
 With respect -- I think the life sciences are sort of in an  intermediate category.  You know, maybe because I've been a beneficiary  of medical research that came along about seven years early enough to be  in time for me, I feel this particularly strongly.
 But I think if you ask yourself the question, and think about this  question.  Which would you rather have, 2011 standards of living and  1951 health care, or 1951 standards of living and 2011 health care?   Most people think about that, I've done this a fair number of times,  people aren't sure.  Some people think one, some people think the  other.  You can argue both sides of the question.
 But if you think about it, it's kind of remarkable, because what  that's saying is that the progress in one small sector of the economy,  one relatively small, albeit growing sector of the economy, driven by  scientific research, has added as much to our well-being as all the  material progress in the rest of the economy.
 So while I don't think the, you know, I don't think there's been a  year when the biotech industry as a whole made profits, and I don't  think that when somebody writes the economic history of the United  States, the biotech contribution is likely to loom large 50 years from  now in the way that the information technology does.
 When somebody writes the human history of Americans, the fact that 25  years from now we will have done most of the following:  cure  Alzheimer's, apply stem cells to prevent diabetes, develop approaches  that enable most of us to be the weight we want to be, rather than the  weight we are, and find a solution for dementia, the fact that 25 years  from now we will have done not all of those things, but we will have  done most of those things, I think that looms enormously large.
 I think it's a -- you know, one feature of technology is that it's  driven, of course, as you all know, by exponential growth.  If you think  about exponential growth, one-two-four-eight-sixteen-thirty-two.  You  know, 32 minus 16 is more than all the technological progress, all the  progress that happened from 1 to 16.
 So as we make progress, and as the base of that growth gets larger,  the amount of change that we are able to drive over the next two decades  will be greater than has been possible in any previous two decades.  So  for my judgment would be that all the technological innovation is going  to be profoundly important, but economically what happens that  information technology and humanly, what happens in life sciences  technology, is really going to be revolutionary.
MR. ISAACSON:  On the euphoria you've expressed about information technology, it sort of brings to mind Fortune's  cover this week.  One of my favorite bumper stickers out in Silicon  Valley is "Oh Lord, please grant us just one more bubble."
(Laughter.)
 MR. ISAACSON:  Of course, the old line too being "Be careful of what  you wish for.  The gods may grant it to you."  Do you think, you're now  at Square, you're now at Andreesen Horowitz.  Do you think we're in  danger of being too euphoric and having a bubble here?
 DR. SUMMERS:  Nobody who's ever been a government financial official  ever will answer a question saying "No, I am not concerned about a  bubble."
(Laughter.)
DR. SUMMERS:  That is a prescription for being -- nobody will  remember that you said that, unless of course the bubble bursts, in  which case you will be the example of the stupid euphoria that generated  the bubble.  So you're not going to get me to be dismissive of the idea  of a bubble and, you know, I think it is always useful to keep in mind,  the way somebody said it to me, is the three most dangerous words on a  ski slope are "follow me dad," and the --
(Laughter.)
DR. SUMMERS:  And the four most dangerous words in markets are "it's different this time."
 (Laughter.)
DR. SUMMERS:  Having said that, having said that, here's some things  that I think complicate the story relative to some of what's written.   If you look at Apple, and you make some elementary kinds of adjustments,  and you take out, for example, their substantial holdings of cash, the  price earnings ratio of Apple is about two-thirds the price earnings  ratio of GE.
 Oh, maybe Apple has lots less growth prospects than GE, but it's not  an immediately intuitive thing, you know, the iPad, iPod, I don't know.   Just cloud.  It just doesn't seem immediately intuitive.
 That's not atypical.  If you look at the price earnings ratio for  technology companies relative to the price earnings ratios for all  industrial companies, you take that ratio, PE technology divided by PE  industrial, you can plot that ratio over the last 40 years, and it is at  the lowest point that it's ever been.
 So if you look at the large tech sector, it's very, very hard to see a  bubble.  Now you'd say well okay, maybe that isn't a bubble, but what  about the Linked-Ins and the Zingas and the stuff that's on second  market and all of that?  That's much, much harder to evaluate.
 Of course, you might think it has something to do, you know.   Linked-In's now on the public markets.  You might think there was some  arbitrage that went on between old technology and new technology.  What  is true is that the Internet, the last time there was an Internet  bubble, was 120 million people dialing up.
 The Internet today is two billion people and two billion mobile  devices, with wireless connectivity at a far more rapid pace.  Today,  the businesses have cash flow, which they didn't ten years ago.  So I  think it's a little facile to assume that just because the numbers are  big, that it's obviously a bubble.
 But as I go through these arguments and I can produce a few more in  the same direction, I am sobered by the thought that every bubble has  its wise guy, and it's the guy who has a set of explanations of how it's  different this time.  So I think it's a very difficult set of judgments  to make, but I guess I am surprised by those who approach this question  with certitude.
 Those who are confident that it's not a bubble, you know, who can  look at history and be confident that things aren't a bubble?  Those who  are confident that it is a bubble don't seem to me to have looked at  some of the kinds of facts that I just cited.
 So I don't quite understand thoughtful people having positions that don't include some agnosticism.
MR. ISAACSON:  Last question before I get a few from the audience.   What's the difference between working for Barack Obama and Bill Clinton?
DR. SUMMERS:  Okay.  So you're working for Bill Clinton.  Well, let's  do it differently.  Let's do it the other way.  You're working for  Barack Obama.  If you have a meeting scheduled at ten o'clock, there's a  25 percent chance that the meeting will begin before ten o'clock, and  there's a -- you know what's coming, and there's a 70 percent chance  that the meeting will have begun by 10:15.
If you wrote Barack Obama a memo before the meeting, it is a virtual  certainty that he will have read it.  If you seek to explain the memo  you wrote to him during the meeting, he will cut you off, and he will be  irritated.  If he, as the leader of the meeting, will ask one or two  questions to kick the tires, but will basically focus on how whatever  subject you're talking about fits with the broad vision and approaches  of his presidency.
 He will basically take the attitude if you're his financial advisor,  that if you can't -- it's up to you to figure out whether preferred  stock or subordinated debt is the appropriate financial instrument for  your bailout, and that if he doesn't trust you to figure it out, he'll  get a new financial adviser, but that is not the question on which he is  going to spend time.
 So it's a very focused executive, big picture guidance, disciplined  approach.  At the appointed time, his secretary will come in and will  bring a card that says it's time for his next meeting, and you will be  out of that office within five minutes.  It is a certainty.  That's  working for Barack Obama, and it is a wonderful experience.
 Working for Bill Clinton is also a wonderful experience.  It is a different experience.
(Laughter.)
DR. SUMMERS:  The probability that your meeting will begin before ten o'clock is zero.
(Laughter.)
DR. SUMMERS:  The probability that there is compensation for the fact  that your meeting will begin late, it is virtually certain to end  late.  Bill Clinton has a 30 percent chance of having read your memo  before the memo.  Bill Clinton will, however, with near certainty, have  some set of quite detailed and thoughtful perspectives to offer on your  topic.
 He will say things like "I was in the White House library reading the Journal of Finance,  and there's some really interesting thinking about the role of  dividends in the system."  "I went to a conference at the Brookings  Institution 11 years ago, and do you know that there's a really  interesting experiment with providing credit access in Tennessee?"
 "Did you read the latest issue of -- the Asian edition of The Economist?   It had a perspective on Thailand that you might want to think about."   There was a stunning, I mean you know, while he wasn't reading your  memo, it wasn't that he wasn't doing anything about it.
(Laughter.)
DR. SUMMERS:  So it was a very different kind of experience that was  also extraordinary in its way.  I think the nation has been fortunate to  have two such thoughtful, purposeful, highly intelligent and focused  people, who have served as President, and it's certainly been my good  fortune to work for both of them, with their rather different styles.
MR. ISAACSON:  Questions here?  Yes, Andy Sorwa (ph).  You don't get to ask many questions in life, do you.
MR. SORWA:  (off mic) Larry, can I ask you, have the Republicans -- taking from the last --
 MR. ISAACSON:  I'll repeat it, yes.
MR. SORWA:  Is there anything the Republicans have done that is laudatory?
MR. ISAACSON:  Anything the Republicans have done that you think is laudatory?
(Laughter.)
DR. SUMMERS:  Look.  The wiseguy answer is to say something like --  the wiseguy answer would be to say something like well, a number of them  have really good voting records in the Senate, or to say that a number  of them are very good to their children.  I mean there are all kinds of  wisecracks for answering that question.
 But I don't actually believe that.  I think that -- no, no, I don't  mean it that way.  Sorry.  That was unintentional.  That was  unintentional.
(Laughter.)
DR. SUMMERS:  Yes.  I think that the Republicans have quite properly  focused attention on the cost control aspects associated with health  care.  I think the Republican view that the American tort system is a  substantial tax on American prosperity is correct.  I think the  Republican view that in recession, you need to be thoughtful about the  approach you take to regulation, and that you need to recognize that  regulation has a range of costs.
 Yes, the FDA protects us from bad drugs, but in the process, it may  also delay the availability of good drugs.  Yes, I think there's  enormous benefit that comes from the perspective that Republicans have  brought, and I think there are -- I'm not going to get into naming,  dividing Republicans or Democrats into two categories.
 But I think there are any number of Republican officials who have  been -- who have made enormous contributions and continue to make  enormous contributions to the development of American public policy.   Frankly, without a focused opposition, I think there is substantial  danger that progressives would go off in directions that might well not  be the right directions for creating prosperity.
 I do think the movement that has emerged, principally within the  Republican Party, to government by a kind of terrorism, to try to get  your way around the national debt, is profoundly irresponsible, and  really does serve to weaken the country.  So I think that is not an  example of successful loyal opposition.  But I think there's much else  that is.
MR. ISAACSON:  President Summers, thank you very much.  That was awesome.  Appreciate it.
 (Applause.)
Updated MacBook Air released
Apple updated the MacBook Air with new high-speed Thunderbolt connections, a backlit keyboard, and Mac OS X Lion, the newest version of the operating system that also became available today.
Starting at $999 for the U.S. market,Students can expect to pay £730 through the Education Store, and U.S. students will find the costs to be knocked down to $949, according to the website.
Samsung launched New Galaxy Tab
The Korean company Samsung Electronics has come out with a new version of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 in its own backyard, the South Korean  market, in a renewed attempt to take on the current market leader, the  iPad from Apple. 
"As our smartphone business grew very fast within a  very short period of time, I believe it's just a matter of time for our  tablet business to improve,"  
JK Shin, head of Samsung' mobile division,  told in.Reuters.com.  
  About 14 million iPads were sold by Apple in the first half of 2011,  whereas it is estimated that Samsung sold about 7.5 million units of  Galaxy Tab in the entire 2011. Samsung is the nearest thing to what  Apple can call a rival, and the company could become an Apple rival  because of easy access to core tablet components and chips, thus  increasing its cost competitiveness. 
    The upgrade has come at a time when the two companies are fighting a  legal battle in which Apple claims Samsung has been copying its product  designs for its Galaxy smartphones and tablets. Samsung, in return,  counterattacked against Apple by asking for access to forthcoming Apple  products iPad 3 and iPhone 5. The request was not granted, but the  ferocity of the fight became quite clear with these moves.
    In a news, the new Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 will be sporting a MicroSIM card which means it is doing what iPad has done earlier. 
Prices of the new version of Galaxy Tab starts at $500 (about Rs  22,000), just like iPad 2 from Apple. Samsung believes it would be able  to increase its tablet sales by five times, though it didn't give out  any specific numbers.
Jul 19, 2011
Apple's quarterly revenue record growth with hot iPad, iPhone sales
Apple on Tuesday reported that revenue and profit rocketed to record highs in the recent quarter as sales of iPhones and iPads more than doubled.
Apple said it made a net profit of $7.31 billion on unprecedented revenue of $28.57 billion in the quarter ending June 25.
Read More
Read More
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)






