Google Docs Becomes Google ‘Any File’ as Cloud Wars Heat Up
Google is now offering a small virtual hard drive in the cloud so you can access all sorts of files anywhere — the latest salvo in an arms race to become the dominant player in cloud services.
As with many Google initiatives, this one may be deceptively modest: When it is completely rolled out, Google Docs will accept uploads of any kind of file — not just text and spreadsheets. That move heightens their competition with Microsoft, and takes on Apple and a number of small startups in the business of creating backup and storage space on remote servers.
This business is suddenly becoming viable with the ubiquity of broadband connectivity (which makes things almost as accessible as they’d be on your hard drive) and the popularity of netbooks (which are usually light on internal storage). Cloud computing also makes it possible never to lose data when you drop your beloved laptop, or when you don’t have it with you.
It’s already a crowded field, with all of the usual suspects: Microsoft’s cloud-based platform, Azure, is already available in a fully a la carte pricing scheme geared toward their core enterprise customers, and it offers a 25-GB online Skydrive for home users through its Microsoft Live services. Apple’s Mobile Me (once known as iDisk) has a 20-GB floor for $100 a year and a family plan in keeping with their mainly consumer focus.
For now, Google is portraying the initiative less dramatically, as a USB key rather than as a hard-drive replacement.
Instead of e-mailing files to yourself, which is particularly difficult with large files, you can upload to Google Docs any file up to 250 MB…. This makes it easy to back up more of your key files online, from large graphics and raw photos to unedited home videos taken on your smartphone. You might even be able to replace the USB drive you reserved for those files that are too big to send over e-mail.
While text documents and spreadsheets don’t count toward the total, the offering is actually quite underwhelming in terms of capacity: 1 GB, with extra storage available for $0.25 per GB/year. By contrast, Gmail now offers more than 7 GB of storage for e-mails and attachments, while Google’s Picasa lets you store 10 GB of photos.
But perhaps this is just a beginning of the famed Google Drive, a full-on hard drive in the sky. It’s one more step to make the free Google Docs into a compelling alternative to Microsoft Word — another attempt to break the hold Microsoft has on the desktop to transition users to using the internet even more (because that’s where Google makes its money).
If this is the precursor to something larger — say a giant Google drive that combines Gmail and Picassa, etc., Google ought to get themselves and their checkbook over to Dropbox, the little startup that offers a fabulous service that turns a folder on your PC or Mac into a shared storage drive. And if I were at Yahoo or Microsoft, I’d hope to get to Dropbox ahead of Google.
Tuesday, 12 January 2010
New York seeks millions of USD in unpaid taxes from Nigeria
New York seeks millions of USD in unpaid taxes from Nigeria
www.chinaview.cn 2010-01-13 08:33:13
NEW YORK, Jan. 12 (Xinhua) -- New York City announced on Tuesday that it would sue Nigeria over millions of U.S. dollars in unpaid taxes.
"The Nigerian government has failed to pay real estate taxes, interest and other charges for commercial offices and other non-tax exempt spaces in the 22-story building," the mayor's office said.
The city is seeking between 4.1 million U.S. dollars and upwards of 16 million dollars in unpaid taxes for the Manhattan tower at 822 Second Avenue. The precise amount owned is unknown "because of the refusal of the Nigerian government to supply documentation."
A Xinhua request for comment from the Nigerian Mission to the United Nations went unanswered before deadline.
"Especially in these tough economic times, we will go after every dollar that is owed to city taxpayers," said Mayor Michael Bloomberg in a statement.
The building, known as "Nigeria House," is used partially for tax-exempt purposes, including as offices for the Nigerian consulate and the Nigerian Mission to the UN.
However, at least since 2002, and the city believes possibly as far back as 1993, portions of the building have also been used for commercial and other non-tax exempt purposes. A Nigeria Airways office, for example, formerly occupied space in the building's lobby.
"Nigeria was given many opportunities to settle this debt to the city, but it declined to do so," said Commissioner Tiven. "The city seeks to be a good neighbor to foreign governments that own property in the city, but we also expect these governments to do their part and pay their taxes."
www.chinaview.cn 2010-01-13 08:33:13
NEW YORK, Jan. 12 (Xinhua) -- New York City announced on Tuesday that it would sue Nigeria over millions of U.S. dollars in unpaid taxes.
"The Nigerian government has failed to pay real estate taxes, interest and other charges for commercial offices and other non-tax exempt spaces in the 22-story building," the mayor's office said.
The city is seeking between 4.1 million U.S. dollars and upwards of 16 million dollars in unpaid taxes for the Manhattan tower at 822 Second Avenue. The precise amount owned is unknown "because of the refusal of the Nigerian government to supply documentation."
A Xinhua request for comment from the Nigerian Mission to the United Nations went unanswered before deadline.
"Especially in these tough economic times, we will go after every dollar that is owed to city taxpayers," said Mayor Michael Bloomberg in a statement.
The building, known as "Nigeria House," is used partially for tax-exempt purposes, including as offices for the Nigerian consulate and the Nigerian Mission to the UN.
However, at least since 2002, and the city believes possibly as far back as 1993, portions of the building have also been used for commercial and other non-tax exempt purposes. A Nigeria Airways office, for example, formerly occupied space in the building's lobby.
"Nigeria was given many opportunities to settle this debt to the city, but it declined to do so," said Commissioner Tiven. "The city seeks to be a good neighbor to foreign governments that own property in the city, but we also expect these governments to do their part and pay their taxes."
America's largest state is broken and looking for fixes in the wrong places.
America's largest state is broken and looking for fixes in the wrong places.
In my last column I tackled the not-so-secret implosion of state governments across the land. A question, however, still lingers: What ought to be done? On this score there are two, and only two, general approaches. The first is structural and concerns the division of political authority within the states. The second deals with the conception of individual rights and duties of state citizens. As Americans, we should stress the second and ditch the first. But true to form, California seems to be moving in the opposite direction.
Right now many groups are getting ready to put new measures in November's referendum process, which lets voters have the word on reform. These exercises in direct democracy consciously bypass the state legislature, in which public confidence has fallen to 14%--which is quite generous in light of its dismal performance.
Naturally, many of these proposals take aim at the legislature itself. Some try to slash legislative salaries in half, which won't do much good since most people who crave their seats spend far more than they earn to obtain them. What drives them to office is the prospect of power--influence that will ultimately pay them far more than the gobs of cash they need to get elected in the first place.
Other proposals address how legislative gerrymandering of local districts has been a source of public malaise and discontent. True enough, but given the current mind-set the only thing that redistricting will accomplish is a shift in power of the various interest groups that now vie for influence. It will do little or nothing to raise the overall level of legislative performance.
Still other programs aim to alter the balance between state and local governments in ways that shift more education and public safety responsibilities to the local levels. This is a form of mini-federalism; while it will likely do some good in education, when it comes to issues like land-use regulation and labor reform some local communities are as bad as the state.
Worse still are efforts to organize a new constitutional convention to start matters over from scratch. Put that august assembly together and every interest group in town will find ways to entrench their own pet projects. A constitutional mishmash is no better than a legislative one.
The theoretical mistake in these reforms needs emphasis. Structural remedies have one vital function: The diffusion of power in different branches of government is a key bulwark against tyranny, even at the cost of gridlock and paralysis. On balance that trade-off is worth making.
Yet tinkering with this balance will do little to cure today's entitlement malaise. Whatever the importance of some division of power among political actors, no theory tells which division of power is likely to work better than the others. Look around the world and ask whether presidential systems of government, like that in the United States, work better than parliamentary systems of government, like that in Great Britain. We can't be sure. Nations under stress often oscillate between the two, without any clear direction.
On the other hand, getting the basic set of substantive entitlements right does make a huge difference in the success or failure of government. It is only by taking on that unfashionable issue that real progress can be made in places like California. The first order of business should be to rationalize the tax structure. Low, flat taxes on income will draw in capital, not drive it away.
More to the point, none of these proposals take dead aim at entitlements. The impulse is to find out ways to add back dental benefits to Medicaid, often by asking the federal government (i.e., citizens in other states) to foot the bill. It's a mug's game that forces sensible states to subsidize the follies of profligate ones. We need to find a way to shrink the program nationwide.
Dugg on Forbes.com
Closer to home, I have not seen one proposal that works to relax the restrictions on land use now exercised at both the state and the local level. No proposal wants to take on the bloated pensions of public unions or the state protection of private unions. The truth is California is failing because its aspirations have grown so rapidly that they have choked off the productive base needed to fund them. The current set of reform proposals won't stop the state from putting an ever greater set of entitlements onto a shrinking tax base.
What we need is a sharp change in direction--a deep commitment to a smaller government along classic liberal lines. While some of these ballot initiatives will be approved, the underlying situation will get only worse. All the money and effort might be better spent rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
Richard A. Epstein is the James Parker Hall Distinguished Service Professor of Law, The University of Chicago; the Peter and Kirsten Bedford Senior Fellow, the Hoover Institution; and a visiting professor at New York University Law School. He writes a weekly column for Forbes.com.
In my last column I tackled the not-so-secret implosion of state governments across the land. A question, however, still lingers: What ought to be done? On this score there are two, and only two, general approaches. The first is structural and concerns the division of political authority within the states. The second deals with the conception of individual rights and duties of state citizens. As Americans, we should stress the second and ditch the first. But true to form, California seems to be moving in the opposite direction.
Right now many groups are getting ready to put new measures in November's referendum process, which lets voters have the word on reform. These exercises in direct democracy consciously bypass the state legislature, in which public confidence has fallen to 14%--which is quite generous in light of its dismal performance.
Naturally, many of these proposals take aim at the legislature itself. Some try to slash legislative salaries in half, which won't do much good since most people who crave their seats spend far more than they earn to obtain them. What drives them to office is the prospect of power--influence that will ultimately pay them far more than the gobs of cash they need to get elected in the first place.
Other proposals address how legislative gerrymandering of local districts has been a source of public malaise and discontent. True enough, but given the current mind-set the only thing that redistricting will accomplish is a shift in power of the various interest groups that now vie for influence. It will do little or nothing to raise the overall level of legislative performance.
Still other programs aim to alter the balance between state and local governments in ways that shift more education and public safety responsibilities to the local levels. This is a form of mini-federalism; while it will likely do some good in education, when it comes to issues like land-use regulation and labor reform some local communities are as bad as the state.
Worse still are efforts to organize a new constitutional convention to start matters over from scratch. Put that august assembly together and every interest group in town will find ways to entrench their own pet projects. A constitutional mishmash is no better than a legislative one.
The theoretical mistake in these reforms needs emphasis. Structural remedies have one vital function: The diffusion of power in different branches of government is a key bulwark against tyranny, even at the cost of gridlock and paralysis. On balance that trade-off is worth making.
Yet tinkering with this balance will do little to cure today's entitlement malaise. Whatever the importance of some division of power among political actors, no theory tells which division of power is likely to work better than the others. Look around the world and ask whether presidential systems of government, like that in the United States, work better than parliamentary systems of government, like that in Great Britain. We can't be sure. Nations under stress often oscillate between the two, without any clear direction.
On the other hand, getting the basic set of substantive entitlements right does make a huge difference in the success or failure of government. It is only by taking on that unfashionable issue that real progress can be made in places like California. The first order of business should be to rationalize the tax structure. Low, flat taxes on income will draw in capital, not drive it away.
More to the point, none of these proposals take dead aim at entitlements. The impulse is to find out ways to add back dental benefits to Medicaid, often by asking the federal government (i.e., citizens in other states) to foot the bill. It's a mug's game that forces sensible states to subsidize the follies of profligate ones. We need to find a way to shrink the program nationwide.
Dugg on Forbes.com
Closer to home, I have not seen one proposal that works to relax the restrictions on land use now exercised at both the state and the local level. No proposal wants to take on the bloated pensions of public unions or the state protection of private unions. The truth is California is failing because its aspirations have grown so rapidly that they have choked off the productive base needed to fund them. The current set of reform proposals won't stop the state from putting an ever greater set of entitlements onto a shrinking tax base.
What we need is a sharp change in direction--a deep commitment to a smaller government along classic liberal lines. While some of these ballot initiatives will be approved, the underlying situation will get only worse. All the money and effort might be better spent rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
Richard A. Epstein is the James Parker Hall Distinguished Service Professor of Law, The University of Chicago; the Peter and Kirsten Bedford Senior Fellow, the Hoover Institution; and a visiting professor at New York University Law School. He writes a weekly column for Forbes.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)