Technology is no silver bullet, just a tool that can make change happen...

Is technology the silver bullet that will change the world? The answer is not as simple isn't a yes or no, it's actually a lot more complicated than that. In itself, technology is not the answer, is just the tool we have to make our world a better place.

The truth, is people have to change the world. Technology is just a tool we have at our disposal to make change happen, for better or for worse its impact will depend on the use we give to it.

As many things in life, technology will change our lives and we will have an impact on how technology evolves by the way we use it. What we believe, our habits, and social structure that exist when a certain technology arrives have a role on how it's received and used. It has a huge impact on how widespread it's adoption it will be, and it's not always easy to measure on the early days of it's release to the public.

In a way, technology will not bring paradise to us. Instead, it's the tool that can help us to build it, one step at the time.

Yet, we need to have caution. Technology can be used for good or evil, since in itself it's neutral. People are the ones who are good or evil, and their use of technology defines the outcome we are going to face. The habit of blaming technology for our ills needs to be rooted out, since it's the use we give technology that brings all the outcomes that we have to face when it's not used wisely.

Technology will not save us, we are the ones who have to save ourselves. Technology is the best tool we have at our disposal for the job, but we need to learn how to use and developed it in a way that nurtures the best we have to offer.

In the end, technology is the tool we need to create the best possible future we can.

Aereo's defeat might spell bad news for cloud and streaming users...

This analysis of Aereo's defeat in court makes a good point, and really raises some good questions about cloud computing. It makes me wonder not if people can be targeted for copyright infringement, but when and why people are going to be charged with it.

Unless you use a single device to access the contents you have on your cloud storage service, you might get the attention of people who own that particular copyright in a bad way. It seems that using services that stream content, even if the user got them legally, might not last long. It seems that if a service losses the good graces of the content copyright holders, it's going to be shout down not matter what.

The worse part, is that the entity who gives the service might prove an easier target to close. Instead of going after the users that might be at fault, go after the service provider and you take the whole thing down. Doesn't matter if the majority of the users of the service got their content legally, and are using the service as remote storage.

No matter that this case doesn't set a precedent, at the end of the day it will influence future outcomes. Nothing happens in a vacuum, as such this case will influence future cases for good or for bad, even though the jury is still out for this matter.

Time will tell what this case will mean for cloud computing, and streaming services. It might set a precedent so that everyone involved learns how to approach these aspects of our digital age. Who knows how much good or ill it will bring, yet we better keep an eye open for the consequences.

Hope that Mozilla find it's way again...

After reading this, it really got me thinking and somewhat worried. Mozilla's Firefox and Google's Chrome are the strongest, and in my view, best open-source options to Microsoft's Internet Explorer.

Firefox, which is my personal favorite, and Chrome have the best chance of taking the crown away from IE to become the dominant force on which people browse the Internet. Either one by itself hasn't enough user base to really do anything against IE. Besides, FLOSS is about having choice, and losing either one would really give a virtual monopoly to the one who is left standing.

On whichever camp you are, Firefox or Chrome, we need to stand together to bring more people to the FLOSS camp. While in some ways you can prefer the implementation of one over the other, that is small compared with the bigger issue of having browsers that bring an open Internet to the people.

In many ways, both Firefox and Chrome are about standing for a truly open Internet that respects users privacy. As things stand now, users that care about those issues need both Mozilla and Google to stand with us to keep the Internet they way we want it.

Losing one, will be a huge blow for that vision. One from which would be hard to recover from, even if some other group comes along to take the place of the fallen.

As it stand, Mozilla is dire need of a leader that can actually bring together community that makes it so great. I stand by Mozilla not just because Firefox and Thunderbird are two of my software of choice, and I enjoy using them. I stand behind Mozilla because of the what represents, so I want someone that reflects that on the helm.

I'd hate to see Mozilla go down, that's why I worry about the time being lost not having someone at the head moving forward.

The "killer of whatever" moniker is becoming over used...

It really annoys me when any anything gets applied the as the "killer for x" moniker. I mean, it seems like if all new products will be revolutionary, and will come to supplant all that came before them.

Most often than not, most often than not those products fail to do so and end up finding a place along some of those products they were supposed to replace. Just look to tablets, they were suppose to completely replace PCs, and laptops, and ended up finding a niche. People seem to get over excited about some products, and don't seem to think thing through before coming with those grandiose claims about how this or that new product will just replace what came before it.

While there some examples that prove to be correct, those are the exception rather than the rule. Mainly, those examples can be found where moving to that new product is not a choice to the end user. The move is dictated by an imposition, where there is no real option not to make the change or the benefits of making the change are really that good to be ignored.

For me, it seems that "killer" moniker has become little more than a marketing ploy to get attention, or used by fans to praise their new toy.

In order to be sure if a product earns that title we have to wain, it's something that takes time to determine. And let's not forget that nothing has to become a "killer" product to be successful, and there is no reason why it can't live along with established technologies.

All technologies will be replaced with something better with time, yet not all need to be replaced with a the next one by a "killer" technology.