To Huawei or Not to Huawei, That Is the Question

It's interesting to me that in a world where the popularity of programming language is surging like crazy, there is still so much distrust, particularly across international borders around privacy, information security, trade secrets. It seems almost paradoxical that American society is simultaneously working toward a more seamless, globalized world, while the international world is growing suspicious of our companies (*ahem* Google *ahem*), and we seem to be retaliating by retreating from planned endeavours (*ahchoo* Huawei).

I guess the argument in the Google case is that this directly affects the fair competition of the search engine market in Europe (if it is true that Google is really redirecting customers away from other places). Yes, the European Commission needs to act, but I can't help but wonder what the effects of action will be. After all the trouble that Google has had earlier this year with China, it's kind of a miracle that Google still wants to fight these battles at all. On the other hand, one can't help but wonder if it's just that everyone wants to pick on the biggest kid in class. So, fair, let's put this one on hold for now.

Then there's the Symantec story. It goes a little something like this:  Symantec, long known for its computer security software shenanigans is now planning on selling its 49% stake in the joint venture of Symantec and Huawei technologies that is currently based in Mountain View, CA. Their comment was that they, "had achieved the objectives we set four years ago" and that they would "exit the joint venture with a good return on our investment".

So, like a rejected girl on prom night, let me translate what Symantec meant when they very publicly broke up with Huawei. (They even shipped Huawei's people out of the Mountain View office! That's akin to giving someone back that favorite ratty sweatshirt, I'm pretty sure.) Translation: "We don't want to tell you why we are leaving, but technically we've covered our butts with everything that we promised we'd do four years ago, so this seems like as good of a time as any to run away as fast as we can with a somewhat valid excuse before people begin to ask questions. We made a little bit of money but the honeymoon is OVER."

The Symantec case is particularly interesting because it coincidentally coincides with a time that the U.S. government has agreed to start sharing additional information on cyber-threats and cyber-terrorism with the private sector. Analysts agree that this move by Symantec is probably somewhat related to the fact that they a.) don't want the U.S. government to hold back information that they should/could have because of their ties with one of the riskiest cyber-terrorism regions (China) and b.) Symantec is worried about any potential leakage of the information the government provides. (Though, if private, highly sensitive data like this was going to be leaked, wouldn't a security company be the first to benefit? I'm just sayin'. Not the point, I realize, but just sayin'.

I don't think that Huawei is about to give up though. In 2008, Huawei abandoned a bid for 3Com, which makes antihacking software for the U.S. military (among other products). It was abandoned after a government panel raised concerns about national security. Later, in 2010, Huawei lost a big to supply mobile telecom equipment to Sprint after lawmakers  pulled the national security card again. Although I'm sure this is not the last time we will hear of them, I think we need to begin to ask ourselves whether or not the ends justify the means. Blocking huge, (comparatively) low-cost hardware manufacturers like Huawei from our economy could result in more harm than good in the long run. We just need to figure out a happy medium between protecting ourselves and allowing for a beneficial partnership.

Love: Opportunities for a Good Pair of Galoshes

I've never been one to wax poetic about the powers of love. Among the flowery language and the boxes of chocolates, I've always been the one that thinks "too many syllables and refined sugar". Maybe it's the mom in me, but I mean, come on, kissing in the rain doesn't even look fun! It looks like you'll catch your death of cold! (Seriously, bring a sweater or an umbrella or some sturdy galoshes.)

Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your view of things), my upbringing has driven me to become hyper-logical, and when you are hyper-logical, you don't really find yourself wanting to hypothesize on how love can overcome all or how love is all you need. My mind is much more logistically focused than that-- love is nice but what about health? Rent? The status of your DVR? Love may be all you want but may be not what you need. (And let's be honest, we all know that one person who is savagely looking for someone to be with, when they are deeply unready to be themselves-- in my mind, these people in particular, really need to differentiate the ones and needs. But I digress.)

I read a couple of interesting articles recently. Neither is very straightforwardly about love. In fact, one if about quantum mechanics, and the other is about quite the opposite as its about those extracurricular affairs that we group under the big umbrella term of "cheating". Depending on what you'd like to read I'll let you decide whether you want to read the article that made me believe that crazy notion of "true love" -- that crazy "love at first sight" or if you want to read quite possibly the most well written yet deeply depressing article about love, quite possibly ever written. If you feel like having a balanced view-- go ahead-- read both, and then decide for yourself. Bad news first.

In "Why We Cheat" by Lisa Taddeo, she outlines the justifications of a cheater-- being a cheater herself. She interviews multiple men who plainly (and sometimes painfully) lay bare the reasons why they cheat and their feelings afterward ("You don't want to be found out, he says. Guys who will tell you they feel bad, I think that's bullshit. For the most part, you don't want to rock the boat. You've got a house and a kid and a new home-entertainment center and you don't want to saw that world in half."). Potentially the most honest article that I've ever read, it quite openly documents the author's (and others') mixed feelings-- guilt, excitement, justification and disassociation--around their sins. The one emotion that is blatantly missing is remorse, which is probably the most honest part of the article overall.

The second article, "Einstein's 'Spooky Action at a Distance' Paradox Older Than Thought", I feel like I need to give a little context to. It's not so much the article's goal-- entanglement is an older theory than originally thought-- but the meaning of entanglement itself. My protest against the traditional, flowery, overly sentimental and seemingly illogical view of fairy tale love is that it's (in my opinion) an almost magical notion. Everything is perfect-- perfect boy, perfect girl, perfect overlap of time and space, perfectly matched--soul mates. The impossibility, no, the improbability of this perfect confluence of space, time, attributes, things, etc. seems magical-- a once in a never opportunity. And magic isn't real. But every now and then, science shows me I'm wrong-- that there are things out there that can't be explained and that there are things out there that, dare I say it, are dangerously close to being magic. One of these things is quantum entanglement. From this, you get entangled particles. Originally called "spooky action at a distance" by Einstein, "Entanglement occurs when two particles are so deeply linked that they share the same existence....Entangled particles can become widely separated in space. But even so, the mathematics implies that a measurement on one immediately influences the other, regardless of the distance between them".  It travels faster than light, showing an apparent flaw in his theory of relativity. Unexplainable in why it happens. But in my mind, if science on a subatomic level can create two entities that are somehow inextricably linked, two things that fundamentally complement each other to exist--maybe soul mates are possible.

Enjoy.