I came across an interesting website that enables you to have multiple searches in google without having the hassle of opening many tabs. Here is how you can do this:
Firstly, under the google search column, simply type googlegooglegooglegoogle and click enter.
Then, click on the first result on the top.
And there you have it; 4 google windows that you can use without having to open 4 tabs.
Interesting, isn't it? :)
Sunday, May 1, 2011
Monday, April 25, 2011
E-commerce
Top 10 dot-com flops
1. Webvan (1999-2001)
A core lesson from the dot-com boom is that even if you have a good idea, it's best not to grow too fast too soon. But online grocer Webvan was the poster child for doing just that, making the celebrated company our number one dot-com flop. In a mere 18 months, it raised US$375 million in an IPO, expanded from the San Francisco Bay Area to eight U.S. cities, and built a gigantic infrastructure from the ground up (including a US$1 billion order for a group of high-tech warehouses). Webvan came to be worth US$1.2 billion (or US$30 per share at its peak), and it touted a 26-city expansion plan. But considering that the grocery business has razor-thin margins to begin with, it was never able to attract enough customers to justify its spending spree. The company closed in July 2001, putting 2,000 out of work and leaving San Francisco's new ballpark with a Webvan cup holder at every seat.
2. Pets.com (2000)
Another important dot-com lesson was that advertising, no matter how clever, cannot save you. Take online pet-supply store Pets.com. Its talking sock puppet mascot became so popular that it appeared in a multimillion-dollar Super Bowl commercial and as a balloon in the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade. But as cute--or possibly annoying--as the sock puppet was, Pets.com was never able to give pet owners a compelling reason to buy supplies online. After they ordered kitty litter, a customer had to wait a few days to actually get it. And let's face it, when you need kitty litter, you need kitty litter. Moreover, because the company had to undercharge for shipping costs to attract customers, it actually lost money on most of the items it sold. Amazon.com-backed Pets.com raised US$82.5 million in an IPO in February 2000 before collapsing nine months later.
3. Kozmo.com (1998-2001)
The shining example of a good idea gone bad, online store and delivery service Kozmo.com made it on our list of the top 10 tech we miss. For urbanites, Kozmo.com was cool and convenient. You could order a wide variety of products, from movies to snack food, and get them delivered to your door for free within an hour. It was the perfect antidote to a rainy night, but Kozmo learned too late that its primary attraction of free delivery was also its undoing. After expanding to seven cities, it was clear that it cost too much to deliver a DVD and a pack of gum. Kozmo eventually initiated a $10 minimum charge, but that didn't stop it from closing in March 2001 and laying off 1,100 employees. Though it never had an IPO (one was planned), Kozmo raised about US$280 million and even secured a US$150 million promotion deal with Starbucks.
4. Flooz.com (1998-2001)
For every good dot-com idea, there are a handful of really terrible ideas. Flooz.com was a perfect example of a "what the heck were they thinking?" business. Pushed by Jumping Jack Flash star and perennial Hollywood Squares center square Whoopi Goldberg, Flooz was meant to be online currency that would serve as an alternative to credit cards. After buying a certain amount of Flooz, you could then use it at a number of retail partners. While the concept is similar to a merchant's gift card, at least gift cards are tangible items that are backed by the merchant and not a third party. It boggles the mind why anyone would rather use an "online currency" than an actual credit card, but that didn't stop Flooz from raising a staggering US$35 million from investors and signing up retail giants such as Tower Records, Barnes & Noble, and Restoration Hardware. Flooz went bankrupt in August 2001 along with its competitor Beenz.com.
5. eToys.com (1997-2001)
eToys is now back in business, yet its original incarnation is another classic boom-to-bust story. The company raised US$166 million in a May 1999 IPO, but in the course of 16 months, its stock went from a high of $84 per share in October 1999 to a low of just 9 cents per share in February 2001. Much like Pets.com, eToys spent millions on advertising, marketing, and technology and battled a host of competitors. And like many of its failed brethren, all that spending outweighed the company's income, and investors quickly jumped ship. eToys closed in March 2001, but after being owned for a period by KayBee Toys, it's now back for a second run.
6. Boo.com (1998-2000)
Though Boo.com is another flop that has been given new life by Fashionmall.com, its original incarnation proved that dot-com flops were not restricted to US shores. Founded in the UK as an online fashion store, Boo.com was beset with problems and mismanagement from the start. Its complicated Web site, which relied heavily on JavaScript and Flash, was very slow to load at a time when dial-up Internet usage was the norm. Boo spent wads of cash to market itself as a global company but then had to deal with different languages, pricing, and tax structures in all the countries it served. The company also mysteriously decided to pay postage on returns, but even more importantly, sales never reached expectations. Boo.com eventually burned through US$160 million before liquidation in May 2000.
7. MVP.com (1999-2000)
Like Planet Hollywood and Flooz.com, MVP.com proved that celebrity endorsements are worth nothing in the long run. Backed by sports greats John Elway, Michael Jordan, and Wayne Gretzky and US$65 million, MVP sold sporting goods online. Founded in 1999, the company grew to more than 150 employees, but a high-profile partnership came to be a liability. A few months after its launch, MVP.com entered into an US$85 million, four-year agreement with CBS in which the network would provide advertising in exchange for an equity stake in the e-tailer. Yet barely a year later, CBS and its online affiliate SportsLine.com killed the agreement because MVP.com failed to pay the network an agreed-upon US$10 million per year. The game was over for MVP.com soon afterward, and SportsLine took over the domain.
8. Go.com (1998-2001)
The Walt Disney Company felt the sting of the dot-com bust with its portal Go.com. Started in 1998, Go.com was a combination of Disney's online properties and Infoseek, in which the Mouse had previously acquired a controlling interest. Though it was meant to be a "destination site" much like Yahoo, Go.com had its own little quirks, such as content restrictions against adult material. Disney was never able to make Go.com popular enough to validate the million spent on promotion. In January 2001, Go.com was shut down, and Disney took a write-off of US$790 million. Go.com still exists, but it carries only feeds from other Disney Web properties.
9. Kibu.com (1999-2000)
Unlike the other flops listed here, Kibu.com, an online community for teenage girls, didn't wait till the very end to wave the white flag. In fact, at the time of its October 2000 closing, the company had not run out of the US$22 million it raised. And on a more bizarre note, the end came only 46 days after a flashy San Francisco launch party. Though Kibu had started to attract traffic from its target demographic (incidentally one of the fastest-growing segments of Web users), company officials said they decided to shut down because "Kibu's timing in financial markets could not have been worse." Kibu was backed by several Silicon Valley bigwigs, and they sent a strong message about the financial prospects of other dot-coms by bailing on Kibu so soon.
10. GovWorks.com (1999-2000)
Last but certainly not least, the story of GovWorks.com was good enough to become the documentary Startup.com, which chronicles its brief life. Envisioned as a Web site for citizens to do business with municipal government, GovWorks was started by two childhood friends in 1999. One was the flashy salesman, while the other had the technical know-how. At first, the future seemed bright as they suddenly found themselves worth millions of dollars each and rubbing elbows with the politically powerful. But you can guess what happened--everything that could go wrong soon did. Personalities and egos clashed during long work hours, one partner was ousted, technology was stolen, and they never got the software to work as it should have. A competitor eventually took over GovWorks in 2000.
1. Webvan (1999-2001)
A core lesson from the dot-com boom is that even if you have a good idea, it's best not to grow too fast too soon. But online grocer Webvan was the poster child for doing just that, making the celebrated company our number one dot-com flop. In a mere 18 months, it raised US$375 million in an IPO, expanded from the San Francisco Bay Area to eight U.S. cities, and built a gigantic infrastructure from the ground up (including a US$1 billion order for a group of high-tech warehouses). Webvan came to be worth US$1.2 billion (or US$30 per share at its peak), and it touted a 26-city expansion plan. But considering that the grocery business has razor-thin margins to begin with, it was never able to attract enough customers to justify its spending spree. The company closed in July 2001, putting 2,000 out of work and leaving San Francisco's new ballpark with a Webvan cup holder at every seat.
2. Pets.com (2000)
Another important dot-com lesson was that advertising, no matter how clever, cannot save you. Take online pet-supply store Pets.com. Its talking sock puppet mascot became so popular that it appeared in a multimillion-dollar Super Bowl commercial and as a balloon in the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade. But as cute--or possibly annoying--as the sock puppet was, Pets.com was never able to give pet owners a compelling reason to buy supplies online. After they ordered kitty litter, a customer had to wait a few days to actually get it. And let's face it, when you need kitty litter, you need kitty litter. Moreover, because the company had to undercharge for shipping costs to attract customers, it actually lost money on most of the items it sold. Amazon.com-backed Pets.com raised US$82.5 million in an IPO in February 2000 before collapsing nine months later.
3. Kozmo.com (1998-2001)
The shining example of a good idea gone bad, online store and delivery service Kozmo.com made it on our list of the top 10 tech we miss. For urbanites, Kozmo.com was cool and convenient. You could order a wide variety of products, from movies to snack food, and get them delivered to your door for free within an hour. It was the perfect antidote to a rainy night, but Kozmo learned too late that its primary attraction of free delivery was also its undoing. After expanding to seven cities, it was clear that it cost too much to deliver a DVD and a pack of gum. Kozmo eventually initiated a $10 minimum charge, but that didn't stop it from closing in March 2001 and laying off 1,100 employees. Though it never had an IPO (one was planned), Kozmo raised about US$280 million and even secured a US$150 million promotion deal with Starbucks.
4. Flooz.com (1998-2001)
For every good dot-com idea, there are a handful of really terrible ideas. Flooz.com was a perfect example of a "what the heck were they thinking?" business. Pushed by Jumping Jack Flash star and perennial Hollywood Squares center square Whoopi Goldberg, Flooz was meant to be online currency that would serve as an alternative to credit cards. After buying a certain amount of Flooz, you could then use it at a number of retail partners. While the concept is similar to a merchant's gift card, at least gift cards are tangible items that are backed by the merchant and not a third party. It boggles the mind why anyone would rather use an "online currency" than an actual credit card, but that didn't stop Flooz from raising a staggering US$35 million from investors and signing up retail giants such as Tower Records, Barnes & Noble, and Restoration Hardware. Flooz went bankrupt in August 2001 along with its competitor Beenz.com.
5. eToys.com (1997-2001)
eToys is now back in business, yet its original incarnation is another classic boom-to-bust story. The company raised US$166 million in a May 1999 IPO, but in the course of 16 months, its stock went from a high of $84 per share in October 1999 to a low of just 9 cents per share in February 2001. Much like Pets.com, eToys spent millions on advertising, marketing, and technology and battled a host of competitors. And like many of its failed brethren, all that spending outweighed the company's income, and investors quickly jumped ship. eToys closed in March 2001, but after being owned for a period by KayBee Toys, it's now back for a second run.
6. Boo.com (1998-2000)
Though Boo.com is another flop that has been given new life by Fashionmall.com, its original incarnation proved that dot-com flops were not restricted to US shores. Founded in the UK as an online fashion store, Boo.com was beset with problems and mismanagement from the start. Its complicated Web site, which relied heavily on JavaScript and Flash, was very slow to load at a time when dial-up Internet usage was the norm. Boo spent wads of cash to market itself as a global company but then had to deal with different languages, pricing, and tax structures in all the countries it served. The company also mysteriously decided to pay postage on returns, but even more importantly, sales never reached expectations. Boo.com eventually burned through US$160 million before liquidation in May 2000.
7. MVP.com (1999-2000)
Like Planet Hollywood and Flooz.com, MVP.com proved that celebrity endorsements are worth nothing in the long run. Backed by sports greats John Elway, Michael Jordan, and Wayne Gretzky and US$65 million, MVP sold sporting goods online. Founded in 1999, the company grew to more than 150 employees, but a high-profile partnership came to be a liability. A few months after its launch, MVP.com entered into an US$85 million, four-year agreement with CBS in which the network would provide advertising in exchange for an equity stake in the e-tailer. Yet barely a year later, CBS and its online affiliate SportsLine.com killed the agreement because MVP.com failed to pay the network an agreed-upon US$10 million per year. The game was over for MVP.com soon afterward, and SportsLine took over the domain.
8. Go.com (1998-2001)
The Walt Disney Company felt the sting of the dot-com bust with its portal Go.com. Started in 1998, Go.com was a combination of Disney's online properties and Infoseek, in which the Mouse had previously acquired a controlling interest. Though it was meant to be a "destination site" much like Yahoo, Go.com had its own little quirks, such as content restrictions against adult material. Disney was never able to make Go.com popular enough to validate the million spent on promotion. In January 2001, Go.com was shut down, and Disney took a write-off of US$790 million. Go.com still exists, but it carries only feeds from other Disney Web properties.
9. Kibu.com (1999-2000)
Unlike the other flops listed here, Kibu.com, an online community for teenage girls, didn't wait till the very end to wave the white flag. In fact, at the time of its October 2000 closing, the company had not run out of the US$22 million it raised. And on a more bizarre note, the end came only 46 days after a flashy San Francisco launch party. Though Kibu had started to attract traffic from its target demographic (incidentally one of the fastest-growing segments of Web users), company officials said they decided to shut down because "Kibu's timing in financial markets could not have been worse." Kibu was backed by several Silicon Valley bigwigs, and they sent a strong message about the financial prospects of other dot-coms by bailing on Kibu so soon.
10. GovWorks.com (1999-2000)
Last but certainly not least, the story of GovWorks.com was good enough to become the documentary Startup.com, which chronicles its brief life. Envisioned as a Web site for citizens to do business with municipal government, GovWorks was started by two childhood friends in 1999. One was the flashy salesman, while the other had the technical know-how. At first, the future seemed bright as they suddenly found themselves worth millions of dollars each and rubbing elbows with the politically powerful. But you can guess what happened--everything that could go wrong soon did. Personalities and egos clashed during long work hours, one partner was ousted, technology was stolen, and they never got the software to work as it should have. A competitor eventually took over GovWorks in 2000.
1. Business. When Facebook crossed the 100 million member mark last year, I began to explore and experiment with its features (wall, notes, links, photos, tagging, videos, events, groups, pages, etc.) and numerous third-party apps, with the intention of teaching them during my Web 2.0 workshops at NTU’s Center for Continuing Education.
As Mari Simith of WhyFacebook.com put it, it’s a great place for promoting business: “Meet your peers. Find business contacts. Instant gate opener. Build relationships. Raise visibility. Develop your personal brand. Target your niche. Get rapid top Google placement. Place targeted ads. No cost marketing.” (See also: Tom Lindstrom’s Myspace Marketing Tips.)
2. Ease of Use. Its interface is clean and uncluttered. If you know how to use Windows, you would know how to use Facebook. All you need is time (or a quick overview session) to discover its numerous features and third-party apps.
3. Usefulness. Facebook interfaces seamlessly with hundreds (or thousands?) of useful third-party apps. These include popular Web 2.0 apps such as Twitter, Slideshare, Digg, Delicious, and Skype. My current favorite is the Philosophers + Philosophy app developed by Dr John Abbate from the University of Melbourne. It’s a marvellous way to add my favorite quotes and to discover the ideas of a new philosopher everyday.
4. Lost Contacts. I found long-lost friends/colleagues (and they found me) through the “People You May Know” tool.
5. New Contacts. I’ve been connecting online with very interesting people from all over the world. For example, my new online friend today is a Spanish priest in Russia!
6. Visibility & Transparency. What I say and do online are visible to my contacts. Likewise, what they say and do online are visible to me. What this means is I can easily introduce ideas/sites/other things to them and vice versa. This means we can co-discover (learn) about one another as well as many many ideas, sites and other things!
7. Social Mission. I can easily create a Group, Page or Cause to get support for ideas that I strongly believe in, e.g. “Faith without reason is blind. Reason without faith is lame.” (See the Faith & Reason (Fides et Ratio) cause.) I can also contribute to causes that others believe in, e.g. Beth’s Birthday cause.
As Mari Simith of WhyFacebook.com put it, it’s a great place for promoting business: “Meet your peers. Find business contacts. Instant gate opener. Build relationships. Raise visibility. Develop your personal brand. Target your niche. Get rapid top Google placement. Place targeted ads. No cost marketing.” (See also: Tom Lindstrom’s Myspace Marketing Tips.)
2. Ease of Use. Its interface is clean and uncluttered. If you know how to use Windows, you would know how to use Facebook. All you need is time (or a quick overview session) to discover its numerous features and third-party apps.
3. Usefulness. Facebook interfaces seamlessly with hundreds (or thousands?) of useful third-party apps. These include popular Web 2.0 apps such as Twitter, Slideshare, Digg, Delicious, and Skype. My current favorite is the Philosophers + Philosophy app developed by Dr John Abbate from the University of Melbourne. It’s a marvellous way to add my favorite quotes and to discover the ideas of a new philosopher everyday.
4. Lost Contacts. I found long-lost friends/colleagues (and they found me) through the “People You May Know” tool.
5. New Contacts. I’ve been connecting online with very interesting people from all over the world. For example, my new online friend today is a Spanish priest in Russia!
6. Visibility & Transparency. What I say and do online are visible to my contacts. Likewise, what they say and do online are visible to me. What this means is I can easily introduce ideas/sites/other things to them and vice versa. This means we can co-discover (learn) about one another as well as many many ideas, sites and other things!
7. Social Mission. I can easily create a Group, Page or Cause to get support for ideas that I strongly believe in, e.g. “Faith without reason is blind. Reason without faith is lame.” (See the Faith & Reason (Fides et Ratio) cause.) I can also contribute to causes that others believe in, e.g. Beth’s Birthday cause.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Network Topology
A network topology is how computers, printers, and other devices are connected over a network. It describes the layout of wires, devices, and routing paths.
BUS TOPOLOGY
The bus topology was fairly popular in the early years of networking. It’s easy to setup- not to mention inexpensive. All devices on the Bus Topology are connected using a single cable. If you need help remembering how the Bus Topology operates, think of it as the route a bus takes throughout a city.
It is extremely important to note that both ends of the main cable need to be terminated. If there is no terminator, the signal will bounce back when it reaches the end. The result: a bunch of collisions and noise that will disrupt the entire network.
Advantages
• It is easy to handle and implement.
• It is best suited for small networks.
Disadvantages
• The cable length is limited. This limits the number of stations that can be connected.
• This network topology can perform well only for a limited number of nodes.
RING TOPOLGY
The Ring Topology is a very interesting topology indeed. It is a lot more complex that it may seem- it looks like just a bunch of computers connected in a circle.
A frame travels along the circle, stopping at each node. If that node wants to transmit data, it adds destination address and data information to the frame. The frame then travels around the ring, searching for the destination node. When it’s found, the data is taken out of the frame and the cycle continues.
Advantages
• The data being transmitted between two nodes passes through all the intermediate nodes.
• A central server is not required for the management of this topology.
Disadvantages
• The failure of a single node of the network can cause the entire network to fail.
• The movement or changes made to network nodes affects the performance of the entire network.
STAR TOPOLOGY
One of the most popular topologies for Ethernet LANs is the star and extended star topology. It is easy to setup, it’s relatively cheap, and it creates more redundancy than the Bus Topology.
The Star Topology works by connecting each node to a central device. This central connection allows us to have a fully functioning network even when other devices fail. The only real threat to this topology is that if the central device goes down, so does the entire network.
Advantages
• Due to its centralized nature, the topology offers simplicity of operation.
• It also achieves an isolation of each device in the network.
• Easy to install and wire.
• No disruptions to the network when connecting or removing devices.
• Easy to detect faults and to remove parts.
Disadvantages
• The network operation depends on the functioning of the central hub. Hence, the failure of the central hub leads to the failure of the entire network.
MY OPINION
I would say the star topology is generally considered more reliable. A bus network relies on a single, shared medium cable. If that cable goes down, then all hosts on that shared medium go down. Also, as you add more units, the performance degrades, because only one host can send at a time on the shared medium
A Star Topology uses a switch, which all host connect to, if one host goes down, it has no effect on the performance of the network. Also, each host can communicate and send data simultaneously which improves performance and efficiency, and a Start is more scalable, because you could buy a 48 port switch and connect 30 computers, then later, if you need to add 18 more, you can do so without seriously affecting the performance of your network.
A Ring Topology performs better than a bus topology under heavy network load but one malfunctioning workstation or bad port in the MAU can create problems for the entire network and they are much slower than an Ethernet network under normal load. Adds and changes of devices can affect the network.
Bus Networks are not really used nowadays, and are considered the most unreliable and ineffective method of networking computers.
*One very good example to support my point on why Star Topology would be the best and the most suitable; nowadays most households all over our country subscribe to either Starhub or Singtel broadband. They might have more than 2 devices, let’s say 3(2 laptops,1 desktop) at home that uses the net. So they would just buy a router to connect it to the Starhub or Singtel modem and the 3 devices would be connected to the router so that all the 3 devices can surf the net. It’s easy to install and troubleshoot if there is any problem.
BUS TOPOLOGY
The bus topology was fairly popular in the early years of networking. It’s easy to setup- not to mention inexpensive. All devices on the Bus Topology are connected using a single cable. If you need help remembering how the Bus Topology operates, think of it as the route a bus takes throughout a city.
It is extremely important to note that both ends of the main cable need to be terminated. If there is no terminator, the signal will bounce back when it reaches the end. The result: a bunch of collisions and noise that will disrupt the entire network.
Advantages
• It is easy to handle and implement.
• It is best suited for small networks.
Disadvantages
• The cable length is limited. This limits the number of stations that can be connected.
• This network topology can perform well only for a limited number of nodes.
RING TOPOLGY
The Ring Topology is a very interesting topology indeed. It is a lot more complex that it may seem- it looks like just a bunch of computers connected in a circle.
A frame travels along the circle, stopping at each node. If that node wants to transmit data, it adds destination address and data information to the frame. The frame then travels around the ring, searching for the destination node. When it’s found, the data is taken out of the frame and the cycle continues.
Advantages
• The data being transmitted between two nodes passes through all the intermediate nodes.
• A central server is not required for the management of this topology.
Disadvantages
• The failure of a single node of the network can cause the entire network to fail.
• The movement or changes made to network nodes affects the performance of the entire network.
STAR TOPOLOGY
One of the most popular topologies for Ethernet LANs is the star and extended star topology. It is easy to setup, it’s relatively cheap, and it creates more redundancy than the Bus Topology.
The Star Topology works by connecting each node to a central device. This central connection allows us to have a fully functioning network even when other devices fail. The only real threat to this topology is that if the central device goes down, so does the entire network.
Advantages
• Due to its centralized nature, the topology offers simplicity of operation.
• It also achieves an isolation of each device in the network.
• Easy to install and wire.
• No disruptions to the network when connecting or removing devices.
• Easy to detect faults and to remove parts.
Disadvantages
• The network operation depends on the functioning of the central hub. Hence, the failure of the central hub leads to the failure of the entire network.
MY OPINION
I would say the star topology is generally considered more reliable. A bus network relies on a single, shared medium cable. If that cable goes down, then all hosts on that shared medium go down. Also, as you add more units, the performance degrades, because only one host can send at a time on the shared medium
A Star Topology uses a switch, which all host connect to, if one host goes down, it has no effect on the performance of the network. Also, each host can communicate and send data simultaneously which improves performance and efficiency, and a Start is more scalable, because you could buy a 48 port switch and connect 30 computers, then later, if you need to add 18 more, you can do so without seriously affecting the performance of your network.
A Ring Topology performs better than a bus topology under heavy network load but one malfunctioning workstation or bad port in the MAU can create problems for the entire network and they are much slower than an Ethernet network under normal load. Adds and changes of devices can affect the network.
Bus Networks are not really used nowadays, and are considered the most unreliable and ineffective method of networking computers.
*One very good example to support my point on why Star Topology would be the best and the most suitable; nowadays most households all over our country subscribe to either Starhub or Singtel broadband. They might have more than 2 devices, let’s say 3(2 laptops,1 desktop) at home that uses the net. So they would just buy a router to connect it to the Starhub or Singtel modem and the 3 devices would be connected to the router so that all the 3 devices can surf the net. It’s easy to install and troubleshoot if there is any problem.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)