Sending Email Attachment Larger Than 25MB Through Gmail Email Using Google Drive

English: Gmail logo

English: Gmail logo (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Today, I’ve found out that sending an attachment which is larger than 25MB or so won’t be possible through Gmail email.  Luckily, Gmail email service is intertwining with Google’s other web applications such as Google Drive, and through Google Drive I’m able to send attachment which is larger than 25MB.  Don’t know if it’s true or not, you can basically tell Gmail email to insert an attachment through Google Drive that is large as a decent video file size.  Isn’t it cool?

Nice Try Google, But You Can Do Better Right? Chromebook Pixel Is Nice, But It Should Be Nicer!!!

chromebook pixel

chromebook pixel (Photo credit: Frances Berriman)

Is Chromebook Pixel real or just a concept?  It seems that arstechnica reported that Chromebook Pixel is indeed a real product.  According to arstechnica’s “Google’s new touchscreen Chromebook Pixel: a $1,299 laptop for cloud dwellers” article, Google had just announced the existence of Chromebook Pixel.  If Chromebook Pixel is real, so?  The buzz about Chromebook Pixel is that it’s an exotic animal.  By this I mean it’s basically a machine which mainly focuses on staying connect to the Internet only, but it’s a very gorgeous only online machine (if we discount that it does have some offline features).  I’m sure it got some offline features, but it is designed to be working with the cloud.  It’s no surprised really since Chromebook Pixel is a more expensive version of other Google’s Chromebook products.  So, Chromebook Pixel is more of a beast among Chromebook products, but its core functionality is still all about cloud functionalities.  Simply really, Chromebook Pixel is just a lot more gorgeous in terms of screen resolution and other whistles and bells.

arstechnica reported that Chromebook Pixel has screen resolution of 2560×1700 with 239 pixel per inch, 1.8GHz Intel Core i5 processor, 4GB RAM, 32GB flash storage for Wi-Fi model and 64GB flash storage for LTE model.  By purchasing Chromebook Pixel, a customer will get 1TB of Google Drive cloud storage for free for 3 years.  Cloud storage?  If you never heard of cloud but know of Dropbox, then Google Drive is somewhat similar to Dropbox.  1TB of Dropbox would be nice eh?  So, if you like Dropbox that much, then I guess 1TB of Google Drive is definitely one of those temptations that is hard to refuse.

It seems that the screen resolution for Chromebook Pixel is the main focus, because 2560×1700 is a lot.  It’s a beast!  I’m not a fan of i5 processor, therefore in term of processor Chromebook Pixel is a let down for me.  4 GB of RAM only?  In my opinion, 4GB of RAM for any machine from today onward isn’t enough (but you might think otherwise and I don’t mind).  Since Chromebook Pixel is an always online machine, 32 or 64 GB of flash storage does make sense until it doesn’t.  How come?  In my opinion, the 2560×1700 screen is a waste on Chromebook Pixel.  I’m reasoning that whoever wants to work with such beautiful/exotic screen resolution might need to store humongous sizes of visual data (e.g., videos, photos, etc…), but what Chromebook Pixel doesn’t carry — Chromebook doesn’t support USB 3.0 and 802.11ac Wi-Fi speed — will hamper the productivity of whoever wants to use Chromebook Pixel in a more hardcore manner.

Now, if Chromebook Pixel supports USB 3.0 and 802.11ac Wi-Fi standard, even though Chromebook Pixel doesn’t have huge local drive storage space, I will definitely want a Chromebook Pixel for myself, even with the current might be Chromebook Pixel’s price range $1200 – $1400.  How come?  Let pretend that I’m a real photographer (because I’m only an aspiring one), I definitely have tons of photos and videos to store, to make backups of, and the likes.  With USB 3.0 support, I can use USB 3.0 capability to speedily transfer my videos and photos back and forth between the external hard drives and Chromebook Pixel, because making data backups is so important to people like the photographers.  Let say I’m a paranoid data integrity and data redundancy freak, and so if Chromebook Pixel supports 802.11ac standard, I can definitely speed up my backup of data to the cloud.

You see, I think Chromebook Pixel lacks some really important features even though it is obviously designed to be an online only machine.  I think Chromebook Pixel should not emphasize an online only machine to the point that alienates the good features that it supposes to carry for offline needs.  Instead of carrying USB 3.0, Chromebook Pixel carries USB 2.0.  We know USB 3.0 is the way forward, but people are also comparing USB 3.0 against Thunderbolt too.  This is why it’s so weird for me to see Chromebook Pixel carries only USB 2.0.  Perhaps, not carrying any USB support at all might make more sense than not carrying USB 3.0?  Also, faster Wi-Fi is always a must have feature.  We know that we have the faster Wi-Fi capability through 802.11ac standard/capability, but Chromebook Pixel decides to not support 802.11ac?

Besides the lack of various important features I mentioned, Chromebook Pixel does look like a very nice toy.  From what I’ve seen of it, it looks nice!  The screen, the body, and the shape of Chromebook Pixel speaks to me in a very positive manner.  Simply put, I love the overall look of Chromebook Pixel.  Unfortunately, it reminds me of Macbook products.  Fortunately, I think it might look even better than Macbook Pro, but I’m not sure unless I can see and touch it (only see a video of it).  Oh yeah, if you think I’m a Mac fanatic, then you don’t know me at all.  Obviously, that should be the case since you don’t know me at all in real life.  Nonetheless, let me reveal to you something about me, I’m also a Windows 8 and Linux fanatical sort of person.  If I know another good sort of OS-brand-hardware type out there, I might as well be a fanatic for such too…

Before I end this post, let me say that you can also reach out and touch that beautiful Chromebook Pixel’s screen.  How come?  It’s a touchscreen yo!  Check out the Chromebook Pixel in the video right after the break.  Enjoy!!!

Sources:

Working With Lightroom: Incorporating Personal Cloud With Lightroom To Free Up Local Disk Space

In the video right after the break, I’m working with Lightroom 4, therefore if you’re using a different Lightroom version, things I talk about within the video might turn out to be somewhat different for you.  Nonetheless, the main concept should be the same.  Anyhow, in the video, I emphasize retouching photos in Lightroom on a local hard drive first, and then move the original photos that you don’t have the need to work with anymore over to the personal cloud for safekeeping.  This way, you organize your original photos in the personal cloud and free up the local disk space.  Also, you can always move the same original photos from the personal cloud back to the local hard drive for retouching.  The trick is to do all of this within Lightroom user interface.  If you are going about doing this manually (i.e., digging into local hard drive and move the photos manually without letting Lightroom knows of what you’re doing), Lightroom might not know how to update the metadata and locations of the original photos in Lightroom’s archive database.  The whole idea is to use Lightroom to organize your photos locally or over the network.  When you’re doing this neatly within Lightroom, whenever the need arises, you can easily recall the original photos for further retouching.

Just A Thought About A Cloud Internet

Cloud computing comes to NERSC

Cloud computing comes to NERSC (Photo credit: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory)

On Monday, I flipped through Flipboard and couldn’t understand why halfway through Flipboard threw a tantrum.  The tantrum went on a long time, and so I had to refrain from using Flipboard until late in the night, adhering to eastern standard time.  Today, the New York Times’ “Amazon Cloud Service Goes Down and Takes Popular Sites With It” piece confirmed Flipboard’s Monday tantrum.  Of course, not only Flipboard but other huge, gigantic kind of services that use Amazon for cloud services had also experienced the Monday case.  Monday, Amazon acknowledged that cloud servers experienced degraded performance and problems with the Northern Virginia data center(according to the New York Times).

I’m making a big deal of this incident is to point out that cloud services (as in singular) isn’t invulnerable to outage.  In fact, I believe (but not knowing for sure) that cloud services might have a tendency to breakdown even more since the complication of keeping everything tidying within a cloud is not that simple.  Of course, when a cloud is doing everything right, it can be way more resilient than non-cloud services.

Amazon is one of the biggest cloud players in the market.  Whenever Amazon has cloud problems, it shows that cloud services can be just as vulnerable as non-cloud services.  I think cloud services (as in singular) is more resilient in many ways (e.g., data redundancy, scalable computing, etc…), but whenever it sneezes million of services will catch a cold too.  This prompts me to ask a question, how much bigger a cloud needs to be so that a common cold won’t be powerful enough to infect a cloud?

I imagine, a company Y which provides cloud services to have a backchannel which connects to a cloud infrastructure of company X, and when company Y experiences a cloud cold, company X’s cloud infrastructure would kick in to cure the cold for the cloud of company Y.  The billing will reflect the rescue operation, therefore there is an incentive to setup this sort of backup cloud infrastructure between these gigantic cloud companies.  Imagine this scenario would be interconnected as large as if there is a separate Internet, but this Internet is responsible for cloud services only.

Of course, just like the Internet, if a company isn’t too careful in applying security protections and so forth, a cloud Internet can be just as infectious as the regular Internet.  A cold in a cloud Internet has the ability to infect way many more services than a regular cloud.  If this is the case, why would I think a cloud Internet is better?  Resiliency is the answer if a service does care about not ever going down for a cloud outage.  I think the cloud Internet would definitely be large enough to absorb most cloud outages and allow time for the cloud outages to be fixed and reenergized.  Then again, I might not know what I’m talking about since I’ve never actually operated and engineered a cloud.  (Almost forget to bring this up, perhaps encryption would be the panacea for data security since cloud backchannels might get rather even more murkier in term of who is in charge of whose data.)

Source:  http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/22/amazon-cloud-service-goes-down-and-takes-some-popular-web-sites-with-it/?partner=rss&emc=rss

How To Create, Attach/Associate, And Mount EBS Onto Amazon EC2 (Using Ubuntu 12.04 Linux OS)

English: Cloud Computing

English: Cloud Computing (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I was playing around with Amazon Web Services, and then I thought it would be a good idea to make a how-to video which shows people (who are new to Amazon Web Services) how to add, attach/associate, and mount EBS (Elastic Block Storage) to Amazon EC2 (Elastic Cloud Computing) instance (using Ubuntu 12.04 Linux OS for the EC2 instance).  For your information, Amazon Web Services is like a cloud web hosting and network infrastructure (plus a whole lot more).  Nonetheless, if you have no idea what I just spewed and still think Amazon Web Services is interesting, you definitely can find out more about Amazon Web Services at Amazon (the website and not the jungle).  Anyhow, the thought is awesome in my opinion, and so the end result is the video right after the break.  Enjoy!!!

Amazon Cloud Drive App Won’t Work On Mac OS X If Mac Users Have Disabled Java, Also Supports Windows

So, I notice Amazon has just launched Amazon Cloud Drive Desktop app so Amazon users will be able to upload their digital files to Amazon Cloud Drive through their computers without the need of opening up a web browser.  Usually, Amazon users have to visit Amazon Cloud Drive’s web destination before they can upload their digital files.  Unfortunately, I’m unable to test out Amazon Cloud Drive Desktop app on Mac OS X since it utilizes Java.  OK, not because Mac OS X cannot use Java, but it’s that I had disabled Java on Mac OS X for security reason.  Mac OS X has been targeted by Trojans, malicious programs that design to steal and capture sensitive information (and installing backdoor programs onto) from users’ computers, and these Trojans exploit Mac OS X through Java enabled applications.  One good example would be the Flashback Trojan.  Anyhow, users can also install Amazon Cloud Drive Desktop app on Windows.

Source:  http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/02/amazon-cloud-drive-desktop-app/