kadlekai

If Google TV were a bicycle..I'm a fish

2010-05-24T01:17:00.000-07:00

I need another box around my TV like i need a hole in my head. Well, I probably can do with a search bar on my TV. But do i need to balance a keyboard on the armrest of the couch while holding a beer in one hand and a baby on another? And then wait for search results to show up, and when I click on one of them, be reminded about codecs I don't have. Or holidays that I can have, also pizzas, jeans and cars. Or be informed what my 100 odd "friends" are busy watching. Or sieve through finance bonds, junk bonds and chemical bonds before I get my quantum of solace?

If Google TV were a bicycle, I'm a fish.

TV watching is not hunting-and-gathering. It is a lazy buffet from which you take your pick. Normally, the spread is large enough to satisfy most eaters. But one can beat the spread easily. And complain. The buffet targets the average audience (called TRP). Gourmets get nothing special in this spread. You can partake of it as much as you wish. But the spread will hardly change just to mollify the pesky eaters. If you come late and miss your dish, well, hard luck. You can always get to a gourmet restaurant and order one "a la carte".

Of course this is not always ideal. There is always a seeming need for an occasional mail-order. VoD is just that. However, it is not (yet) the most natural way of consuming entertainment on the TV.

The most natural way to consume TV is using the P+ and P- buttons of the remote control. You can reduce that further to only one of them - say, the P+.

P+, arguably, the most pressed button on the remote control, represents how most people have spent their evenings all their lives. Will Google TV change this, with the plethora of android apps? And succeed ? Or, will it "enrich" your P+ experience by suggesting friendly ads, listing your friends who are watching the same channel, recommending related content etc ? And how much of this enrichment would you love? And for how long?

Google needs to detail out a number of aspects of their Google TV. What value do they bring to consumers, to advertisers, to content creators and to their own shareholders.

Of these, the key question of course is about consumers: Why would consumers prefer Google on their TV? (Aren't we happy enough googling on our PCs and phones?). Or, as explained earlier, aren't we happy pressing the P+? If you happen to be the "lean forward" types, you always have the option of using a PC. If I hear you complaining about the hassle, then you are actually a "lean back" person. So go back to your lazy, lean back, channel surfing habit. And stop pretending that Google TV is what you always wished for.

Secondly, it might make sense for Google to ask themselves why would they succeed any more than Yahoo with their TV widgets... given the following facts. The widgets are a lot more light-weight than Google TV. And there are thousands of widgets out there, suiting almost every need! Yes, Google has more credo, although Yahoo claimed the advantage of pioneering this whole concept! And still Yahoo widgets on TV is not exactly hot cakes.

Thirdly, but as important as anything else (if not more) is: Who makes money from Google TV and why? Google should have held their technology horses until the business guys come clean on this. Going by the recent history at Google, the urge to spin new technologies seems to over-power the need to underpin it's viability. "This is cool stuff", they seem to say. "Let's do it and then hope to find a way to make money from it". C'mon guys, you are not a start-up anymore, hunting for a rich-n-greedy investor to buy you out, based more on your tech credo than the weight of your biz-model.

There are more reasons to doubt Google TV. But then there is still a possibility that Google has the last laugh. For sure they can pull this off. But most likely not in it's current shape.

Social web is not an ordered set

2010-01-15T22:41:00.000-08:00

With social web, it is often easy to conclude that it is a mess - just point to the fable of a million monkeys on a million keyboards. Extrapolating from here, aggregating islands of mess will only make it a bigger one. Right?

Could we be more wrong and more right at the same time ?

Social web is not an encyclopedia of human knowledge. It is not meant to be. It is the collective noise of the human race, each saying "hello, am doing good. how are you" and a zillion variants of this same message. To expect order in this is futile. To claim that this is cluttering our otherwise prim-and-propah lives is akin to calling the Tajmahal a white building.

But, as we all know, there are golden nuggets hidden in this humongous data mine. Just because it is so big or so difficult, should we give up looking? Should we not try to decipher patterns here, infer who are potential friends, what they are up to, what they have in common, or how our relations can be strengthened ? Should we not seek to better our lives by exploiting technological possibilities?

I think Yahoo is doing the right thing. The purpose of aggregation is not to seek nirvana (neither intellectual nor commercial), but enable easier social contact over the web. The nirvanas mentioned may arrive (ref: http://www.cluetrain.com/) but even if they don't, the purpose of social networking would have benefited.

Is Shashi a tweet chap ?

2010-01-02T05:25:00.000-08:00

Jug believes Shashi Tharoor (ST) is a "tweet chap". I'm not sure. There could be more to ST's tweeting than meets the eye...but I'll leave that for another day. For now, let me question Jug's belief.

ST has the right to tweet and the right to disagree. However, as a minister, he has the obligation to retain in public, the sanctity of the governmental view on policies. In private (within the four walls that SM Krishna has mentioned), he has the obligation to criticize policy proposals and ensure that the country gets the right policies.

In his eagerness to use his rights, either he clearly has forgotten his obligations, or (worse), has discovered that his views and policy criticisms do not seem to matter.

There's nothing wrong in ST tweeting, nor is there anything wrong in the message itself. But there is clearly something wrong when a minister chooses to go the public route to criticize a policy. Either he is naive enough to be unaware of decision making loop (and hence is unable to contribute his valid positive criticism of the policies while they are still being prepared) or has not earned the trust of his fellow politicians so they disregard his criticism (even if it is presented well in advance of the public announcement of the policy).

Jug, you could do your old buddy a favor by reminding him of his obligations..and advise him on how to go about achieving his obligations. He clearly doesn't need any support for exercising his rights (and wrongs).

Right the strike note

2009-09-16T03:20:00.000-07:00

Now Jug can't hide his low mojo, can he? This article is so "text bookish"..Jug now qualifies to work at NCERT!

Imagine Jug had a normal day (or night) at work (or wherever he does whatever it is that he does), this article would've turned up quite different. Allow a poor impersonation of what it should have been.

To start with..the title - "Right the strike note", that's what it should have been. "Strike is my birth right" declared the Jet airways pilots. You can't strike that away from the Indian constitution. Not even if you are a certain (or uncertain) Naresh Goyal. Yes, Naresh has now been brought down to earth..and reminded not to take his name too seriously.

Didn't the "bad M" do this to the "big T" sometime back? Commies swear by it and manage to run two disparate states for eons singing this very tune. Strike and the world strikes with you. Work and you work alone.

Can someone please remind these modern "efficiency / MBA" types that "work" is a four-letter word, ending with K, and so has no place in descent society?

So what if patients are stuck in a hospital as doctors go on strike? They are not called patients for nothing. They better learn to be ..well.."patient".

Factories - if anyone needs reminding - are places where unions are manufactured. No, those ugly Chinese sweat-shops churning out every damn thing do not deserve to be called factories. Mao would turn in his grave at the very sight of such gross efficiency..err..injustice.

What do you think Indian netas do in the parliament..at those rare moments when the parliament is about to transact business? They "walkout" - in effect, they strike. No, it is not only the comrade crowd which patronizes this form of democracy. Even Advani does it! Congress has done it several times when in opposition. The jhagada dals are so adept at it that they now run a night-school on how to stage walkouts. Talk of art imitating life, directors of saas-bahu serials are queuing up to learn!

Strikes unite Indians like nothing else can. No, not even cricket or tandoori chicken can bring Indians closer. If you need any evidence, just look at the "national holidays" we have. Yes, there are those "doordarshan days" on Aug 15 and Jan 26..and then there are the "real" ones, celebratory ones, uncorrupted by "rote TV programming" - we call them "bandhs". Bandhs are days that the entire nation looks forward to. Firstly, no mad rush in the mornings. Have breakfast without looking at the clock. Bond with the kids. Lunch at home - what better place for pet-puja? Siesta time - with no fear of the boss walking in at the wrong time. Or catch a matinee on cable. As the birds fly home, call up college buddies, meet at the adda, down a few for old times sake. A national holiday couldn't be better!

Jaswant has written a book? Great, let's celebrate that with a bandh. No rain in the Cauvery basin? Only a bandh can help. What, petrol prices are up again? No way, we need a bandh to bring some sanity back. Gosh, what would we have ever done if not for bandhs? Hey, wasn't it the father of the nation who invented them..albeit in a different avatar...Satyagrah or some such thing that these Britishers could never fathom? Pity that we only celebrate this phenomenal invention for just one day - Oct 2. Hey, come to think of it, should we organise a strike to extend Gandhi Jayanti to an entire week?

Catching Jug by the jugular

2009-08-24T22:58:00.000-07:00

Dear Jug, I have been reading your articles every week in the ToI for many many years now, and have thoroughly enjoyed several of them. I do disagree with you, occasionally - be it for your enduring desire to fish for loo humor or your polemic dismissal of certain "lesser mortals" (typically, the practitioners of the art of real-politik). But this article from you and the resulting comments on your blog have triggered me to articulate the view from the other side..as in a game of chess. This view from the other side is both revealing and educational. So, without further ado, here goes...

1. Jug, would you sign a public-petition requesting/encouraging the venerable M.F Hussain to make a nude painting with Islamic religious characters in them? And do you have the balls to face the consequences?

2. Trivial as it may seem, choose between solid belief in economic progress vs. solid belief in "principles". Now, let's give them both a face or two - Narendra Modi vs Jyoti Basu. Or post-war Western Europe vs pre-war Western Europe.

Allow me to explain the "faces". The western European nations had been perennially at war with each other for centuries...until post-war economic prosperity overcame the need for war. West Bengal, on the other hand, has been in relative peace for decades under the principled governance of the comrades, but it sunk into increasing depths of poverty, eventually leading to naxalism and fire-brand politicians. In other words, prosperity leads to peace, and NOT the other way round. Shift focus now to Gujarat - there is a Modi who has been the face of the economic prosperity there - and he is only allowed to do his job if he gets elected. And to get elected, he needs to put on a mask - of hardline Hindutva. Only the naive will discount the utility of populism. For example, S M Krishna, arguably, one of the best/progressive CMs of Karanataka, was naive, and so he lost the elections. Modi is far from being naive. While one can easily disagree with the means he employs, one can hardly ignore the TINA factor. Also, it is important to balance the means with the ends.

3. Jaswant wrote a book, no one has really read it yet, but Modi banned it already. What do you see happening here? Is it merely a book being banned (yes, I have the temerity to slight this) ..or is it a wily move to gain points in the game of succession within BJP..an opportunistic move which claims "I'm the undisputed leader of the new BJP". Was there not a similar raison d'être for previous "bans" which did not involve the BJP - for example, the banning of The Satanic Verses. In essence, the analyst is obliged to look beyond the obvious - to dig into how the ban would help the ban-ner. Jug, you have let down the analyst in you by limiting yourself to taking predetermined pot-shots at the obvious.

4. The attacks on the nuns, girls going to discos, students wearing jeans..for sure deserve to be condemned, in the harshest way. But the question that a responsible society still needs to answer is: Why do such things happen? The obvious answer is:For political gains. This leads us to question if we bestow leadership (political gains) only to those who demonstrate their darker sides. Or if the act of bestowing leadership is done largely by people who are impressed by the demonstration of the darker sides. What every arm-chair intellectual such as Jug(who blame the "rest of the world" for all the ills plaguing it), misses is: "I am responsible". Yes, I'm responsible for allowing leadership to be bestowed to goondas and hooligans of all shades. I come first. The rest of the billion plus people might similarly be at fault too...but I cannot shun my responsibility. Of course not being an arm-chair intellectual makes the acceptance of responsibility easier.

5. A heavy (ahem) subject to round up: India was born in relative innocence - "the soul of a nation long suppressed, found utterance". Well, what did it utter then, and what does it utter now? The media has been the public manifestation of that utterance. Just how many of us would not curl up in shame at the current state of the Indian media? Is there any self-respecting voice left in the media? Someone who can stand up (not only as in comedy) and apologize for this? Or, are they just too occupied blaming all and sundry, when not busy finding a pee-for-free place in Venice? Oops, did that hurt?

Why widgets on TV dont make sense

2009-08-18T03:32:00.000-07:00

Coffee is great, beer is great, and both have their place in our life.
A place that serves coffee, might, with some luck (and with incredible planning) also end up serving great beer - or the other way round. But what about a place that takes this idea to an extreme and offers a combi of coffee and beer, in one glass ? Wierd. Very. Almost like widgets on a TV!

Widgets are productivity apps - just like coffee. You use them during the day to stay alert - to keep a tab on stock (in the post-recession world), to follow a news story, to see's who's winning the game. We also drink coffee for daytime socialising with colleagues, associates, friends. Similarly with widgets, you might want to follow tweets of colleagues and friends, you might want to watch that hilarious vid on youtube (or poor you, yahoo video) following a tweet.

As the sun sets, you get home. You want to lean back on the couch, down a beer, munch some junk, and watch a movie or a soap. And even if you prefer/insist on being "online 24*7" spare a thought for the people who share your roof. The TV is not a piece of furniture in your living room. It is the lively center piece around which the family gathers every evening. That's where you have a snack, cuddle up with the loved ones, watch happy kids enjoying an re-run episode of Mr Bean. The evening is when I wouldn't want to be bothered with productivity apps, and there would be several families that actually consider productivity apps as a pollution of the entertainment experience.

Now that doesn't mean that there's no bridge between the internet and the TV. There is. But clearly, it is not widgets. Widgets are the point-of-sale gimmick that can help push products. What the TV consumer wants every evening is not widgets - it is her choice of rich content experience, that plays with good picture quality on the large flat screen. Preferably with not having to go to a PC to setup that experience or pay for it.

The internet is the largest store of information in the world. It is becoming the single largest store of all entertainment content too. The TV is the tap which you turn on for entertainment experience. Piping entertainment to that tap makes a lot of sense (and fills a need-gap). Piping information (or infotainment) is polluting it. The sooner the yahoos and chumbys of the world understand this, the sooner they are in profits. But wisdom (or even sanity) are not obligatory.

MPEG4 and the TV end-game

2008-09-21T19:03:00.000-07:00

About a decade ago, digital TV came out of the research labs into product development sites. It brought forth promises of better picture quality, modern TV applications and improved bandwidth usage. Over the years, it expanded to offer living-room consumption all forms of modern media - from digital cameras, to home PCs to the internet. Where do we go from here ?

Digital TV is all about "Content" - which, in this context, means "audio-visual, or related" content. Content quality, content presentation, content protection, content storage, content consumption, content rating, content revenues, content related sundries (like ads, recommenders, ..) ..all this jargon filled up mind-space. And gave birth to technology and products and revenues.

Just a decade ago, the state-of-the-art TVs were huge and bulky (CRT) behemoths, they managed to receive analog signals and at best, tried to iron out the jerks of transmission systems. They offered little in terms of non audio-visual information (teletext, with it's limited presence, has been an atavistic, if, at times, useful, application).

Today's TVs are slim, hang on a wall like a picture, diligently decode digitized audio-visual information, splash accurate EPGs, show pictures from cameras, playback MP3s from PCs and run youtube from the internet, all this while being fully compliant to a complex set of myriad DRM systems and subtle regional differences in standards.

The last decade has seen a slew of new technologies and features being introduced. From basic "standard definition" to Full HD, from jerky, poor contrast LCDs to smooth, rich LCDs, from power hungry panels to power efficient panels, from blotchy graphics to rich, smooth animations, from low performance wired connectivity to high performance wireless connectivity ...the list of innovations is impressive and long. The big question however is "What next" ?

MPEG4 decode, Flash playback, DRM systems, Internet connectivity will all become mainstream TV features in 2009/2010.

Is the end-game for TV around the corner? Or, is it the end of the big innovation wave?

Let's presume it is the latter ...Yes, there will be innovations in neighbouring spaces (and these will push their way in) - web 2.0 and 3.0 will spread, game consoles will evolve - both performance machines like PS3 and "human" machines like Wii, new display technologies will happen (OLED, e-ink, ..), new broadcast and consumption methods will happen (mobile, broadband)..all these represent a "horizontal expansion" in the Tv space - there are few reasons, if any, to beleive that we will see a "vertical expansion" (or a fundamental shift) of any significant size in the coming 5 years.

Innovation has been the magic mantra preventing commoditisation taking over the industry. As the innovation wave settles down the path of the "long tail", commoditisation will take over. Vertically integrated operations will thrive from economies of scale. This could include, apart from the traditional vertical intergration of set-makers and key-component makers, the intergration between set-makers and service providers. The world of mobile phones has proven that service integration overcomes the need for single handed brand-building while increasing market share and revenues, and decreasing prices with amazing speed and regularity.

So, is it merely the end of the big innovation wave - or the begining of the end-game ?

Hundred days (of no solitude)

2008-08-01T01:51:00.000-07:00

Almost a decade ago, I first visited this island-nation. Not knowing what to expect - and precisely for that reason - I ventured out from the glitter of Changi to see the world outside. I was impressed, but not enough, so I took my connection flight out and continued with my life elsewhere. My mental diary got an entry - Singapore - ticked off with the remark - been there, done that.

A few months ago, I stepped out of the glitter of Changi again, still not knowing what to expect. A lot of things had changed in the interim for me personally. But the city itself didn't look phenomenally different. The hustle and bustle, the endless sale seasons, the din of little India, the bi-syllabic chatter, and of course the constant-ness of weather, remain. At work, my previous observations still stay valid - people are always on the run - although the direction is often unknown. In some cases, they are running hard, but on a treadmill. After a hundred days here, I'm convinced that Singapore is not merely a noun - there is a verb lurking in there, trying hard to make it's presence known. Now is that good or bad, I dont know. The "character" of a city (and the people it holds) is probably as much noun as verb. Sometimes I wonder if this city will ever stop to look at the lillies, or will simply race into whatever, wherever...

Is it only the city ? Am I not on the run too ? And what kind of a run is it ? Running to, or running away, and why? No, I'm not really running. There is probably a gypsy in me - hesitant to grow roots, un-reluctant to pack and move. Also, surely I am more noun than verb(Isn't that the reason why I find it a bit of a challenge to come to terms with this place ?). Maybe it is wanderlust...but I wonder if that is but the topping and the filling is boredom - or is it the other way? Boredom is probably not the right word - reasoning it out will take a number of words - large enough to merit a blog by itself...Anyway, packing, moving, unpacking, settling down have gone smooth. Singapore is the melting pot of asia, and we melt-in. For now.

tat twam asi

The small of God things

2008-06-13T21:56:00.000-07:00

If ever one needs a mental punching bag, one of the most tempting options is the debate on faith vs. atheism. In this article, Jug Suriya tries his punches on this bag, from both sides, and ends up a bit bruised. Triggered by some apparent research on the relation between of belief (or lack of it) and intelligence, longevity etc..Jug tries landing various punches on the believers and the non-believers, mostly the non-believers.

Fact is belief is not rational and atheism, going by it's own standard practices, is not complete, consistent and cannot answer all the questions. And so, both of them are sitting ducks - for quacks on both sides to have a go at, and cry foul when they fail.

Often, it is cool strategy to not take sides, and let the battles go on, and when the end is apparent, sing songs about the emerging victor while being gracious towards the near vanquished. However, on the divine debate, the end is no where near. (Doomsday proponents, irrespective of which side of the divine debate they might be, will need to contend that the doomsday, if it ever happened, is likely the end of the earth - or something larger - but not necessarily the end of the divine debate. An idea can exist in nothingness.)

Given this fact that the divine debate is not likely to end sometime soon, sitting on the fence (like Jug) is likely to give you a sore bottom rather than strategic advantage. So, I'd take a side - the side of rationality, the side of intelligence, as against that of "intelligent design".

The believers often call into question the theory of evolution, citing the "million monkeys on a million keyboards, producing the works of Shakespeare" etc to cite that the universe is a carefully constructed entity, following principles that we often fail to understand, and is driven (as is every creature, living or not, within the universe) to a destiny as ordained by the omni-potent intelligent designer.

Methinks this is a lot of gibberish. Often one hears that "Belief begins where science ends" - fact is this statement implies the following:

a) Science has certain ends - but this is a temporal phenomenon. These limits of science are constantly pushed by mankind and never before have the limits been pushed as far away as they have been in the last 50 years. As Alvin Toffler, in a completely different context explains, 99% of all that we know has been discovered/invented in the last century. Given a few more centuries, who knows where the new limits of science will be?

b) Often, modern limits of science is far beyond the comprehension of most commoners. 99% of university graduates do not understand what a positron is. Nor do they understand what exactly is DNA. But the common man believes in the existence of DNA because he is aware of the applications related to it. Note that the common man does not need to understand DNA to believe in its existence. Applications drive belief. For pieces of science that have no immediate application value to the common man, they don't stand a chance of acceptance. This simply means that belief begins where demonstrated science ends. As time progresses, belief will be pushed farther away....

c) Looking at the million monkeys theory: For people who claim that the earth is not a result of order emerging from chaos, may I ask why is there no order - "earth-like" or otherwise on the moon or the mars? Modern biology has progressed far beyond Darwinism and succeeds in explaining (for the patient, intelligent, hard-working student) the theory of emergence - of emergent phenomenon - of how order emerges from chaos in case after case...There are scientists who, for various reasons, would like to take the route of mathematical induction (= supreme global generalisation of a concept based on a couple of local observations) and define grand theories of the universe. This is probably far-fetched for even a few hardcore scientists to accept. And the common-man, limited by lack of deep understanding, is confused by the disagreements between the knowledgeable. That apart, the theory of emergence is a honest theory, which can only grow in the years to come and will push the envelope of reason into the far recess of faith.

A nice way to end this is with an attempt to translate a part of a DVG kagga:
Devearembudenu kaggattaleya gaviye?
Naavarilaaradara ottu hesare?
---> transates to
Is God a dark, black cave?
Is it the name we give to all that we dont know?

Fuelling debate

2008-06-07T20:12:00.000-07:00

The alchemists are giving the black gold a makeover- turning it to platinum or uranium or some such numbingly expensive substance. And for this substance-addicted societies in the west and the emerging ones of the east, the northward migration of the fuel prices is a subject of intense concern.

Swaminathan Aiyar (SA) writes in the STOI (admittedly one of my fav hunting grounds) that, amongst others, India is subsidizing the OPEC. Let's start with this point. India refuses to have an open market for fuel - for fear of uncontrolled prices and consequent impact on election results. Indian politicians prefer to take a seemingly virtuous position by subsidizing fuel in the interest of the weaker sections of the society. SA argues - with no underpinning - that the beneficiaries of the subsidy are indeed the rich - and hence there is no virtue in the subsidy. This is clearly is weak argument - and not merely for lack of underpinning. Fuel prices have a direct impact on the entire economy. On the face of it, a person using 100 liters of petrol a month benefits more (from the subsidy) than a person using 5. But look at the holistic picture- the entire country relies on goods and services which include a factor of fuel prices in their costs. Poorer people have little headroom in their monthly balance sheets. The richer you are, the more maneuverability you have with respect to your expenses.
SA further argues that if India stopped subsidizing fuel, then like with other goods, the law of demand and supply with catchup and soon there will be lesser demand. This claim requires serious underpinning. With other commodities, say onions, if the prices soar high, the market can correct itself - due to decreasing demand, but more so, due to improved yields, better rain cycles etc etc. In other words, the production of onions can be controlled by human intervention assuming cooperation of the divine. Note also that we can survive without onions. Also, onions donot impact a number of other commodities we use in our lives. Fuel is clearly a different type of commodity - one that fails to fit in the oversimplified laws of economics that SA tries to apply to commodities in general. Lets examine why.
a) We are no where close to finding an alternative to fossil fuels. All talk of green fuels, sustainability etc is just that - No more than 5% of human energy requirements are met by these green options. [The rest are met by a combination of fossil and nuclear sources]. So, human intervention in finding a technical alternative has not yet yielded results. Regarding human intervention for discovering new oil fields, this seems to be happening, but due to a combination of reasons (including the ones that follow), there is no let down of prices. The simple rationale is that fossil fuels are limited resources, and we will run out some time. The only discussion is when.
b) Fuel is an infrastructure commodity. Increase in fuel prices imply higher infrastructure costs, and this affects the entire economy - unlike increase in prices of standalone commodities.
The laws of supply and demand would still apply to fuel, but then one needs to make provisions for a number of special factors in the case of fuel - especially the TINA factor.

So, is there a solution to the fuel problem? A number of approaches are possible, but lacking a crystal ball, there can be no guarantees of success. But, there are a number of hurdles and the biggest is the acceptance of the problem - or the size of it. This should be the subject for another blog, unless I can relegate it to the impossibly small margin :-).

Engineering terror

2008-03-30T05:10:00.000-07:00

On Shashi Tharoor's article in ToI dated March 30, 2008

ST refers to a research by Oxford academicians Diego Gambetta and Steffen Hertog that points to a link between engineers and terrorists, implying that engineers are more susceptible (than people of other educational background) to the influence of radicalism.

IMHO, this is being naive. That engineers are part of recent terrorist outfits is beyond doubt. How else could it be? Terrorism needs exacting engineering acumen. And it has the wherewithal to get it. But should one therefore conclude that it is engineering education (or attitudes) that pushes people over the thin line between construction and destruction?

Fact is, it takes engineers to construct or destruct. And therefore, engineers become sitting ducks for the likes of Gambetta and Hertog. Just how many farmers or lawyers or bakers or dentists or accountants or historians or archeologists does Al Qaida employ? Zilch. And therefore, all these other professions are so noble. And Brutus is an honorable man.

The researchers seem to imply the following: Engineers are the ever-vulnerable species, waiting to be hooked willingly into a terrorist network that allows them all the engineering freedom they would ever need. Terrorism throws up the most challenging engineering problems which no self-respecting engineer would turn his back on. Worse, an engineering turned terrorist starts a viral marketing session infecting other (innocent) fellow engineers with the the lethal doze of terrorism and then it continues all over again.

The following questions beg for answers:
a) The research seems to ignore government sponsored wars. One man's war is another's terrorism. The governments, by far, employ far more engineers than do terror outfits. If engineers are seen as vulnerable to the advances of radicalism, what should one conclude from the huge number of engineers that work in defense departments of governments the world over? Look beyond the mere 25 years of terrorism history and you will see an engineer behind every man-made catastrophe - the atom bomb, the holocaust gas chambers..all the way back to the gun powder. Engineers of all shades have not been deciding for what and how their skill is employed. They offer their services to a master who decides to bomb a city or crash the twin towers. In all cases, the motivations behind the masters decisions can always be questioned. Academicians are expected to be unbiased and see the simple truth in this argument.

b) ST argues that engineering creates a one-sided view of the world, where there can be no two solutions to a problem. Shashi, you couldn't be further away from truth. Engineering never implies a single solution to a problem. Engineering is all about thinking out of the box and offering several solutions(Management is about evaluating these solutions and choosing from them). Lets take a simple example - traffic problem in Indian cities. Engineers would come up with 4 different solutions and let someone else decide. Studying humanities is not the only way to understand or appreciate multiple perspectives. Humanities could well be Shashi's favorite way. But there are several others, and probably better ones too.

c) ST states that ignorance and lack of imagination cause violence. And Shashi is naive. The war-on-terror is not due to lack of imagination or ignorance. On the contrary, there is clear agenda (ex-diplomats will hate to admit) and a clearer objective behind the war. No, that does not include the removal of Saddam or Bin Laden for their inhuman acts. The real reason for the war is in the bottom lines of the engineering firms behind the war. Unless you are crippled by ignorance or lack imagination (most likely due to an extended course in humanities while being completely unaware of the commerce departments), you will recognise this simple truth. Money talks. Others, who merely talk, dont matter.

ST concludes with a recommendation for making humanities a compulsory part of engineering education. Good idea. As an engineering student, I missed it. Yes, I did more than compensate for it by spending as much (if not more) time on reading literature as engineering texts. However, one needs to understand that the world of engineering is growing at a rapid rate and professors can not keep pace with the change. Adding humanities to the curriculum cannot be at the cost of engineering education, especially because engineering is already a great way to understand multiple perspectives and broaden ones horizon. A study in humanities, I must admit, will hardly bring any further benefit.

The Shashi Tharoor critique - Preface

2007-08-13T01:31:00.000-07:00

There are rebels without a cause, and yes, there are also rebels without a pause. On the other side are the conformists, the rigorously and supremely optimistic, sanguine people. Of the people whose views I respect (and care to read), I often find it a bit disturbing if they tilt too far towards either side of this spectrum. Shashi Tharoor, in particular, has a tendency to lean too far right in my spectrum spanning rebellion to "conformism" - he is the perennial first-bencher, always in shining whites, upright and prompt. No, but that is not my problem. In his eagerness to be the voice of optimism, he glosses over harsh reality. In toiling hard to illustrate a fraction of success he sights over the horizon, he overlooks the tonnes of trouble lying here and now. While that is not in itself bad, I fear that his selling of success will more often than not lead to complacency, instead of becoming the refreshing pit-stop, as probably intended. In his endeavors at taking pride at what is, I fear, we will loose sight of what can be. Yes, accompanied by the occasional garnish of wit, is Shashi's very subtle insinuation to action. But the latter is far too feeble to be recognized. Chances are, that, one blessed with special faculties does sniff at the wit, admire it, but will probably still ignore the message.

(By the way, I've read a couple of works by Shashi (apart from what he pens for the STOI), and must admit that I've enjoyed them thoroughly. I found the Great Indian Novel especially impressive).

With this introductory text, I (hopefully) begin a series of posts on posts by Shashi in the STOI.

The Gentleman _is_ game

2007-08-02T06:38:00.001-07:00

Often, cricket is called the Gentleman's game. Yes, it might be. But read that again. It could well mean that the gentleman is game, which could well mean that the gentleman is a chicken. Of late, that is exactly what it means - the gentleman, on the field is a willful chicken that can be scared into submission. Well, the gentleman can be (or "is") subjected to "mental disintegration", and that's even an accepted strategy. After all, cricket is played more in the mind, than on the pitch.

So, wicket keepers become motor-mouths, spewing inane profanity infinitely. Close-in fielders are not there for taking the catches, but rather to incite the batsman. Bowlers show more aggression by their body language than by their bowling. And if you are not good at ensuring mental disintegration, you will probably not make it to the high-school team. And of course we talk of much higher skills at the international level. Yes, you need to be able to play a bit. But if you can ensure that your opponent plays lesser than he normally would, that's a special skill which is valued.

So, is everything fair in war and sport ? A South African captain once took wireless headphones to the ground, so he could stay tuned to the constant advise of his coach. The Brits take jelly beans to throw at the batsmen so as to distract him. The lore of Australiana is underlined by the oral performance of Gilchrist as much as, if not more than, his impressive skills as a batsman and keeper. Of course there have been numerous other, and decidedly, harmless pranks or pressure relievers - the kangaroo dance of Miandad, More's constant (respectful) maternal reference, or even Sreesanth's version of salsa. These surely add to the colour of the game. But some make the game "off colour".

The question that we now face is really fundamental. Should the game still stay as a "gentleman's game" ? Look around, the Tour De France is stained by Dracula practise - literal injection of fresh blood to extend one's stamina. Olympics have forever been mired in the constant game of oneupmanship between drug tests and drugs that can deceive the tests. In fact, when sport becomes as crazily "professional" or "competitive" as it has now become, the rule of diminishing returns applies, and consequently, there is a minuscule little that differentiates the winner from the rest. Often, that little minuscule difference comes from sources which are questionable. It is interesting to notice that the winner has to constantly innovate to stay ahead of the pack - the pack contains quick followers and quick learners. Once a certain practice is seen as normal (not as in "legalized", but as in "accepted" or worse "ignored"), the very people who had been complaining about the practice being non-ethical etc, will not only incorporate it themselves, but will probably innovate further. So, indeed a number of things are fair in sport. The question of fairness is never absolute. As long as a certain practice provides competitive advantage for all the participating sportsmen, it is considered fair. With increasing regularity, we tend to focus less on the absoluteness of this premise. We accept evolution, especially technology evolution, for providing this competitive advantage. But what about the practices that are not technology driven, but are more subjective ? Fact is, there is a thin line between them. Injection of fresh blood is today considered wrong, but well could become the norm in a few years. And why not ? If Formula 1 cars can take a pit stop, then cyclists will like to take one at the blood bank. And cricketers will take jelly beans and eels and squid and i dunno what. Pity our Indian veggies who wouldn't touch some of that with a stick (or a bat). Maybe Thackeray will give them some petroleum products instead. Hey, Vaseline sounds like a good idea.

Talking of ideas, here are a few more

The keeper feeds himself plain old beans (not jelly), so that he can fart at will (or at the most appropriate moments), a la Eddie Murphy

The skipper uses a mobile phone to send SMSs to position his fielders. Comes in very handy, when skipper is applying delaying tactics.

Idea b), with the extended advantage that the bookies can call the players directly, when the game is in progress. Betting goes live, like never before !

One of the visiting team's players (picked randomly) is food-poisoned, probably with a laxative, so running between the wickets acquires a new meaning (and urgency !)

when good governance leads to ...boredom

2007-07-01T02:26:00.000-07:00

For some reason, I find nothing more entertaining than Indian politics. Where else does one get to see such gyrations, dynamics, passion play, money, drama, or whatever emotion or effect one can imagine? If art indeed imitates life, and if Bollywood is seen as being exaggerated or extravagant, our artists (from Bollywood or elsewhere) are but poor imitators. And politicians from the rest of the world, especially, the western world, are not even amateurs, in comparison.

Living abroad for a year now, I miss waking up in India every morning more than anything else. The newspapers here are as boring as text books. They begin with a principle, a rare case when that principle is intentionally violated – followed by a rather diplomatic course correction, then a boring section on a stable economy, predictable reviews of art and books, and job advertisements for secretaries. Yes, there is the daily dose of violence – predominantly in the third world and yes, some genuine local excitement in the form of sports news. Even the advertisements are less interesting than they can be. The only other eye-catchers are the local wierdos – the lady who drew into a metro station thinking it was a basement car park, the guy who took this lamb to the vet complaining that this new Pomeranian doesn’t bark etc.

The western soberness and restraint is what strikes one the most. Hey, why don’t they use life-sized cut-outs for election campaigns? Or have public meetings in stadiums? Is good-governance all – and oratory no more than a mere nice-to-have? If the recently concluded euro-summit is anything to go by, the "monumental" changes such as renaming the constitution to treaty - is no more than a storm in a tea cup. The strict protocol regarding the rather spicy private lives of French politicians is yet another proof of European blandness. With Blair being replaced by Mr Stiff Upper (Brown)Lip, UK is exchanging it's CTM flavour for the staple fish-and-chips routine.

NB : No this wasn't meant to be a post. It's what I could type in 5 mins, so that I can try the options here.