Yes, thats what Amit Varma has likened has likened the much hyped China Vs. India economic duel and refers to a [column] penned by Shankar Acharya, the chief economic adviser to the Indian govt. Pay special attention to the table.
But, not to worry - the future is indeed colored saffron! James Waterton has made a case against China [here] and for India's cause [here].
Venus has an interesting post [here] on competing oil interests and how their lopsided economic status and differing foreign policies affect their run ins.
Atanu Dey, an economist who runs a fantastic blog on India's development, labels the Indian democracy a cargo cult democracy. To see what he means, go [here] and [here].
This ties in with the table you saw in Shankar Acharya's column that documents India's miserable socio-economic indices. Without carrying the people along, no country can make any progress, atleast progress that can be called progress. Flashy malls, booming IT sector are leaps but eventually they all are drawn back and move on an average with the slowest link - social development. Without progress in education, health care and other primary concerns India's development is largely still on paper. Atanu is bang on target when he writes "Democracy cannot work when the electorate is nearly totally uninformed, where there are strong vested interests, where the notion of accountability is non-existent, where voters can be intimidated and bribed, where the culture is steeped in feudalism, and where illiteracy, superstition and corruption is the norm."
I urge you all to subscribe to Atanu's feed, he writes with clarity, perspective and passion for India's development.
Thursday, September 29, 2005
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
Catch 'em, Kill 'em Pt.2 - Kill 'em
After the overwhelming response of all the code warriors out there, I decided to put the answers up. I could have provided alternate answers, but I just chose to provide the ones that the author provided.
the original posts can be found at Michael Howard's Web Log
// Example #1 (code prior to this verifies pszSrc is <= 50 chars) #define MAX (50) char *pszDest = malloc(sizeof(pszSrc)); strncpy(pszDest,pszSrc,MAX); The code is allocating the size of a pointer, 4-bytes on a 32-bit CPU, and then trying to copy 40 bytes.
// Example #2
#define MAX (50)
char szDest[MAX];
strncpy(szDest,pszSrc,MAX);
If the length of the string pointed to by pszSrc is exactly MAX, then strncpy does NOT null-terminate szDest.
// Example #3
#define MAX (50)
char szDest[MAX];
strncpy(szDest,pszSrc,MAX);
pszDest[MAX] = '\0';
Oooops - we just whacked element 51, not 50!
// Example #4
#define MAX (50)
char szDest[MAX];
strncpy(szDest,pszSrc,MAX-1);
strncat(szDest,pszSrc,MAX-1);
The last arg to strncat is not the total length of szDest, it's how much space REMAINS!
// Example #5
char szDest[50];
_snprintf(szDest, strlen(szDest), "%s",szSrc);
szDest hasn't been initialized yet, so strlen(szDest) could return any value!
// Example #6
#define MAX (50)
void func(char *p) {
char szDest[MAX];
strncpy(szDest,p,MAX);
szDest[MAX-1] = '\0';
}
If p == NULL, your app just died!
the original posts can be found at Michael Howard's Web Log
// Example #1 (code prior to this verifies pszSrc is <= 50 chars) #define MAX (50) char *pszDest = malloc(sizeof(pszSrc)); strncpy(pszDest,pszSrc,MAX); The code is allocating the size of a pointer, 4-bytes on a 32-bit CPU, and then trying to copy 40 bytes.
// Example #2
#define MAX (50)
char szDest[MAX];
strncpy(szDest,pszSrc,MAX);
If the length of the string pointed to by pszSrc is exactly MAX, then strncpy does NOT null-terminate szDest.
// Example #3
#define MAX (50)
char szDest[MAX];
strncpy(szDest,pszSrc,MAX);
pszDest[MAX] = '\0';
Oooops - we just whacked element 51, not 50!
// Example #4
#define MAX (50)
char szDest[MAX];
strncpy(szDest,pszSrc,MAX-1);
strncat(szDest,pszSrc,MAX-1);
The last arg to strncat is not the total length of szDest, it's how much space REMAINS!
// Example #5
char szDest[50];
_snprintf(szDest, strlen(szDest), "%s",szSrc);
szDest hasn't been initialized yet, so strlen(szDest) could return any value!
// Example #6
#define MAX (50)
void func(char *p) {
char szDest[MAX];
strncpy(szDest,p,MAX);
szDest[MAX-1] = '\0';
}
If p == NULL, your app just died!
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
Legal Case Study of iTunes' business model
Ars Technica (In my opinion this is one of the best tech sites out there, top notch and very authoritative) has links to a Harvard Law School legal case study of the iTunes business model. Now, most people who know me also know that I dislike the iTunes store inspite of all its perceived "coolness". I will over the course of the next few days go through the paper and write up my own summary (of course, the underlying premise being that I can understand the legalities). Until then, you can browse through Ars Technica and read the official report and/or the official summary.
Explore the Ars Technica treasure trove of tech articles [here]
The Ars Technica page hosting the report on the Harvard Law School study can be found [here]
The full 100 page study can be found [here] and a summary can be found [here].
teaser -
"The paper looks at a number of interesting issues, including the convergence of copyright and contract, the legal cushioning that props up Digital Rights Management Technologies (e.g., the DMCA), and fair use. The paper begins by outlining how contracts are being used to restrict the normal freedom given to users by copyright law in general. Contract trumps copyright, at least in the United States and Europe, which means the courts will typically arbitrate disputes based on contract and not intellectual property law per se. This is already an interesting development because of what we tend to call the shrink-wrap phenomenon: digital content is being sold in a manner more akin to software than tangible content, although even there, software buyers typically have more rights. One of the biggest legal questions to arise out of the DMCA and DRM-efforts relates to how these technologies conspire to essentially shut down or make exceedingly difficult the right of second sale of protected content.The paper rightly notes that the US and Europe, acting in order to fulfill the demands of the WIPO, are drafting and enforcing laws designed to trump fair use by making it illegal to circumvent DRM. The chain works loosely as follows: copyright is trumped by contractual law, which seeks to restrict fair use in legal terms, which then backs up that by requiring adherence to the rules that are technologically enforced by DRM, which itself is protected by laws such as the DMCA in the US and the EU Copyright Directive in Europe."
Explore the Ars Technica treasure trove of tech articles [here]
The Ars Technica page hosting the report on the Harvard Law School study can be found [here]
The full 100 page study can be found [here] and a summary can be found [here].
teaser -
"The paper looks at a number of interesting issues, including the convergence of copyright and contract, the legal cushioning that props up Digital Rights Management Technologies (e.g., the DMCA), and fair use. The paper begins by outlining how contracts are being used to restrict the normal freedom given to users by copyright law in general. Contract trumps copyright, at least in the United States and Europe, which means the courts will typically arbitrate disputes based on contract and not intellectual property law per se. This is already an interesting development because of what we tend to call the shrink-wrap phenomenon: digital content is being sold in a manner more akin to software than tangible content, although even there, software buyers typically have more rights. One of the biggest legal questions to arise out of the DMCA and DRM-efforts relates to how these technologies conspire to essentially shut down or make exceedingly difficult the right of second sale of protected content.The paper rightly notes that the US and Europe, acting in order to fulfill the demands of the WIPO, are drafting and enforcing laws designed to trump fair use by making it illegal to circumvent DRM. The chain works loosely as follows: copyright is trumped by contractual law, which seeks to restrict fair use in legal terms, which then backs up that by requiring adherence to the rules that are technologically enforced by DRM, which itself is protected by laws such as the DMCA in the US and the EU Copyright Directive in Europe."
Monday, September 26, 2005
Carnival of Computing
Andrew Hughes is running a "Carnival of Computing" theme and has collected loads of very interesting tech blogs to catch up on. Check them out.
Sunday, September 25, 2005
Catch 'em, Kill 'em Pt.1 - Catch 'em
aaaaah yes, the code developers out there - find the bugs in these simple code samples involving just strncat and strncpy (n byte copy and concatenating). Of course, I didn't make up these questions. I shall provide the necessary back track to the source after I provide (his) answers. I got most of them, so that should be very encouraging for all of you. You can close your mouth now (in case its still open with shock that I managed to get even one).
// Example #1 (code prior to this verifies pszSrc is <= 50 chars)
#define MAX (50)
char *pszDest = malloc(sizeof(pszSrc));
strncpy(pszDest,pszSrc,MAX);
// Example #2
#define MAX (50)
char szDest[MAX];
strncpy(szDest,pszSrc,MAX);
// Example #3
#define MAX (50)
char szDest[MAX];
strncpy(szDest,pszSrc,MAX);
pszDest[MAX] = '\0';
// Example #4
#define MAX (50)
char szDest[MAX];
strncpy(szDest,pszSrc,MAX-1);
strncat(szDest,pszSrc,MAX-1);
// Example #5
char szDest[50];
_snprintf(szDest, strlen(szDest), "%s",szSrc);
// Example #6
#define MAX (50)
void func(char *p) {
char szDest[MAX];
strncpy(szDest,p,MAX);
szDest[MAX-1] = '\0';
}
// Example #1 (code prior to this verifies pszSrc is <= 50 chars)
#define MAX (50)
char *pszDest = malloc(sizeof(pszSrc));
strncpy(pszDest,pszSrc,MAX);
// Example #2
#define MAX (50)
char szDest[MAX];
strncpy(szDest,pszSrc,MAX);
// Example #3
#define MAX (50)
char szDest[MAX];
strncpy(szDest,pszSrc,MAX);
pszDest[MAX] = '\0';
// Example #4
#define MAX (50)
char szDest[MAX];
strncpy(szDest,pszSrc,MAX-1);
strncat(szDest,pszSrc,MAX-1);
// Example #5
char szDest[50];
_snprintf(szDest, strlen(szDest), "%s",szSrc);
// Example #6
#define MAX (50)
void func(char *p) {
char szDest[MAX];
strncpy(szDest,p,MAX);
szDest[MAX-1] = '\0';
}
What you thought you knew about Economics
Starting a discussion of the supply curve or price elasticity of demand can be a good way to clear out a crowded room. But does tuning out economics come at a cost?
For most Americans, a mandatory high school or college introductory course constitutes the extent of their economic training. However, though we may choose to leave economics alone after we have left the classroom, economic forces don't stop exerting a powerful influence on our daily lives.
The Wall Street Journal Online asked bloggers Russell Roberts, a professor of economics at George Mason University, and William Polley, an economics professor at Western Illinois University, to discuss what the public doesn't know about economics, and whether and how that knowledge gap might hurt.
Here is a link to the discussion titled "Knowledge Deficit"
Russell Roberts is professor of economics at George Mason University and he regularly blogs over at "Cafe Hayek" with his colleague Don Boudreaux.
William Poley is an assistant professor of economics at Western Illinois University. He dishes out economic commentary over at his blog "William J. Polley".
For most Americans, a mandatory high school or college introductory course constitutes the extent of their economic training. However, though we may choose to leave economics alone after we have left the classroom, economic forces don't stop exerting a powerful influence on our daily lives.
The Wall Street Journal Online asked bloggers Russell Roberts, a professor of economics at George Mason University, and William Polley, an economics professor at Western Illinois University, to discuss what the public doesn't know about economics, and whether and how that knowledge gap might hurt.
Here is a link to the discussion titled "Knowledge Deficit"
Russell Roberts is professor of economics at George Mason University and he regularly blogs over at "Cafe Hayek" with his colleague Don Boudreaux.
William Poley is an assistant professor of economics at Western Illinois University. He dishes out economic commentary over at his blog "William J. Polley".
The strange liaison of Sartre and Beauvoir
Who hasn't heard of these two philosophers, thinkers and foremost proponents of existentialism. My brush with them started with reading one of the best psychological profiles of the Marquis de Sade ever written - written by Simone de Beauvoir as an introduction to the (in)famous 120 Days of Sodom. On the other hand, I have only heard and read titbits about Sartre and his philosphy of existentialism. Though I am in the process of learning more about the man and his philosophy through one of this books rather than news clippings, the book whose review I want to take you to is a careful documentary of the platonic relationship the two shared. One can get a view into the minds of these two philosophers/existentialists through their correspondences with each other, correspondences which their individual estates have been kind enough to provide. Some of their libertinous experiences and their candid assessment of their explorations, their contempt of the people who were used as a medium to explore these emotions will shock a few existentialists too.
Read all about it here -
"Stand By Your Man."
by Louis Menand
Read all about it here -
"Stand By Your Man."
by Louis Menand
Monday, September 05, 2005
How stupid can one get?
A man walked into the downtown Bank of America and on the back of a deposit slip wrote, "this iz a stikkup. Put all your muny in this bag." While standing in line, waiting to give his note to the teller, the man began to worry that someone may have seen him write the note and might call the police before he could reach the teller.
So, the criminal left the Bank of America and walked across to the street to Wells Fargo. After waiting in line for several minutes there, he handed his note to a teller. After reading it, the teller determined that this robber was perhaps a few sandwiches short of a picnic.
She told him that because his note was written on a Bank of America deposit slip, she could not honor his demand. He would either have to fill out a Wells Fargo withdrawal slip or go back to the Bank of America.
Feeling defeated, the man said he understood and left. The Wells Fargo teller promptly called the police, who arrested the man a few minutes later--still waiting in line at the Bank of America.
So, the criminal left the Bank of America and walked across to the street to Wells Fargo. After waiting in line for several minutes there, he handed his note to a teller. After reading it, the teller determined that this robber was perhaps a few sandwiches short of a picnic.
She told him that because his note was written on a Bank of America deposit slip, she could not honor his demand. He would either have to fill out a Wells Fargo withdrawal slip or go back to the Bank of America.
Feeling defeated, the man said he understood and left. The Wells Fargo teller promptly called the police, who arrested the man a few minutes later--still waiting in line at the Bank of America.
Friday, September 02, 2005
Of Deepak Chopra, tsunami's, New Orleans
[Link] Follow the link to Deepak Chopra's post on the New Orleans tragedy. He makes a lot of comments that I had problems with. I have reproduced his entire post here for convenience along with my comments.
The blog "Intent Blog" is great source for 'food for thought' kind of posts with Deepak Chopra making bulk of the contributions along with many other celebrities such as Shekar kapur, nandita Das, Anil Dash etc. Check it out!
Deepak Chopra says -
New Orleans is a monumental and heart wrenching tragedy which maybe impossible to comprehend and come to terms with.
Our hearts go out to all those that suffer while life goes on as normal for the rest of us. Let us do everything to help those in need in whatever way we can, because the immediate need in the face of a disaster like the New Orleans flood is to offer every form of aid and compassion that can be mustered. But in the back of many people's minds is a lurking apprehension that grows larger every year.
The annual floods in Bangladesh have always seemed far away, as did the torrential monsoon last month in Bombay that crippled the city and killed hundreds. Hurricanes come closer to home, and the destruction wrought by Katrina is almost beyond comprehension, for it occurred with the same fury as the South Asian tsunami. Whole communities have been wiped out of existence, and the prospect of a major American city being under water for weeks or months feels as if Third World calamity, like those faraway Turkish and Iranian earthquakes that kill thousands without causing a ripple in America, has suddenly arrived here.
Both Katrina and the tsunami are forcing us to globalize our thinking under crisis conditions. Instead of approaching global warming positively, we are facing it the hard way, by enduring droughts, floods, and extreme natural disasters in general. No one knows to what extent any of these events is connected to human activity. It seems that global warming is playing its part in the increased force of hurricanes; one cannot find a similar connection to tsunamis, which are more like earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, but devout believers in the Gaia hypothesis have conjectured that perhaps our war against Nature is causing these responses from the planet.
I have no interest in metaphysical explanations here, and I would never join those religionists who will inevitably begin to mutter about God's retribution and premonitions of the End Time. But the fact that we are at war against Nature seems undeniable.
Katrina, we are told, would have been less devastating if local developers had not been destroying the marshlands that protect New Orleans from the fury of storms. But this ecological barrier was deemed unnecessary, and wetlands have been disappearing around the city at a rate of an acre every 24 minutes.
The war against Nature has been launched on many fronts:
--Abolishing native plant species in favor of overplanting the same few crops: wheat, rice, corn, and soybeans.
--Exploiting fossil fuels without regard for their environmental effects.
--Polluting the ocean to the extent that half the world's coral reefs are immediately in danger.
--Diverting and damming rivers without regard to the ecology or human needs downstream.
--Eliminating wild lands and forests by stripping them of all vegetation.
When Thoreau made his famous comment, "In wildness is the preservation of the world," he had no idea of the alarming rate at which human beings would mistake short-term gratification for successful living. The environmental argument has been well addressed in hundreds of places, and perhaps the stridency of ecological alarmists has numbed the public to what's going on, leaving an opening for President Bush and other anti-environmentalists to deliver the reassuring message, "Nothing's wrong. Go back to whatever you were doing."
I think New Orleans will stick indelibly in our national consciousness as stark evidence that the war against Nature has to be ended. The choice is more clear cut than ever, and one only hopes that international cooperation is in the offing, since we are no longer apart from the so-called Third World in enduring intolerable calamity.
My comments are below -
1. we, as you have, extend our heartfelt wishes to the affected families.
2. maybe I didn't catch your drift when you talked about "third world disasters" but it seemed to me that you did so with an air of a "we are a developed nation, we are above all the riff raff and nothing can touch us, better than the best" attitude that makes small of hundreds of people dying elsewhere as it doesn't mean anything to american interests. And now, disaster of such colossal magnitude (as the tsunami) has brought home death and destruction akin to the afflictions of the "third world" and you feel victimized by it? I disagree with the whole tone of your argument - "the prospect of a major American city being under water for weeks or months feels as if Third World calamity, like those faraway Turkish and Iranian earthquakes that kill thousands without causing a ripple in America, has suddenly arrived here.". Your closing argument is more humble but I still find an elitist element to it - "The choice is more clear cut than ever, and one only hopes that international cooperation is in the offing, since we are no longer apart from the so-called Third World in enduring intolerable calamity". I am confused and would like you to explain yourself better. As I said, maybe I misread you here but I would live to have this sorted out.
3. Though I agree with you and note with appreciation the thought that disasters are forcing us to globalize our crisis management, I fail to see the validity/applicability of the sudden inclusion of global warming into your case for war against nature especially when global warming is not the only consequence of unbridled human expansion and exploration.
4. "Instead of approaching global warming positively, we are facing it the hard way, by enduring droughts, floods, and extreme natural disasters in general." By approach positively you must mean corrective measures to counteract eons of our destructive way of life? Even in the case that we go about our lives destroying nature's fabric with impunity, your argument seems to suggest that we are running into hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis etc as a matter of choice between being good or face hardships if not. Then you go on to say that you will never take up rank with dooms day religionists (a view that I share) and the rest of your argument seems to suggest that you subscribe to the viewpoint of the Gaia principle though you haven't explicitly sided with that school of thought
5. I second your notion that the general public has been numbed by the continuity of dire predictions by environmentalists and may not fully appreciate our destructive way of life.
The blog "Intent Blog" is great source for 'food for thought' kind of posts with Deepak Chopra making bulk of the contributions along with many other celebrities such as Shekar kapur, nandita Das, Anil Dash etc. Check it out!
Deepak Chopra says -
New Orleans is a monumental and heart wrenching tragedy which maybe impossible to comprehend and come to terms with.
Our hearts go out to all those that suffer while life goes on as normal for the rest of us. Let us do everything to help those in need in whatever way we can, because the immediate need in the face of a disaster like the New Orleans flood is to offer every form of aid and compassion that can be mustered. But in the back of many people's minds is a lurking apprehension that grows larger every year.
The annual floods in Bangladesh have always seemed far away, as did the torrential monsoon last month in Bombay that crippled the city and killed hundreds. Hurricanes come closer to home, and the destruction wrought by Katrina is almost beyond comprehension, for it occurred with the same fury as the South Asian tsunami. Whole communities have been wiped out of existence, and the prospect of a major American city being under water for weeks or months feels as if Third World calamity, like those faraway Turkish and Iranian earthquakes that kill thousands without causing a ripple in America, has suddenly arrived here.
Both Katrina and the tsunami are forcing us to globalize our thinking under crisis conditions. Instead of approaching global warming positively, we are facing it the hard way, by enduring droughts, floods, and extreme natural disasters in general. No one knows to what extent any of these events is connected to human activity. It seems that global warming is playing its part in the increased force of hurricanes; one cannot find a similar connection to tsunamis, which are more like earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, but devout believers in the Gaia hypothesis have conjectured that perhaps our war against Nature is causing these responses from the planet.
I have no interest in metaphysical explanations here, and I would never join those religionists who will inevitably begin to mutter about God's retribution and premonitions of the End Time. But the fact that we are at war against Nature seems undeniable.
Katrina, we are told, would have been less devastating if local developers had not been destroying the marshlands that protect New Orleans from the fury of storms. But this ecological barrier was deemed unnecessary, and wetlands have been disappearing around the city at a rate of an acre every 24 minutes.
The war against Nature has been launched on many fronts:
--Abolishing native plant species in favor of overplanting the same few crops: wheat, rice, corn, and soybeans.
--Exploiting fossil fuels without regard for their environmental effects.
--Polluting the ocean to the extent that half the world's coral reefs are immediately in danger.
--Diverting and damming rivers without regard to the ecology or human needs downstream.
--Eliminating wild lands and forests by stripping them of all vegetation.
When Thoreau made his famous comment, "In wildness is the preservation of the world," he had no idea of the alarming rate at which human beings would mistake short-term gratification for successful living. The environmental argument has been well addressed in hundreds of places, and perhaps the stridency of ecological alarmists has numbed the public to what's going on, leaving an opening for President Bush and other anti-environmentalists to deliver the reassuring message, "Nothing's wrong. Go back to whatever you were doing."
I think New Orleans will stick indelibly in our national consciousness as stark evidence that the war against Nature has to be ended. The choice is more clear cut than ever, and one only hopes that international cooperation is in the offing, since we are no longer apart from the so-called Third World in enduring intolerable calamity.
My comments are below -
1. we, as you have, extend our heartfelt wishes to the affected families.
2. maybe I didn't catch your drift when you talked about "third world disasters" but it seemed to me that you did so with an air of a "we are a developed nation, we are above all the riff raff and nothing can touch us, better than the best" attitude that makes small of hundreds of people dying elsewhere as it doesn't mean anything to american interests. And now, disaster of such colossal magnitude (as the tsunami) has brought home death and destruction akin to the afflictions of the "third world" and you feel victimized by it? I disagree with the whole tone of your argument - "the prospect of a major American city being under water for weeks or months feels as if Third World calamity, like those faraway Turkish and Iranian earthquakes that kill thousands without causing a ripple in America, has suddenly arrived here.". Your closing argument is more humble but I still find an elitist element to it - "The choice is more clear cut than ever, and one only hopes that international cooperation is in the offing, since we are no longer apart from the so-called Third World in enduring intolerable calamity". I am confused and would like you to explain yourself better. As I said, maybe I misread you here but I would live to have this sorted out.
3. Though I agree with you and note with appreciation the thought that disasters are forcing us to globalize our crisis management, I fail to see the validity/applicability of the sudden inclusion of global warming into your case for war against nature especially when global warming is not the only consequence of unbridled human expansion and exploration.
4. "Instead of approaching global warming positively, we are facing it the hard way, by enduring droughts, floods, and extreme natural disasters in general." By approach positively you must mean corrective measures to counteract eons of our destructive way of life? Even in the case that we go about our lives destroying nature's fabric with impunity, your argument seems to suggest that we are running into hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis etc as a matter of choice between being good or face hardships if not. Then you go on to say that you will never take up rank with dooms day religionists (a view that I share) and the rest of your argument seems to suggest that you subscribe to the viewpoint of the Gaia principle though you haven't explicitly sided with that school of thought
5. I second your notion that the general public has been numbed by the continuity of dire predictions by environmentalists and may not fully appreciate our destructive way of life.
Sunday, July 17, 2005
Feed on me!
I'm back here! Spaces is great but I amback here to try my hand at some coding for customization that I can only do here at blogger! I've added the atom feed icon in the navigation panel on the left. I am trying to get my blogmap up next on the right. And, just in case you missed it, click on the "Atom Feed" icon. I've just included the icon in the post, if you want to subscribe to this feed, click on the icon in the nav panel!
I also fixed the grammar in the # of comments that my good readers have left. Earlier, irrespcetive of whether the number of comments were 0, 1 or more than 1 it always read 'comments'. I fixed it to say 'No comments', '1 comment' or '2 comments'. Yeah, I know its pretty anal but I was just trying it out.
I also fixed the grammar in the # of comments that my good readers have left. Earlier, irrespcetive of whether the number of comments were 0, 1 or more than 1 it always read 'comments'. I fixed it to say 'No comments', '1 comment' or '2 comments'. Yeah, I know its pretty anal but I was just trying it out.
Thursday, June 16, 2005
I am moving!
I checked out MSN Spaces and it rocks! Its all that I wanted from Blogger and much more. Its awesome and I am moving my blog out there.
These are the new coordinates for my brand of paranoia on the web.
These are the new coordinates for my brand of paranoia on the web.
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
The Great (fire)Wall of China
The blogging world has been turned upside down over reports that Microsoft and Google (amongst many other companies, for a list look here) have bowed to the Chinese government in their effort to curtail free speech and post only 'appropriate' content on their blogs on MSN spaces and are treated to only those news pages that have been stripped off sensitive content. It has been reported that sensitive words such as "democracy" or "human rights" result in error messages and do not show up in posts (I am not sure if this is in the title of the post or in the body, reports vary) on the chinese version of MSN Spaces. Google too has suitably altered their news pages so that they do not provide the 'dissident' chinese with 'inflammatory and incidiary' content. They have joined hands with the Chinese government in their effort to build the The Great (fire)Wall of China.
Robert Scoble, numero uno blogger of Microsoft defends his company here
Rebecca MacKinnon rips apart his arguments here and makes many valid points about Chinese culture and is sort of inline with a point that I made many posts ago of the lack of effort in understanding foreign cultures. Read this, its very interesting. There is also an update clarifying a few issues [here].
Dan Gillmor asks - "Microsoft and Google, like so many others, rose to enormous wealth and influence by leveraging the freedom they enjoy in the United States. They may be serving their shareholders' interests. But what they're doing is not honorable. Why does money trump honor? Is this really the American way?". Listen to his post here
Given that "MSN Spaces is not exactly my idea of a new form of journalism that will set the world free and change the geopolitical landscape for decades to come" (from the comments section in Dan's blog) - I agree with this point but one should look at the bigger picture of cencorship of speech and access rights to any and all information and that of corporations siding with this form of oppression and making money in the process.
Meanwhile, Rick Segal sighs and says, "Its hard to be an American"
To end it all, a very nice wrap up by Shelley Powers [here]
Some people have started to test how free is speech on the web here in the US and have discovered that MSN spaces also clamps down on usage of certain words, words that are synonymous with the porn industry. Certain combinations are allowed and certain others aren't. People who want to get around will always will. Scoble asks if its cencosrship if I can still get my point across without using sensitive words. I think banning certain words (I am talking about the US MSN Spaces) is okay given that the words deal mostly with the porn industry and MSN spaces have no age verification scheme in place and is accessible even my pre-teens and kids. If innocent looking combinations are not allowed to pass through, then I guess one better swallow the pill and re-write your post title - its the intention matters here - a scammer can have a perfectly innocent title and banned content in the body while normal bloggers can use 'dangerous' titles for socially sensitive topics such as "Prostitution and the Law".
I also am of the opinion that MSFT took a monetary decision that allowed them to do business in a new country - they are not in the business of revoltion but in that of computer technology which they want to push into an emerging market. Operating in a different country means that you obey the law of the land or just pack up and go home. First amendment activists often forget that the same oppression makes it possible for Chinese goods to be half the price of US produced goods and americans have embraced these goods making Wal-mart, Apple and dozens of other companies very profitable in the process. Three guesses why US trade deficit with China is so high.
You can't oppress them in one way and balk at oppressing them in an other way. And wondering whether the average citizen is truly free on account of whether he can include certain combinations of words on MSN spaces blog posts and using that as being representative of his right to free speech is rather lame.
Go here to read Dare Obssanjo's (he works for MSN Spaces) post on this issue. It clarifies what content they are exactly monitoring and what it means to operate a common platform for users of all ages across countries and languages when each one's definitions of appropriateness is defined by prevalent local culture.
I am going to put an end to this topic. Enough said!
Robert Scoble, numero uno blogger of Microsoft defends his company here
Rebecca MacKinnon rips apart his arguments here and makes many valid points about Chinese culture and is sort of inline with a point that I made many posts ago of the lack of effort in understanding foreign cultures. Read this, its very interesting. There is also an update clarifying a few issues [here].
Dan Gillmor asks - "Microsoft and Google, like so many others, rose to enormous wealth and influence by leveraging the freedom they enjoy in the United States. They may be serving their shareholders' interests. But what they're doing is not honorable. Why does money trump honor? Is this really the American way?". Listen to his post here
Given that "MSN Spaces is not exactly my idea of a new form of journalism that will set the world free and change the geopolitical landscape for decades to come" (from the comments section in Dan's blog) - I agree with this point but one should look at the bigger picture of cencorship of speech and access rights to any and all information and that of corporations siding with this form of oppression and making money in the process.
Meanwhile, Rick Segal sighs and says, "Its hard to be an American"
To end it all, a very nice wrap up by Shelley Powers [here]
Some people have started to test how free is speech on the web here in the US and have discovered that MSN spaces also clamps down on usage of certain words, words that are synonymous with the porn industry. Certain combinations are allowed and certain others aren't. People who want to get around will always will. Scoble asks if its cencosrship if I can still get my point across without using sensitive words. I think banning certain words (I am talking about the US MSN Spaces) is okay given that the words deal mostly with the porn industry and MSN spaces have no age verification scheme in place and is accessible even my pre-teens and kids. If innocent looking combinations are not allowed to pass through, then I guess one better swallow the pill and re-write your post title - its the intention matters here - a scammer can have a perfectly innocent title and banned content in the body while normal bloggers can use 'dangerous' titles for socially sensitive topics such as "Prostitution and the Law".
I also am of the opinion that MSFT took a monetary decision that allowed them to do business in a new country - they are not in the business of revoltion but in that of computer technology which they want to push into an emerging market. Operating in a different country means that you obey the law of the land or just pack up and go home. First amendment activists often forget that the same oppression makes it possible for Chinese goods to be half the price of US produced goods and americans have embraced these goods making Wal-mart, Apple and dozens of other companies very profitable in the process. Three guesses why US trade deficit with China is so high.
You can't oppress them in one way and balk at oppressing them in an other way. And wondering whether the average citizen is truly free on account of whether he can include certain combinations of words on MSN spaces blog posts and using that as being representative of his right to free speech is rather lame.
Go here to read Dare Obssanjo's (he works for MSN Spaces) post on this issue. It clarifies what content they are exactly monitoring and what it means to operate a common platform for users of all ages across countries and languages when each one's definitions of appropriateness is defined by prevalent local culture.
I am going to put an end to this topic. Enough said!
Tuesday, June 14, 2005
The Eastern Front: World War II
I have been reading this awesome memoir of Germany's greatest generals on the Eastern Front - General Ehard Raus, its called "Panzer Operations: The Eastern Front Memoir of General Raus, 1941-1945" and is compiled and translated by Steven H. Newton, a professor of history at the Delaware State University. By war's end, Raus had earned a reputation as one of Germany's foremost tacticians of armored warfare and was considered a prized catch when he was captured by the U.S. He wrote this detailed memoir in US captivity. The book is all about armored military strategy and is recommended for all who are interested in strategic warfare.
What I like about this book:
very analytical, paints a complete picture of both armies at each battle - right from the number of men, artillery pieces, tanks, reserves etc (this means remembering who is who and where they came from. For eg., 320th infantry division, 6th panzer division etc.). Before you start to groan, this book is replete with analysis, both pre and post. He gives a lot of credit to refining soviet tactics as the war progressed. He makes an analysis of what it means to invade a country and one as unique and immensely huge as the Soviet Union. He analyzes the socio-political situation in soviet Russia during those years and even comments on the economic might of the Soviet Union - its massive collosal army, the never ending tank production lines - its almost limitless industrial capapcity far outdoing Germany's resources that were stretched thin between Africa, Western Europe and Russia. He gives very good insights into how the Soviets fought and made use of the fact that they outnumbered the Germans in all modes of combat. You should read the book to appreciate this lopsided battle and how the Soviet Union rallied around and started to push the Wehrmacht out of Russian soil. Raus gives credit where its due to the Russians. He also gives you some sense of the number of soldiers required to fight and maintain a line that at one time was along the entire breadth of Russia. No commentary of the Eastern Front is complete without tales of the winter war and its telling effect on German soldiers. Raus camped 26 miles out of Moscow in the winter with his unit being hit with 800 casualties every day owing to the cold. At that rate, he estimates, that his division would have been reduced to a 'band of brothers' within 7 days! His analysis of the Russian winter counter offensives are admirable and he points out that the Wehrmacht retreat from Russia was at no time a rout. Germans inflicted huge and heavy losses on the Russians even while on the retreat but they themselves were so dimished in strength that making a stand was not a viable option.
What I don't like about the book:
Maps - a severe paucity of them renders the book very dry and leaves to the imagination of the reader battles that were fought at different cities with nothing to differentiate or identify them but general directions such as to the south of Stalingrad. You will have to read certain battles more than once to truly appreciate them.
Advice: stick to it and try to imagine it and you'll be plesantly surprised as to the wealth of information you will get.
This general obviously did not fight in all the battles and therefore some battles like those for Stalingrad and Leningrad are absent. He does make references to them of course to cite the magnitude of German losses (an entire army of around 300,000 men. I am not sure of the losses in equipment). You will find more than enough information in many other battles like those of Kharkov, Kursk (Operation Zitadelle), battles for the Ukraine, the Kiev salient, Lvov and finally Pomerania (in these battles, german panzer divisions fought at tank ratios 1:20 in favor of the russians).
Just to give you an idea of the lopsided nature of most Russian battles: consider Operation Zitadelle (the battle of Kursk). Here are the numbers for each of the armies that clashed for this city that was the industrial and economical heart of the Ukraine.
Germany:In total they assembled some 2,700 tanks and assault guns, 1,800 aircraft and 800,000 men.
Russia: The Red Army laid over 400,000 landmines and dug about 5,000 kilometers of trenches, with positions as far back as 175km from the front line. In addition they massed a huge army of their own, including some 1,300,000 men, 3,600 tanks, 20,000 artillery pieces and 2,400 aircraft.
Operation Zitadelle did not achieve the outlined objectives and is generally considered a german tactical loss.
Casuality figures: Just from the battle of Kursk, the Soviets lost 322 tanks (more than half of them beyond repair), had more than 1000 dead and an additional 2500 missing or wounded. German losses reached less than 20% of that.
Of the total casulaties from the entire operation, the losses sort of looked the same - 60,000 dead and missing (germany) and 70,330 for Russia. But what these figures don't tell you is that the Germans didn't have manpower left after taking losses that ran at roughly 3:5 in their favor. The soviets through the lend-lease program and owing to their advantage in numbers were able to bounce back.
More later. I really should change the template to include categories so that I can open one just for the Eastern Front. Anybody want to help me out on this one?
What I like about this book:
very analytical, paints a complete picture of both armies at each battle - right from the number of men, artillery pieces, tanks, reserves etc (this means remembering who is who and where they came from. For eg., 320th infantry division, 6th panzer division etc.). Before you start to groan, this book is replete with analysis, both pre and post. He gives a lot of credit to refining soviet tactics as the war progressed. He makes an analysis of what it means to invade a country and one as unique and immensely huge as the Soviet Union. He analyzes the socio-political situation in soviet Russia during those years and even comments on the economic might of the Soviet Union - its massive collosal army, the never ending tank production lines - its almost limitless industrial capapcity far outdoing Germany's resources that were stretched thin between Africa, Western Europe and Russia. He gives very good insights into how the Soviets fought and made use of the fact that they outnumbered the Germans in all modes of combat. You should read the book to appreciate this lopsided battle and how the Soviet Union rallied around and started to push the Wehrmacht out of Russian soil. Raus gives credit where its due to the Russians. He also gives you some sense of the number of soldiers required to fight and maintain a line that at one time was along the entire breadth of Russia. No commentary of the Eastern Front is complete without tales of the winter war and its telling effect on German soldiers. Raus camped 26 miles out of Moscow in the winter with his unit being hit with 800 casualties every day owing to the cold. At that rate, he estimates, that his division would have been reduced to a 'band of brothers' within 7 days! His analysis of the Russian winter counter offensives are admirable and he points out that the Wehrmacht retreat from Russia was at no time a rout. Germans inflicted huge and heavy losses on the Russians even while on the retreat but they themselves were so dimished in strength that making a stand was not a viable option.
What I don't like about the book:
Maps - a severe paucity of them renders the book very dry and leaves to the imagination of the reader battles that were fought at different cities with nothing to differentiate or identify them but general directions such as to the south of Stalingrad. You will have to read certain battles more than once to truly appreciate them.
Advice: stick to it and try to imagine it and you'll be plesantly surprised as to the wealth of information you will get.
This general obviously did not fight in all the battles and therefore some battles like those for Stalingrad and Leningrad are absent. He does make references to them of course to cite the magnitude of German losses (an entire army of around 300,000 men. I am not sure of the losses in equipment). You will find more than enough information in many other battles like those of Kharkov, Kursk (Operation Zitadelle), battles for the Ukraine, the Kiev salient, Lvov and finally Pomerania (in these battles, german panzer divisions fought at tank ratios 1:20 in favor of the russians).
Just to give you an idea of the lopsided nature of most Russian battles: consider Operation Zitadelle (the battle of Kursk). Here are the numbers for each of the armies that clashed for this city that was the industrial and economical heart of the Ukraine.
Germany:In total they assembled some 2,700 tanks and assault guns, 1,800 aircraft and 800,000 men.
Russia: The Red Army laid over 400,000 landmines and dug about 5,000 kilometers of trenches, with positions as far back as 175km from the front line. In addition they massed a huge army of their own, including some 1,300,000 men, 3,600 tanks, 20,000 artillery pieces and 2,400 aircraft.
Operation Zitadelle did not achieve the outlined objectives and is generally considered a german tactical loss.
Casuality figures: Just from the battle of Kursk, the Soviets lost 322 tanks (more than half of them beyond repair), had more than 1000 dead and an additional 2500 missing or wounded. German losses reached less than 20% of that.
Of the total casulaties from the entire operation, the losses sort of looked the same - 60,000 dead and missing (germany) and 70,330 for Russia. But what these figures don't tell you is that the Germans didn't have manpower left after taking losses that ran at roughly 3:5 in their favor. The soviets through the lend-lease program and owing to their advantage in numbers were able to bounce back.
More later. I really should change the template to include categories so that I can open one just for the Eastern Front. Anybody want to help me out on this one?
Jackson to Change Lifestyle
Read my previous post [here]
In my previous Jackson post, I completely left out the pornography and sex toys that he let the children come into contact with. Pretty abnormal eh?
Read story [here]
Jackson, now says that he is going to change his lifestyle and refrain from sharing his bed with young boys so as not to be vulnerable again. Whoa! hold on a second. Who is the victim here - Jackson or Gavin Arvizo, the 13 year old who accused Jackson of molestation. It sounds like the kid is a gold digger and Jackson is an innocent victim whose senisitive, caring nature has been irrepairably hurt by these baseless accusations against his moral character. With reference to my previous post, atleast kids are most probably not going to sleep with Jackson anymore. Thats a great development if you ask me.
I also looked at the lead that I left open - the british journalist who started it all. His name is Martin Bashir and he was sued by Jackson for 'breach of contract and breach of confidence over the film'. Jackson, in an attempt to offset the huge legal costs he has accrued, is all set to re-open his legal battle with Bashir.
Learn more about the original film 'Living with Michael Jackson' and other Martin Bashir news here.
He is apparently rumored to be performing at the Live 8 concert either at London or at Philadelphia and is also considering a world tour aptly called 'Framed'. Jackson's debts and legal costs must be quite high for him to affect a miraculously quick recovery from his recurrent back problem and mount a world tour. Its all in the image - the sensitive, caring, children loving benevolent pop star crushed under these accusations suffers from moral scarring and even leaves him in poor physical health. A pretty picture of innocence don't you think?
And life goes on....
In my previous Jackson post, I completely left out the pornography and sex toys that he let the children come into contact with. Pretty abnormal eh?
Read story [here]
Jackson, now says that he is going to change his lifestyle and refrain from sharing his bed with young boys so as not to be vulnerable again. Whoa! hold on a second. Who is the victim here - Jackson or Gavin Arvizo, the 13 year old who accused Jackson of molestation. It sounds like the kid is a gold digger and Jackson is an innocent victim whose senisitive, caring nature has been irrepairably hurt by these baseless accusations against his moral character. With reference to my previous post, atleast kids are most probably not going to sleep with Jackson anymore. Thats a great development if you ask me.
I also looked at the lead that I left open - the british journalist who started it all. His name is Martin Bashir and he was sued by Jackson for 'breach of contract and breach of confidence over the film'. Jackson, in an attempt to offset the huge legal costs he has accrued, is all set to re-open his legal battle with Bashir.
Learn more about the original film 'Living with Michael Jackson' and other Martin Bashir news here.
He is apparently rumored to be performing at the Live 8 concert either at London or at Philadelphia and is also considering a world tour aptly called 'Framed'. Jackson's debts and legal costs must be quite high for him to affect a miraculously quick recovery from his recurrent back problem and mount a world tour. Its all in the image - the sensitive, caring, children loving benevolent pop star crushed under these accusations suffers from moral scarring and even leaves him in poor physical health. A pretty picture of innocence don't you think?
And life goes on....
Seeing Is Believing
1. Click on the image to view it in a better resolution. Save it on your computer.
2. Open it in any photo editor that gives you the RGB values at a particular mouse position (like IrfanView)
3. You can also open it in MSPaint and use the ink dropper tool to see what color is a particular region.
4. Using either of the two tools, observe the RGB value of the sqare marked B is exactly the same as that of the square marked A. yet, 'B' looks a lot lighter than 'A'.
Can you explain why?
Answer will be up in two days. Its an interesting question. I am sure people googling it will find the answers but this is not about testing Google but your ability to come up with convincing answers.
Monday, June 13, 2005
Jackson hobbles away a free man
[story here]
Michael Jackson, accused of molestation and attempting to seduce a boy by providing him with alcohol - a total of 10 different charges were filed against him, hobbled away a free man. For 14 weeks, the two sides presented their arguments and listened to testimonials and the jury of 8 women and 4 men took 7 days to set him free on all ten counts. He apparently was motionless as the 'not guilty' was handed out for each of the ten counts and in a restrained manner hobbled out of the court room, huggled his family and close escort, got into his motorcade and drove away - completely free.
This is what I find so shameful in this verdict -
assuming that Jackson was 'truly' innocent and with God as his witness, did not touch the children, ply them with alcohol or take advantage of them in any manner that may be deemed inappropriate - he still solicited mothers to send their kids to his ranch so that they can spend the nights with him in his bedroom. This was proven and is as undisputable as the fact that he took a bath with some of them (of course, with the best of itentions). The jury might have taken this as a sign of his 'love' towards children and in light of the character tainting his lawyers indulged in (this is a common practice to dismiss the arguments of your opponent - reduce credibility by tainting his character) might have thrown the accuser's case out of the window. But what they cannot deny is the abnormal behavior or preference on Jackson's part to sleep and bathe with children other than his own (even if they were his own, this practice is inappropriate after a certain age). And what I think is tragic is that none of the jurors thought of that before setting him free with all honor and respect that is due to him. They didn't quite fathom that acts such as these are not within the confines of normal human behavior and this was evident in that they didn't even find him guilty of something like a third degree misdemeanor and issue him a warning. He may have been truly not guilty of molesting those kids (including his accuser) but the way he chose to spend his time with those children sure was unnatural. One of my friends drew my attention to a certain BBC interviewer by the name of Basheer (or some similar name) who in an interview a year or two earlier (at around the time these rumors first surfaced) made the same comments and added that Jackson in all his star wisdom just didn't get it - its abnormal/unnatural to get kids to sleep or bathe with you. The Jackson camp sued him for libel and slander a little while later with the outcome being unknown to me. Will my enlightened readers leave me a comment if they know more about that story?
So, another 'landmark' judgement has been handed out and another page in our judicial history has been turned. Are you surprised? No sir, I am not.
An apt quote from the recent movie "The Cinderella Man", "If they take this long to decide, they usually decide to screw somebody".
Michael Jackson, accused of molestation and attempting to seduce a boy by providing him with alcohol - a total of 10 different charges were filed against him, hobbled away a free man. For 14 weeks, the two sides presented their arguments and listened to testimonials and the jury of 8 women and 4 men took 7 days to set him free on all ten counts. He apparently was motionless as the 'not guilty' was handed out for each of the ten counts and in a restrained manner hobbled out of the court room, huggled his family and close escort, got into his motorcade and drove away - completely free.
This is what I find so shameful in this verdict -
assuming that Jackson was 'truly' innocent and with God as his witness, did not touch the children, ply them with alcohol or take advantage of them in any manner that may be deemed inappropriate - he still solicited mothers to send their kids to his ranch so that they can spend the nights with him in his bedroom. This was proven and is as undisputable as the fact that he took a bath with some of them (of course, with the best of itentions). The jury might have taken this as a sign of his 'love' towards children and in light of the character tainting his lawyers indulged in (this is a common practice to dismiss the arguments of your opponent - reduce credibility by tainting his character) might have thrown the accuser's case out of the window. But what they cannot deny is the abnormal behavior or preference on Jackson's part to sleep and bathe with children other than his own (even if they were his own, this practice is inappropriate after a certain age). And what I think is tragic is that none of the jurors thought of that before setting him free with all honor and respect that is due to him. They didn't quite fathom that acts such as these are not within the confines of normal human behavior and this was evident in that they didn't even find him guilty of something like a third degree misdemeanor and issue him a warning. He may have been truly not guilty of molesting those kids (including his accuser) but the way he chose to spend his time with those children sure was unnatural. One of my friends drew my attention to a certain BBC interviewer by the name of Basheer (or some similar name) who in an interview a year or two earlier (at around the time these rumors first surfaced) made the same comments and added that Jackson in all his star wisdom just didn't get it - its abnormal/unnatural to get kids to sleep or bathe with you. The Jackson camp sued him for libel and slander a little while later with the outcome being unknown to me. Will my enlightened readers leave me a comment if they know more about that story?
So, another 'landmark' judgement has been handed out and another page in our judicial history has been turned. Are you surprised? No sir, I am not.
An apt quote from the recent movie "The Cinderella Man", "If they take this long to decide, they usually decide to screw somebody".
Monday, June 06, 2005
China's hunt for oil
Obviously the US is not the only country which looks for oil and resources leaving no stone unturned. Its just they are either most vocal about it or they make all the headlines everywhere.
Look here for China's largely silent (silent in the media but hardly unnoticed) hunt for oil. I must say they have been pretty ingenious in acquiring so many leads all over the world. No wonder the US is jittery about its oil reserves and the ones it controls. I really can't blame them.
Look here for China's largely silent (silent in the media but hardly unnoticed) hunt for oil. I must say they have been pretty ingenious in acquiring so many leads all over the world. No wonder the US is jittery about its oil reserves and the ones it controls. I really can't blame them.
Its Official: Apple goes with Intel
I have this long post in mind where I will link interested readers to relevant posts and my thoughts on Apple deciding to go with Intel, what it means for the market, developers, its carefully cultivated brand image, other products like the iPod and possibly new products that we haven't seen from Apple.
After work maybe?
[Link] Apple said is was making the move to x86 architecture chips because they offer more power and better efficiency. Where art thou oh technology pundit who oft immersed thyself in lengthy diatribes against Intel architecture as compared to the PowerPC architecture? According to this news report, one main motivation behind the switch is because IBM has not yet been able to produce versions of the G5 chip, used in Apple's desktop G5 machines, which are suitable for Apple laptops without overheating. This was also attributed to the fact that it just wasn't profitable for IBM to spend millions of dollars in developing the new laptop version of the G5 just to satisfy 2.3% of the global market share. Their (IBM-Apple) relationship has been stormy and has finally has been dissolved.
Apple, on the other hand, moved from their OS 9 onto a UNIX based platform in their OS X and now have moved onto Intel chips. Doesn't it seem like they are trying a few populist measures (they make sound economic sense too) to break out of the niche (read as 'hole') they have carved for themselves? Intel makes so many different kinds of processors that are suited for the mobile laptop segment that such a move seems logical in retrospect given the intention to break out and capture more of the market.
more later. so much to say and so little time to say it in.
After work maybe?
[Link] Apple said is was making the move to x86 architecture chips because they offer more power and better efficiency. Where art thou oh technology pundit who oft immersed thyself in lengthy diatribes against Intel architecture as compared to the PowerPC architecture? According to this news report, one main motivation behind the switch is because IBM has not yet been able to produce versions of the G5 chip, used in Apple's desktop G5 machines, which are suitable for Apple laptops without overheating. This was also attributed to the fact that it just wasn't profitable for IBM to spend millions of dollars in developing the new laptop version of the G5 just to satisfy 2.3% of the global market share. Their (IBM-Apple) relationship has been stormy and has finally has been dissolved.
Apple, on the other hand, moved from their OS 9 onto a UNIX based platform in their OS X and now have moved onto Intel chips. Doesn't it seem like they are trying a few populist measures (they make sound economic sense too) to break out of the niche (read as 'hole') they have carved for themselves? Intel makes so many different kinds of processors that are suited for the mobile laptop segment that such a move seems logical in retrospect given the intention to break out and capture more of the market.
more later. so much to say and so little time to say it in.
The US on Iran-Pakistan-India gas deal and on human rights violations by China
A project to pipe gas to India from Iran via Pakistan could begin next year, India's oil minister says. Mani Shankar Aiyer has said, "It may not have become reality but has become a certainity".
Who'd you expect to throw 'reservations' into this seemingly prosperous (financially and politically) deal?
Who else? The US of course!
Mr Aiyer dismissed US reservations over the purchase of gas from Iran and said Pakistan and India would not accept any pressure in this regard. I think he should just disregard US concern/interest/opinion on this issue.
I also read here that the US had called upon China to come clean on its human rights violations in the 1989 Tiananmen Square incident in which security forces apparently used exessive force in clearing an apparently peaceful student demonstration. What happened there was indeed a tragedy, I am not condoning the act of using armed force against students protesting against the communist party but for the US Secretary of state to issue a statement calling for China to 'come clean' on this issue is, I think, going too far. The Foreign Ministry in Beijing said the US should pay more attention to its own human rights violations. I think this reply is befitting of the dichotomous reality of human rights violations by the US. They talk a great deal about it but in practice mostly never seem to adhere to it. Its not enough to have policies that deal with human rights violations if none from your own side really follow it and it definitely doesn't justify booking someone for similar offenses.
Who'd you expect to throw 'reservations' into this seemingly prosperous (financially and politically) deal?
Who else? The US of course!
Mr Aiyer dismissed US reservations over the purchase of gas from Iran and said Pakistan and India would not accept any pressure in this regard. I think he should just disregard US concern/interest/opinion on this issue.
I also read here that the US had called upon China to come clean on its human rights violations in the 1989 Tiananmen Square incident in which security forces apparently used exessive force in clearing an apparently peaceful student demonstration. What happened there was indeed a tragedy, I am not condoning the act of using armed force against students protesting against the communist party but for the US Secretary of state to issue a statement calling for China to 'come clean' on this issue is, I think, going too far. The Foreign Ministry in Beijing said the US should pay more attention to its own human rights violations. I think this reply is befitting of the dichotomous reality of human rights violations by the US. They talk a great deal about it but in practice mostly never seem to adhere to it. Its not enough to have policies that deal with human rights violations if none from your own side really follow it and it definitely doesn't justify booking someone for similar offenses.
Sunday, June 05, 2005
Colloquial Speech
I finally decided to do something about my bad colloquial speech (which I think has gotten worse after I came to the United States). I have been observing how people speak in public (I don't mean on a public platform but just amongst themselves) and have come to the conclusion that I have picked up what I have been hearing around me. I am determined to get rid of some of the 'figures of speech' that I seem to have picked up. Let me very briefly list a partial taxonomy of most common words that pepper (and in some cases, even drown) conversations -
1. By far, this is THE most irritating and aggravating word - Like
It seems so innocuous and small but people use it so often for everything that my blood boils whenever I hear it. I live in a small laid back college town and all I hear from every 16-22 year old college student is 'like'. Its range of applicability is jaw dropping. It is used as a substitute for so many articles that it really boggles the mind (mine atleast).
"She's like blah blah", "He's like blah blah" and the frequency with which they throw this word into any and all sentences could outgun any AK-47. Thankfully, I do not have this habit.
2. basically
3. I mean
Both 'basically'' and 'I mean' are used more often when attempting to explain oneself in a clearer manner than the first time when all you did was confuse your listener. But, overused and improperly application have reduced its efficacy and is seen as noting more than an irritating filler.
4. actually
I guess this is used to resolve some ambiguity but....
5. "you know" or "you know what I mean?"
this is most often used when the speaker, halfway thorough making his point, decides that he has said enough and prompts the listener to get the point quickly. This too is over used to over simplify speech.
Most of these words and their kind are intended to simplify speech and are used to connect sentences in a manner of preserving continuity of thought and speech but all they do, when overused and improperly applied, is to make speech and an intelligent exchange of ideas more difficult and aggravating.
I will add more as I come across them. Intelligent readers, please add more in the comments. I shall put them in the main post with due credit.
1. By far, this is THE most irritating and aggravating word - Like
It seems so innocuous and small but people use it so often for everything that my blood boils whenever I hear it. I live in a small laid back college town and all I hear from every 16-22 year old college student is 'like'. Its range of applicability is jaw dropping. It is used as a substitute for so many articles that it really boggles the mind (mine atleast).
"She's like blah blah", "He's like blah blah" and the frequency with which they throw this word into any and all sentences could outgun any AK-47. Thankfully, I do not have this habit.
2. basically
3. I mean
Both 'basically'' and 'I mean' are used more often when attempting to explain oneself in a clearer manner than the first time when all you did was confuse your listener. But, overused and improperly application have reduced its efficacy and is seen as noting more than an irritating filler.
4. actually
I guess this is used to resolve some ambiguity but....
5. "you know" or "you know what I mean?"
this is most often used when the speaker, halfway thorough making his point, decides that he has said enough and prompts the listener to get the point quickly. This too is over used to over simplify speech.
Most of these words and their kind are intended to simplify speech and are used to connect sentences in a manner of preserving continuity of thought and speech but all they do, when overused and improperly applied, is to make speech and an intelligent exchange of ideas more difficult and aggravating.
I will add more as I come across them. Intelligent readers, please add more in the comments. I shall put them in the main post with due credit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)