What the lay man(woman) calls "trial and error", a scientist as in an economist or mathematician or physicist would call "statistically".
Both accomodate 'probablity'; the chances of success and failure are more or less equal, which is why it is called 'trial and error'.
If by chance you can be successful, and so you try by trial and error.
But a scientist though he/she would mean "trial & error" will prefer to render the same as 'statistically' simply because there is sometimes an erudition elicited to understand the banal.
Monday, December 31, 2007
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
investing on hope
Our experiences are closely tied to what we expect.
Our expectations are based on what or how much of anything we are willing to invest.
Getting less than you expect = unhappiness.
Getting more than you expect = happiness.
Which is why it is said "Hope deferred makes the heart sick."
Another way of saying this is; if our expectations are not met, we feel discontent.
The cue here to avoid the dejection or discontent is not to elicit an underexpectation, which does save us unnecessary grief, but rather to render a standard or lead one to expect the standard and then overperform.
It is easier thought than done in real-life.
But we do see plenty of the standard around us.
The low frill airline is a delivery of the standard.
We pay less and we don't need to expect exemplary service, but once in a while when they do provide exemplemary service it does get us impressed.
Our expectations are based on what or how much of anything we are willing to invest.
Getting less than you expect = unhappiness.
Getting more than you expect = happiness.
Which is why it is said "Hope deferred makes the heart sick."
Another way of saying this is; if our expectations are not met, we feel discontent.
The cue here to avoid the dejection or discontent is not to elicit an underexpectation, which does save us unnecessary grief, but rather to render a standard or lead one to expect the standard and then overperform.
It is easier thought than done in real-life.
But we do see plenty of the standard around us.
The low frill airline is a delivery of the standard.
We pay less and we don't need to expect exemplary service, but once in a while when they do provide exemplemary service it does get us impressed.
its all about the numbers
How much do you count politically?
Frankly, our value in politics is about the value of the vote.
Assuming that we are just the normal John Doe or Jane Doe, that single vote pretty much amounts to nothing.
I can't think of any elections that were swayed for the lack or supply of one vote.
So we have 2 options:
1. We vote thinking that maybe we are making a difference, ...highly unlikely mate...
2. We don't vote ....which needless to say still does not make any difference.
So, what do we do, well actually the answer to this question is kind of tangential.
1. Make the vote get valued higher. For one get rich(which is not easy), political parties need generous donations, for that matter you don't need allegiance here, money talks buddy, just be non-aligned and make political contributions to the party in power.
It's completely upto you whether you vote or not, any which way if you really look at it, the opponent and ruling party are aligned to your contributions so hey you get to eat the cake, right.
2. Get aligned to numbers. Politics is all about numbers.
If you can get a band of people aligned to a common interest, sheer numbers can get your vote valued higher.
Intersting to note here, for the first time in Kerala, the Church is aligning itself politically. At least they seem to be verbal about encouraging the members to vote for a particular political party.
Politics and Business probably have this 'number' dimension as a common factor.
You get a better deal on just numbers in Business.
eg: if your mobile phone is from the company; the tariffs are lower than a one you hold in your personal capacity.
Apartment blocks when negotiating with the cable company availed better cable TV tariffs than as individual apartment owners.
Frankly, our value in politics is about the value of the vote.
Assuming that we are just the normal John Doe or Jane Doe, that single vote pretty much amounts to nothing.
I can't think of any elections that were swayed for the lack or supply of one vote.
So we have 2 options:
1. We vote thinking that maybe we are making a difference, ...highly unlikely mate...
2. We don't vote ....which needless to say still does not make any difference.
So, what do we do, well actually the answer to this question is kind of tangential.
1. Make the vote get valued higher. For one get rich(which is not easy), political parties need generous donations, for that matter you don't need allegiance here, money talks buddy, just be non-aligned and make political contributions to the party in power.
It's completely upto you whether you vote or not, any which way if you really look at it, the opponent and ruling party are aligned to your contributions so hey you get to eat the cake, right.
2. Get aligned to numbers. Politics is all about numbers.
If you can get a band of people aligned to a common interest, sheer numbers can get your vote valued higher.
Intersting to note here, for the first time in Kerala, the Church is aligning itself politically. At least they seem to be verbal about encouraging the members to vote for a particular political party.
Politics and Business probably have this 'number' dimension as a common factor.
You get a better deal on just numbers in Business.
eg: if your mobile phone is from the company; the tariffs are lower than a one you hold in your personal capacity.
Apartment blocks when negotiating with the cable company availed better cable TV tariffs than as individual apartment owners.
Destabilising monopolies
I guess it is IT which seems to have the fastest product cycle. Products come, products go & new ones are born every day and for these new borns there are many that are turned obsolete.
Ribbit seems to have joined the Android bandwagon.
However they seem to be talking of application software that is platform independent.
They are providing their API to developers to come up with ergonomic APIs for mobilephone users.
Well I think for one, Windows Mobile, RIM and Symbian are having challenges thrown at them much sooner. This could mean 1 of 2 things; in the future we are going to have phones that are platform independent or there will be more than a dozen platforms to choose from.
My bet is on the former - that is we are going to be platform independent or open source, as not many users would be savy on multiple platforms.
What the google and ribbit folks are trying to do is pretty strategic.
These companies see a convergence between the phone, laptop and office applications.
It has to an extent already taken place, we call it the smartphone.
At present the dominant operating system on a smartphone is RIM or Symbian or Windows Mobile. Apple has its iphone based on the OSX.
However, if Ribbit and Android are successful in coming up with open source API for mobilephones, then not only will it challenge the mobile OS but will shake the Windows OS dominance in the market.
If it does challenge Windows OS, it won't be long before Intel gets challenged on the hardware front.
The funny thing is, the challenge for Microsoft is not really from an alterante OS(Linux or Mac) but by a handheld smartphone. The open API on the smartphone will challenge the dominance of Windows.
For starters, In Asia alone there are 800 million mobile users.
90 million users on a smartphone.
The PC Internet users in Asia are at 500 million.
A relatively good smartphone is available today for US$ 250.
With an Asian population of 3.8 billion, how can we sell 3 Billion PC/laptop/mobile phones?
The answer lies in net connectivity.
3 years ago, the only thing that was wired to the net was a laptop or PC.
Today if you have a GPRS mobilephone, you are net connected.
Lets say you are net connected but you still need proprietary OS to run applications.
That is where Android and Ribbit are pretty strategic.
Infact there are a host of others who are just as strategic as these two; Editgrid, Zoho, ThinkFree, etc
Anyway what they are doing with the free API, is opening up your ability to connect to the net without any bootable proprietary OS.
You can get online, you can browse with their API, use their online doc and spreadsheets just as you would do with Word and Excel. This means no hard drives for booting and no proprietary OS.
I think these guys figured that the only reason we stick to Windows is becoz we have got Windows loaded on our system. I mean our systems are configured to become a recognisable interphase with Windows.
So what if Android and Ribbit give you a reason not to load Windows anymore, would you still stick with Word and Excel. That is what their API will do, atleast that is what Android & Ribbit hope to accomplish. Their open APIs will become the interphase.
The cost savings on proprietary software and the absence of hard drive to store application suites will make the smartphone inexpensive.
If the APIs nudge Windows Mobile, RIM, OSX and Symbian out, then I am pretty sure the APIs will nudge out Windows OS on the desktop and laptop.
I think the intersting part would be what is Microsft, RIM or Symbian going to do about this? As on date none of these players are on open APIs and free online office suites.
As afterword, The smart chess player is not the one who can read his opponents moves but one who can keeps his moves concealed.
Ribbit seems to have joined the Android bandwagon.
However they seem to be talking of application software that is platform independent.
They are providing their API to developers to come up with ergonomic APIs for mobilephone users.
Well I think for one, Windows Mobile, RIM and Symbian are having challenges thrown at them much sooner. This could mean 1 of 2 things; in the future we are going to have phones that are platform independent or there will be more than a dozen platforms to choose from.
My bet is on the former - that is we are going to be platform independent or open source, as not many users would be savy on multiple platforms.
What the google and ribbit folks are trying to do is pretty strategic.
These companies see a convergence between the phone, laptop and office applications.
It has to an extent already taken place, we call it the smartphone.
At present the dominant operating system on a smartphone is RIM or Symbian or Windows Mobile. Apple has its iphone based on the OSX.
However, if Ribbit and Android are successful in coming up with open source API for mobilephones, then not only will it challenge the mobile OS but will shake the Windows OS dominance in the market.
If it does challenge Windows OS, it won't be long before Intel gets challenged on the hardware front.
The funny thing is, the challenge for Microsoft is not really from an alterante OS(Linux or Mac) but by a handheld smartphone. The open API on the smartphone will challenge the dominance of Windows.
For starters, In Asia alone there are 800 million mobile users.
90 million users on a smartphone.
The PC Internet users in Asia are at 500 million.
A relatively good smartphone is available today for US$ 250.
With an Asian population of 3.8 billion, how can we sell 3 Billion PC/laptop/mobile phones?
The answer lies in net connectivity.
3 years ago, the only thing that was wired to the net was a laptop or PC.
Today if you have a GPRS mobilephone, you are net connected.
Lets say you are net connected but you still need proprietary OS to run applications.
That is where Android and Ribbit are pretty strategic.
Infact there are a host of others who are just as strategic as these two; Editgrid, Zoho, ThinkFree, etc
Anyway what they are doing with the free API, is opening up your ability to connect to the net without any bootable proprietary OS.
You can get online, you can browse with their API, use their online doc and spreadsheets just as you would do with Word and Excel. This means no hard drives for booting and no proprietary OS.
I think these guys figured that the only reason we stick to Windows is becoz we have got Windows loaded on our system. I mean our systems are configured to become a recognisable interphase with Windows.
So what if Android and Ribbit give you a reason not to load Windows anymore, would you still stick with Word and Excel. That is what their API will do, atleast that is what Android & Ribbit hope to accomplish. Their open APIs will become the interphase.
The cost savings on proprietary software and the absence of hard drive to store application suites will make the smartphone inexpensive.
If the APIs nudge Windows Mobile, RIM, OSX and Symbian out, then I am pretty sure the APIs will nudge out Windows OS on the desktop and laptop.
I think the intersting part would be what is Microsft, RIM or Symbian going to do about this? As on date none of these players are on open APIs and free online office suites.
As afterword, The smart chess player is not the one who can read his opponents moves but one who can keeps his moves concealed.
Saturday, December 22, 2007
Predicting
Another offshoot of the Uncertainity Principle is that we can't use past data to predict the future, if we could then it takes the randomness out of life.
Or rather we would be in a position to chart out our lives, well we can, but then there is always the small chance that things don't go the way we predict, a small chance but then a very strong chance that it can be plausible.
So slim is this chance that we have the theory of evolution based on probablity, and probablity that has been theorised to be possible. I mean it makes us wonder if life indeed is that random, that life's origin was just a random event, it is pretty much like expecting a chimp punching on the keys of a typewriter and voila at some point of time the chimp would come up with Homer's - Iliad.
The chances are way too slim, but then that is life or randomness as it has been theorised as "the origin of species".
If we do accept that life is random or uncertain; then it would be silly to claim that we have achieved success or built empires or conquered markets, etc. I mean what we may have thought to have done was just a random lucky chance of a deal and we happen to seize on it.
This if true, then providence should visit upon all over a the long term.
I mean no one person is luckier than the other, events of life visit all, it is just a question of when do they visit each of us.
Actually, science does state it so, life is a poker game.
And they give it a name like: ergodicity
It can be explained as when a statistical analysis over the entire ensemble at a certain moment in time, and a statistical analysis for one element of the ensemble over a certain period of time are such that if the first one may not be representative for a longer period of time, while the second one may not be representative for all the people resulting in 2 results.
The idea is that an ensemble is ergodic if the two types of statistics give the same result.
In simpler words over a long period of time the results tend to be similar, which goes on to say that all of us are given the same chances in life.
Some get it earlier while some get it later.
Life just averages out in the end for each an every one.
Or rather we would be in a position to chart out our lives, well we can, but then there is always the small chance that things don't go the way we predict, a small chance but then a very strong chance that it can be plausible.
So slim is this chance that we have the theory of evolution based on probablity, and probablity that has been theorised to be possible. I mean it makes us wonder if life indeed is that random, that life's origin was just a random event, it is pretty much like expecting a chimp punching on the keys of a typewriter and voila at some point of time the chimp would come up with Homer's - Iliad.
The chances are way too slim, but then that is life or randomness as it has been theorised as "the origin of species".
If we do accept that life is random or uncertain; then it would be silly to claim that we have achieved success or built empires or conquered markets, etc. I mean what we may have thought to have done was just a random lucky chance of a deal and we happen to seize on it.
This if true, then providence should visit upon all over a the long term.
I mean no one person is luckier than the other, events of life visit all, it is just a question of when do they visit each of us.
Actually, science does state it so, life is a poker game.
And they give it a name like: ergodicity
It can be explained as when a statistical analysis over the entire ensemble at a certain moment in time, and a statistical analysis for one element of the ensemble over a certain period of time are such that if the first one may not be representative for a longer period of time, while the second one may not be representative for all the people resulting in 2 results.
The idea is that an ensemble is ergodic if the two types of statistics give the same result.
In simpler words over a long period of time the results tend to be similar, which goes on to say that all of us are given the same chances in life.
Some get it earlier while some get it later.
Life just averages out in the end for each an every one.
Friday, December 21, 2007
Uncertainity Principle
Just got about thinking about the Uncertainity Principle.
How it explains that it is not possible to know momentum and position accurately simultaneously.
Another way of saying it would be that though there are laws as we see: physical laws, natural laws, chemical laws, etc within the scope of these laws life is way too random to predict.
I mean what can happen to us is unpredicatable in the very next instant.
However we can be sure that gravitation would not fail and we would fall off the earth, or suddenly the atoms that hold us together would call it a day and would disperse off - disintegrating our body.
I mean we know the various laws still will hold true(at least for a time) but life at the same time where we are heading is still unpredicatable.
Which could get us to hypothesize how much of our lives are coincidences, planned incidences and random incidences or as we call common luck.
Well the billion dollar question is.
Whether we can chart out our lives.
But then the uncertainity principle states we can't.
there goes the billion dollars...poof!
How it explains that it is not possible to know momentum and position accurately simultaneously.
Another way of saying it would be that though there are laws as we see: physical laws, natural laws, chemical laws, etc within the scope of these laws life is way too random to predict.
I mean what can happen to us is unpredicatable in the very next instant.
However we can be sure that gravitation would not fail and we would fall off the earth, or suddenly the atoms that hold us together would call it a day and would disperse off - disintegrating our body.
I mean we know the various laws still will hold true(at least for a time) but life at the same time where we are heading is still unpredicatable.
Which could get us to hypothesize how much of our lives are coincidences, planned incidences and random incidences or as we call common luck.
Well the billion dollar question is.
Whether we can chart out our lives.
But then the uncertainity principle states we can't.
there goes the billion dollars...poof!
N E W S
TV News has got so lame.
Probably it always was, but I can't blame the reporters.
How would they know what the individual tastes are of each and every viewer.
So the easy way out is report everything that is worth reporting.
And what is worth reporting?
Well since they can't decide and they don't want to be prejudiced, everything is worth reporting.
I mean everything that they can get their hands on is going to get reported, and everything that is going to get reported is going to be sensational.
I think it pays to bear in mind, the news broadcasters make money only if it makes an impact.
In a way the news is prejudiced, news reporting as it is done today is made to elicit an emotional response from the audience. If it fails to do so, the news channels fails to make money.
Well, there is a self-interest in most things, if not all.
Probably it always was, but I can't blame the reporters.
How would they know what the individual tastes are of each and every viewer.
So the easy way out is report everything that is worth reporting.
And what is worth reporting?
Well since they can't decide and they don't want to be prejudiced, everything is worth reporting.
I mean everything that they can get their hands on is going to get reported, and everything that is going to get reported is going to be sensational.
I think it pays to bear in mind, the news broadcasters make money only if it makes an impact.
In a way the news is prejudiced, news reporting as it is done today is made to elicit an emotional response from the audience. If it fails to do so, the news channels fails to make money.
Well, there is a self-interest in most things, if not all.
Sunday, December 2, 2007
K·I·N·D·L·E
Will Amazon's kindle survive?
Well yes.
However I feel the pertinent question is with whom?
A good analogy would be would a US$ 1300 laptop survive against a US$600 Desktop.
Again the answer is yes, but the pertinent question is actually, with whom?
So who is the right customer for 'Kindle'?
At US$ 399, I choose to be old fashioned, so I will stick to the good old paperback.
I think I need to ask, how convenenient can this device be and how comfortable can I be to use the Kindle and ipso facto to shell out US$399.
Well yes.
However I feel the pertinent question is with whom?
A good analogy would be would a US$ 1300 laptop survive against a US$600 Desktop.
Again the answer is yes, but the pertinent question is actually, with whom?
So who is the right customer for 'Kindle'?
At US$ 399, I choose to be old fashioned, so I will stick to the good old paperback.
I think I need to ask, how convenenient can this device be and how comfortable can I be to use the Kindle and ipso facto to shell out US$399.
Saturday, December 1, 2007
most expenisve asset is also the cheapest..
In business, the most expensive asset for the enterpreneur is equity. This qualifications stems from the fact that any business takes time to build the business and this time is hardwork and persevearance put in by the enterpreneur.
This time is represented in the form of equity for the enterpreneur in his enterprise.
So he hold on to his equity and values his equity highly.
Small and medium enterprise also have a tough time making investments for future business opportunities. Firstly on account of the fact that when there are many avenues to make such investments, it becomes difficult to choose the optimal investment to maximise returns and also because small firms find it difficult to leverage liquidity. There are definite limitations imposed on small firms to the extent of debt they would be given by a financial institution (bank).
However when we look at the banks itself, especially in developed economies, shareholders equity generally referred to as Tier 1 capital is as low as 4% of liablities. And guess what are these liablities for a bank, the deposits the bank holds of the public.
What this means is if a bank goes bust, it has just 4% of its own funds to return incase of liquidation on the other hand it also means that the banks would never lend to any business leveraged in this manner, but is somehow able to garner funds from the public despite its overleveraged position.
This also means most banks have 4% of their own money while 96% comes from public
deposits, ineffect banks are doing business with public money.
This is in stark contrast to a business firm, wherein if not all at least 50% of capital needs to be from the owners of the business.
Ergo, a business firm if it defauts loses a greater amount-50%, while a bank loses 4%.
Given this information, the banks are the smart buggers, doing business with public money. Taking a greater risk with public money.
While a small business holds its equity dearly that has little value and does business with their own funds.
When a bank defaults, the soverign (reserve bank) prints more currency or bails them out. As we see in the case of Northern Rock.
While the business if it goes bust, the first lien is the bank's.
This time is represented in the form of equity for the enterpreneur in his enterprise.
So he hold on to his equity and values his equity highly.
Small and medium enterprise also have a tough time making investments for future business opportunities. Firstly on account of the fact that when there are many avenues to make such investments, it becomes difficult to choose the optimal investment to maximise returns and also because small firms find it difficult to leverage liquidity. There are definite limitations imposed on small firms to the extent of debt they would be given by a financial institution (bank).
However when we look at the banks itself, especially in developed economies, shareholders equity generally referred to as Tier 1 capital is as low as 4% of liablities. And guess what are these liablities for a bank, the deposits the bank holds of the public.
What this means is if a bank goes bust, it has just 4% of its own funds to return incase of liquidation on the other hand it also means that the banks would never lend to any business leveraged in this manner, but is somehow able to garner funds from the public despite its overleveraged position.
This also means most banks have 4% of their own money while 96% comes from public
deposits, ineffect banks are doing business with public money.
This is in stark contrast to a business firm, wherein if not all at least 50% of capital needs to be from the owners of the business.
Ergo, a business firm if it defauts loses a greater amount-50%, while a bank loses 4%.
Given this information, the banks are the smart buggers, doing business with public money. Taking a greater risk with public money.
While a small business holds its equity dearly that has little value and does business with their own funds.
When a bank defaults, the soverign (reserve bank) prints more currency or bails them out. As we see in the case of Northern Rock.
While the business if it goes bust, the first lien is the bank's.
Natural, Organic & Certified PETA - Fags
Natural “American Spirit”.
It is organic, "all natural" and not tested on animals and certified "cruelty free" by PETA.
It’s a pack of cigarettes with a ‘Red Indian Chief’ motif on the box?
A damn good niche these guys have tapped into. Perhaps, they should have been less blatant about it, I mean a pack of cigarettes that is all natural, organic and certified by PETA gets to be morally right but virtuously wrong - though incidentally comic.
For the smoker who wants to communicate affluence this is a great product if he can get by the ‘inconsistency’ first.
But then again, if the smoker smokes despite the smoke, I guess a smoker sees no inconsistency. it is the non-smoker who does.
It is organic, "all natural" and not tested on animals and certified "cruelty free" by PETA.
It’s a pack of cigarettes with a ‘Red Indian Chief’ motif on the box?
A damn good niche these guys have tapped into. Perhaps, they should have been less blatant about it, I mean a pack of cigarettes that is all natural, organic and certified by PETA gets to be morally right but virtuously wrong - though incidentally comic.
For the smoker who wants to communicate affluence this is a great product if he can get by the ‘inconsistency’ first.
But then again, if the smoker smokes despite the smoke, I guess a smoker sees no inconsistency. it is the non-smoker who does.
music we usually hear is not good music...
Most people prefer to buy music they have heard before. For people to have heard it before the song needs to be played repeatedly over a period of time; people will buy music only if they are familiar with it.
The TV or Radio station promoting these songs don’t do this on account of an RJ or VJ’s personal choice, the shows producer dictates which song to play depending on advertising revenues. So if it advertising revenues from a new film release, songs featured in the film will be played over and over in a way to patronize the music/film company.
So we don’t really get to hear good music but what is good money for the radio station or TV channel. Given that, its mostly new releases that we will hear and that will sell.
And truly, in the music/film distribution business, 75% of sales accrue from new releases. If so, do you have good music taste or does your taste just reflect what you are familiar with.
Perhaps, popular music is not necessarily good music it's just what we are made to hear to get familiar with.
Good music is what we usually don't hear often most likely from an independent label with not big budgets to promote.
The TV or Radio station promoting these songs don’t do this on account of an RJ or VJ’s personal choice, the shows producer dictates which song to play depending on advertising revenues. So if it advertising revenues from a new film release, songs featured in the film will be played over and over in a way to patronize the music/film company.
So we don’t really get to hear good music but what is good money for the radio station or TV channel. Given that, its mostly new releases that we will hear and that will sell.
And truly, in the music/film distribution business, 75% of sales accrue from new releases. If so, do you have good music taste or does your taste just reflect what you are familiar with.
Perhaps, popular music is not necessarily good music it's just what we are made to hear to get familiar with.
Good music is what we usually don't hear often most likely from an independent label with not big budgets to promote.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
