“I’m glad that this time we did not cause it.”
Guillermo Ortiz, governor of the Mexican Central Bank,
(recalling the last financial cris set off by Mexican defaults and devaluations.)
“What you see is what you get. If you don’t see it, it will get you.”
Jacob Frenkel, vice chairman of AIG,
(on the current credit crisis and urging a reform of rules that allow banks to keep assets off their balance sheets.)
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
120th on the Environmental Scorecard
Yes Sir-ee, EPI scores are out and we are at 120 out of the 149 countries tabulated.
That by the way puts us in the bottom pile of environmentally responsible nations.
However, Sri Lanka our next door neighbour is at 50.
Which is damn good! I mean I hear more bombings on news than anything else, god knows when they get time to be all clean and dainty.
However the moot point on these ranking was that wealth is a major determinant of environmental success; which simply put means if you are wealthy then there is a greater probablity of you being sensitive to the environment.
This year Switzerland topped the list. Yes thats right, all those swiss accounts of billionaires and millionaires must be in clean rooms. It retains the top slot on luxury, it retains its top slot on the number of banks too. They need money, the folks there are rich and now they have been glorified with the environment friendly tag.
So maybe the way to be environmental friendly is to get rich; which is what the EPI studies suggest.
If we get rich then there is a higher probablity that we will be environmentally friendly.
Well thats what we developing countries have been saying at all WTO meets(World Trade Organisation), and we have been saying the same thing since the past decade.
Let us get rich just like you did at our expense 100 years ago, well we will be kind just give us 50 years.
I don't know if they will grant us our importunity but its good to know that the EPI rankings at WEF(World Economic Forum) agree with what we have been saying repetitively at WTO meets, irrespective we will be stalled at all future WTO meets.
So whats the point, well when it looks good on you, come up with the EPI rankings.
To avoid looking like a sucker, come up with the WTO meets.
Nothing like a 'meeting' to disagree.
That by the way puts us in the bottom pile of environmentally responsible nations.
However, Sri Lanka our next door neighbour is at 50.
Which is damn good! I mean I hear more bombings on news than anything else, god knows when they get time to be all clean and dainty.
However the moot point on these ranking was that wealth is a major determinant of environmental success; which simply put means if you are wealthy then there is a greater probablity of you being sensitive to the environment.
This year Switzerland topped the list. Yes thats right, all those swiss accounts of billionaires and millionaires must be in clean rooms. It retains the top slot on luxury, it retains its top slot on the number of banks too. They need money, the folks there are rich and now they have been glorified with the environment friendly tag.
So maybe the way to be environmental friendly is to get rich; which is what the EPI studies suggest.
If we get rich then there is a higher probablity that we will be environmentally friendly.
Well thats what we developing countries have been saying at all WTO meets(World Trade Organisation), and we have been saying the same thing since the past decade.
Let us get rich just like you did at our expense 100 years ago, well we will be kind just give us 50 years.
I don't know if they will grant us our importunity but its good to know that the EPI rankings at WEF(World Economic Forum) agree with what we have been saying repetitively at WTO meets, irrespective we will be stalled at all future WTO meets.
So whats the point, well when it looks good on you, come up with the EPI rankings.
To avoid looking like a sucker, come up with the WTO meets.
Nothing like a 'meeting' to disagree.
Monday, January 28, 2008
cross continental
Well they've got cross continental direct rail services between China and Germany.
We still have got to get our states connected by the Golden Quadrilateral, here the Chinese have gone cross continental on rail. They have managed to traverse 6 countries.
But then, I think the 2 things China has in its favour is the neighbourhood and religion.
Somehow I don't know why, but some twist of fate I guess, we have countries in our neighbourhood that are somewhere in between infidels and terrorists. Ironically these countries speak of democracy as though, oh yeah we've got McDonalds too.
The funny thing is India does not sell arms to private entities only governments, China as a matter of fact is a prominent arms dealing nation - private and government. So why is it that we have the infidels and terrorists in our backyard. Frankly I don't know, like I said bizarre twist of fate.
For that matter the 5 permanent member nations on the UN Security Council, are the largest arms dealing nations of the World: US, Russia, France, China and UK.
Is it coincidence that these countries are also the permanent members of the UN Security Council. I don't know, the fate thingies in play, again.
On religion, we in India can be as communal as we can get. We've got them all. Which becomes kind of a problem, I mean we Indians at times suffer from an identity crisis. What is our makeup, when you come to religion, I think the west would say: Man, they are a hodge-podge, I guess we have it all and we are lost. This becomes one hell of a problem with our neighbouring infidels and/or terrorists.
Everytime we stretch our hands out in fraternity and humanity, they throw religion at us.
However what is the religion of China, I wouldn't be surprised if I hear you say Chinese! I guess it makes more sense to just have one religion preferably the same as the neighbourhood or have none at all.
We still have got to get our states connected by the Golden Quadrilateral, here the Chinese have gone cross continental on rail. They have managed to traverse 6 countries.
But then, I think the 2 things China has in its favour is the neighbourhood and religion.
Somehow I don't know why, but some twist of fate I guess, we have countries in our neighbourhood that are somewhere in between infidels and terrorists. Ironically these countries speak of democracy as though, oh yeah we've got McDonalds too.
The funny thing is India does not sell arms to private entities only governments, China as a matter of fact is a prominent arms dealing nation - private and government. So why is it that we have the infidels and terrorists in our backyard. Frankly I don't know, like I said bizarre twist of fate.
For that matter the 5 permanent member nations on the UN Security Council, are the largest arms dealing nations of the World: US, Russia, France, China and UK.
Is it coincidence that these countries are also the permanent members of the UN Security Council. I don't know, the fate thingies in play, again.
On religion, we in India can be as communal as we can get. We've got them all. Which becomes kind of a problem, I mean we Indians at times suffer from an identity crisis. What is our makeup, when you come to religion, I think the west would say: Man, they are a hodge-podge, I guess we have it all and we are lost. This becomes one hell of a problem with our neighbouring infidels and/or terrorists.
Everytime we stretch our hands out in fraternity and humanity, they throw religion at us.
However what is the religion of China, I wouldn't be surprised if I hear you say Chinese! I guess it makes more sense to just have one religion preferably the same as the neighbourhood or have none at all.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
How much of what we are is innate?
How much of what we are is innate?
Maybe a lot, and it takes a great deal to change from what is innate.
At times what is innate can be interpreted as fatalistic.
At first it is unclear if there is any such correlation, the two seem independent.
The inter-relation though is very subtle.
Some men have a preponderance in their constitution to be confident or timorous, others modest or tractable and a million other such propositions. Some men would like to believe that they have trained themselves to be valourous or equable, but that would mean one attributes much confidence in ones ability to be something or somebody.
There is folklore about a character called Karna.
He was begotten to a maiden Kunti by the sun-god.
Kunti abandons Karna as she is still unmarried and is fostered by a Charioteer.
Karna is trained in the art of war under Parashurama, who was known to teach Bramhins alone. Karna's identity is concealed from others and is reckoned as a Charioteer's son.
Parashurama trains Karna to the point where Parashurama declares Karna to have surpassed him in the arts of war.
However, as Karna's training is completed, Parashurama learns the truth about Karna's origin as a non-Brahmin. One afternoon, he requests Karna to bring a pillow for him to sleep outside in the shade. Karna instead offers him his lap as a pillow. While Parashurama was asleep, an insect comes by and alighting on Karna's thigh, bites him. Despite the pain, Karna does not move as it would disturb his Guru. The insect's bite causes blood to flow out, the warmth and feel of which wakes up Parashurama. He deduces at once that Karna is a Kshatriya as only a warrior could withstand such pain without flinching.
He curses Karna, stating that when he requires his 'art of war' the most, he would be unable to recall it.
Karna pleads with Parashurama and tells him he is not a kshatriya and his act of stoicism would have been the act of any student towards his guru. Parashurama hears his plea but states that his curse is irrevocable & gifts him the Vijaya, Parashurama's personal bow, and that in the end, Karna would achieve what he wanted the most, everlasting honor.
Karna is finally killed by Arjun in the battle of Mahabharat as Karna loses his art at that crucial moment when battling Arjun. He loses his training when he solicits it the most.
The folklore is a startling insight into the human mind and behaviour perhaps it does get one to recognise that we resign to innate behaviour when our training escapes us. In a manner we end up just being or doing what we are at that decisive moment.
So the question, why train then if we are going to lose it all, well because we will never know when is that time of utmost need, as the training fails only when we need it the most.
Which should get us to concede that nothing here is of the utmost need, in other words what would be so acute that it lapses us to lose what we have been trained for.
Maybe a lot, and it takes a great deal to change from what is innate.
At times what is innate can be interpreted as fatalistic.
At first it is unclear if there is any such correlation, the two seem independent.
The inter-relation though is very subtle.
Some men have a preponderance in their constitution to be confident or timorous, others modest or tractable and a million other such propositions. Some men would like to believe that they have trained themselves to be valourous or equable, but that would mean one attributes much confidence in ones ability to be something or somebody.
There is folklore about a character called Karna.
He was begotten to a maiden Kunti by the sun-god.
Kunti abandons Karna as she is still unmarried and is fostered by a Charioteer.
Karna is trained in the art of war under Parashurama, who was known to teach Bramhins alone. Karna's identity is concealed from others and is reckoned as a Charioteer's son.
Parashurama trains Karna to the point where Parashurama declares Karna to have surpassed him in the arts of war.
However, as Karna's training is completed, Parashurama learns the truth about Karna's origin as a non-Brahmin. One afternoon, he requests Karna to bring a pillow for him to sleep outside in the shade. Karna instead offers him his lap as a pillow. While Parashurama was asleep, an insect comes by and alighting on Karna's thigh, bites him. Despite the pain, Karna does not move as it would disturb his Guru. The insect's bite causes blood to flow out, the warmth and feel of which wakes up Parashurama. He deduces at once that Karna is a Kshatriya as only a warrior could withstand such pain without flinching.
He curses Karna, stating that when he requires his 'art of war' the most, he would be unable to recall it.
Karna pleads with Parashurama and tells him he is not a kshatriya and his act of stoicism would have been the act of any student towards his guru. Parashurama hears his plea but states that his curse is irrevocable & gifts him the Vijaya, Parashurama's personal bow, and that in the end, Karna would achieve what he wanted the most, everlasting honor.
Karna is finally killed by Arjun in the battle of Mahabharat as Karna loses his art at that crucial moment when battling Arjun. He loses his training when he solicits it the most.
The folklore is a startling insight into the human mind and behaviour perhaps it does get one to recognise that we resign to innate behaviour when our training escapes us. In a manner we end up just being or doing what we are at that decisive moment.
So the question, why train then if we are going to lose it all, well because we will never know when is that time of utmost need, as the training fails only when we need it the most.
Which should get us to concede that nothing here is of the utmost need, in other words what would be so acute that it lapses us to lose what we have been trained for.
the constants
The seemingly arbitrary and unrelated constants in the sciences have one strange thing in common--these are precisely the values you need if you want to have a universe capable of producing life.
Life would not have been if it was not the way it is.
The fundamental constants of physics and chemistry are just right or fine-tuned to allow the universe and life as we know it to exist. We are just discovering these constants or laws, and the phenomenon is being explained with theory or theories.
However we ask for a deeper explanation.
Maybe it is something else or something much more intelligent or maybe just probability.
For how did these constants come to be?
Have these been perfected by trial and error much like life or have they been set right from the beginning of time.
The argument arises of whether life is a chance event or a creation.
The former removes accountability while the latter designates an accountability on the created by the creator.
The argument has taken different forms; one being where in we could believe that for life the solar system is a pre-requisite, the sun, moon and other planets, if the solar system is a pre-requisite then so are the nearby stars containing heavy elements which have supported life on earth. If the necessity of stars then so is this galaxy and the many galaxies.
It is a bit far fetched to think of us to be of such importance in this vast universe.
Then again of the vast empty space around, is it the sky above us or is it in our head, that baffles us!
For we still have not set right, how is it that the sky came to be?
Rather, we should be asking, why has the sky come to be?
I for one, find it ludicrous to accept that there is a purpose for an atom, I mean if we do ascribe to the theory that we have evolved from single cellular organisms. We could take a step back and require a purpose from quarks, mesons, hadrons, positrons, etc . The building blocks of an atom and so an element and so us.
But I doubt we would find any other purpose other than the one that we exist.
Their purpose could be to purport life, and then what!
However, if we debunk this, then the only explanation is that there is a purpose, and life has a purpose, and so the question why has the sky come to be?
or for that matter, why us and not how we.....?
Life would not have been if it was not the way it is.
The fundamental constants of physics and chemistry are just right or fine-tuned to allow the universe and life as we know it to exist. We are just discovering these constants or laws, and the phenomenon is being explained with theory or theories.
However we ask for a deeper explanation.
Maybe it is something else or something much more intelligent or maybe just probability.
For how did these constants come to be?
Have these been perfected by trial and error much like life or have they been set right from the beginning of time.
The argument arises of whether life is a chance event or a creation.
The former removes accountability while the latter designates an accountability on the created by the creator.
The argument has taken different forms; one being where in we could believe that for life the solar system is a pre-requisite, the sun, moon and other planets, if the solar system is a pre-requisite then so are the nearby stars containing heavy elements which have supported life on earth. If the necessity of stars then so is this galaxy and the many galaxies.
It is a bit far fetched to think of us to be of such importance in this vast universe.
Then again of the vast empty space around, is it the sky above us or is it in our head, that baffles us!
For we still have not set right, how is it that the sky came to be?
Rather, we should be asking, why has the sky come to be?
I for one, find it ludicrous to accept that there is a purpose for an atom, I mean if we do ascribe to the theory that we have evolved from single cellular organisms. We could take a step back and require a purpose from quarks, mesons, hadrons, positrons, etc . The building blocks of an atom and so an element and so us.
But I doubt we would find any other purpose other than the one that we exist.
Their purpose could be to purport life, and then what!
However, if we debunk this, then the only explanation is that there is a purpose, and life has a purpose, and so the question why has the sky come to be?
or for that matter, why us and not how we.....?
Friday, January 25, 2008
the ultimate theory
Well the ultimate theory or unified theory or supergravity theory is about a simple theory that explains all phenomena.
As of now things stand at E=Mc2.
And the options ahead as noted by Stephen Hawking are
1. There is a complete unified theory
2. There is no ultimate theory but an infinite sequence of theories such that a particular class of observations can be explained by a particular theory upto a particular finite point.
3.There is no such theory, but observations. Beyond a certain point you cannot predict with sufficient accuracy and so is arbitrary.
I think there is a 4 option largely on account of a limitation.
And it is a mix of #2 and #3.
Heisenbergs Uncertainity Principle makes it pretty clear to us that we can only choose to measure either speed or position accurately, not both.
On account of this very theory, we will always be in a position to explain a phenomena upto a certain finite point, beyond which we will get arbitrary.
We become arbitrary as a result of the fact that we can be accurate of only one speed or position, our inability to be prescise about the other will render some element of arbitrariness.
If we intend to go deeper, we will find another explanation and so on and so forth.
I guess in a sense we are limited always, maybe that was put in when we were formed. Like we know there exists a limitation in everything we build which in a sense implies we were built or rather there is a creator.
As of now things stand at E=Mc2.
And the options ahead as noted by Stephen Hawking are
1. There is a complete unified theory
2. There is no ultimate theory but an infinite sequence of theories such that a particular class of observations can be explained by a particular theory upto a particular finite point.
3.There is no such theory, but observations. Beyond a certain point you cannot predict with sufficient accuracy and so is arbitrary.
I think there is a 4 option largely on account of a limitation.
And it is a mix of #2 and #3.
Heisenbergs Uncertainity Principle makes it pretty clear to us that we can only choose to measure either speed or position accurately, not both.
On account of this very theory, we will always be in a position to explain a phenomena upto a certain finite point, beyond which we will get arbitrary.
We become arbitrary as a result of the fact that we can be accurate of only one speed or position, our inability to be prescise about the other will render some element of arbitrariness.
If we intend to go deeper, we will find another explanation and so on and so forth.
I guess in a sense we are limited always, maybe that was put in when we were formed. Like we know there exists a limitation in everything we build which in a sense implies we were built or rather there is a creator.
Monday, January 21, 2008
fitful advt's
Now when I flick channels between advertisements, I find another advertisement waiting on a competing channel.
Since I find an advertisement on the competing channel too, I end up switching back to the original channel.
Are the television guys in cahoots with each other.
I think not, but one of them is smarter than the other.
Either one channel has arranged all its advertisements breaks a few seconds after the competing channels. That way when I switch during an advertisement break, I see an advertisement on the competing channel too, and I tune right back to the original channel.
Since there are advt. breaks on either channels let me just stick to to the one I have been watching the program on.
Since I find an advertisement on the competing channel too, I end up switching back to the original channel.
Are the television guys in cahoots with each other.
I think not, but one of them is smarter than the other.
Either one channel has arranged all its advertisements breaks a few seconds after the competing channels. That way when I switch during an advertisement break, I see an advertisement on the competing channel too, and I tune right back to the original channel.
Since there are advt. breaks on either channels let me just stick to to the one I have been watching the program on.
Monday, January 14, 2008
HD DVD v/v Blu-ray
the DVD battle, frankly I am pretty miffed that I have 2 DVD players and they both don't play the new DVD's.
Well the first one used to play all zones viz; 1,2 and 3 perhaps representing America, Europe and Asia.
Then for some reason discs of zone 1 weren't playing ergo we had to pick up another DVD player. Recently, I happen to borrow a DVD from a friend, and it said Zone 5, and as you guessed, it does not play on the 2nd DVD player.
I have no clue what region Zone 5 services, but I am betting they go all they way to Zone 7, representing all the continents.
I have not seen Zone 4, 6 and 7 but I am wondering what would be the population in Antartica or the Arctic, that would require a whole new zone.
Anyway, I am just sticking to video downloads as I am not finicky about DTS, Digital, 5.1 Surround, Dolby, and all that jazz.
To add to the zone, there have been 2 new formats that have been doing the rounds. I think it is quiet clear now, we are being taken for a ride, the buggers come up with new zones and then they come up with new formats, at this rate I think I would have more players than DVDs.
Come to think of it, I can't see what the DVD fuss is all about, its all going to be digital anyway, if not today....very soon. I mean who has the time and the inclination to look at zones and formats, we just want to watch a movie, mate!
Maybe these folks have forgotten the K.I.S.S adage; Keep It Simple, Stupid.
I think it is a classic situation you focus so much on competition, you forget about the customer. In a sense this is also a repitition of the Betamax v's VHS duel.
By the way, both are dead today.
Either which way, some get bitten by the bug and some just walks away, thankfully there is the net!
Well the first one used to play all zones viz; 1,2 and 3 perhaps representing America, Europe and Asia.
Then for some reason discs of zone 1 weren't playing ergo we had to pick up another DVD player. Recently, I happen to borrow a DVD from a friend, and it said Zone 5, and as you guessed, it does not play on the 2nd DVD player.
I have no clue what region Zone 5 services, but I am betting they go all they way to Zone 7, representing all the continents.
I have not seen Zone 4, 6 and 7 but I am wondering what would be the population in Antartica or the Arctic, that would require a whole new zone.
Anyway, I am just sticking to video downloads as I am not finicky about DTS, Digital, 5.1 Surround, Dolby, and all that jazz.
To add to the zone, there have been 2 new formats that have been doing the rounds. I think it is quiet clear now, we are being taken for a ride, the buggers come up with new zones and then they come up with new formats, at this rate I think I would have more players than DVDs.
Come to think of it, I can't see what the DVD fuss is all about, its all going to be digital anyway, if not today....very soon. I mean who has the time and the inclination to look at zones and formats, we just want to watch a movie, mate!
Maybe these folks have forgotten the K.I.S.S adage; Keep It Simple, Stupid.
I think it is a classic situation you focus so much on competition, you forget about the customer. In a sense this is also a repitition of the Betamax v's VHS duel.
By the way, both are dead today.
Either which way, some get bitten by the bug and some just walks away, thankfully there is the net!
nano
The Tata's have launched the nano, the world's most inexpensive car.
There is a lot of hue and cry over the safety and emission standard that such a car would possess at a price of USD 3000. Presuming that such issues have been answered, this has been an ingenious move by the TATA.
This move by the Tata's could be compared to the Edsel by Ford launched in 1958.
Maybe in terms of a product comparison the critics are right.
But interms of a market, India is not the US and there will be takers for the product. Simply becoz there are takers for the Suzuki 800.
A precedent was set by Suzuki, however they didn't improve on it which is very unlike a Japanese company.
Since Suzuki didn't improve on its offering, the TATA's have.
They are vying and competing for the same market.
The icing on this would be if Suzuki thinks of re-launching the 800 in a modern avatar. For the past 3 years, Suzuki has been dithering about withdrawing the 800 completely from the market, but if they reverse this move then it does mean that the TATA's are right.
There is a lot of hue and cry over the safety and emission standard that such a car would possess at a price of USD 3000. Presuming that such issues have been answered, this has been an ingenious move by the TATA.
This move by the Tata's could be compared to the Edsel by Ford launched in 1958.
Maybe in terms of a product comparison the critics are right.
But interms of a market, India is not the US and there will be takers for the product. Simply becoz there are takers for the Suzuki 800.
A precedent was set by Suzuki, however they didn't improve on it which is very unlike a Japanese company.
Since Suzuki didn't improve on its offering, the TATA's have.
They are vying and competing for the same market.
The icing on this would be if Suzuki thinks of re-launching the 800 in a modern avatar. For the past 3 years, Suzuki has been dithering about withdrawing the 800 completely from the market, but if they reverse this move then it does mean that the TATA's are right.
tested or testing
Happen to come across a label on a face-scrub.
"Not tested on Animals."
Which goes to mean, that they don't test on animals which is good news for PETA.
But if they don't test it on animals, on whom has it been tested.
Or rather have they done away with any kind of testing, braving any probable consequences of malady at our costs.
For that matter has it been tested at all.
Maybe we are the test subjects.
Tested or Testing, I think it makes more sense to let us know that it has been tested and proved rather than letting us know that it has not been tested on animals.
I mean of what consequence is that to us humans that it has not been tested.
Animals is the key word for the PETA folks but to the rest of the significant polpulation we would like to know if it is OK and that it is all good to use; companies should let us know that it has been approved or tested by someone if not on someone or something.
At least the products that don't have any kind of test make it pretty clear by stating "Use at own risk" or "Smoking is injurious to health" at least it makes some sense.
Well if I am going to be hurt, I know whom to sue in this case or is it that I have no case to sue here as I have been forewarned.
Maybe this is another way of forewarning us but in a very polite PETA way.
How can we sue a kind company that does not test their products.
I mean that would be too harsh asking animals or humans to test their products, right!
Well I hope for the best, I also hope it is not contagious; my sister is using it.
"Not tested on Animals."
Which goes to mean, that they don't test on animals which is good news for PETA.
But if they don't test it on animals, on whom has it been tested.
Or rather have they done away with any kind of testing, braving any probable consequences of malady at our costs.
For that matter has it been tested at all.
Maybe we are the test subjects.
Tested or Testing, I think it makes more sense to let us know that it has been tested and proved rather than letting us know that it has not been tested on animals.
I mean of what consequence is that to us humans that it has not been tested.
Animals is the key word for the PETA folks but to the rest of the significant polpulation we would like to know if it is OK and that it is all good to use; companies should let us know that it has been approved or tested by someone if not on someone or something.
At least the products that don't have any kind of test make it pretty clear by stating "Use at own risk" or "Smoking is injurious to health" at least it makes some sense.
Well if I am going to be hurt, I know whom to sue in this case or is it that I have no case to sue here as I have been forewarned.
Maybe this is another way of forewarning us but in a very polite PETA way.
How can we sue a kind company that does not test their products.
I mean that would be too harsh asking animals or humans to test their products, right!
Well I hope for the best, I also hope it is not contagious; my sister is using it.
Friday, January 11, 2008
who says what...
Most of us would like to believe that we are independent and we make decisions ourselves. Incidentally, though we would like to believe so, we generally act out what we are told to act out.
At first this may sound radical as we would like to believe we have our own thinking and reasonings in going about doing certain things, but what if all what we think we are thinking is not really independent but we are being nudged to do so.
Today, we look for information via google. However google provides us its data depending on its page rankings or paid rankings. This does mean that google's interest in not necessarily what we are interested in, but what google is being paid to set up or google has been coerced to page rank though with no force a particular data thanks to meta tags or page links or site-traffic and all the internet jazz.
It could mean that what we see on google is not necessarily a true and objective account of what is available as information but one that has been contrived (not necessarily google's fault here, as it is just a medium, it just does what it is supposed to do or paid to do by patrons)
This is much like journalism. Most journalism is just information, I mean that is what a journalist does he/she keeps us aware on information, however it is not a journalists profile to impart knowledge which could mean that since the journalist is himself/herself unaware about all there is on a topic of information, the information he/she does impart could be fallacious or prejudiced again no fault of the journalist, he/she is plain unaware and he/she is not infalliable.
Given this commonality, I guess the medium that could trump 'google' would be 'wikipedia'; though it is not a search engine per se, it does impart information with less of prejudice or bias or self interest as compared to google.
wikipedia by itself is not a perfect system, it is still a work in progress, it does have erroneous information however just interms of an 'idea' or a source of information, I guess it is closer to an objective account of that information.
The reason being wikipedia has filters and the filters are people who moderate its information 24/7, erronrous information if present is corrected by million of moderaters around the world, whereas in the case of google, its about the money.
Its filters are for its very own self interest.
At first this may sound radical as we would like to believe we have our own thinking and reasonings in going about doing certain things, but what if all what we think we are thinking is not really independent but we are being nudged to do so.
Today, we look for information via google. However google provides us its data depending on its page rankings or paid rankings. This does mean that google's interest in not necessarily what we are interested in, but what google is being paid to set up or google has been coerced to page rank though with no force a particular data thanks to meta tags or page links or site-traffic and all the internet jazz.
It could mean that what we see on google is not necessarily a true and objective account of what is available as information but one that has been contrived (not necessarily google's fault here, as it is just a medium, it just does what it is supposed to do or paid to do by patrons)
This is much like journalism. Most journalism is just information, I mean that is what a journalist does he/she keeps us aware on information, however it is not a journalists profile to impart knowledge which could mean that since the journalist is himself/herself unaware about all there is on a topic of information, the information he/she does impart could be fallacious or prejudiced again no fault of the journalist, he/she is plain unaware and he/she is not infalliable.
Given this commonality, I guess the medium that could trump 'google' would be 'wikipedia'; though it is not a search engine per se, it does impart information with less of prejudice or bias or self interest as compared to google.
wikipedia by itself is not a perfect system, it is still a work in progress, it does have erroneous information however just interms of an 'idea' or a source of information, I guess it is closer to an objective account of that information.
The reason being wikipedia has filters and the filters are people who moderate its information 24/7, erronrous information if present is corrected by million of moderaters around the world, whereas in the case of google, its about the money.
Its filters are for its very own self interest.
Friday, January 4, 2008
Reasons why ladies today are still SINGLE:
1. The nice men are ugly.
2. The handsome men are not nice.
3. The handsome & nice men are gay.
4. The handsome, nice & heterosexual men are married.
5. The men who are not so handsome but are nice, have no money.
6. The men who are not so handsome, but are nice & have money think that women are only after their money.
7. The handsome men without money are after womens' money.
8. The handsome men, who are not so nice and somewhat heterosexual, don't think women are beautiful enough.
9. The hetrosexual men, who think a woman is beautiful, somewhat nice and has money, are cowards.
10. The men, who are somewhat handsome, somewhat nice and have some money and thank God, are heterosexual, are shy and NEVER MAKE THE FIRST MOVE!!!!
11. The men who never make the first move, automatically lose interest in women who make the first move.
2. The handsome men are not nice.
3. The handsome & nice men are gay.
4. The handsome, nice & heterosexual men are married.
5. The men who are not so handsome but are nice, have no money.
6. The men who are not so handsome, but are nice & have money think that women are only after their money.
7. The handsome men without money are after womens' money.
8. The handsome men, who are not so nice and somewhat heterosexual, don't think women are beautiful enough.
9. The hetrosexual men, who think a woman is beautiful, somewhat nice and has money, are cowards.
10. The men, who are somewhat handsome, somewhat nice and have some money and thank God, are heterosexual, are shy and NEVER MAKE THE FIRST MOVE!!!!
11. The men who never make the first move, automatically lose interest in women who make the first move.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
pertinent information
I happen to be the other day at the share broker's office. My folks have a few investments and they has asked me to pick up the contract notes from the brokers office.
There were quiet a few people in there staring into the PC monitor guaging if their stocks are going up or down, quiet plainly day traders who were looking at a quick buck due to volaitility in the sensex. The queer thing was there was a TV set there, switched onto the CNBC network however the TV volume was muted.
The host as well as the interviewee on the channel were quiet animated in their communications, probably each giving his take on where the markets are headed, however the people at the broking house were least intrested in what these pundits had to say.
In the 80's there were research papers theorizing that prices show too much variation to be explained in terms of the random arrival of new information. Further research also showed that if indeed the prices are more volatile than warranted then markets are being inefficient in assimilating this information.
If this is true, in an efficient market information should cancels out or should discount/account itself in the stock valuation such that volatility of demand and supply should flux prices in a narrow range, however stock prices on the other hand are moving on a much larger scale to be just warranted by future earnings or new information.
Implying that markets are truly inefficient, in such a scenario how would new information aid the investor, probably not; which could be why the patrons of the broking house were least concerned with what the CNBC show had to say. Though they may have not read these research paper, empirically I guess they may have some intuition to realise that most information out there is just noise and markets are truly volatile over a broader range.
There were quiet a few people in there staring into the PC monitor guaging if their stocks are going up or down, quiet plainly day traders who were looking at a quick buck due to volaitility in the sensex. The queer thing was there was a TV set there, switched onto the CNBC network however the TV volume was muted.
The host as well as the interviewee on the channel were quiet animated in their communications, probably each giving his take on where the markets are headed, however the people at the broking house were least intrested in what these pundits had to say.
In the 80's there were research papers theorizing that prices show too much variation to be explained in terms of the random arrival of new information. Further research also showed that if indeed the prices are more volatile than warranted then markets are being inefficient in assimilating this information.
If this is true, in an efficient market information should cancels out or should discount/account itself in the stock valuation such that volatility of demand and supply should flux prices in a narrow range, however stock prices on the other hand are moving on a much larger scale to be just warranted by future earnings or new information.
Implying that markets are truly inefficient, in such a scenario how would new information aid the investor, probably not; which could be why the patrons of the broking house were least concerned with what the CNBC show had to say. Though they may have not read these research paper, empirically I guess they may have some intuition to realise that most information out there is just noise and markets are truly volatile over a broader range.
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
productivity; easier said...
Three fast food counter workers produced more transactions with customers at no extra cost to management by using procedures implemented by behavior analysts.
The three counter workers had previously had been paid on an hourly basis. But that was changed to 13 cents per transaction during the study.
The result: The number of transactions increased by 26%, 21%, and 19% for the three workers, respectively. Corresponding pay increases of 9%, 15%, and 19% resulted. Despite the increased pay, there was no additional cost to the restaurant since the workers were selling more food.
What can be measured can be altered or varied.
What cannot be measured will remain inert till a means is devised to measure it ergo so can be altered or varied.
This presupposes that the system balance is maintained for any alterations or variations imposed. Any imbalance will render a null alteration rather an alteration that cannot be imposed.
Now I am in the process of getting my house painted, and I put the workers on day wages and they took longer than usual to do the job, (this is to my detriment it is costing me more) so I got them on a fixed contract for the entire job now they are working faster but I am sure they are compromising on quality (again to my detriment as shoody quality will get me to repaint probably the next year, invariably its costing me sooner).
I guess this is a one way street, I am bound to crash into oncoming traffic.
The three counter workers had previously had been paid on an hourly basis. But that was changed to 13 cents per transaction during the study.
The result: The number of transactions increased by 26%, 21%, and 19% for the three workers, respectively. Corresponding pay increases of 9%, 15%, and 19% resulted. Despite the increased pay, there was no additional cost to the restaurant since the workers were selling more food.
What can be measured can be altered or varied.
What cannot be measured will remain inert till a means is devised to measure it ergo so can be altered or varied.
This presupposes that the system balance is maintained for any alterations or variations imposed. Any imbalance will render a null alteration rather an alteration that cannot be imposed.
Now I am in the process of getting my house painted, and I put the workers on day wages and they took longer than usual to do the job, (this is to my detriment it is costing me more) so I got them on a fixed contract for the entire job now they are working faster but I am sure they are compromising on quality (again to my detriment as shoody quality will get me to repaint probably the next year, invariably its costing me sooner).
I guess this is a one way street, I am bound to crash into oncoming traffic.
risk, patience, return
In a study of workers’ pay preferences, researchers found that there is no easy answer to the question of what workers prefer.
The research describes a game format in which 30 undergraduate students were given play money, a list of expenses to pay, and then received an opportunity to “earn” an income either by salary or some combination of salary and incentive.
Most of the students preferred a lower incentive level with a more stable salary as expenses increased. Presumably, they preferred a more dependable income rather than a speculative though potentially greater income.
Personally, I think the level of risk taking increases when the individual has less to lose which could mean he/she does not have much so why not risk what little is there.
However as one probably has gained some success economically, the individual abstains to take risks as he/she would usually once had.
Behaviourally, as consumers we rather spend than save.
This has direct relation to our risk taking ability.
If we are spenders today, we prefer a dependable income rather than a speculative one; as a dependable income assists in spending.
The converse of a spender is a saver.
This also implies that present spenders are a tad impatient in comparison to a saver, as saving calls for some sacrifice on present spending.
Sacrifice implies being patient for a future return on investment.
The research describes a game format in which 30 undergraduate students were given play money, a list of expenses to pay, and then received an opportunity to “earn” an income either by salary or some combination of salary and incentive.
Most of the students preferred a lower incentive level with a more stable salary as expenses increased. Presumably, they preferred a more dependable income rather than a speculative though potentially greater income.
Personally, I think the level of risk taking increases when the individual has less to lose which could mean he/she does not have much so why not risk what little is there.
However as one probably has gained some success economically, the individual abstains to take risks as he/she would usually once had.
Behaviourally, as consumers we rather spend than save.
This has direct relation to our risk taking ability.
If we are spenders today, we prefer a dependable income rather than a speculative one; as a dependable income assists in spending.
The converse of a spender is a saver.
This also implies that present spenders are a tad impatient in comparison to a saver, as saving calls for some sacrifice on present spending.
Sacrifice implies being patient for a future return on investment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
