clog

Came across this funny video that tests the general knowledge of Americans. I am quite sure that a simpleton on an Indian road would have done equally bad if not worse (that is kinda impossible). Anyways watch it for fun and not for any sadistic pleasure.

Quiz in America

Some gems if you still have second thoughts about watching it:

1. Name a country that starts with a U (no answers for this one)
2. Religion of Buddhist monks is Islam
3. Number of sides in a triangle - 4,0, 1

I won't spoil it further by revealing any more. Do explain me the "collateral damage" explanation if you get it.

Being in IT industry for more than half a decade has sure taught me a lot of things. Not the least of them is that I just don't like it. Well, this is quite an unqualified statement and I intend to qualify it later in some other post. For now, lets take it literally to preserve its sting. There are many reasons for it, trying to list a few of them. Now, the reasons might as well apply to other professions, but I won't worry about it now. No more disclaimers, here is the list:

1. Java developers are so common in India, that we should declare Java as our national language.
2. No-one seems happy or satisfied with his work
3. Almost everyone has already attempted or intends to attempt CAT [that doesn't include me ;-)], so most (not all) of the people in technology are those who were lazy (to attempt cat) or incompetent (to qualify for an mba)
4. We all take ourselves (and our work) too seriously
5. All of us want to settle in the US or some foreign nation as long as it is not Zimbabwe.
6. White skin is always revered, because either they are clients or the revenue earners (people on client side) or the owners of the company
7. We are always worried about our next change
8. Most of us have a dim opinion about others in the community as is evident in this post
9. Most of us are ppp - poop producing programmers and we claim so, only that we exclude ourselves while making this comment
10. The maximum time spent by us in the office is on outlook

(*******Spoiler warning*******)
Finally I finished this extremely lengthy book around eight years after I first picked it up. The popularity of the book is so high that I always wanted to read it but the sheer size discouraged me every single time. The movie based on this book with the same name was released in 1939 and adjusted for inflation is the biggest ever money spinner in the history of Hollywood. Equally popular is the dialog that features in every top x dialog list - "Frankly dear, I don't give a damn".

In fact, this dialog has a wiki page dedicated to it.

This is not a full fledged review, not even sure if its a review. However, I was a little let down by the bulk and the excessive details painted in the book. But on the positive side, since it is so detailed the characters and settings are just too real for you to feel.

The story revolves around two main characters Rhett and Scarlett. The bland, self assured, composed, calculated and shrewd Rhett Butler and earthy, vivacious, stubborn, insensitive, selfish yet strong Scarlett. I would have liked to see Rhett being more present in the book. He goes off again and again only to reappear a couple of hundred pages later.

The characters are shown in an honest light. The reactions/thoughts of Scarlett are so selfish that you can't help but hate her. Deep down, however, I think a lot of us think as perversely as she does.

The book is no love story as they would like to call it. Usually love stories end with happy or sad endings but the lovers generally keep loving each other till the end. Not this one, interestingly the book ends with them (one of them) falling out of love and parting their ways even though they remain married.

Overall, if you have a really long journey on the cards, you can keep this book handy.

Only if he could have taken his work a little less seriously.

http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=14737007

Some smart people want to seize every moment and every opportunity to show that they have a point, no matter how banal it is. They feel cheated if they are not the first one to correct someone on a very obvious mistake made. Like saying we will check this tomorrow on a Friday will get smart asses all worked up (assuming its not a working weekend). Hope you got the drift. Making a point is extremely important for them, even if almost everyone except imbeciles could have made it. The race is about being the first one to point it out. Also, in the process making a point becomes more important than making it count. That explains why meeting are considered an utter waste of time, because all the smart-asses end up making points in order to get heard not really focusing on making those points count.

So, the summary of this argument is that, if at the back of our minds, we can keep the objectives clear and focus on them, rather than focusing on getting yourself brownies, which are useless for the objective, all of us at the end should be better off. This is in line with the aphorism, that if people stop caring about who gets the credit, they will do much better as a team. And if you are working with good people, in the end they should be able to give everyone his/her deserved due. However, I am not entirely sure if this is a practical thing to do. It sounds quite Utopian thing to do and may work only if there is a cooperative (as in cooperative game theory) environment.

Things can turn ugly in places where things are really cut-throat and the benign ones might just end up getting all the flak at the end without getting any credit for good things they did. In a non-benign environment there is no single objective, there are objectives and invariably most of them are in conflict with each other, so this may not really work out. However, if the smartass is in a leadership capability, then to reach to a smarter level, (s)he needs to ensure the smart-asses in his(er) team (that includes him/her also) are free from this kind of competition and thinking.

In the end, someone has to think of the forest over trees, and that is the kind of fella I would like to be and work with.

Watch this for the climax and the after taste. This is a movie I watched 16 years too late, or may be not. It is quite possible that I would have hated this movie when it came out, partly because I wouldn't have understood it, thanks to my limited exposure to English during my growing years :-)

If someone is bored of watching the new movies or has exhausted everything else around, here is one movie you can try out.

Its a movie about a killer and it is as unglamorous as it could get for an assassin. Usually hit-man movies glorify the killer, show him as an agile, kick-ass and powerful shooter who goes on killing men like no other.

This one is different. This is about a weak and old killer well beyond his prime, who comes out of retirement because he needs money and sees a cause justified enough to kill. The most of the movie seemed like a drag until it reaches the climax. The movie labors on the point that being a good killer isn't about being faster, but about keeping your head steady in the face of a life-death situation.

The setting is old American, cowboy era with a brown and dusty look. The characters are all realistic, to the extent that the protagonist is shown to have difficulty riding his horse, and falls many times. He had a bout of illness and then a sound beating to boast of.

The last fifteen minutes of the movie however makes up for the lack of excitement throughout. What makes this movie is the memorable role by Clint Eastwood, as a killer who doesn't glorify killing a bit and goes about it as casually as you would go to your office. The complete disregard for everything else (things like not killing an unarmed man) when he is going for the kill is what gives it a realistic air.

It has a certain heaviness throughout that may stay with you even after it's over and don't miss the last 5 minutes when the credits roll for you will miss the superb, simple and serene background score.

I was thinking of how would corporate life be if there were no platitudes. Every time you have a gathering, things tend to circle around platitudes.

The positive ones:

• We have done a great job
• Things are looking up
• We are a bunch of extremely talented people
• What we do is extremely critical

The ones hinting on a need to improve things:

• We need to be more creative
• We need to know our customer better
• We need to work as a team
• We are extremely open and suggestions from anyone are welcome

When used out of context, they really mean nothing and that's how they are most often used. I often wonder, after a certain point, shouldn't the ones quoting them again and again should start feeling guilty for the wastage of words and time they are indulged in.

I have often found myself switched off the moment any of these kind of things are mentioned. I am in no position to claim if I don't do these things, but being aware I will try not to if I can help.

Some pictures of locals taken in Hoshangabad in Madhya Pradesh

as per imdb rating as of today.


Link of the movie on IMDB

I liked the movie a lot and looks like so did everyone else. I think my wait was well worth it :-)

It's exactly an year since we first saw the last of Harry Potter (in books). Without doubt it is the most amazing book series I have ever read, I haven't read too many but have read LOTR, Bourne, to name a few.

It all started on a train journey when J K Rowling conceived the idea of a boy wizard. Little did she know that her stories will become the one of the most sold/read books in the history of mankind.

Well, it was a 24 hour train journey for me as well when I picked the second installment of Harry Potter series (first HP book for me). It wasn't bad, wasn't great either. It seemed a lot like a pot-boiler, the kind you won't regret going through once but that's just about it. Sometime later I picked the first one since I couldn't find anything better to read and then I read the third one. And as they say third time is the charm, this time I became a complete convert. It no longer seemed an ordinary series to me and I started waiting for the release of the next ones with quite eagerness until last last year.

There are countless fans of Harry Potter and a good number of detractors. Some of the arguments that I hear to justify the hate are:

1. It is regressive
2. Harry Potter is gifted, a trailblazer of sorts in everything and just cannot go wrong
3. It is childish
4. The series is dark! (Indeed it is)

I don't intend to blame any of those people to have that point of view. What I have noticed in most of the cases is that those guys have read 'about' the books but not the books themselves, may be because they never considered them worthy to be read. However, reading about them may actually give some of the ideas mentioned above as central to the book's theme. But stopping at that will be an injustice to yourself if you enjoy good story telling.

I took my time to start appreciating the series and its characters and mind it, the sum of parts is indeed greater than the whole. Even though each book can be enjoyed as an independent piece, the difference in the scale of enjoyment will be huge when they are all read. To an outsider the book may seem kiddish, they are not. Some of the gems in the book are age old wisdom and are so clearly enacted that it makes them permanent in your mind. Some of my favorite ones are:

- Power should not be given to those who seek it.
- It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities.
~Professor Albus Dumbledore

This is the central theme of what makes Harry Potter what he is. He isn't the most powerful character, isn't the smartest, may be one of the bravest but with his own share of doubts. He may be the best flier, for sure one of the best. But these are not his defining characteristics. This isn't why he is the hero. He is hero because when it comes to choosing, his natural instinct is to 'not harm' and protect whoever is involved. Sacrifice isn't something that comes naturally to him, but given a situation, if that is something that can make everyone else' life easier, he would do it willingly or unwillingly.

To sum it up, he is essentially a good guy and that is his biggest strength.

- He could not use a dark spell effectively against his godfather's killer because for dark curses to be effective you need to mean them
- He didn't kill the guy responsible for his parents' death even when he had a chance (that paid in the end)
- In his final showdown with Voldermort, Voldermort casts the death spell on him whereas he casts only the disarming spell.
- He chooses to die since that was the only way to stop Voldermort.

Therein lies the difference between the one who won and the one who lost. It is not the most powerful one (Voldermort) who won, it was the good one. That I think is the defining part.

Voldermort, probably the most gifted wizard in terms of capabilities (may not be in terms of knowledge, Dumbledore was far more intelligent and knowledgeable than anyone else) had one mortal fear, of death. He sought throughout a way of being immortal where Harry embraces his death for 'the greater good' and becomes the master of death (and the possessor of Deathly hallows - you will need more context to understand what they are)

There were many times when Harry was saved by his friends and there were times when Harry was responsible for the death of his well-wishers. All because he is normal and makes as many mistakes as anyone else.

Coming to the second most important character in the series, the character is one of the purest villains, interestingly, for no fault of his. For he was conceived under temporary love induced by magic and hence was incapable of love. Barring this he was exceptional in his capabilities magical or otherwise. However, in the final showdown, it wasn't his power that fell short, and caused his downfall. It was Harry's goodness that caused Malfoy's mom to cheat him in the end and something unknown to Voldermort and knows as love caused Snape to do the same throughout. Combined this with his lack of knowledge caused his downfall.

There is a whole bunch of characters equally interesting and with a lot of history in the series that makes it such a compelling read. It has its own parallel world with different rules and laws.

Each book opens up a layer of understanding about what is going on. Remarkably there are references in the books early in the series which get clarified when you move further down and that is what makes the sum much greater than the parts.

It's exactly an year since I last picked a Potter book and now writing this post brings out my withdrawal symptoms. For those of you haven't read the series, try it. As Jeffrey Archer said while he was in India this year, every now and then he discovers a remarkable new author to read. I consider JKR to be as remarkable as the best ones I have ever read, so if you are looking to expand your options, go for it.

(To know more information on the series and characters, you can visit HP Lexicon)

Its been two years since the inception of twitter. I have never been a great fan but recently a friend of mine started twittering. Sounds like another one bites the dust.

New trends, more often than not, come at the cost of old ones at least partially. TV damaged newspapers and reading in general to some extent (but not completely), so did Internet for almost everything around. I wonder, if twittering is taking share off blogging. Blogging is content with connection to audience/friends, twitter sounds like plain connection.

For now, I am not convinced enough to switch to (or start) twitter. Even if I have to do something like it, I intend to keep it to my clog. I wonder, what would I call it, if it happens. No prizes for guessing as I gave it away even before I started!

Here is an interesting talk (performance) by Keith Barry on ted.com

Brain Magic

This is inspired by(in response to) an article written by Shashi Tharoor in his regular column in Times of India. He hailed the court verdict acquitting M F Husain of all the accusations related to his painting nude pictures of Hindu goddesses. Here are a few 'gems' of his articles.

Why is Indias Picasso staying away
Its time to stop harassing M F Husain

First off, I don't agree to the point he made but that is not the point of this blog. He made a reference to Kamasutra as traditional Hindu text and using it as a defense to drawing pictures of goddesses in nude.

Transporting ourselves to Bollywood, "Mumbai Salsa", a C-grade movie (IMDB rating 3.7) about Mumbai's urban life. There is a foreign character who 'kind of' defends one night stands because we have a history that features Kamasutra and Khajuraho in it.

Looks like, Kamasutra can justify almost anything remotely related to sex or nudity or even pornography. I have nothing against these things, if it were not for the context in which these things are done.

Now, personally I have nothing against one night stands, but I took exception to the reasoning behind justifying it. They are justified in their own right - Kamasutra or no Kamasutra. Just because some sage wrote about sex doesn't mean you use it as a justification/reason for having one night stands or painting gods without clothes. It is akin to saying that it's ok to kill your siblings because we have had some serious sibling rivalry in Mahabharata.

Kamasutra may have been written as a book that touches all the aspects of relationships centered around sex, It wouldn't be prudent to use it to decide about extra-marital affairs or one night stands. Also, I am not entirely sure of the contents anyways.

To Tharoor,
I expected better reasoning from you. May be you are extremely liberal, may be even to the point of letting your family members get painted in nude or caught up in acts which most of the less-liberal people intend to keep indoors, but it is harsh to impose your own sense of values on a society as a whole just because someone decided to write a book about sex centuries ago. It was anybody's guess as to what the reaction would have been to those paintings.

To Husain,
You have done very well so far in not painting anything absurd for your own religion, that would have probably put a full stop to your career and life (and a lot of people will find it justified after all India has a great tradition not only sex but violence as well). Next time when you put your brush to use, do the same with your common sense else as a not-so-liberal art admirer, I will be inclined to think of it as a gimmick for cheap publicity, which I know it is.

To a blogger,
who swears by the line "opinions are like assholes, everyone has one". Most of his opinions certainly are. He has written way too many controversial posts with a good number devoted to the Husain controversy, feeding on his controversy for his own publicity?

http://sujaiblog.blogspot.com/2007/07/shashi-tharoor-on-mf-husain.html
http://sujaiblog.blogspot.com/2008/07/mf-husain-nudes-judgment.html?showComment=1215694860000

To All,

Use your common sense before doing something controversial or reacting to it.

Disclaimer: I don't approve of the acts of vandalism that happened against the artist in the wake of this controversy.

(To know what is MSPM - Read the opening post here)

Here is the first of the list of things that I think smart people don't do well until they get smarter.

Most of the not-so-smart people are unstructured in their approach towards things, but not all unstructured people can be classified as not-so-smart. For, I know quite a few smart but haphazard people.

The smart ones tend to have a structure to everything they do, but sometimes they go overboard.

A particular example that comes to my mind is a module lead with whom I worked once. He was one of the better folks I have worked with so far in my career. However, his documents would only have numbered points and he wanted me to do the same. On one frustrated night at 2 AM, I made a comment, that if I remove the filter that controls the level of "table of contents", every single thing in this document will be in it. Is that how you intend it to be?

I am not taking it out against him here to prove I was right and he was wrong. But I felt he suffered from over-structure.

A lot of times I am accused of the same, it makes me feel happy and sad at the same time. Happy because I can classify myself as smart in my own post but then that rules me out for consideration as 'smarter'.

Most of the times, people are aware and tend to improve if their feedback loops are strong. So, the critical part that takes them from smart to smarter is being open to foreign opinion and internalize it's valid parts.