Apps
Contact
Seminars
RSS FeedJuly 28th, 2009
Welcome Justice Sotomayor
It is difficult to be a minority. Let Sonia’s impending success not blunt that for anyone. If a minority member is not being empathetic to her own community, she risks being shunned by her own community, and by other minorities effectively being a stumbling block to her success. If she is being empathetic, then she risks violating the objectivity of justice. Despite president Obama’s call for an empathetic justice, objective interpretation of law is still the more important aspect of being a judge, at least for me.
All that said, I feel obligated to clarify my own position. I would probably abstain, neither support, nor oppose her. I could perhaps yay with some reservations, but I could perhaps also nay with some guilt of not furthering an otherwise illustrious career. Only time will tell if Justice Sotomayor excels as a justice, or is merely a first in a series of racial barriers to be broken.
July 27th, 2009
Good Bye Sarah!!
As governor Palin steps down, and although I was not one of supporters in the presidential race, let me just take this opportunity to pay her one complement.
In the interview where she did not mention a single newspaper/magazines that she reads to be prepared for the Vice President’s job, I do not think it was either due to amnesia or her not knowing publications. The simple reason, I think, was that she was just not sure if it is acceptable for a politician to mention names of magazines as that could be considered an endorsement. That is of course, not true, but it is conceivable that she thought that. Especially, because she really tried not to mention even a single name. I believe that was the case, and I think it is up to us to take her at the face value on that issue.
In either case, it is less pertinent what books/journals/newspapers someone reads, and much more pertinent what they extract out of those works.
July 25th, 2009
A day in Prague
Travelogue, June 18th, 2009, Prague
On June 18th, I took the train to Prague from Dresden, so I will 
not tell anything about air travel, air ports etc. But, I must say
that the train journey from Dresden to Prague is awesome. Train meanders along the Elbe river, and gets from Dresden to Prague in about 2 hrs. I had an advanced reservation, and cost about 20 Euros. There are some stupendous bridges on the way.
Once in the city, there is a 100 Kc (about 6 $) 24 hr ticket available, that lets you travel on all metro, trams (there are a lot of trams in the city) and all metrobuses. These things are specially designed for travelers like me who would rather not sort out individual trips.
One of the first things that I try to do when I get to a city, any city, is to get away from all the touristy spots (we will come back to them, for sure). So, I took the Prague metro (Line B/Yellow) to Nové Butovice. It is a away from the center, and there are n
o tourist attractions that at least I am aware of in that area. I walked around the area, there are some apartment complexes, where regular people live, and go about their lives away from the tourist center. The fate always brings us to the people we really want to meet. When I met a boy and his grand father, little did I know I was going to learn so much about a person who had lived in a small city in Czechoslovakia, left it to go to Poland, then to the United States, and then gone back in recent years. His story is fascinating, like most true stories are. I do not know the person’s name, and isn’t it true that the camaraderie that one feels with a nameless stranger is often not matched by that with a named stranger? Perhaps it is a liberating thought that there are other 
people who find this interesting, and they could not have any material reason for doing so.
Back into the wild: The National Museum
National museum (Národní muzeum) (this awesome image on WikiTravel shows the beauty much better than anything I write) is located right in the heart of the city, in Nove Mesto (new town). New town, is incidentally called new town, because it was built as an extension to the old town in 14th century. I paid an extra Kc (cant remember how many) to be able to take pictures inside. One of the most fascinating things that I saw inside the museum was the map that Germany, France, and other nations agreed on in 1938, that allowed and explained how portions of Cze
choslovakia would be turned to German occupation. This map, may be the one of the most prized possessions of this museum. Here is the map, in its entirety.
So long, until I come back and tell a little more about Prague, including the awesome astronomical clock, and the awesome hostels.
July 21st, 2009
Breathe easy Andrew?
Strauss must be feeling *much* better after the awesome English victory in the second Ashes test. 74 years is a long time waiting, especially at Lords.
He would probably be the first one to accept that the declaration was but a bit premature. A declaration with a target of 580 or 600 just around lunch on 4th day would have been much better, as it would have put victory beyond the reach for Australia, putting them in a defensive mindset. Victory then might have come quicker, and the margin may have been nicer.
That of course needs to be weighed against the fact that there would have been lesser time to bowl Oz out, but 5 sessions really ought to be enough, really, if anything is.
July 20th, 2009
Strauss made a blunder?
As the 4th day of the second Ashes test between England and Australia wraps up, Strauss must be wondering whether he made a mistake with his overnight declaration. Well, let me answer it for you Andrew: Yes! One of the cardinal rules of declaring is that the batting side must squarely see victory as an impossibility. Well, that is certainly not the case right now with 209 runs only left and an entire 5th day of cricket still left to play. Surely, Australia can lose from here, but also 209 with 5 wickets and 1 day left is not a mathematical impossibility.
July 18th, 2009
Movie Review: Up (2009)
“In a Nutshell”® rating: 8/10.
Finally caught up with Pixar’s new movie UP. Pixar has a knack for making animated movie for adults (Toy Story, etc). Up is another movie in that chain, and by the way, the first animated feature film to open at Cannes. It starts off awesome, Carl meets Ellie, they grow up, get married. Then the tragedy hits – them not being able to have children. They move on, get busy with other things, and keep their dream alive of adventure. Of course, along the way, life happens and their dream of adventure constantly needs to be postponed a little, until it is a little late (Ellie dies), but still that is when it happens. Carl gets tagged along with Russell, an 8 yr old, who no one would miss out as his emotional child. They start off as an odd couple, but the paternal bond is all too vivid.
To me, it appears that the story lost the plot when they reach the Paradise falls and gets surrounded by the speaking dogs. I don’t have any problem sharing the gift of speech with other species, but that might be better done in a separate movie. If I have to hazard a guess, it looks like the screen writer wrote the story of Up in two separate sittings, and then slapped them along. The arrival of the balloon house at the Paradise Falls is the point of the discontinuity for the movie.
So, what is the movie’s message? (That is a question Nabakov says should never be posed for any work of art. Artist need not be saying anything, and least of it, need not be saying anything specific, that multiple people can agree upon. Still, that is the way reviews go – messages, and detestable allegories, that allow us to highlight the meaning that we drew from the work of art.) The message of the first part is entirely clear (and beautifully banal). The struggles of life that we all go through are essentially the photo album of our journey. That is the Cirque De Soleil message. Though of course, the constant breaking of the money jar that Carl and Ellie are trying to save for their adventure is also reminiscent of the myth of sisyphus, but in a benign kind of way, because each challenge is different. The second part of the movie does not appear to have any clear message, except perhaps to Canis lupis familiaris.
The funny aspect is critical to any Pixar movie, and in this, Up is a winner, but not a slam dunk winner. Humor comes easily in this movie, but more importantly, rarely appears forced.
All in all, I give Up a “Should See”, 8/10 rating.
July 15th, 2009
Back to Wren and Martin – Of adjective clauses and commas
Ok, it may be back to Wren and Martin for me (at least for the next half hour). As I was reviewing a technical business document, I had to review my grasp of the adjective clauses. Adjective clauses are clauses that qualify a noun, and come in two flavors: essential or non-essential. Perhaps an example would be best:
The man who delivers the newspapers was bitten by a dog.
Mr. Adams, who drives the blue minivan, was the last one to leave.
In the first case, the adjective clause: “who delivers the newspapers” is an essential adjective clause. Without that clause, we do not know which man we are referring to. The essential adjective clauses should NOT have commas around them.
In the second case, the adjective clause: “who drives the blue minivan” is a non-essential adjective clause. We do not really need that clause, but it can be helpful to the reader who does not know Mr. Adams. The non-essential adjective clauses should have commas around them.
Ok, back to the business of software for me. Back to the shelf for Mssrs Wren and Martin.
July 13th, 2009
Hindsight is always 20/20
Consider this hypothetical scenario:
A company’s stock is trading at 0.50$. The company issues a warning that the stock could be worthless, and files for bankruptcy. People continue to trade the stock and the price surges to 1$. The company goes into bankruptcy court, emerges as a new company with reasonable prospects, with only the name to share with the old company. People are ecstatic and the stock price surges to 1.5$. Then, the SEC stops trading of those stocks, as the company that issued the stocks is no more, and the new company that has the same name, legally has nothing to do with the old company. The people who own the 1.5$ stock are left holding some very expensive toilet paper. The circus ends.
Then, the people decide to sue the company and SEC as they were allowed to trade the stock that really had no value. The company clarifies that it had given multiple warnings that the common stock was highly likely to be worthless. SEC gives some similar clarification, and nothing more can be done.
Of course the situation above is not hypothetical, but the life story of General Motors. (I cannot for the life of me think that anyone fell for my “consider this hypothetical scenario” thing.) For the longest time, people knew that the stock was a junk stock, yet people continued to play. Financial analysts have a smirk right now – see, I told you so. The problem, of course is that there are too many financial analysts. The ones that traded in GM are nowhere to be seen right now. The ones that didn’t, are the ones with the smirk. The reality is that finance and stock market professionals are just as bad (or as good) as lay people. If you would like an example of stock market professionals who made the bad call on GM as recently as about a year ago, well, consider this: business newspaper Barron’s said in its June 2, 2008 issue that the shares of GM could triple from then existing $17 to $30 or $45. Surely, now they can refer back to their even more recent statement when one of their analyst had said that GM could go bankrupt, and that is Barron’s 20/20 bias. That is the mantra for all these business houses. Hire a few business analysts that don’t get along, and sure enough, one of them has to be right.
This just about does it for me when trying to evaluate the credibility of these financial guys. I do respect Jim Jubak and a couple of other guys, but now a days there is so much information out there, that one doesn’t really have to take their word and necessarily consider it better than yours. Even Jubak himself mentions this many times – he says it a bit more politely, when he asks you do your own research. He, after all, does his own research too.
July 9th, 2009
Quiz for people who know everything
Ok, so I finally got a copy of quiz for people who know everything.
For people who have not seen it, here it is:
Quiz for People Who Know Everything
This is a quiz for people who know everything! I found out in a hurry that I didn’t. These are not trick questions. They are straight questions with straight answers
1. Name the one sport in which neither the spectators nor the participants know the score or the leader until the contest ends.
2. What famous North American landmark is constantly moving backward?
3. Of all vegetables, only two can live to produce on their own for several growing seasons. All other vegetables must be replanted every year. What are the only two perennial vegetables?
4. What fruit has its seeds on the outside?
5. In many liquor stores, you can buy pear brandy, with a real pear inside the bottle. The pear is whole and ripe, and the bottle is genuine; it hasn’t been cut in any way. How did the pear get inside the bottle?
6. Only three words in standard English begin with the letters “dw” and they are all common words. Name two of them.
7. There are 14 punctuation marks in English grammar. Can you name at least half of them?
8. Name the only vegetable or fruit that is never sold frozen, canned, processed, cooked, or in any other form except fresh.
9. Name 6 or more things that you can wear on your feet beginning with the letter “S.”
And here are my answers:
1. No idea! (Correct answer was Boxing. Hmmm, oh well.)
2. No idea! (Correct answer was Niagara Falls. Nice, very clever!)
3. No idea! (Correct answers – asparagus and rhubarb. Ask me again in a week, I still wont know.)
4. Strawberry!!! (Yay!)
5. I thought that the answer was that the fruit was squeezed in slowly, but obviously, the actual answer as I found out is that the bottle is tied on the tree when the fruit is a bud. Very clever. In my humble defense, I have never seen a pear brandy.
6. Words beginning with “Dw”, I got “dwarf” and “dwell”. Yay! 3rd word I found out was “dwindle”. Nice!
7. I got: period, comma, semicolon, question mark, circular parenthesis, colon, exclamation mark, and then I gave up.
8. Now, this one is weird, I did think of lettuce, but somehow I thought that frozen lettuce is sold. Actually, lettuce is not frozen, only refrigerated (sometimes with ice, but that is not equivalent to freezing)
9. I got: shoes, socks, skis and stockings. (Only 4.) Other possible choices are sandals, sneakers, slippers etc as I found out from the answers.
Oh well, 3 out of 9 is not that bad.
July 9th, 2009
Google thinks Jennifer Lopez is a guy?
Now this is weird.
Try searching for “Jennifer Lopez presented her credentials to Steven Spielberg” on Google. It only takes the search king 0.17 seconds to shout back: ” Did you mean: Jennifer Lopez presented his credentials to Steven Spielberg ”
Well, no I meant exactly what I said!
I don’t really know what is Google’s issue, but somewhere between male chauvinism and idiocy is the answer. Of course, the information retrieval experts and other academics are shouting and firing up their Outlook to tell me about that the suggested terms have more search results. I see, I see. But I still don’t understand.
