Money For Nothing And Bits For (Almost) Free

I was reading this article (http://www.linkedin.com/news?actionBar=&articleID=767954867&ids=0Rd3kTejsUdzsIdPkRcPkMe3oTb38TdzkPdPsSdOMNcz8NcjkUdzsIdPoUd3kVdPoT&aag=true&freq=weekly&trk=eml-tod-b-ttle-4&ut=2XTzpsSK6NG4U1) now.

Almost unlimited storage on the cloud for almost no money. Only thing is one has to send and receive the files to and from the cloud which can kill you in bandwidth costs or time for up/downloading.

But assume there comes a time in 2014 when network is reliable and dirt cheap like this company is making hard disk space out to be, then what? Portable hard disks will become extinct or limited to usage inside planes or deep in the jungles of Amazon.

Further along I was thinking of the mobile phone. It comes with a SIM that carries your number and a very little amount of storage space. If you want to move stuff in and out from your phone, you need to have a separate removable storage card. 

Then what is the SIM for? Perhaps as an ID card for the phone. To tell the phone and hence the network provider where the ID (mobile number owner) is currently. Why can't this be software controlled. All it needs is to enter the ID (phone number) on booting the phone, with some password/control mechanism. One can do away with the useless thing called the SIM card.

And if this company's idea (store on the cloud) works and if the network becomes reliable and cheap, one can get rid of the storage disk also on phones. Unless of course one is a no network coverage area and one wants to use non-phone related data such as ebooks, music etc.

Let's wait for 2014. (How am I guessing the year 2014? Just a crystal ball.)

Fashion Liberates Her

Wow, what a story http://ibnlive.in.com/news/fashion-has-a-way-of-liberating-you-sonam/182766-8-66.html.

She doesn't care what others think of her. She is deeply into fashion as others are into CD's. And fashion liberates one (as per the article). 

I wondered. Who is the person who would likely care about fashion? Those who didn't care what people thought or those who did?

And fashion critics apparently follow her to see what she is wearing. Wow, is this a job? 

Fashion liberates you? That's a new one. How does fashion liberate one? And liberate from what?

How does one become a different person because he or she is wearing a nice dress?

Strange.

The Corruption Of Music

In an earlier blog (http://vbala99.blogspot.com/2010/12/old-indian-movies-songs-and-actors.html?showComment=1314263701640#c5213736150309489461) I had mentioned that the quality of music in Indian cinema has been steadily going down.

I wanted to go into more detail on that aspect in this post.

Today I heard the song "Rote Rote Hasnaa Seekho" sung by Kishore in the 1983 movie Andha Kaanoon. The music is set by Laxmikant Pyarelal (LP). The music made me shudder in horror. I thought I will choose a few other songs by the same music directors that I liked.

Na Tu Zameen Ke Liye from Daastan (Rafi, 1972), Mere Dil Mein Aaj Kya Hai from Daag (Kishore, 1973), Tum Bin Jeevan Kaisa Beeta from Anita (Mukesh, 1967), Tere Pyaar Ne Mujhe Gum from Chhaila Babu (Rafi, 1967), Chaahoonga Mein Tujhe from Dosti (Rafi, 1964), Dhal Gaya Din Ho Gayi from Humjoli (Rafi and Asha, 1971).

I liked these songs of LP much more than Rote Rote Hasna Seekho which seemed so pedestrian. The song sounds as though Kishore was talking, rather than singing a melodious song.

I guess the same thing has happened with other directors. The taste of the common man also changed at the same time. Now, did the listener's taste cause the music directors to change course or did the music directors drive the change? 

My guess is that the music directors drove the change, they tried out different things. And focused more on what "sold" more. We the audience wanted to change with the times and move towards was "hip". And this tango never ended. Good music seems to have come to an end by late 1960's and early 1970's. It's rare that I hear a recent song from Hindi or Tamil that I tend to like or remember later and hum.

And a (very young) friend of mine feels old people are quite inflexible in their likes unlike youngsters who are open to good stuff no matter where (and which era) they are from.

Are we supposed to have exacting standards in life or be more accepting?

Gulp.

On Sex

A friend sent me an article on sex (the link doesn't work now).

Apparently there are those (people in their 30's and 40's) who have sex 2 or 3 times a week. While I have heard that the libido of a man decreases as he ages and that of a woman seems to increase, some couples in their late 30's and 40's have sex some have 10 times a week. The latter don't seem to get enough of each other. Being everything for and not getting enough of each other makes a relationship great. 

The same friend said that such a (nice) relationship can hardly exist anywhere except in fiction. Is that so? 

Obviously I don't imply that the frequency of sex is the only determinant of a good relationship. If that was the case, perhaps rabbits will be teachers of relationships.

The Art Of Saying No

Men get to know a woman for a long time (3 minutes) before they ask for sex (or propose marriage). Women reject the proposal for sex / marriage immediately.

Men wonder why. What did they do wrong? Now women dislike jumping into sex/sex chat after 3 mins. For women, sex is a culmination of feelings towards a man. While for men, sex may be the initiator of feelings towards women. 

If only men waited patiently, they would be more likely to get exactly what they wanted... but by speaking out too soon, they blow it.

Same way by being too direct and saying NO soon and lacking diplomacy, some people blow it. While there are people who say NO or "fuck you" in a more effective way. Without the other person even realizing that he was said NO/Fuck You to...

If effectiveness/efficiency is about getting what one wants soonest and with the least effort, then does asking for sex directly or saying NO bluntly qualify as being that? Human beings seek things that are packaged well. Most people accept poorer content as long as the packaging is fine. I heard of a study where patients were much more likely to file a malpractice suit on an irascible doctor than on an amiable one. One just doesn't have the heart to harm a "nice guy". 

How much do these blunt guys lose out in life? Very few people can tolerate them and they are considered an a**hole by people around them. I am reminded of a Thirukkural poem. 

"Iniya ulavaadu innadu kooral 

kaniyiruupa Kaaikavarn dhattru."

Translation: Saying harsh things when there are nice things to say is like eating a raw fruit when there is a ripe one. (Pardon me if there is a mistake in the rendition of the original or in the translation).

So why are some people blunt/harsh? Why don't they couch a NO in a more acceptable form? Perhaps such people see truth and content as much more important than the form in which it is presented. They have not learnt the importance of form or packaging. 

Poor idiots. Sad that they keep making the same mistake over and over again.

Maths Puzzle - 17

I came across this one a few days back.

A number of children are standing in a circle. They are evenly spaced and the 7th child is directly opposite the 17th child. How many children are there altogether?

No Markers

Some people create a mark with their existence. The mark could be negative (as in the case of Osama Bin Laden or Hitler) or positive. Small or big.

There are others who don't leave any marks anywhere they go. There are few signs of their having existed. They also seem to make efforts to obliterate any signs that might have been inadvertently made by them. They live life trying to be inconspicuous as though they were a KGB agent who has come to USA.

What do these people live for? What is their aim in life? They obviously don't exist to make any changes to people around them or to society in general. They exist only for themselves. And if they happen to do something nice, it is because they derive extreme personal satisfaction from that act. Anonymity is something they hold on to as though it were their dear life. They seek few things from society and contribute little. Society is as important as a vending machine. Something that is needed but one doesn't socialize with a vending machine, right?

These people are very happy to have a low balance sheet in life. Low assets, low liabilities. They live life as though they are constantly ready to depart - everything packed in a suitcase and ready. They shun use of assets in any form, especially intangible assets like friendships, goodwill, contacts.

Just as any object seeks a low potential energy, such people constantly seek low interaction levels. To use a cliche, they find solace in solitude. 

Like a thermostat that maintains the temperature within a range, they maintain everything within limits. When their interactions with their outside world reaches a certain level, the internal thermostat kicks in. They forcibly bring the outside interaction back to an agreeable level.

Such people are best left alone. One shouldn't get too close to such people.

Asuras, Devas, Prayer And Poo Midikkardu

Hindu mythology often talks about Asuras (bad people) and Devas (gods or aligned to God). The two constantly fight over world domination.

In those times, a person who wanted something from God would do severe penance (like perhaps standing on one leg or not eating or drinking as people do in the month of Ramadan) for years until God heard them. God might then appear in front of the person and grant that person whatever he wished.

An asura king would do a penance and when God appeared before him he would ask God that become the king of earth or that no one should be able to kill him etc. God would grant him that wish with an exception clause (that he might be killed only when / only by etc).

The asura having gotten this wish would now go about getting what he wanted. He would destroy peace, subjugate and kill people. The people, after a long bout of suffering, would appeal to God. God would then rectify the problem and kill the asura by using the exception clause.

Now the question that came to my mind was, who was at fault? Let's assume that the story of Asuras and Devas and God is true.

Was the asura at fault for dominating the world and making a mess? Well not really. He was morally at fault perhaps. But legally not, since he was only exercising a right - the wish that was granted by God. I am reminded of a quote from Reader's Digest that I read long time back: "Just because you have a (legal) right to do something, it doesn't mean that doing it is (morally) right." Words in bracket are mine. In this case the asura had a legal right. Perhaps not a moral right to do what he did.

Now was God at fault? Why would he grant a man a wish just because the man did a penance? Would you pay someone who cleaned your toilet if you didn't employ him to do it in the first place? 

What if it was generally known that you would pay anyone who would clean your toilet and that the person didn't need to get prior approval from you? 

In the same way, it was generally held that God might/would grant a wish if someone prayed hard enough. So now where is the problem?

Could we say that the problem was in the "prayer leads to granting of wish" rule? I would think so. Therein lies the problem. Because the reward (granting of wish) was in return for effort which made no sense to anyone. Who gives a damn if you prayed for 1 year or 100,000 years?

Now, did God know that the person who asked for a wish, like the one mentioned above, would misuse it? Of course he would. He was God, omniscient. And logically why would anyone want to become king of all earth if he had only honorable and peaceful intentions?

By encouraging prayer, God created a scenario where a man was granted (almost) any wish if he prayed long enough. God couldn't refuse the man the wish. The issue of asuras getting a wish, then misusing it was a direct result of the "prayer to wish" rule in existence then. If the reward is not mapped back and is not in proportion to the work done then we have a problem. "Prayer to Wish" was an example of that problem. I wonder what purpose was served by this option God gave to man.

I am reminded of an incident narrated by a friend of mine (Let me call her A). There is a custom in these parts called "Poo Midikardu" meaning (not literally) to walk on hot coal. It is a very painful thing to walk on burning coal and people do it and often pray to God for something in return.

A has a good friend B. One day A was told by B that B had done that "Poo Midikardu" for the benefit of A. Now A had never asked B to do that, A had no belief in such things. B took it upon himself to do it. When B informed A of this, A didn't know how to respond. Was she supposed to be indebted to B? 

I explained to A. B did something big (as in this case). But the thing was never explicitly or indirectly asked for by A. B did it on his own. There is no debt. A didn't owe B.

Now had A told B that she wanted him to do "Poo midikkardu" on her behalf, then of course she would owe him. Had A let it be known that she wanted someone to do "Poo midikkardu" for her and if B had then done it, then also she would owe him.

(Now some people might think that in friendship there is no debt etc. But I don't agree. Can I go to a bank and claim it to be my friend and ask for a non repayable loan? Seriously, a debt is a debt. That there is a relationship between the giver and the receiver doesn't automatically cause a debt to be written off or nullified).

A Very Nice Post On Eve Teasing

I read a nice post about the life of a woman in India in the context of eve teasing. Unfortunately the link is not active.

I wonder how one can say "you stared at me". Is staring a crime? Let's say you pass by a house. And you stare at it. Can the house owner or the tenant sue you for staring at it? But supposing you climbed into the house or threw stones at it? Now that's a different matter. You have committed a crime. 

But staring hard at the house? Were you gently admiring or staring? Depends. One can interpret either way. More importantly if something is public, it will be viewed (or stared at or admired depending on who is talking). If WSJ or BBC don't want people to read something that's on their site, then they should not make their site public. Protect it with password security or remove it from the public web altogether.

I don't agree with the culpability of staring.

Paruppu Usili And Exotic Cooking Utensils From Way Back

https://picasaweb.google.com/114451897239202019349/Recipe_ParuppuUsili


Most things in our kitchen (including me) are quite ancient. Here is me trying my hand at making Paruppu Usili, with a little coaching from the side.