Recently, my old Sony Walkman radio died. I went to a department store to look for a replacement.
The sales clerk was mildly amused by my request but did help me find one. There, among shelves displaying snappy new MP3 players and iPods, was a tiny area devoted to radios. I picked up a Walkman---which looked almost exactly like the one I was replacing. I guess, not too much effort had gone into developing a refreshed version of this dying product.
That’s too bad.
I like my radio and would rather listen to it rather than an MP3 player when I exercise in my gym. I am not a Luddite---not at all. I own all the gizmos, iPad2, iPhone and all that. However, the radio provides me with something thse other products do not.
First, there is a friendly voice guiding me through the music I listen too. I generally listen to the Western Classical music, and the short summary provided by the announcer gives me useful context and enriches my knowledge base. An MP3 player does not do that.
Second, no matter how large is my library of music, I can not match what a radio station has. So, I listen to selections I would not have otherwise encountered if I were attached to listening just my collection on an MP3 player.
The most important reason I like a radio is the word “like”. By definition, the stored music on my iPod is what I have liked. That means I would not listen to something I have no knowledge of and, therefore, has no preordained “like” associated with it.
How can I prevent my taste from stagnating if I do not explore something new? With a radio, it is just the matter of moving the dial---so to speak. I can listen to anything I want, and then decide if I like it or not. If I wish, I can always down load the best of that new “like” on my iPhone. Yes?
Radio---what is not to like?
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Saturday, October 1, 2011
A Tale of Two Cities
San Francisco is a beautiful city. With steep hills, spectacular views of the ocean and crazy streets and boulevards, it is a place that is immediately endearing. Add to that the famous weather pattern, which keeps the temperture around comfortable 70 degrees, and the city becomes utterly desirable to many.
On the other hand, and on the other coast, Boston, where I live, has severe winters. There are days when the thermometer dips to zero degrees (and that is Fahrenheit) and the wind is howling. This is not the comfortable and predictable West Coast weather.
Boston is a pretty city but does not have the same spectacular beauty of SF. What it does have is a great deal of culture, history, and education. Money is of course important, just as everywhere, but somehow it does not seem as important in this city, which emphasizes what you know rather than what you own. The presence of two world famous universities of course adds a great deal to the vitality of the city by filling it with young students
Even its weather has its own charms. The beautiful white coat of winter ice melts as new buds start emerging on plants and trees. The light green shades and beautiful flowers are soon replaced by dense greenery and warm sunshine. My favorite time of the year is fall, when trees break out into all glorious colors and the days become crisp and clear. When you get used to these changes, the routine of same old same old on the West Coast would get boring for some of us.
I completely accept the fact that this is all a matter of taste and priorities.
As a popular saying goes---gentlemen prefer blonds, perhaps even if they are not too bright. As long as they are gorgeous and smile a lot, everything is forgiven. Many men will agree with that.
However, some others may prefer brunets who are pretty but not perfect. Those with depth, culture and smartness---and mood swings to keep things interesting---unlike the case with the fixed smile bimbos.
On the other hand, and on the other coast, Boston, where I live, has severe winters. There are days when the thermometer dips to zero degrees (and that is Fahrenheit) and the wind is howling. This is not the comfortable and predictable West Coast weather.
Boston is a pretty city but does not have the same spectacular beauty of SF. What it does have is a great deal of culture, history, and education. Money is of course important, just as everywhere, but somehow it does not seem as important in this city, which emphasizes what you know rather than what you own. The presence of two world famous universities of course adds a great deal to the vitality of the city by filling it with young students
Even its weather has its own charms. The beautiful white coat of winter ice melts as new buds start emerging on plants and trees. The light green shades and beautiful flowers are soon replaced by dense greenery and warm sunshine. My favorite time of the year is fall, when trees break out into all glorious colors and the days become crisp and clear. When you get used to these changes, the routine of same old same old on the West Coast would get boring for some of us.
I completely accept the fact that this is all a matter of taste and priorities.
As a popular saying goes---gentlemen prefer blonds, perhaps even if they are not too bright. As long as they are gorgeous and smile a lot, everything is forgiven. Many men will agree with that.
However, some others may prefer brunets who are pretty but not perfect. Those with depth, culture and smartness---and mood swings to keep things interesting---unlike the case with the fixed smile bimbos.
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Managing Risks
We all take risks.
“Risks are events or conditions that may occur, and whose occurrence, if it does take place, has a harmful or negative effect.” That does not sound good, and most rational human beings would like to figure out how to manage risks.
Before thinking about how to manage risks, it is very important to classify them into two categories: involuntary or voluntary and recognize that they need to be managed differently.
An involuntary risk is that associated with event over which you have little or no control. Lightening strike, car accident, health and house fire are some of the examples. Eliminating this type of risk has no negative consequences, and generally one can purchase an insurance to cover these risks.
The goal of an individual’s risk management strategy then should be to reduce overall involuntary risk to an acceptable level at a minimum cost. How does an individual manage the risk of his house burning down? Purchase an adequate coverage at minimum cost.
A voluntary risk on the other hand, is that associated with activities undertaken voluntarily, as the name would suggest. Ice climbing, diving, investing in stocks, and purchasing a house are examples of activities that involve voluntary risks. These risks are acceptable because they are by-products of activities that create benefits. Ice climbing creates pleasure, so what if there are risks involved? Generally, insurance firms will not cover these risks.
The goal of an individual should be to maximize overall benefits while taking acceptable risk. When put in practice, this would imply reducing the risk for a specific activity, of course. One should not attempt ice climbing without crampons. But it would also imply adding risk if the commensurate benefit outweigh the additional risk. Sitting home may be safe but could also be very boring!
So the strategy for managing risks that we face boils down to:
• Reduce the involuntary risk to an acceptable level at minimum cost, and at the same time,
• Maximize the benefits provided by voluntary risks while taking acceptable risk overall.
“Risks are events or conditions that may occur, and whose occurrence, if it does take place, has a harmful or negative effect.” That does not sound good, and most rational human beings would like to figure out how to manage risks.
Before thinking about how to manage risks, it is very important to classify them into two categories: involuntary or voluntary and recognize that they need to be managed differently.
An involuntary risk is that associated with event over which you have little or no control. Lightening strike, car accident, health and house fire are some of the examples. Eliminating this type of risk has no negative consequences, and generally one can purchase an insurance to cover these risks.
The goal of an individual’s risk management strategy then should be to reduce overall involuntary risk to an acceptable level at a minimum cost. How does an individual manage the risk of his house burning down? Purchase an adequate coverage at minimum cost.
A voluntary risk on the other hand, is that associated with activities undertaken voluntarily, as the name would suggest. Ice climbing, diving, investing in stocks, and purchasing a house are examples of activities that involve voluntary risks. These risks are acceptable because they are by-products of activities that create benefits. Ice climbing creates pleasure, so what if there are risks involved? Generally, insurance firms will not cover these risks.
The goal of an individual should be to maximize overall benefits while taking acceptable risk. When put in practice, this would imply reducing the risk for a specific activity, of course. One should not attempt ice climbing without crampons. But it would also imply adding risk if the commensurate benefit outweigh the additional risk. Sitting home may be safe but could also be very boring!
So the strategy for managing risks that we face boils down to:
• Reduce the involuntary risk to an acceptable level at minimum cost, and at the same time,
• Maximize the benefits provided by voluntary risks while taking acceptable risk overall.
Monday, August 1, 2011
Seduction of Simplicity
I just finished reading a book titled “Life Ascending” by Nick Lane. It talks about ten great inventions of evolution. For a person with a limited background in biochemistry and biology, this is a fascinating account on how some of the major inventions by nature---like hot blood, sight, photosynthesis or DNA--- could have evolved. Each of these inventions followed the basic rules of evolution, and took millions of years to play out. The result is this extraordinarily complex diversity of plants and animals, and of course us, the human beings.
This book clearly illustrates that years of painstaking research are required to explain how something as complex as the evolution of human being. Occasionally, wrong pathways are followed before the likely hypotheses start emerging. It also requires faith in science and its ability to explain.
For a majority of people, however, there is a simple explanation on why we are what we are---God created us in his image over a period of seven days. End of mystery.
What I am wondering is whether this is strictly driven by their faith in God and his existence or is it due to an innate belief that there has to be a simple explanation to life’s mysteries.
Are simple solutions and explanations that seductive that they can trump reason? I think so.
This, of course, is not restricted just to science. A huge chunk of our population believes that a simple solution for the financial mess we find ourselves in is reducing the size of the government and getting it out of our lives. Of course it does not bother these people that they, at the same time, want the same government to help them with retirement and pay the medical bills.
A solution that would work requires a reasoned approach, balancing the complex needs of the society with the financial pain that we all need to share. However, this is not reducible to a few sound bites and slogans, and therefore not appealing to this very vocal segment of the society. I believe that they too are seduced by the elegance of what they propose and not by their understanding of macroeconomics.
I feel the same way about the failed experiment of communism. It was such an elegant solution that provided an alternative to the messy process of democracy. It was easy to explain and enforce. (I bet their regulations and tax codes were not as massively complex as ours!). It was seductive to a great number of people.
The only problem was---it did not work.
July 2011
This book clearly illustrates that years of painstaking research are required to explain how something as complex as the evolution of human being. Occasionally, wrong pathways are followed before the likely hypotheses start emerging. It also requires faith in science and its ability to explain.
For a majority of people, however, there is a simple explanation on why we are what we are---God created us in his image over a period of seven days. End of mystery.
What I am wondering is whether this is strictly driven by their faith in God and his existence or is it due to an innate belief that there has to be a simple explanation to life’s mysteries.
Are simple solutions and explanations that seductive that they can trump reason? I think so.
This, of course, is not restricted just to science. A huge chunk of our population believes that a simple solution for the financial mess we find ourselves in is reducing the size of the government and getting it out of our lives. Of course it does not bother these people that they, at the same time, want the same government to help them with retirement and pay the medical bills.
A solution that would work requires a reasoned approach, balancing the complex needs of the society with the financial pain that we all need to share. However, this is not reducible to a few sound bites and slogans, and therefore not appealing to this very vocal segment of the society. I believe that they too are seduced by the elegance of what they propose and not by their understanding of macroeconomics.
I feel the same way about the failed experiment of communism. It was such an elegant solution that provided an alternative to the messy process of democracy. It was easy to explain and enforce. (I bet their regulations and tax codes were not as massively complex as ours!). It was seductive to a great number of people.
The only problem was---it did not work.
July 2011
Friday, July 1, 2011
Fasting as a weapon
Going on a fast until death was a strategy probably invented by Mahatma Gandhi. He used it effectively against the British to obtain concessions and meet his demands related to granting India its freedom. Although it has been used elsewhere--for example, Bobby Sands, a member of the Irish Republican Army, fasted to death in 1981--it is in India that it remains a popular way of achieving results.
The more contemporary examples are fasts conducted by Anna Hazare and Baba Ramdev to raise the issue of corruption in India and make the government do something about it
It is a pretty effective strategy. As long as the adversaries have some moral value, they would not like to see someone starve to death because of their refusal to take some actions. Besides moral compunction, there is a political reason for the other side to act --such an event would provide a strong outrage from the population at large. Finally, they need to respond quickly---the other side has only a few days before the person dies.
However, it can also be considered to be a dangerous weapon.
While no one can argue that gaining independence or removing corruption are worthwhile causes, one can see it being used to gain action on causes of dubious nature. What if someone decides to go to fast until death unless laws are passed restricting what women can wear in public? Is that a justifiable cause? Who decides if it is justifiable?
Democracies, such as India, depend on laws enacted and actions taken that would be acceptable to the majority of population, as interpreted by their elected representatives. Doesn’t the use of fasting to make things happen bypass these democratic processes?
Also, even if the cause is “just” as decided by a majority of people, and there is clearly a need to take action, how can the adversary do something that is well thought out in such a short time span? How can a 20-30 day time limit, before the fasting person irreparably harms himself/herself, provide the time necessary to chart out a well reasoned and debated course of action? I suspect that what you would get is something half baked or without serious intentions for follow up once the said fast is broken and victory declared.
Finally, there is the issue of personality of people involved. Mahatma Gandhi was clearly a person whose intentions were beyond reproach, and Anna Hazare seems to be a similar person intent upon helping people. Baba Ramdev, I am not too sure. Does he really want to help people or is this a stunt to increase his market value?
Fasting is an effective but a dangerous weapon indeed.
The more contemporary examples are fasts conducted by Anna Hazare and Baba Ramdev to raise the issue of corruption in India and make the government do something about it
It is a pretty effective strategy. As long as the adversaries have some moral value, they would not like to see someone starve to death because of their refusal to take some actions. Besides moral compunction, there is a political reason for the other side to act --such an event would provide a strong outrage from the population at large. Finally, they need to respond quickly---the other side has only a few days before the person dies.
However, it can also be considered to be a dangerous weapon.
While no one can argue that gaining independence or removing corruption are worthwhile causes, one can see it being used to gain action on causes of dubious nature. What if someone decides to go to fast until death unless laws are passed restricting what women can wear in public? Is that a justifiable cause? Who decides if it is justifiable?
Democracies, such as India, depend on laws enacted and actions taken that would be acceptable to the majority of population, as interpreted by their elected representatives. Doesn’t the use of fasting to make things happen bypass these democratic processes?
Also, even if the cause is “just” as decided by a majority of people, and there is clearly a need to take action, how can the adversary do something that is well thought out in such a short time span? How can a 20-30 day time limit, before the fasting person irreparably harms himself/herself, provide the time necessary to chart out a well reasoned and debated course of action? I suspect that what you would get is something half baked or without serious intentions for follow up once the said fast is broken and victory declared.
Finally, there is the issue of personality of people involved. Mahatma Gandhi was clearly a person whose intentions were beyond reproach, and Anna Hazare seems to be a similar person intent upon helping people. Baba Ramdev, I am not too sure. Does he really want to help people or is this a stunt to increase his market value?
Fasting is an effective but a dangerous weapon indeed.
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Simplify!
I am sure I am not alone in my desire to simplify life. Most people, whose lives are equally cluttered with things accumulated over time and activities that are without much purpose would yearn for achieving the same goal. What I am not sure is why we have this yearning to simplify and how to resolve it.
Perhaps the root cause is nostalgia. We always look back at the past and think of it as “good old days.” For most of us, we had fewer things in life in the past and hence simplification gets equated with good times.
May be it is in our DNA. I read somewhere that going back to nature is like going home. It is where we came from and within ourselves there is a strong desire to get back. Living in a cottage surrounded by nature is probably the closest we can come to going “back home” according to this theory.
Talking about living in a cottage in a forest away from people of course brings us to Henry David Thoreau. His reason for doing what he did is very well articulated in his book Walden, written when he lived near Walden Pond in Concord, some five miles from our house in Acton. He says,” I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and when I came to die discover that I had not lived.” So perhaps, we desire to simplify because we believe that in doing so we will be able to learn what life has to teach.
That sounds like a really strong reason. However putting it to practice is another matter. For most of us, giving up everything and living in the woods in not practical or may not even be advisable. Only hermits like the mad man Unabomber would opt for such a life these days. Besides if all of us decide to do what Thoreau did, we would end up destroying all the woods and quickly starving to death.
However, that does not mean that we can not reduce the clutter. We can downsize from our large dwellings, generally without suffering much pain and reduce our possessions quite drastically. We can reduce many unnecessary activities and interactions without becoming a hermit or misanthrope.
Even that is easier said than done, but I believe it is necessary to at least make an attempt. I believe in Mr. Thoreau’s philosophy. I too do not want to discover that I had not lived when I came to die.
OK, so which ones of the twenty five magazines I subscribe to right now can I stop getting?
Perhaps the root cause is nostalgia. We always look back at the past and think of it as “good old days.” For most of us, we had fewer things in life in the past and hence simplification gets equated with good times.
May be it is in our DNA. I read somewhere that going back to nature is like going home. It is where we came from and within ourselves there is a strong desire to get back. Living in a cottage surrounded by nature is probably the closest we can come to going “back home” according to this theory.
Talking about living in a cottage in a forest away from people of course brings us to Henry David Thoreau. His reason for doing what he did is very well articulated in his book Walden, written when he lived near Walden Pond in Concord, some five miles from our house in Acton. He says,” I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and when I came to die discover that I had not lived.” So perhaps, we desire to simplify because we believe that in doing so we will be able to learn what life has to teach.
That sounds like a really strong reason. However putting it to practice is another matter. For most of us, giving up everything and living in the woods in not practical or may not even be advisable. Only hermits like the mad man Unabomber would opt for such a life these days. Besides if all of us decide to do what Thoreau did, we would end up destroying all the woods and quickly starving to death.
However, that does not mean that we can not reduce the clutter. We can downsize from our large dwellings, generally without suffering much pain and reduce our possessions quite drastically. We can reduce many unnecessary activities and interactions without becoming a hermit or misanthrope.
Even that is easier said than done, but I believe it is necessary to at least make an attempt. I believe in Mr. Thoreau’s philosophy. I too do not want to discover that I had not lived when I came to die.
OK, so which ones of the twenty five magazines I subscribe to right now can I stop getting?
Sunday, May 1, 2011
End of Exploration?
April 12th this year was the fiftieth anniversary of one of the great events in human history. On that day, fifty years ago, Yuri Gagarin blasted off in his Vostok spacecraft and became the first human being to venture into space. For people around the world it was a very exciting event which led to even more adventures and “firsts” in space. The first woman in space, the first multiple person team in orbit, the first space walk…..
The culmination of these early days of space travel was the Apollo program. I clearly remember the day when Apollo 8 and its crew of three Americans (Borman, Lowell, and Anders) left earth’s orbit and headed toward the moon. For a teenager growing up in Rajkot, India, I could not think of anything that could be more exciting.
Of course, there was something more exciting on the horizon---the actual landing on the moon. I was studying in IIT during that time and was hoping to catch the live radio broadcast of Armstrong stepping on the moon. However, he decided to step outside earlier than planned (he was too excited to sit inside) and so by the time we returned from our classes, the event had happened…and the mankind had taken a giant leap.
And, it all began on April 12th 1961 with Gagarin’s flight.
However, one would not have guessed the importance of the anniversary given the complete lack of excitement about it. There was almost no mention of it in the news papers and no one I met talked about it. My broadcast email about this or posting of a video of Gagarin’s flight on Face Book was generally met by a big yawn.
I am puzzled by such lack of enthusiasm, not just by the people that I interact with, but by our society in general. I guess we are all so tied up with the current affairs that we do not have time for such frivolous activities as space exploration. After all, there is no financial rate of return on adventures like this---they only fulfill our innate curiosity to explore.
What puzzles me is that we have always financed such explorations in the past, even when the economic conditions were worse than what we have now. So, what is different now? Are there other ways by which our desire to explore being satisfied?
Maybe I am all wrong and someday there will be a manned space flight to Mars or we will establish a colony on the moon. Those will be the adventures that would captivate human beings once again and set the imaginations of then teenagers to fire.
However, given the current lack of enthusiasm for anything like this, I doubt that I would live to see that day. We have probably already arrived at the end of the days of exploration.
The culmination of these early days of space travel was the Apollo program. I clearly remember the day when Apollo 8 and its crew of three Americans (Borman, Lowell, and Anders) left earth’s orbit and headed toward the moon. For a teenager growing up in Rajkot, India, I could not think of anything that could be more exciting.
Of course, there was something more exciting on the horizon---the actual landing on the moon. I was studying in IIT during that time and was hoping to catch the live radio broadcast of Armstrong stepping on the moon. However, he decided to step outside earlier than planned (he was too excited to sit inside) and so by the time we returned from our classes, the event had happened…and the mankind had taken a giant leap.
And, it all began on April 12th 1961 with Gagarin’s flight.
However, one would not have guessed the importance of the anniversary given the complete lack of excitement about it. There was almost no mention of it in the news papers and no one I met talked about it. My broadcast email about this or posting of a video of Gagarin’s flight on Face Book was generally met by a big yawn.
I am puzzled by such lack of enthusiasm, not just by the people that I interact with, but by our society in general. I guess we are all so tied up with the current affairs that we do not have time for such frivolous activities as space exploration. After all, there is no financial rate of return on adventures like this---they only fulfill our innate curiosity to explore.
What puzzles me is that we have always financed such explorations in the past, even when the economic conditions were worse than what we have now. So, what is different now? Are there other ways by which our desire to explore being satisfied?
Maybe I am all wrong and someday there will be a manned space flight to Mars or we will establish a colony on the moon. Those will be the adventures that would captivate human beings once again and set the imaginations of then teenagers to fire.
However, given the current lack of enthusiasm for anything like this, I doubt that I would live to see that day. We have probably already arrived at the end of the days of exploration.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
