CNN, FOX News and MSNBC are carrying live feeds from Mumbai from various local news channels. They did not do this during the 2006 August / Sep Attacks that killed 200. They did not do it in the Delhi Blasts. Not during the Hyd Blasts. But they're covering this non-stop today. Why this sudden interest? Clearly, the answer must be in who is being targeted. With business interests and American citizens being targeted, the issue clearly demands more coverage in the US media.
All that is understandable, but calling this India's 9/11 (as analysts on various networks have repeatedly asserted) is incorrect. India has been grappling with terrorists for the best of 10 years right now - and is probably one of the most terror-incident prone places on the planet. This is certainly not India's 9/11. India has had more deadly terror attacks in the recent past. If any thing, this could be considered one of India's vast array of mini-9/11s.
Clearly, the perpetrators have roots in Pakistan or at least have been backed by the Pakistani ISI - an educated guess most people are making on TV. The "Deccan Mujahideen" is probably just a front for this. But I sincerely hope this does not derail talks between the Indian and the Pakistani governments. Pakistani democracy is probably one of the only hopes for stability in the region. The Pakistani government is too impotent and powerless to deal with these creeps - and is more in need for help than blame. The leigitimate Pakistani governemnt needs to be strengthened.
Perhaps the strongest response to this horrible issue would be a joint statement issued by Pakistani Prime Minister Zardari (or the Prime Minister, Gillani) and their Indian counterpart, MMS, affirming friendship in this time of terror. It is important not to fall into the animosity trap. Pakistanis are just like Indians - just as terror prone, just as scared. The terrorists want confrontation with India. Bellicose rhetoric would stifle encouraging signs shown by Zardari recently - a victory for the terrorists.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Who isn't sick of terror?
It's a sick feeling, knowing that right now, at this very moment in time, there is a horrible, perverted army of terrorists targeting one of the world's densest and most populated cities: Mumbai.
I do hope that every one of the perpetrators is either killed tonight - or brought to justice, sentenced as strictly and as soon as possible. This is one of the times that makes me glad that India has the death penalty.
Of course, there is an expectation that these attacks are somehow associated with Islamic terror. It is indeed a very likely scenario that the bunch of loons that call themselves the Indian Mujahideen are responsible for this - but I suppose the "Hindu terror" angle will also be investigated. (Personally, I don't think the Hindu terror angle is tenable here - but how can one be sure without investigating?)
I hope Mumbai does not over-react to this. Mumbai has a tendency to riot - as has been ignominously demonstrated in 1992. Mumbai has been experiencing terror periodically after 1992 - and large scale rioting has not taken place.
I wish the people of Mumbai a speedy recovery from this horrbile incident. I hope the death toll does not go up anymore, and I hope that the terrorists get what they deserve - imprisonment in an Indian jail with angry Indian inmates who like beating people up (not killing them). I don't want the guards providing any security to these terrorists.
If this kind of terrorism (the killing of innocents) is martyrdom in any faith, any place on this planet, we need to question whether the purveyors of such rhetoric ought to be regarded as human beings at all - or ought they be anhillated, like the small pox virus has been anhillated from the face of the planet?
I do hope that every one of the perpetrators is either killed tonight - or brought to justice, sentenced as strictly and as soon as possible. This is one of the times that makes me glad that India has the death penalty.
Of course, there is an expectation that these attacks are somehow associated with Islamic terror. It is indeed a very likely scenario that the bunch of loons that call themselves the Indian Mujahideen are responsible for this - but I suppose the "Hindu terror" angle will also be investigated. (Personally, I don't think the Hindu terror angle is tenable here - but how can one be sure without investigating?)
I hope Mumbai does not over-react to this. Mumbai has a tendency to riot - as has been ignominously demonstrated in 1992. Mumbai has been experiencing terror periodically after 1992 - and large scale rioting has not taken place.
I wish the people of Mumbai a speedy recovery from this horrbile incident. I hope the death toll does not go up anymore, and I hope that the terrorists get what they deserve - imprisonment in an Indian jail with angry Indian inmates who like beating people up (not killing them). I don't want the guards providing any security to these terrorists.
If this kind of terrorism (the killing of innocents) is martyrdom in any faith, any place on this planet, we need to question whether the purveyors of such rhetoric ought to be regarded as human beings at all - or ought they be anhillated, like the small pox virus has been anhillated from the face of the planet?
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
My Problems with Prop 8
Firstly, I don't remember what the correct answer to Prop 8 is. I know that it concerns gay marriage - but I don't know whether the correct answer is "yes" or "no". If you support gay marriage, do you have to vote "yes" or "no"? It's confusing. Wonder how many people were as confused as I am right now. Is there even a minor chance that it tipped the election one way or the other? Or did these votes cancel out?
But my real problem with all the hullabaloo about prop 8 is that the whose issue is merely token. Besides the symbolic "right" of getting married, there was little else at stake. Current civil unions in most US states are pretty much as good as marriages, legally. Homosexuals are not being persecuted in America - even in extremely conservative Texas. Spending vast amounts of money on campaigning for this largely token and symbolic right (of little practical value) when actual homosexuals are being stoned to death in the muslim world; being harassed for bribes by corrupt policemen in India is a shame.
Gay rights groups are being selfish. They are fighting for a luxury in this country when they could spend the same money on actual gay rights (and human rights, for that matter) around the world.
I expect that my viewpoint is unique in that it has a more international perspective considering that I am not an American citizen. I don't blame American liberals for not sharing this with me - being raised in the most prosperous society on the planet does blind and insulate one from actual ground realities around the rest of the planet.
But my real problem with all the hullabaloo about prop 8 is that the whose issue is merely token. Besides the symbolic "right" of getting married, there was little else at stake. Current civil unions in most US states are pretty much as good as marriages, legally. Homosexuals are not being persecuted in America - even in extremely conservative Texas. Spending vast amounts of money on campaigning for this largely token and symbolic right (of little practical value) when actual homosexuals are being stoned to death in the muslim world; being harassed for bribes by corrupt policemen in India is a shame.
Gay rights groups are being selfish. They are fighting for a luxury in this country when they could spend the same money on actual gay rights (and human rights, for that matter) around the world.
I expect that my viewpoint is unique in that it has a more international perspective considering that I am not an American citizen. I don't blame American liberals for not sharing this with me - being raised in the most prosperous society on the planet does blind and insulate one from actual ground realities around the rest of the planet.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Traffic Monitoring
I have always suspected that at least a million people frequent my blog every week - and that they are too nice to leave comments. So, in order to track them, I have installed a traffic monitor widget (which you shall find if you scroll down). This will help me show off my huge traffic. Maybe I can install some google ad thingy and become a millionaire overnight.
In other news (not that this is a news site), they're sending traffic policemen to the moon to regulate all the cars that are probably being driven there.
In other news (not that this is a news site), they're sending traffic policemen to the moon to regulate all the cars that are probably being driven there.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
On banning Deshdrohi
Arguments regarding social stability might be enticing - and quite convincing. But I urge the government not to give into the temptation of playing big brother.
Usurpage of personal liberties starts with something minor like banning a movie - but it is a slippery slope - and eventually, India will be a liberal democracy no more. Making people pay for merely expressing their own opinion goes against the very fabric of our democracy - the same democracy that Gandhi, Patel and countless others laid down their lives for.
Most of the Indian electorate is vastly conservative (and does not have a liberal bone in the body) - and would probably not be fully opposed to some measure like this. This perhaps poses an existential question to the notion of free speech (which the west takes for granted). Should the government compromise on free speech for the sake of public safety?
When faced with such a choice, the solution is clearly a no-brainer. Free speech is a luxury in comparison with the right to live. Free speech, alas, seems to be more of an elitist notion in a nation of unfathomable poverty.
There goes another ideal.
Usurpage of personal liberties starts with something minor like banning a movie - but it is a slippery slope - and eventually, India will be a liberal democracy no more. Making people pay for merely expressing their own opinion goes against the very fabric of our democracy - the same democracy that Gandhi, Patel and countless others laid down their lives for.
Most of the Indian electorate is vastly conservative (and does not have a liberal bone in the body) - and would probably not be fully opposed to some measure like this. This perhaps poses an existential question to the notion of free speech (which the west takes for granted). Should the government compromise on free speech for the sake of public safety?
When faced with such a choice, the solution is clearly a no-brainer. Free speech is a luxury in comparison with the right to live. Free speech, alas, seems to be more of an elitist notion in a nation of unfathomable poverty.
There goes another ideal.
Thursday, November 06, 2008
Congratulations, America!
As a liberal libertarian, I am very happy with Obama's victory. He is a smart man who probably will do an excellent job as US presidents go.
He will probably stick to the center-center-left of mainstream American politics - which would put him at the center-right of International politics. Anything is a welcome change from Bush's extreme right policies.
The election of a black man president indicates that a sufficiently well educated and prosperous society can indeed transcend racial bigotry, by and large. Now I know for sure that India will reach this state in a few decades - and I am glad.
Mr Obama's stand on the Iraq war is that it is a waste of American lives and resources. I sincerely hope that this is mere political posturing - and that he deems the damage to 1 million + Iraqi lives a shame of equal or greater magnitude than the damage to 5000 odd coalition troop lives (just by mere magnitude) . I hope he believes in his heart that all humans are fundamentally equal - even if they are not potential voters.
Mr Obama wants to do the sensible thing. Sit down and talk to Admedinijad, Chavez and the like. Of course they're thugs. (The same applies to Bush in many people's eyes all around the world)
But talking to thugs never hurt anybody - especially when there's nothing to lose and peace to gain.
Prof. Noam Chomsky's view is that Obama "is the lesser of the evils". I hope that Prof. Chomsky is being pessimistic. But looking at Clinton's Wag-The-Dog-esque bombing of a pharmaceutical plant (for instance) in Sudan killing innumerable people directly and indirectly (and still being referred to as a centrist president) perhaps justifies Prof. Chomsky's assertion that one ought not have illusions about Obama.
He will probably stick to the center-center-left of mainstream American politics - which would put him at the center-right of International politics. Anything is a welcome change from Bush's extreme right policies.
The election of a black man president indicates that a sufficiently well educated and prosperous society can indeed transcend racial bigotry, by and large. Now I know for sure that India will reach this state in a few decades - and I am glad.
Mr Obama's stand on the Iraq war is that it is a waste of American lives and resources. I sincerely hope that this is mere political posturing - and that he deems the damage to 1 million + Iraqi lives a shame of equal or greater magnitude than the damage to 5000 odd coalition troop lives (just by mere magnitude) . I hope he believes in his heart that all humans are fundamentally equal - even if they are not potential voters.
Mr Obama wants to do the sensible thing. Sit down and talk to Admedinijad, Chavez and the like. Of course they're thugs. (The same applies to Bush in many people's eyes all around the world)
But talking to thugs never hurt anybody - especially when there's nothing to lose and peace to gain.
Prof. Noam Chomsky's view is that Obama "is the lesser of the evils". I hope that Prof. Chomsky is being pessimistic. But looking at Clinton's Wag-The-Dog-esque bombing of a pharmaceutical plant (for instance) in Sudan killing innumerable people directly and indirectly (and still being referred to as a centrist president) perhaps justifies Prof. Chomsky's assertion that one ought not have illusions about Obama.
Saturday, November 01, 2008
Adventures of Peer Review Man 1: The Beginning
In a world with information corrupted by vested interests, is there any way one can get pure fact untainted by opinion; truth without spin? It's not that easy.
In this milieu of mistrust and lies was born Peer Review Man - a crusader for truth; a crusader for intellectual honesty. A crusader for all that the world holds dear.
There are many stories as to how Peer Review Man acquired his super power. Some are downright improbable. For instance there's one about him watching television as an inspired teenager as Ramar Pillai (a Indian charlatan) concocted petrol out of nowhere - defying all laws of thermodynamics. The fable goes on to say that the subsequent disillusionment of finding out that Mr. Pillai was little more than a hoax led the teenager to take a solemn vow that he would verify all that sounded fishy with peer reviewed literature. And then he proceeeded to read scientific journals day in and day-out.
There's another equally fishy one - which says that Peer Review Man is not a human being at all - but a hyper-evolved highly intellegent artificial neural network which has a built in connection to the internet (and therefore wikipedia). All fishy claims are googled and wikipediaed (this is a new word which I am coining. Webster owes me royalties.). Links are followed until peer reviewed sources are found - and therefore the truth is finally isolated.
Of course, the above sketches are abundantly improbable. Here's how he really came about.
Nagappa was an infant back then in a rural hamlet in northern Andhra Pradesh. His family wasn't particularly well to do economically. But it was a well educated family - a family well versed in the natural sciences. The Dad was a Physics enthusiast - and had lots of papers and textbooks stowed away in cabinets. The Mum was a biologist of sorts - and had her books by Darwin, Maynard Smith and the like stowed in the same cabinet.
And now, let's talk about Muriel, the mouse. (why a mouse in the middle of Andhra Pradesh has an Anglican name is beyond me). The enthusiastic mouse was scavenging for some tasty little slice of cheese (presumably) in the cabinet. Muriel, of course, did not find it, so it started nibbling on pages of Newton's Principia mechanica. After chewing Newton, it made its way to copies of Einstien's 1905 papers on special relativity and bit off the corners. Portions of Hiesenberg's thesis, Mendelleev's periodic table and Sclichting's "Boundary Layer Theory" were consumed too. As were works by Darwin, Feynman, Keynes and Fiegenbaum.
Muriel had by then pretty much binged on a rather significant quantity of paper. Most veterinarians who specialize in mice (there are a couple of the planet, I suppose) will tell you that what Muriel did was not good for its weight and cholesterol. But Muriel was a rather intrepid little mouse. She then decided to kick it up a notch - and started sipping from a tumbler of country liquor that the dad had left on the shelf. Knowing Muriel, it shall come as no surprise to the reader that what was consumed was excessive.
Muriel started feeling queasy. Nauseous. Felt like vomiting all that she had eaten. She found a little bowl on a table somewhere and just let loose in the same.
The bowl was Nagappa's cerelac (that's what infants are fed in India - and I promise, it tastes yummy!) bowl. So, nagappa made a meal of the mouse's vomit which consisted of a rather potent cocktail of portions of copies of some of seminial scientific literature laced with ethanol (and some of Muriel's gastric juices).
And thus was created Peer Review Man. AKA (to friends and family only) as Nagappa.
In this milieu of mistrust and lies was born Peer Review Man - a crusader for truth; a crusader for intellectual honesty. A crusader for all that the world holds dear.
There are many stories as to how Peer Review Man acquired his super power. Some are downright improbable. For instance there's one about him watching television as an inspired teenager as Ramar Pillai (a Indian charlatan) concocted petrol out of nowhere - defying all laws of thermodynamics. The fable goes on to say that the subsequent disillusionment of finding out that Mr. Pillai was little more than a hoax led the teenager to take a solemn vow that he would verify all that sounded fishy with peer reviewed literature. And then he proceeeded to read scientific journals day in and day-out.
There's another equally fishy one - which says that Peer Review Man is not a human being at all - but a hyper-evolved highly intellegent artificial neural network which has a built in connection to the internet (and therefore wikipedia). All fishy claims are googled and wikipediaed (this is a new word which I am coining. Webster owes me royalties.). Links are followed until peer reviewed sources are found - and therefore the truth is finally isolated.
Of course, the above sketches are abundantly improbable. Here's how he really came about.
Nagappa was an infant back then in a rural hamlet in northern Andhra Pradesh. His family wasn't particularly well to do economically. But it was a well educated family - a family well versed in the natural sciences. The Dad was a Physics enthusiast - and had lots of papers and textbooks stowed away in cabinets. The Mum was a biologist of sorts - and had her books by Darwin, Maynard Smith and the like stowed in the same cabinet.
And now, let's talk about Muriel, the mouse. (why a mouse in the middle of Andhra Pradesh has an Anglican name is beyond me). The enthusiastic mouse was scavenging for some tasty little slice of cheese (presumably) in the cabinet. Muriel, of course, did not find it, so it started nibbling on pages of Newton's Principia mechanica. After chewing Newton, it made its way to copies of Einstien's 1905 papers on special relativity and bit off the corners. Portions of Hiesenberg's thesis, Mendelleev's periodic table and Sclichting's "Boundary Layer Theory" were consumed too. As were works by Darwin, Feynman, Keynes and Fiegenbaum.
Muriel had by then pretty much binged on a rather significant quantity of paper. Most veterinarians who specialize in mice (there are a couple of the planet, I suppose) will tell you that what Muriel did was not good for its weight and cholesterol. But Muriel was a rather intrepid little mouse. She then decided to kick it up a notch - and started sipping from a tumbler of country liquor that the dad had left on the shelf. Knowing Muriel, it shall come as no surprise to the reader that what was consumed was excessive.
Muriel started feeling queasy. Nauseous. Felt like vomiting all that she had eaten. She found a little bowl on a table somewhere and just let loose in the same.
The bowl was Nagappa's cerelac (that's what infants are fed in India - and I promise, it tastes yummy!) bowl. So, nagappa made a meal of the mouse's vomit which consisted of a rather potent cocktail of portions of copies of some of seminial scientific literature laced with ethanol (and some of Muriel's gastric juices).
And thus was created Peer Review Man. AKA (to friends and family only) as Nagappa.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
What's wrong with Socialism?
If you listen to the current political rhetoric in the US of A (and it is impossible not to, with elections between two people with almost identical stands on everything so close at hand), you would get the feeling that the ideals of compassion towards the poor are dead wrong - and that poor people should not get a helping hand.
And if the government were to help the poor financially, it would be the worst thing in the world since it would be depriving an angry fat man a jacuzzi in his kitchen (or something equally excessive and ridiculous).
Defenders of capitalism seem to overlook one very fundamental flaw. All people are not born equal. Some are born rich and some are born poor. A person born rich (or at least into a well educated family) is more likely to be more successful in life. Where is the level playing field if a significant proportion of the population can just be born unlucky? Let me get this straight: capitalism as is, is certainly not a meritocracy.
Every principle of Austrian economics, every idea that Raegan's and Thacher's (or Ron Paul, for that matter) people ever had, every "free market" notion that has every come out of the university of Chicago is all brilliantly correct - except for one major, major (some would say existential) flaw. Capitalism is not a meritocracy. All are not equal in a capitalist society. This holds true when one talks about the most prosperous country in the world; the US - and even more so, when one talks about the planet as a whole. Where are the opporunities for 95% of Indians; 80% of Chinese people? I was lucky. I was born into a rich, well educated Indian family. More than a billion other Indians were not so lucky.
Alas, trying to "simulate" a genuine level playing will involve something as utterly ludicrous as the state conficiating every child and teaching them all the same way. That's never going to happen, that never should happen - and that never will happen if one is in a democracy (phew!).
So, what are the options left to equitise capitalism? How does one keep the inherent advantages of capitalism intact? Of course one has to spread the wealth around. Because the poor are poor for a reason - they were unlucky - it is not as if they are lazy. Hell, they work as hard (if not harder) as anyone else.
So, the next time some loudmouth (like Joe the Plumber, say) likes to complain about his taxes, I would like him to stare into the eyes of an impoverished 7 year old from the ghetto and say "It's your bloody fault that your parents can't feed you. I'm not going to pay my taxes. I don't care if your home is cold at night; I don't care if you don't have enough to wear. ".
Perhaps one reason why there are people like Joe the Plumber (who make a big deal out of paying their taxes) is that there's so few genuinely poor people in the US. Living in such a rich land, perhaps, has de-sensetised the average American from poverty. Stands that the average American takes over taxes might seem cruel in any other part of the world - but just rational in America.
And that's why ALL political parties in India are essentially socialist. If they were not, it would be a travesty of democracy. Non-socialistic tendencies (such as Naidu's AP and BJP's "India Shining") are usually rejected outright in India.
And if the government were to help the poor financially, it would be the worst thing in the world since it would be depriving an angry fat man a jacuzzi in his kitchen (or something equally excessive and ridiculous).
Defenders of capitalism seem to overlook one very fundamental flaw. All people are not born equal. Some are born rich and some are born poor. A person born rich (or at least into a well educated family) is more likely to be more successful in life. Where is the level playing field if a significant proportion of the population can just be born unlucky? Let me get this straight: capitalism as is, is certainly not a meritocracy.
Every principle of Austrian economics, every idea that Raegan's and Thacher's (or Ron Paul, for that matter) people ever had, every "free market" notion that has every come out of the university of Chicago is all brilliantly correct - except for one major, major (some would say existential) flaw. Capitalism is not a meritocracy. All are not equal in a capitalist society. This holds true when one talks about the most prosperous country in the world; the US - and even more so, when one talks about the planet as a whole. Where are the opporunities for 95% of Indians; 80% of Chinese people? I was lucky. I was born into a rich, well educated Indian family. More than a billion other Indians were not so lucky.
Alas, trying to "simulate" a genuine level playing will involve something as utterly ludicrous as the state conficiating every child and teaching them all the same way. That's never going to happen, that never should happen - and that never will happen if one is in a democracy (phew!).
So, what are the options left to equitise capitalism? How does one keep the inherent advantages of capitalism intact? Of course one has to spread the wealth around. Because the poor are poor for a reason - they were unlucky - it is not as if they are lazy. Hell, they work as hard (if not harder) as anyone else.
So, the next time some loudmouth (like Joe the Plumber, say) likes to complain about his taxes, I would like him to stare into the eyes of an impoverished 7 year old from the ghetto and say "It's your bloody fault that your parents can't feed you. I'm not going to pay my taxes. I don't care if your home is cold at night; I don't care if you don't have enough to wear. ".
Perhaps one reason why there are people like Joe the Plumber (who make a big deal out of paying their taxes) is that there's so few genuinely poor people in the US. Living in such a rich land, perhaps, has de-sensetised the average American from poverty. Stands that the average American takes over taxes might seem cruel in any other part of the world - but just rational in America.
And that's why ALL political parties in India are essentially socialist. If they were not, it would be a travesty of democracy. Non-socialistic tendencies (such as Naidu's AP and BJP's "India Shining") are usually rejected outright in India.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Turbulent Natural Convection
A long long time ago, when I was a graduate student at IIT Madras, I had taken a course on turbulence, and pretty much fell in love with the physics of turbulent flow.
I was already in love with natural convection - which I found fascinating - right from my undergraduate years - when our professor did a splendid job in teaching us the same. (Some "good professors" of IIT Madras are probably among the best philosophers in the world!)
Since I was in love with these subjects, in all naivete, I had put in "turbulent natural convection" as field of interest while applying for higher studies (PhD) in the US three years ago.
When I wound up here at Texas A&M, I worked on turbulent flow on the experimental side. As "application engineers", we really don't worry about quantities such as Reynolds Stresses and Turbulent Kinetic energies. We deal with deliverable and tangible quantities such as the skin friction coefficient and heat transfer coefficient. As far as experiments are concerned, the Reynolds stress might as well just go hang itself.
This is, of course, a fascinating line of inquiry. The kind of work we do is so miserably turbulent, it would be foolhardy to even try to predict some of our results analytically. This justifies our existence as experimenters. It is fascinating to note that computational tools are doing a pretty good job of reproducing experimental data.
Now, then, let's not digress. So, here I am, working on high Reynolds numbers. Such right reynolds numbers that Buoyancy does not stand a chance.
We also deal with rotating systems - which are subject to coriolis and Centrifugal forces. The centrifugal force acts like buoyancy - but for the ranges which we were studying, its effect was not that profound.
But a closer examination of experimental data indicated that it is INDEED affecting playing a significant role - we just did not know it. There's probably a nice natural convection boundary layer that set iself up in our test section - but we just did not have the resources to identify it.
Things have a bizzare way of coming true. I wanted to work on turbulent natural convection. I am working on something more complex turbulent natural convection: turbulent "mixed" convection. Just not in the way I would have visualized earlier.
(In another bizzare irony, the wife, incidentally works on transitionary natural convection all the time as she tries to clone her DNA in her lab).
I was already in love with natural convection - which I found fascinating - right from my undergraduate years - when our professor did a splendid job in teaching us the same. (Some "good professors" of IIT Madras are probably among the best philosophers in the world!)
Since I was in love with these subjects, in all naivete, I had put in "turbulent natural convection" as field of interest while applying for higher studies (PhD) in the US three years ago.
When I wound up here at Texas A&M, I worked on turbulent flow on the experimental side. As "application engineers", we really don't worry about quantities such as Reynolds Stresses and Turbulent Kinetic energies. We deal with deliverable and tangible quantities such as the skin friction coefficient and heat transfer coefficient. As far as experiments are concerned, the Reynolds stress might as well just go hang itself.
This is, of course, a fascinating line of inquiry. The kind of work we do is so miserably turbulent, it would be foolhardy to even try to predict some of our results analytically. This justifies our existence as experimenters. It is fascinating to note that computational tools are doing a pretty good job of reproducing experimental data.
Now, then, let's not digress. So, here I am, working on high Reynolds numbers. Such right reynolds numbers that Buoyancy does not stand a chance.
We also deal with rotating systems - which are subject to coriolis and Centrifugal forces. The centrifugal force acts like buoyancy - but for the ranges which we were studying, its effect was not that profound.
But a closer examination of experimental data indicated that it is INDEED affecting playing a significant role - we just did not know it. There's probably a nice natural convection boundary layer that set iself up in our test section - but we just did not have the resources to identify it.
Things have a bizzare way of coming true. I wanted to work on turbulent natural convection. I am working on something more complex turbulent natural convection: turbulent "mixed" convection. Just not in the way I would have visualized earlier.
(In another bizzare irony, the wife, incidentally works on transitionary natural convection all the time as she tries to clone her DNA in her lab).
My two cents on Economic Stimulus plans
I'm no Economist - and perhaps that isn't such a bad thing - if all economists do is dream up stupidities like the economic stimulus plan. (I allude to the $600 check that Bush and company sent every resident earlier this year and are threatening to do something similar again this year).
Because, as an engineer (and mind you, not an economist), I see that what got the whole world into this mess was, basically, Americans spending more than they could earn. (This is pretty much an American Mantra - just look at the US' fiscal deficit - which is more than India's GDP).
So, basically, America does not produce as much as it consumes. If America were a family, here's what an analogous scenario would look like:
Dad and Mum earn enough money to pay for groceries, but not enough to bankroll trips to the mall every week. But the daughters love going to the mall and buying their high fashion dresses; the sons like going to the sports shops and purchasing rifles to go hunting every week. The family likes to go on long vacation getaways and cruises to Bermuda in winter and Alaska in summer.
If they were living on a fixed income, this would never do. But what they do do is take loans, sink themselves deeper in debt. They were considering taking loans ad-infinitum to bankroll the said excesses.
If you are a family, you run into one problem: your credit history is well known. You just can't keep taking loans ad-nauseam. The lenders will know when to stop giving you money - because the lenders will lend only if there is reasonable a probability of getting the money back. The Mum and Dad are in for a rude shock one day.
But if you're the world's pre-eminent super power, things are a little different. You can keep borrowing money until ... well, until, probably, you're no more a super-power - but that's going to take a lot more time.
America is currently cutting taxes, spending like crazy on a war it it had no business starting (killing more than a million innocents (this tally includes 5000 odd coalition troops) - but let's not get started on that now). The American government is also bailing out companies such as AIG, Goldman Sachs and Freddie Mac (companies which contribute nothing directly to society) - swallowing all their sins, so to say.
On top of all that, America wants to send some more money to its citizens to spend. Given that the problem was essentially created by hedonistic overindulgence, the American government wants to rescue people from this mess by more hedonistic overindulgence. After all, alcholism has only one cure: alcohol. Or that's what Bernanke thinks.
To me, currently, the whole west is grossly unsustainable - both from an economic perspective and even more so from an environmental perspective.
What keeps me optimistic is that the current western model is so hopelessly inefficient that there's almost (almost) infinite room for improvement if prices of certain inputs go up. Suppose real "gas" prices go up from and stay at $5/gallon in the US - then the economy can adapt by becoming a little more efficient - increasing the number of hybrids, for instance and using more rail road transit. With little or no sacrifice on the standard of living front, Americans can live more "efficiently". I am sure they can do without all the useless junk mail in the mailbox, excesses as times square.....
Because, as an engineer (and mind you, not an economist), I see that what got the whole world into this mess was, basically, Americans spending more than they could earn. (This is pretty much an American Mantra - just look at the US' fiscal deficit - which is more than India's GDP).
So, basically, America does not produce as much as it consumes. If America were a family, here's what an analogous scenario would look like:
Dad and Mum earn enough money to pay for groceries, but not enough to bankroll trips to the mall every week. But the daughters love going to the mall and buying their high fashion dresses; the sons like going to the sports shops and purchasing rifles to go hunting every week. The family likes to go on long vacation getaways and cruises to Bermuda in winter and Alaska in summer.
If they were living on a fixed income, this would never do. But what they do do is take loans, sink themselves deeper in debt. They were considering taking loans ad-infinitum to bankroll the said excesses.
If you are a family, you run into one problem: your credit history is well known. You just can't keep taking loans ad-nauseam. The lenders will know when to stop giving you money - because the lenders will lend only if there is reasonable a probability of getting the money back. The Mum and Dad are in for a rude shock one day.
But if you're the world's pre-eminent super power, things are a little different. You can keep borrowing money until ... well, until, probably, you're no more a super-power - but that's going to take a lot more time.
America is currently cutting taxes, spending like crazy on a war it it had no business starting (killing more than a million innocents (this tally includes 5000 odd coalition troops) - but let's not get started on that now). The American government is also bailing out companies such as AIG, Goldman Sachs and Freddie Mac (companies which contribute nothing directly to society) - swallowing all their sins, so to say.
On top of all that, America wants to send some more money to its citizens to spend. Given that the problem was essentially created by hedonistic overindulgence, the American government wants to rescue people from this mess by more hedonistic overindulgence. After all, alcholism has only one cure: alcohol. Or that's what Bernanke thinks.
To me, currently, the whole west is grossly unsustainable - both from an economic perspective and even more so from an environmental perspective.
What keeps me optimistic is that the current western model is so hopelessly inefficient that there's almost (almost) infinite room for improvement if prices of certain inputs go up. Suppose real "gas" prices go up from and stay at $5/gallon in the US - then the economy can adapt by becoming a little more efficient - increasing the number of hybrids, for instance and using more rail road transit. With little or no sacrifice on the standard of living front, Americans can live more "efficiently". I am sure they can do without all the useless junk mail in the mailbox, excesses as times square.....
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Bible dictating policy in India?
You can't get more ridiculous than this.
There's some crazy stuff going on in the Delhi high court. I'm talking about gay sex - or at least discussions regarding the legality thereof.
Delhi's Additional Solicitor General, Mr. PP Malhotra was defending the government's stand - that gay sex should stay illegal. And what did he quote defending this point of view? A passage from the holy Bible. I am not kidding. This is real. A passage from the Holy Bible.
You can read the news report here. (Why does the writer of the article use "homosex" as if it were a real word? Maybe it ought to be.)
The holy Bible is not literally used as law in almost all liberal democracies. Even George Bush's policies are not in complete agreement with the Bible. To quote the Bible to justify a ban on Homosexuality is retrograde - and just plainly out of touch with ground realities.
The Delhi high court, thankfully, would have none of this. The judge pretty much thew the Solicitor general's defense out and asked him to cite reports from UN (and other credible sources - not scripture or opinion). The courts seem sensible.
Which brings me to another question. Was the judge doing the legistature's job? Should the judge be deciding the legality of a constitutional provision? Does he have the authority to do this? If he does, then what makes him different from a ruler - and a dictator? Just because he seems more in touch with reality does not mean that he ought to impose his ideas on people. Surely a mere judge does not have the authority to amend the constitution.
I would love to hear your take on this.
There's some crazy stuff going on in the Delhi high court. I'm talking about gay sex - or at least discussions regarding the legality thereof.
Delhi's Additional Solicitor General, Mr. PP Malhotra was defending the government's stand - that gay sex should stay illegal. And what did he quote defending this point of view? A passage from the holy Bible. I am not kidding. This is real. A passage from the Holy Bible.
You can read the news report here. (Why does the writer of the article use "homosex" as if it were a real word? Maybe it ought to be.)
The holy Bible is not literally used as law in almost all liberal democracies. Even George Bush's policies are not in complete agreement with the Bible. To quote the Bible to justify a ban on Homosexuality is retrograde - and just plainly out of touch with ground realities.
The Delhi high court, thankfully, would have none of this. The judge pretty much thew the Solicitor general's defense out and asked him to cite reports from UN (and other credible sources - not scripture or opinion). The courts seem sensible.
Which brings me to another question. Was the judge doing the legistature's job? Should the judge be deciding the legality of a constitutional provision? Does he have the authority to do this? If he does, then what makes him different from a ruler - and a dictator? Just because he seems more in touch with reality does not mean that he ought to impose his ideas on people. Surely a mere judge does not have the authority to amend the constitution.
I would love to hear your take on this.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Homosexuals in India
When the president of Iran (a loudmouth paralleled only by the current American leadership as a purveyor of religious and bellicose rhetoric) was asked a question about the mistreatment of Homosexuals in Iran while speaking at Columbia university exactly a year ago, his response as "there are no homosexuals in Iran".
I am positive that if Dr. Manmohan Singh were asked the same question he would give an equally ludicrous response if he is in agreement with the stinking pile of manure his home ministry is defending in India. Men having sex with men (gays are called MSMs in India) is illegal in India. There are an estimated 22 million felons in India - a popuplation the size of Australia - if one wants to keep count.
While the relatively progressive Ministry of health wants to legalize homosexuality (aided by the courts in India - which satirically recommend banning sexual intercourse in resonse to the Home ministry's contention that Homosexualily helps spread AIDS), the home ministry (which in my opinion should be spending most of its time trying to fight terror in cities and stopping stampedes in temples) wants to keep it illegal. This is the stupidest thing I have heard in a long while.
With ~ 22 million homosexual men (and at least half as many homosexual women in India), I think it is high time that some pragmatism takes precedence. What to me is disconcerting is that the government at the center is actually a left on center government. If the real conservatives come into power (say a Modi or an Uma Barthi), things will get only get much, much worse.
Of course, I understand that the country is too poor to be socially liberal - and I understand that expecting any socially liberal reform is asking for too much from some of the poorest and least educated people on the planet. But these are injustices which ought to be corrected. I am writing this piece not with the hope of seeing liberalization of Indian society in the immediate future. I understand that it is a long journey - but a journey of a thousand miles (1600km) starts with a single step. Hell, even the richest nations on the planet (such as the US) have leaders who are homophobic.
I am positive that if Dr. Manmohan Singh were asked the same question he would give an equally ludicrous response if he is in agreement with the stinking pile of manure his home ministry is defending in India. Men having sex with men (gays are called MSMs in India) is illegal in India. There are an estimated 22 million felons in India - a popuplation the size of Australia - if one wants to keep count.
While the relatively progressive Ministry of health wants to legalize homosexuality (aided by the courts in India - which satirically recommend banning sexual intercourse in resonse to the Home ministry's contention that Homosexualily helps spread AIDS), the home ministry (which in my opinion should be spending most of its time trying to fight terror in cities and stopping stampedes in temples) wants to keep it illegal. This is the stupidest thing I have heard in a long while.
With ~ 22 million homosexual men (and at least half as many homosexual women in India), I think it is high time that some pragmatism takes precedence. What to me is disconcerting is that the government at the center is actually a left on center government. If the real conservatives come into power (say a Modi or an Uma Barthi), things will get only get much, much worse.
Of course, I understand that the country is too poor to be socially liberal - and I understand that expecting any socially liberal reform is asking for too much from some of the poorest and least educated people on the planet. But these are injustices which ought to be corrected. I am writing this piece not with the hope of seeing liberalization of Indian society in the immediate future. I understand that it is a long journey - but a journey of a thousand miles (1600km) starts with a single step. Hell, even the richest nations on the planet (such as the US) have leaders who are homophobic.
Death of American Capitalism
Before I start bloviating, I would like to take a moment to talk about Prof. No am Chomsky. Because, thanks to today's bizzare set of circumstances, a lot of Prof. Chomsky's assertions regarding American economic policy have come astronishingly true. If he were a malicious soul, he would be saying "I told you so".
Prof. Chomsky contends that America is a socialist state to a great degree - and cites all "high technology" - which is almost always due to taxpayer money - as evidence. Where it differs from a socialist state is that the profits due to these high technologies are privatized. Today's bail-out is pretty much a text-book case of the taxpayers assuming risk and saving large private institutions that are "too big to fail".
Prof. Chomsky's contention that democracy is America is an illusion often draws a lot of flak. But looking at the house of representatives turn down a bill and then pass it on the second iteration gave one the feeling that they just did not have an option - because if they did not pass it today, it would come back tomorrow.
Prof. Chomsky's media-propaganda model stands vindicated by the shameless advocacy in the media for this plan. Fox, CNN, CBS, MSNBC, NY Times - you name it. Everyone told you you had to get this plan voted for - otherwise....
If I were Prof. Chomsky, I would certainly say "I told you so".
----------------------------
This blog would have lost all credibility had it not sounded off on the current demise of capitalism in America. I had contended earlier that American capitalism was incredibly robust and fail-safe - and this robustness made up for its apparent heartlessness. Turns out, it was not robust. And that's why, it went bust (that's a miserable doggerel - the kind I keep talking about in thet title of this blog)
Let me summarize how the Goliath that is American capitalism was felled.
Companies such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (and other mortgage under-writers) decided one fine day to make some money from the toil of poor people who do not have good "credit scores". Since these people were less likely to get loans (and everyone in the world wants to build a dream house), they were prepared to pay a little more for the loan. So they borrowed money at higher "sub-prime" rates.
So far so good. Good for the poor people - they at least got a loan and had an honest stab at living happy lives in their own roomy homes.
At that time, house prices were increasing every day. People borrowed X to buy a house with "adjustable rate" mortgages. The mortgage would charge a lower value in the beginning and would reset to a higher rate a little while later. The house would probably be worth 1.05X next year - and the 0.05 X was profit. They could then "re-negotiate" their mortgage to a lower rate - bascially using the profit to pay off some more of the principal.
All was well when everything went well. But everything can't go on perfectly forever. The housing bubble burst. Home prices did not keep going up every year. People were stuck in mortgages which they just could not afford - especially when the rates reset. Having eaten a sumptuous meal in a pricey restaurant, Americans reached for their wallet and found it empty. And the equivalent to doing their dishes was, well, foreclosure.
It does not end here. The "mortgages" were packaged and traded (before people realized that all was not well). The local banks that made these loans - well, they sold these loans (they actually sold the "risk") to investment banks and other institutions. Lehmann brothers, AIG, Bear Sterns - they all failed to see the downswing coming - and were basically destroyed by these "toxic" mortgages.
To "rescue" the market, the govenment had to do what Indian Mythology contends Lord Shiva did. It (the government) had to swallow the toxic assets (much like Lord Shiva had to swallow poision to save the angels (devas)).
One hopes that these latest developments silence the rhetoric of "small government" once and for all - but one knows that they will not. Political spin is such a powerful tool.
Prof. Chomsky contends that America is a socialist state to a great degree - and cites all "high technology" - which is almost always due to taxpayer money - as evidence. Where it differs from a socialist state is that the profits due to these high technologies are privatized. Today's bail-out is pretty much a text-book case of the taxpayers assuming risk and saving large private institutions that are "too big to fail".
Prof. Chomsky's contention that democracy is America is an illusion often draws a lot of flak. But looking at the house of representatives turn down a bill and then pass it on the second iteration gave one the feeling that they just did not have an option - because if they did not pass it today, it would come back tomorrow.
Prof. Chomsky's media-propaganda model stands vindicated by the shameless advocacy in the media for this plan. Fox, CNN, CBS, MSNBC, NY Times - you name it. Everyone told you you had to get this plan voted for - otherwise....
If I were Prof. Chomsky, I would certainly say "I told you so".
----------------------------
This blog would have lost all credibility had it not sounded off on the current demise of capitalism in America. I had contended earlier that American capitalism was incredibly robust and fail-safe - and this robustness made up for its apparent heartlessness. Turns out, it was not robust. And that's why, it went bust (that's a miserable doggerel - the kind I keep talking about in thet title of this blog)
Let me summarize how the Goliath that is American capitalism was felled.
Companies such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (and other mortgage under-writers) decided one fine day to make some money from the toil of poor people who do not have good "credit scores". Since these people were less likely to get loans (and everyone in the world wants to build a dream house), they were prepared to pay a little more for the loan. So they borrowed money at higher "sub-prime" rates.
So far so good. Good for the poor people - they at least got a loan and had an honest stab at living happy lives in their own roomy homes.
At that time, house prices were increasing every day. People borrowed X to buy a house with "adjustable rate" mortgages. The mortgage would charge a lower value in the beginning and would reset to a higher rate a little while later. The house would probably be worth 1.05X next year - and the 0.05 X was profit. They could then "re-negotiate" their mortgage to a lower rate - bascially using the profit to pay off some more of the principal.
All was well when everything went well. But everything can't go on perfectly forever. The housing bubble burst. Home prices did not keep going up every year. People were stuck in mortgages which they just could not afford - especially when the rates reset. Having eaten a sumptuous meal in a pricey restaurant, Americans reached for their wallet and found it empty. And the equivalent to doing their dishes was, well, foreclosure.
It does not end here. The "mortgages" were packaged and traded (before people realized that all was not well). The local banks that made these loans - well, they sold these loans (they actually sold the "risk") to investment banks and other institutions. Lehmann brothers, AIG, Bear Sterns - they all failed to see the downswing coming - and were basically destroyed by these "toxic" mortgages.
To "rescue" the market, the govenment had to do what Indian Mythology contends Lord Shiva did. It (the government) had to swallow the toxic assets (much like Lord Shiva had to swallow poision to save the angels (devas)).
One hopes that these latest developments silence the rhetoric of "small government" once and for all - but one knows that they will not. Political spin is such a powerful tool.
Friday, September 05, 2008
CV9ap - X414a
The year is 2049. The day is September 1st. Labor day.
Incidentally, his wife went into labor today. Everything went well. They had a baby girl.
And they were faced with the unenviable task of picking a name for their daughter. After a lot of brainstorming, they settled on CV9ap-X414a, with a small 'a'.
They chose the name because it was a unique name. A name that meant business. How many people called CV9ap would you not take seriously? They know that she would thank them for the wonderful name that they had blessed her with.
There was a catergory 5 hurricane which was forecast to hit the city that day. He had caught the forecast early in the morning, so he was prepared. He took an umbrella out of his bag and shielded little CV9ap from the 300kmph wind gust. He was quite proud of his paternal instincts.
As the author of this improbable sketch, I can perceive a certain puzzlement; a certain confusion amongst my readers. If I continue on these lines, I run the risk of sounding like a raving lunatic. So perhaps I should clear the air and make the circumstances a little more comprehensible. Shed some light, if you get my drift.
The planet has heated up thanks to human emissions (and bovine flatulence). This increase in enthalpy of the planet has created all sorts of problems. It has created more intense summers. Warmer oceans. And warmer oceans imply more intense hurricanes. And more intense hurricanes mean more death and destruction.
The real problem was not created by the hurricanes. But it was created by America's hurricane warning center. In a land with a finite number of first (and last) names, giving hurricanes people's names (and then "retiring" the deadly ones) created a rather unique problem: a shortage of first names. If you had a baby in 2006, then you would call her anything but Kartina and Rita. 2009 depleted Gustav, Fay, Hanna and Ike from the name pool. By 2015, almost all western names were out. No more Jack. No more Rob. No more Dick. No more Andrew - or Dmitri.
And with more hurricanes, the number of ineligible names started to increase exponentially with time. By 2030, even Indian names such as Vikram and Ravi were taboo.
This crisis was not without resistance. The committee to rescue names (CRN) was formed - and attempted to stop hurricanes on their tracks by dropping nuclear bombs on their path. This turned out to be a particularly ill conceived idea - because these bombs heated up the water all the more, creating the world's first catergory six storm. Saffir and Simpson were really spinning in their graves.
Attempts were made by parents at using more exotic names - any word that sounded phonetically correct was used as a name. But this scheme failed too. Here's a scenario why:
Mother: Oh wow! I am so happy to see that we have had a son. Let's see what we should call him. Let me mix some random phonetic syllables in my mind. Ah. Let us call him "purugu".
Dad: Nice. Purugu sounds nice.
Telugu Guy (appears from nowhere): You might want to reconsider that. In my native tongue, "purugu" means insect. Nothing aganist those little critters - but do you really want to call your son that?
Dad: Aw. Let's try "Kamina" instead,
You get the drift. With the world becoming more of a melting pot, one just could not find any pronounceable word which did not imply something demeaning in some language or was not a killer Hurricane.
As you can see, the only way out was to use alpha numerics. And one fine day, CV9ap-X414a became the leader of the free world. She became the president of the planet. (By 2049, all countries coalesced into one large union).
Oh. And umbrellas are a lot stronger in 2049. They can withstand category sixes with ease. Though catergory 7s (created by CRN by using a hydrogen bomb on a hurricane) are a whole different ball game.
Incidentally, his wife went into labor today. Everything went well. They had a baby girl.
And they were faced with the unenviable task of picking a name for their daughter. After a lot of brainstorming, they settled on CV9ap-X414a, with a small 'a'.
They chose the name because it was a unique name. A name that meant business. How many people called CV9ap would you not take seriously? They know that she would thank them for the wonderful name that they had blessed her with.
There was a catergory 5 hurricane which was forecast to hit the city that day. He had caught the forecast early in the morning, so he was prepared. He took an umbrella out of his bag and shielded little CV9ap from the 300kmph wind gust. He was quite proud of his paternal instincts.
As the author of this improbable sketch, I can perceive a certain puzzlement; a certain confusion amongst my readers. If I continue on these lines, I run the risk of sounding like a raving lunatic. So perhaps I should clear the air and make the circumstances a little more comprehensible. Shed some light, if you get my drift.
The planet has heated up thanks to human emissions (and bovine flatulence). This increase in enthalpy of the planet has created all sorts of problems. It has created more intense summers. Warmer oceans. And warmer oceans imply more intense hurricanes. And more intense hurricanes mean more death and destruction.
The real problem was not created by the hurricanes. But it was created by America's hurricane warning center. In a land with a finite number of first (and last) names, giving hurricanes people's names (and then "retiring" the deadly ones) created a rather unique problem: a shortage of first names. If you had a baby in 2006, then you would call her anything but Kartina and Rita. 2009 depleted Gustav, Fay, Hanna and Ike from the name pool. By 2015, almost all western names were out. No more Jack. No more Rob. No more Dick. No more Andrew - or Dmitri.
And with more hurricanes, the number of ineligible names started to increase exponentially with time. By 2030, even Indian names such as Vikram and Ravi were taboo.
This crisis was not without resistance. The committee to rescue names (CRN) was formed - and attempted to stop hurricanes on their tracks by dropping nuclear bombs on their path. This turned out to be a particularly ill conceived idea - because these bombs heated up the water all the more, creating the world's first catergory six storm. Saffir and Simpson were really spinning in their graves.
Attempts were made by parents at using more exotic names - any word that sounded phonetically correct was used as a name. But this scheme failed too. Here's a scenario why:
Mother: Oh wow! I am so happy to see that we have had a son. Let's see what we should call him. Let me mix some random phonetic syllables in my mind. Ah. Let us call him "purugu".
Dad: Nice. Purugu sounds nice.
Telugu Guy (appears from nowhere): You might want to reconsider that. In my native tongue, "purugu" means insect. Nothing aganist those little critters - but do you really want to call your son that?
Dad: Aw. Let's try "Kamina" instead,
You get the drift. With the world becoming more of a melting pot, one just could not find any pronounceable word which did not imply something demeaning in some language or was not a killer Hurricane.
As you can see, the only way out was to use alpha numerics. And one fine day, CV9ap-X414a became the leader of the free world. She became the president of the planet. (By 2049, all countries coalesced into one large union).
Oh. And umbrellas are a lot stronger in 2049. They can withstand category sixes with ease. Though catergory 7s (created by CRN by using a hydrogen bomb on a hurricane) are a whole different ball game.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
God and the Hurricane
Picture this.
There's this monster of a hurricane churning in the Gulf of Mexico. And no one knows where it will go. From Mexico to West Florida. It can go anywhere. A large section of the US bible belt coast-line is in the firing line, as is south Texas and northern Mexico. Everyone is worried.
Now, let's focus on a typical rural scenario. There's this small town-by-the-sea somewhere in Louisiana. There's a rather unusual absence of vehicles on the roads. The place bears a deserted look. Because all the cars that are not on the road are at Church. Because, they reckon, only god can save them from the hurricane. Having seen New Orleans after Katrina, their sentiment is understandable. So, they pray. They pray for the hurricane to go away. They pray for the path of the hurricane to spare their helpless little parish.
The aforementioned scenario is generic. Take that scenario and multiply it by the number of churches on the gulf coast (an octillion or so).
And that's how many prayers god received in his inbox one morning, much to his chagrin. All these requests to alter the path of the hurricane posed quite an ugly problem to him. Because, one man's request was another man's nightmare. By responding positively to a prayer from church A in Louisiana, he could in fact be going against a prayer from Church B in Texas - which would cause a mass-loss-of-faith in Texas - something undesirable to god. For religion is all about making people gain faith, not lose it.
God was faced with an extremely tough optimization problem. What course could he undertake to minimize the damage to his good name? He could choose to inflict the damage in the most sparsely populated area along the gulf coast;hHe could also choose to inflict the damage on the area with the least density of believers; on the area with the least number of churches or perhaps the area with the largest number of criminals. To god, the objective function of the optimization problem itself was quite nebulous.
Before we talk about god's decision, let us take a minor digression. Let us talk about a hypothetical little village in northern Mexico. Let's call it D. A wretched, poor little village. A village so poor that most people do not have access to news on TV. A village where most people did not know about the hurricane until the government asked them to evacuate. No time for prayers.
It was quite unfortunate for the residents of D that god decided to go by the "prayer density" objective function. He decided to direct the hurricane into the area from which he received the least number of prayers per hundred documented residents. Thousands perished. D was below sea level.
Moral of story:
Pray. Watch TV. Don't be poor.
There's this monster of a hurricane churning in the Gulf of Mexico. And no one knows where it will go. From Mexico to West Florida. It can go anywhere. A large section of the US bible belt coast-line is in the firing line, as is south Texas and northern Mexico. Everyone is worried.
Now, let's focus on a typical rural scenario. There's this small town-by-the-sea somewhere in Louisiana. There's a rather unusual absence of vehicles on the roads. The place bears a deserted look. Because all the cars that are not on the road are at Church. Because, they reckon, only god can save them from the hurricane. Having seen New Orleans after Katrina, their sentiment is understandable. So, they pray. They pray for the hurricane to go away. They pray for the path of the hurricane to spare their helpless little parish.
The aforementioned scenario is generic. Take that scenario and multiply it by the number of churches on the gulf coast (an octillion or so).
And that's how many prayers god received in his inbox one morning, much to his chagrin. All these requests to alter the path of the hurricane posed quite an ugly problem to him. Because, one man's request was another man's nightmare. By responding positively to a prayer from church A in Louisiana, he could in fact be going against a prayer from Church B in Texas - which would cause a mass-loss-of-faith in Texas - something undesirable to god. For religion is all about making people gain faith, not lose it.
God was faced with an extremely tough optimization problem. What course could he undertake to minimize the damage to his good name? He could choose to inflict the damage in the most sparsely populated area along the gulf coast;hHe could also choose to inflict the damage on the area with the least density of believers; on the area with the least number of churches or perhaps the area with the largest number of criminals. To god, the objective function of the optimization problem itself was quite nebulous.
Before we talk about god's decision, let us take a minor digression. Let us talk about a hypothetical little village in northern Mexico. Let's call it D. A wretched, poor little village. A village so poor that most people do not have access to news on TV. A village where most people did not know about the hurricane until the government asked them to evacuate. No time for prayers.
It was quite unfortunate for the residents of D that god decided to go by the "prayer density" objective function. He decided to direct the hurricane into the area from which he received the least number of prayers per hundred documented residents. Thousands perished. D was below sea level.
Moral of story:
Pray. Watch TV. Don't be poor.
Friday, August 22, 2008
To Hell With Endangered Species
Ecosystems on this planet are in an eternal state of flux. Life adapts to its environment in a perpetual sequence of birth and extinction. While few species become dominant and successful - thriving on the available resources, many go extinct, unable to cope up with competition for the eternally scarce resources.
The human race, of late, has found the planet quite welcoming. You can find a human being almost everywhere. From the parched deserts of Saudi Arabia to the frigid infinities of Siberia; from the torrid heat of Sub-saharan Africa to the fertile plains of the Ganga; from the lowlands of death valley (I'm sure there's a guy living there) to the hills of Switzerland.
Just like cancer spreads around the body, the human race has spread around the planet. The human race is a miracle of evolution (so miraculous that most humans themselves, unable to believe it themselves, believe in a "god" to fill up the blank). I feel reasonably sure in contending that it is probably the only race in this history of planet earth which figured out how life came about - or at least made an effort in that direction. (Almost all cultures have made efforts in that direction - even the tribals have dieties that they worship. No culture pulls a blank when they are asked "How did the world come about?".)
The human race has placed a great strain on earth's the eco-system. Modern humans do not compete with other species for resources. Humanity usurps resources at will, driving all competition to extinction. Humanity is to its colleagues in the eco-system what Vito Corleone is to the New York city mobsters. (Only, humanity is not out to exact revenge.)
I am a firm believer in Darwinism. If I were alone in pristine wilderness and I saw an animal wounded, I would not stop and save it. I would let it die (it will feed other littler creatures that count of these sorts of windfalls for their very existence). So, I am more than happy to see the unfit perish.
Animals that are being driven to extinction are being driven to extinction because they are weak. Let them die. Why should we save them?
Additionally, what is the point of saving the tiger in India? Its numbers have dwindled so drastically, that it is as good as inexistent in the larger picture. Its impact on the overall eco-system is exactly zero. I say, to hell with the tiger. Don't waste money trying to conserve it.
They're going to die as soon as we stop pouring money into them. Because they roamed a huge area before. A few square kilometers in a national park are never going to do them any justice.
Spend that money on other environmental causes. Like increasing the number and size of national parks.
The same applies to the california condor (there's about 50 of them left). Because as soon as the efforts stop, the condors will begin their descent into extinction all over again. They just have no habitat left.
The human race likes to get the impression that it is having the cake and eating it too. Just like people get a warm fuzzy feeling when they witness their philanthrophy feeding an underpreviliged third world kid, they get the same feeling when they see their donations rescue a tiger from "extinction".
And to me, there is something fundamentally unethical and hypocritical about eating meat (when there are extremely healthy and tasty vegetarian alternatives) and then making attempts to save endangered species.
The only sustainable way out is to just forget about the tigers and the condors. To hell with endangered species.
The human race, of late, has found the planet quite welcoming. You can find a human being almost everywhere. From the parched deserts of Saudi Arabia to the frigid infinities of Siberia; from the torrid heat of Sub-saharan Africa to the fertile plains of the Ganga; from the lowlands of death valley (I'm sure there's a guy living there) to the hills of Switzerland.
Just like cancer spreads around the body, the human race has spread around the planet. The human race is a miracle of evolution (so miraculous that most humans themselves, unable to believe it themselves, believe in a "god" to fill up the blank). I feel reasonably sure in contending that it is probably the only race in this history of planet earth which figured out how life came about - or at least made an effort in that direction. (Almost all cultures have made efforts in that direction - even the tribals have dieties that they worship. No culture pulls a blank when they are asked "How did the world come about?".)
The human race has placed a great strain on earth's the eco-system. Modern humans do not compete with other species for resources. Humanity usurps resources at will, driving all competition to extinction. Humanity is to its colleagues in the eco-system what Vito Corleone is to the New York city mobsters. (Only, humanity is not out to exact revenge.)
I am a firm believer in Darwinism. If I were alone in pristine wilderness and I saw an animal wounded, I would not stop and save it. I would let it die (it will feed other littler creatures that count of these sorts of windfalls for their very existence). So, I am more than happy to see the unfit perish.
Animals that are being driven to extinction are being driven to extinction because they are weak. Let them die. Why should we save them?
Additionally, what is the point of saving the tiger in India? Its numbers have dwindled so drastically, that it is as good as inexistent in the larger picture. Its impact on the overall eco-system is exactly zero. I say, to hell with the tiger. Don't waste money trying to conserve it.
They're going to die as soon as we stop pouring money into them. Because they roamed a huge area before. A few square kilometers in a national park are never going to do them any justice.
Spend that money on other environmental causes. Like increasing the number and size of national parks.
The same applies to the california condor (there's about 50 of them left). Because as soon as the efforts stop, the condors will begin their descent into extinction all over again. They just have no habitat left.
The human race likes to get the impression that it is having the cake and eating it too. Just like people get a warm fuzzy feeling when they witness their philanthrophy feeding an underpreviliged third world kid, they get the same feeling when they see their donations rescue a tiger from "extinction".
And to me, there is something fundamentally unethical and hypocritical about eating meat (when there are extremely healthy and tasty vegetarian alternatives) and then making attempts to save endangered species.
The only sustainable way out is to just forget about the tigers and the condors. To hell with endangered species.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
77% of India below Rs 20 a day?
Mr. Budhadeb Acharya, a Marxist made this proclamation on the floor of the parliament. Frankly, this analysis scared me. I am quite comfortable with my "feel" of macroeconomic indicators of nations that "matter" (to me). This Rs 20 a day statement confounded me.
And here's why. India's nominal per-capita income is Rs 40,000 per year (and this is the average of multiple sources). This becomes Rs 110 per day, a far cry from Rs. 20 per day. So, if 80% of the country lives (as alleged) on Rs 20 per day, then the other 20% (220 million) must be living very, very prosperously.
So, I went ahead with some fact-checking.
Turns out, Mr. Acharya was quoting a very, very confused study. The sudy in question was conducted by National Commission for Enterprises in Unorganized Sector (NCEUS). This article from the Indian arm of Rupert Murdoch's WSJ put things in perspective. The study "accounted" for purchasing power parity. The reality is that 80% of India lives on less than $2 a day - or Rs 80 a day. (The corresponding income is 2400 per month - or Rs 10k per month for a familty of four).
The geniuses behind the study recognized that Each American dollar becomes Rs 10 in "purchasing power" - and went ahead and proclaimed that 80% of India earns Rs 20 a day. This statistic is true only if an Indian works in India, earns his Rs 80, somehow spontaneously materializes in the US, converts his Rs 80 to $2, goes grocery shopping in the US, dematerializes from the US and re-materializes in India to work again.
The study ought have said "80% of India earns $8 a day".
What disconcerts me is that there are absolutely no editorials, no comments about this blunder which was uttered in the parliament. For isntance, The Hindu carried his comments as if this were some factoid.
I think Mr. Acharya got carried away when he was trying to quote some "statistics" to butress his cause. I don't blame him - any statistic is a good statistic if you're trying to make a point.
This sadly proves to me that the best minds in India certainly don't go into mass media.
And here's why. India's nominal per-capita income is Rs 40,000 per year (and this is the average of multiple sources). This becomes Rs 110 per day, a far cry from Rs. 20 per day. So, if 80% of the country lives (as alleged) on Rs 20 per day, then the other 20% (220 million) must be living very, very prosperously.
So, I went ahead with some fact-checking.
Turns out, Mr. Acharya was quoting a very, very confused study. The sudy in question was conducted by National Commission for Enterprises in Unorganized Sector (NCEUS). This article from the Indian arm of Rupert Murdoch's WSJ put things in perspective. The study "accounted" for purchasing power parity. The reality is that 80% of India lives on less than $2 a day - or Rs 80 a day. (The corresponding income is 2400 per month - or Rs 10k per month for a familty of four).
The geniuses behind the study recognized that Each American dollar becomes Rs 10 in "purchasing power" - and went ahead and proclaimed that 80% of India earns Rs 20 a day. This statistic is true only if an Indian works in India, earns his Rs 80, somehow spontaneously materializes in the US, converts his Rs 80 to $2, goes grocery shopping in the US, dematerializes from the US and re-materializes in India to work again.
The study ought have said "80% of India earns $8 a day".
What disconcerts me is that there are absolutely no editorials, no comments about this blunder which was uttered in the parliament. For isntance, The Hindu carried his comments as if this were some factoid.
I think Mr. Acharya got carried away when he was trying to quote some "statistics" to butress his cause. I don't blame him - any statistic is a good statistic if you're trying to make a point.
This sadly proves to me that the best minds in India certainly don't go into mass media.
Friday, June 20, 2008
A Case for Vegetarianism
I am scared right now. Petrified. Mortified. The whole world is in big trouble right now. The proverbial shit has more or less hit the fan.
Fidel Castro, in what is now a classic letter (written in 2007), lamented about the growth in use of biofuels. He felt it fundamentally unethical to put food inside the fuel tank.
A little more than a year down the line - and here we are. Food prices are headed north all around the world. Inflation in India has reached double figures. All the gradual progress that was made over the last few decades .. uplifting the 100 million people or so from poverty .. all that could disappear if the prices do not drop quickly.
Let me go on a limb here and make some guesses. I am assuming that the reader of this article is not accustomed to feeling hunger (because, in all probability, he or she is rich enough to afford a decent meal). Almost all the people I know in India and in the US are rich. Almost all the people that we know are rich. As a consequence, all of us are more or less spent forces in actually empathizing with the billions of hungry on this planet.
The planet (populated like never before) is facing a massive shortage of food grains. It is not as if the planet is not growing enough food. We're growing enough to feed 9 billion vegetarian people. It's just that the rich have billions of cows, pigs and hens to feed (and eventually eat) - and they do so by snatching the food away from the mouths of the poorest of the poor in India, Africa and China.
When billions of people on this planet cannot afford a decent meal, does it make ethical sense to consume foods which eat what the poorest of poor could eat? Is is humbling to know that more crops are consumed by animals that are eaten as meat than actual human beings.
Add to this the further ethical bankruptcy of causing pain to a sentient being when one could very well have avoided doing so. Animals suffer when killed. They don't like it. Ought we be torturing them like this?
Further, it takes much more energy to raise animals to be killed and eaten. It requires much more resources. And with the planet boiling over - a gram of CO2 saved from going up into the atmosphere is worth its weight in gold.
I only hope that people eat meat because they are ignorant of these hard facts. But I have a deeper, more nagging suspicion. Evolution has hard wired a certain hypocrisy into humans. People can live happy lives fully cognizant of the fact that their actions have contributed to the silent genocide that is third world hunger - but not care enough to mend their ways. Because all there is to life is fornicating and passing on one's genes.
Fidel Castro, in what is now a classic letter (written in 2007), lamented about the growth in use of biofuels. He felt it fundamentally unethical to put food inside the fuel tank.
A little more than a year down the line - and here we are. Food prices are headed north all around the world. Inflation in India has reached double figures. All the gradual progress that was made over the last few decades .. uplifting the 100 million people or so from poverty .. all that could disappear if the prices do not drop quickly.
Let me go on a limb here and make some guesses. I am assuming that the reader of this article is not accustomed to feeling hunger (because, in all probability, he or she is rich enough to afford a decent meal). Almost all the people I know in India and in the US are rich. Almost all the people that we know are rich. As a consequence, all of us are more or less spent forces in actually empathizing with the billions of hungry on this planet.
The planet (populated like never before) is facing a massive shortage of food grains. It is not as if the planet is not growing enough food. We're growing enough to feed 9 billion vegetarian people. It's just that the rich have billions of cows, pigs and hens to feed (and eventually eat) - and they do so by snatching the food away from the mouths of the poorest of the poor in India, Africa and China.
When billions of people on this planet cannot afford a decent meal, does it make ethical sense to consume foods which eat what the poorest of poor could eat? Is is humbling to know that more crops are consumed by animals that are eaten as meat than actual human beings.
Add to this the further ethical bankruptcy of causing pain to a sentient being when one could very well have avoided doing so. Animals suffer when killed. They don't like it. Ought we be torturing them like this?
Further, it takes much more energy to raise animals to be killed and eaten. It requires much more resources. And with the planet boiling over - a gram of CO2 saved from going up into the atmosphere is worth its weight in gold.
I only hope that people eat meat because they are ignorant of these hard facts. But I have a deeper, more nagging suspicion. Evolution has hard wired a certain hypocrisy into humans. People can live happy lives fully cognizant of the fact that their actions have contributed to the silent genocide that is third world hunger - but not care enough to mend their ways. Because all there is to life is fornicating and passing on one's genes.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Look East, Not West
There is this tendency among a lot of well-to-do Indians of looking at America as a model of development. This could owe a lot to the US' pre-eminence as a super-power on this planet; its (relatively) liberal immigration policy (creating a million or so Indian immigrants); mind-boggling technological breakthroughs in its universities and corporations and the perception of glamour (a "sexiness", if you will) associated with all things American (such as Hollywood and the ipod).
Americans are a pampered lot. They have a lot of area for each person (there's only 36 people per square kilometer here: that's 10 times area per person than India) - which makes being an American an inherently prosperous proposition.
A more relevant model of development can be found further to the west of the US - across the international date-line. Japan.
With 330 people per square kilometer - the same as the Indian population density - Japan is the world's third largest economy in absolute terms (China replaced Japan in the second spot a few years ago). With the same amount of "geographical luck" as an Indian has, the Japanese have managed to make their people some of the most prosperous in the world.
Japan's per capita GDP (ppp) is $33k per year. Japan's energy consumption is ~4000 kgoe/year (kilo-grams of oil-equivalent/year), whereas the American values are $45k per year and 8000kgoe/year. Simply put, the average Japanese person is twice as green and twice as lean as the average American. (Links to GDP and kgoe data)
There's this interesting metric to measure how "energy-efficiently" each dollar of GDP is produced. It's the GDP per-capita on the ordinate and the GDP per MBTU on the abcissa plot, which is reproduced below:
Japan is clearly more efficient than the US even this perspective. (If you ask me, this perspective is skewed in measuring efficiency. Supposing a nation were to grow a lot of crops and throw them away in trash cans (like the US does - check out any fast food chain trash cans!), the above metric of energy efficiency would consider the energy in growing the crops energy well spent. As a matter of fact, I consider this a garbage metric for this very reason).
Japan's economic growth was characterized by decades of 10% + GDP growth (fueled by a cocktail of government protectionism and foreign investment). This was called the "Japanese Economic Growth Miracle", for that it was. This period of stellar growth culminated in a major recession - and finally in a hopelessly inverted population pyramid. It is unlikely that Japan will achieve significant growth again: but Japan is still an extremely prosperous nation. A Japan (or an America or a Europe) in recession is still in a much better shape than a 10% per-year growing India (or China) from the most important perspective: the social perspective.
Indian development will be more like Japan's than America's. (China's, on the other hand is more likely to be like a more slightly efficient version of America's - China lot more people (130) per square kilometer than the US (36)).
When this optimistic argument about India's future is made in front of people, they come up with a ridiculous theory of the Japanese being "genetically industrious" and that the Indians are "genetically lethargic". I think this is a load of poppycock. The Indian economy has grown leaps and bounds after Dr. Singh set it free in 1991; poverty has fallen (though the rich have become a tad bit richer) beyond what people could contemplate in the 1980s. (Yes, there are still pockets of poverty in India - farmers still keep committing suicide - but it is indeed becoming an actual electoral issue. This is exactly the kind of issue that populism can solve, I believe.).
And the next time people tell me that compared with democracies in the developed world, Indian democracy is too ugly: I have a few aces up my sleeve. I will tell them about the incredibly stupid gridlock in the Japanese parliament that let a $1 per gallon petrol tax expire for a few days - dropping the price of petrol ("gas") at the pump immediately. (Yes, this did happen! And the prime minister apologized for this retrograde step.).
Americans are a pampered lot. They have a lot of area for each person (there's only 36 people per square kilometer here: that's 10 times area per person than India) - which makes being an American an inherently prosperous proposition.
A more relevant model of development can be found further to the west of the US - across the international date-line. Japan.
With 330 people per square kilometer - the same as the Indian population density - Japan is the world's third largest economy in absolute terms (China replaced Japan in the second spot a few years ago). With the same amount of "geographical luck" as an Indian has, the Japanese have managed to make their people some of the most prosperous in the world.
Japan's per capita GDP (ppp) is $33k per year. Japan's energy consumption is ~4000 kgoe/year (kilo-grams of oil-equivalent/year), whereas the American values are $45k per year and 8000kgoe/year. Simply put, the average Japanese person is twice as green and twice as lean as the average American. (Links to GDP and kgoe data)
There's this interesting metric to measure how "energy-efficiently" each dollar of GDP is produced. It's the GDP per-capita on the ordinate and the GDP per MBTU on the abcissa plot, which is reproduced below:
Japan is clearly more efficient than the US even this perspective. (If you ask me, this perspective is skewed in measuring efficiency. Supposing a nation were to grow a lot of crops and throw them away in trash cans (like the US does - check out any fast food chain trash cans!), the above metric of energy efficiency would consider the energy in growing the crops energy well spent. As a matter of fact, I consider this a garbage metric for this very reason).Japan's economic growth was characterized by decades of 10% + GDP growth (fueled by a cocktail of government protectionism and foreign investment). This was called the "Japanese Economic Growth Miracle", for that it was. This period of stellar growth culminated in a major recession - and finally in a hopelessly inverted population pyramid. It is unlikely that Japan will achieve significant growth again: but Japan is still an extremely prosperous nation. A Japan (or an America or a Europe) in recession is still in a much better shape than a 10% per-year growing India (or China) from the most important perspective: the social perspective.
Indian development will be more like Japan's than America's. (China's, on the other hand is more likely to be like a more slightly efficient version of America's - China lot more people (130) per square kilometer than the US (36)).
When this optimistic argument about India's future is made in front of people, they come up with a ridiculous theory of the Japanese being "genetically industrious" and that the Indians are "genetically lethargic". I think this is a load of poppycock. The Indian economy has grown leaps and bounds after Dr. Singh set it free in 1991; poverty has fallen (though the rich have become a tad bit richer) beyond what people could contemplate in the 1980s. (Yes, there are still pockets of poverty in India - farmers still keep committing suicide - but it is indeed becoming an actual electoral issue. This is exactly the kind of issue that populism can solve, I believe.).
And the next time people tell me that compared with democracies in the developed world, Indian democracy is too ugly: I have a few aces up my sleeve. I will tell them about the incredibly stupid gridlock in the Japanese parliament that let a $1 per gallon petrol tax expire for a few days - dropping the price of petrol ("gas") at the pump immediately. (Yes, this did happen! And the prime minister apologized for this retrograde step.).
Friday, June 06, 2008
Beedle Beedle Beedle
Jim Davis has given Jon Arbuckle (and Garfield, the fat feline) cell-phones. These cell-phones don't tring-tring or beep beep. They beedle-beedle-beedle.
My current cell-phone allows me to use any peice of music (any mp3) as a ring-tone. It allows me to use a midi of Beethoven's ninth (that I can download off the internet). It has that "I like big butts" disaster built in as a ring tone.
But when one searches for something that sounds like a phone ringing, alas, my cell-phone does not even get as close as beedle-beedle-beedle. The best I can do it that ghastly tune that at&t bundles every phone with.
I have toyed with the idea of tweeting into the phone (tring-tring). But I suspect that it would be extra-embarassing - so I won't do it. I could get one of those birds to tweet into the phone and record a ring-tone. But (a) Birds have an understandable tendency to wing it when one makes oneself proximate to them (b) Even if one does (somehow) manage to sneak up to a location close enough to one of those birds to record a statement, birds are remarkably recalcitrant.
Technology has scored one over me. It is almost impossible to install a respectable ring tone on my cell-phone. I shall enviously look back at the old days when men sounded like men, phones sounded like phones and little furry creatures from alpha centauri sounded like little furry creatures from alpha centauri.
My current cell-phone allows me to use any peice of music (any mp3) as a ring-tone. It allows me to use a midi of Beethoven's ninth (that I can download off the internet). It has that "I like big butts" disaster built in as a ring tone.
But when one searches for something that sounds like a phone ringing, alas, my cell-phone does not even get as close as beedle-beedle-beedle. The best I can do it that ghastly tune that at&t bundles every phone with.
I have toyed with the idea of tweeting into the phone (tring-tring). But I suspect that it would be extra-embarassing - so I won't do it. I could get one of those birds to tweet into the phone and record a ring-tone. But (a) Birds have an understandable tendency to wing it when one makes oneself proximate to them (b) Even if one does (somehow) manage to sneak up to a location close enough to one of those birds to record a statement, birds are remarkably recalcitrant.
Technology has scored one over me. It is almost impossible to install a respectable ring tone on my cell-phone. I shall enviously look back at the old days when men sounded like men, phones sounded like phones and little furry creatures from alpha centauri sounded like little furry creatures from alpha centauri.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)