Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Happy Father's Day. What does it mean?
We all know what it means. But what does it really mean for the 24 million households in the US that do not have a father living under the same roof.
California stops jail visitation
"Give a dog a bad name and hang him." Could there be a more apt representation of this idoim in real life?
Please stay tuned for a detailed analysis.
Please stay tuned for a detailed analysis.
Monday, June 7, 2010
Searching for answers among world religions
Stephen Prothero was interviewed by C-SPAN recently, as a junked for his new book, "God Is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions That Run the World--and Why Their Differences Matter." (Link to Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/God-Not-One-World-Differences/dp/006157127X).
Dr Prothero is a Professor of Religion at Boston University. He is certainly not a novice in this field, and is well qualified to write a book on this topic. Here is a link to the interview: http://www.booktv.org/Program/11556/After+Words+Stephen+Prothero+God+is+Not+One+interviewed+by+Sally+Quinn.aspx
The most interesting exchange came towards the end of the interview when Dr Prothero was asked how he would define his own religious persuation. He paused. It seemed this question was not expected. The interviewer (Susan Quinn) suggested, based on his writings and earlier comments during the show, if perhaps he was a Daoist. Again, he paused, and then refused to name his pick.
He declared himself a confused centrist of sorts - someone who was not a Christian, or a Muslim or a Jew, or a Daoist, or a follower of any of the hundreds of ancient beliefs. He wasn't any of them and yet, he also wasn't against any of them. He was, therefore, right in the middle of the debate - the place from where questions are asked. He wanted to be the one asking the questions, but seemed unwilling to accept their answers at the face value.
This seems odd, specially as it comes from the mouth of a person with an extensive knowledge about world religions even before he embarked upon this subject. Then, the writing process itself took him to explorations in various corners of the world. He met with people, heard their points of views, had discussions with them and formulated enough of an opinion to be able to represent them on his pages. (One hopes that the book contains accurate representations of his subjects' viewpoints. Unfortunately, the scribe has not had a chance to read this book and is not qualified to comment on any specific coverage.)
The perplexing part of his response was the focus of an academic on asking questions and not on the answers. If such a person fails to find answers, then it seriously limits the book to a disconnected and superficial discourse of religious rites, and nothing more than that. This is a shame because a book on such a deep topic should instead have focused on identifying attributes that have been internalized by all religions, in an attempt to find what joins us together.
It's possible for that quest to have found some interesting, and relevant answers.
Dr Prothero is a Professor of Religion at Boston University. He is certainly not a novice in this field, and is well qualified to write a book on this topic. Here is a link to the interview: http://www.booktv.org/Program/11556/After+Words+Stephen+Prothero+God+is+Not+One+interviewed+by+Sally+Quinn.aspx
The most interesting exchange came towards the end of the interview when Dr Prothero was asked how he would define his own religious persuation. He paused. It seemed this question was not expected. The interviewer (Susan Quinn) suggested, based on his writings and earlier comments during the show, if perhaps he was a Daoist. Again, he paused, and then refused to name his pick.
He declared himself a confused centrist of sorts - someone who was not a Christian, or a Muslim or a Jew, or a Daoist, or a follower of any of the hundreds of ancient beliefs. He wasn't any of them and yet, he also wasn't against any of them. He was, therefore, right in the middle of the debate - the place from where questions are asked. He wanted to be the one asking the questions, but seemed unwilling to accept their answers at the face value.
This seems odd, specially as it comes from the mouth of a person with an extensive knowledge about world religions even before he embarked upon this subject. Then, the writing process itself took him to explorations in various corners of the world. He met with people, heard their points of views, had discussions with them and formulated enough of an opinion to be able to represent them on his pages. (One hopes that the book contains accurate representations of his subjects' viewpoints. Unfortunately, the scribe has not had a chance to read this book and is not qualified to comment on any specific coverage.)
The perplexing part of his response was the focus of an academic on asking questions and not on the answers. If such a person fails to find answers, then it seriously limits the book to a disconnected and superficial discourse of religious rites, and nothing more than that. This is a shame because a book on such a deep topic should instead have focused on identifying attributes that have been internalized by all religions, in an attempt to find what joins us together.
It's possible for that quest to have found some interesting, and relevant answers.
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
How Augmented Reality Helps Doctors Save Lives
Augmented Reality may be termed as a form of Artificial Reality. In a manner of speaking, that is. It differs primarily in the proximity of the person with the action. It also relies upon a snapshot of the real world while the better known A.R. (Artificial Reality) often presents a rather distant form of living by its reliance on holographic imagery.
Here is an interesting application of Augmented Reality, published on ReadWriteWeb:
Please click here to read the entire article:
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/how_augmented_reality_helps_doctors_save_lives.php
Here is an interesting application of Augmented Reality, published on ReadWriteWeb:
... in the medical field involves live interactive imaging for assisting physicians, medical students and children. Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) includes procedures where a camera is inserted into the patient's body to help the doctor visualize the procedures he or she is conducting. In one example, this form of surgery is aided with the use of AR imagery of a brain superimposed onto the patient's head, giving the doctor a more tangible visualization. Another example involves being able to visualize a patient's spine in order to more accurately place a spinal tap, or other spinal injection.
Please click here to read the entire article:
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/how_augmented_reality_helps_doctors_save_lives.php
Monday, May 31, 2010
May 31, 1990 ... The Day "Seinfeld Chronicles" started its run on NBC
Ok. An interesting trivia it might be, but what does it have to do with passion (or compassion!), or technology, or with the types of writeups this blog has been providing?
Not much, really. But what it does offer is some perspective on the society, and for this reason alone, it belongs here. That, and the fact that I happen to really enjoy the show!
When Seinfeld began its run, entertainment was predominantly provided by the top three networks (ABC, NBC, CBS - in no particular order). Okay, let's also count Fox, and make it three-and-a-half! Cable TV was just beginning to find its footing on our television dials.
The channels carried exclusively by cable may have continued operating in this relative darkness if not for the decision of President Bush Senior to invade Kuwait. Suddenly, the notion of 24-hours news coverage became a national need, which could not be fulfilled by the network-controlled channels because they needed the daytime talk shows and soap operas to pay their bills.
Thus was born CNN - effectively providing a compelling reason for consumers to throw away the rabbit ears and sign up for the cable connection.
Continued advancement in technology and broadband availability meant more and more offerings being made available to consumers. This trend has continued to date, when we have access to 500+ channels at any given point.
What does it mean for programming? For starters, it means that it is increasingly hard for a show to garner the following that shows of yesteryears could muster, which effectively had the power to empty up the streets. The final episodes of M.E.S.H. and the Thorn Birds anthology were prime examples of this effect.
Many believe that Seinfeld was the last show that attained such a following - that you could mention last night's episode at the water cooler the next day, and be relatively sure that the next guy had seen it. That the show was about nothing just adds to the mystic irony!
During its run, the show provided an ongoing commentary on the society, often at the expense of its own characters, presented as weak, frivolous and immoral beings. And during the process, some of the lines (or themes) became a part of our daily vernacular. Who doesn't remember the Soup Nazi and "Yadda Yadda Yadda."
So, this, dear friends, is the contribution this show has made to the society - not necessarily a positive or negative one (this piece is not to editorialize its contents) - but a contribution in the sense of getting us all to be tuned at the same time, to the same message.
Things haven't been the same again.
Not much, really. But what it does offer is some perspective on the society, and for this reason alone, it belongs here. That, and the fact that I happen to really enjoy the show!
When Seinfeld began its run, entertainment was predominantly provided by the top three networks (ABC, NBC, CBS - in no particular order). Okay, let's also count Fox, and make it three-and-a-half! Cable TV was just beginning to find its footing on our television dials.
The channels carried exclusively by cable may have continued operating in this relative darkness if not for the decision of President Bush Senior to invade Kuwait. Suddenly, the notion of 24-hours news coverage became a national need, which could not be fulfilled by the network-controlled channels because they needed the daytime talk shows and soap operas to pay their bills.
Thus was born CNN - effectively providing a compelling reason for consumers to throw away the rabbit ears and sign up for the cable connection.
Continued advancement in technology and broadband availability meant more and more offerings being made available to consumers. This trend has continued to date, when we have access to 500+ channels at any given point.
What does it mean for programming? For starters, it means that it is increasingly hard for a show to garner the following that shows of yesteryears could muster, which effectively had the power to empty up the streets. The final episodes of M.E.S.H. and the Thorn Birds anthology were prime examples of this effect.
Many believe that Seinfeld was the last show that attained such a following - that you could mention last night's episode at the water cooler the next day, and be relatively sure that the next guy had seen it. That the show was about nothing just adds to the mystic irony!
During its run, the show provided an ongoing commentary on the society, often at the expense of its own characters, presented as weak, frivolous and immoral beings. And during the process, some of the lines (or themes) became a part of our daily vernacular. Who doesn't remember the Soup Nazi and "Yadda Yadda Yadda."
So, this, dear friends, is the contribution this show has made to the society - not necessarily a positive or negative one (this piece is not to editorialize its contents) - but a contribution in the sense of getting us all to be tuned at the same time, to the same message.
Things haven't been the same again.
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Veterans, Baby-boomers, Generation-X and Generation-Yers
We all have read countless articles and references to the fact that babyboomers are beginning to retire and what it means to our society. Many writeups look at this fact at a very factual level, including this one:
http://ethicalethos.wordpress.com/2010/05/26/working-with-gen-xers-and-yers/
Let's take a few moments to define the generations that encompass the last 90 years.
Greatest Generation (also called the Veterans): those who were born between 1916 and 1945.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greatest_Generation
Babyboomers: those who were born between 1945 and 1964.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_Boom_Generation
Generation X: 1965 - 1982.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_X
Generation Y: 1982 - early 21st century.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_Y
This is certainly a loaded topic (and a very interesting one): please expect more pieces on this theme in future.
http://ethicalethos.wordpress.com/2010/05/26/working-with-gen-xers-and-yers/
Let's take a few moments to define the generations that encompass the last 90 years.
Greatest Generation (also called the Veterans): those who were born between 1916 and 1945.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greatest_Generation
Babyboomers: those who were born between 1945 and 1964.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_Boom_Generation
Generation X: 1965 - 1982.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_X
Generation Y: 1982 - early 21st century.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_Y
This is certainly a loaded topic (and a very interesting one): please expect more pieces on this theme in future.
The face of a happy child
What does the face of a happy child tell us? And conversely, what is the opposite?
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
The 5 E's: Priorities of a nation
There's a United Nations checklist (original source unknown) that does a good job in summarizing the priorities of a nation - the 5 E's:
employment
education
energy
environment
equality
How you sort these items could well be a function of where you are in providing these elements to your people. In a highly charged political climate, an argument might even be made on where a country truly is on these elements.
Let's not get into that argument. Let's not get into any argument. Let's just ponder this question: if there's a country out there that is focused on providing all of these to its people, and is willing to pay the price and do whatever it takes to take sizeable steps in the right directions ... if such a country exists, is there any way it could be left behind?
A rhetorical question it might be, but even they elicit a debate, right?
employment
education
energy
environment
equality
How you sort these items could well be a function of where you are in providing these elements to your people. In a highly charged political climate, an argument might even be made on where a country truly is on these elements.
Let's not get into that argument. Let's not get into any argument. Let's just ponder this question: if there's a country out there that is focused on providing all of these to its people, and is willing to pay the price and do whatever it takes to take sizeable steps in the right directions ... if such a country exists, is there any way it could be left behind?
A rhetorical question it might be, but even they elicit a debate, right?
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Invention of remote controls (and TiVo) and their impact on our lives
It's all about the attention span
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Social problems with Europe’s Plan to Simulate the Entire Planet
A very interesting article was published recently by MIT that outlines a rather ambitious (and apparently well meaning) plan: to create a model of the entire planet in real time.
Link: http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/25126/?a=f
The idea is to “create a kind of Manahattan project to study, understand and tackle these techno-socio-economic-environmental issues. His plan is to gather data about the planet in unheard of detail, use it to simulate the behaviour of entire economies and then to predict and prevent crises from emerging..”
While I certainly support this academic pursuit, which also addresses the need to know how various seemingly disparate events are intertwined by some obvious and some heuristic connections, I am concerned about the effects this “knowledge” could have on our behavior and on the society.
It is what we do with the knowledge that often spells the difference between whether it’s a boon for the civilization or a curse. You might guess where I am going with it: the discovery of atomic bomb. The men and women in lab coats were responsible to study the phenomenon that caused this reaction, which emanated an energy that could be harnessed. And this is where their scientific responsibility ended. Or did it? The fact that their research was used to exterminate millions of innocent humans in Heroshima and Nagasaki, does it in any way make them culpable?
I can’t answer this, except to suggest that there is no single answer. It is for the society to determine this, and unfortunately, the debate often gets raged after a abuse has already happened.
Some readers might remember another study that was published before the Second World War, that discussed the notion of a superior race. Those who had the misfortune to fall outside the circle were considered burden on the society and a strong argument was made that for the human race was to flourish, it may be better off if the “undesirables” did not have a role to play in it.
This, of course, is a distorted logic which goes against our moral and social conscience. But whether we like it or not, whether we realize it or not, whether we speak against it or not, we (the collective “we”) do stand as witness of how this mindset gets applied.
Coming back to the European study: there is no way for scientists to determine how their findings would be used. But I am afraid of that group, maybe some rogue members, or some with vested interests, or with a point to prove, or with a score to settle – maybe someone would convert that knowledge into an action that we’ll all regret.
I sincerely hope that day never arrives.
Link: http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/25126/?a=f
The idea is to “create a kind of Manahattan project to study, understand and tackle these techno-socio-economic-environmental issues. His plan is to gather data about the planet in unheard of detail, use it to simulate the behaviour of entire economies and then to predict and prevent crises from emerging..”
While I certainly support this academic pursuit, which also addresses the need to know how various seemingly disparate events are intertwined by some obvious and some heuristic connections, I am concerned about the effects this “knowledge” could have on our behavior and on the society.
It is what we do with the knowledge that often spells the difference between whether it’s a boon for the civilization or a curse. You might guess where I am going with it: the discovery of atomic bomb. The men and women in lab coats were responsible to study the phenomenon that caused this reaction, which emanated an energy that could be harnessed. And this is where their scientific responsibility ended. Or did it? The fact that their research was used to exterminate millions of innocent humans in Heroshima and Nagasaki, does it in any way make them culpable?
I can’t answer this, except to suggest that there is no single answer. It is for the society to determine this, and unfortunately, the debate often gets raged after a abuse has already happened.
Some readers might remember another study that was published before the Second World War, that discussed the notion of a superior race. Those who had the misfortune to fall outside the circle were considered burden on the society and a strong argument was made that for the human race was to flourish, it may be better off if the “undesirables” did not have a role to play in it.
This, of course, is a distorted logic which goes against our moral and social conscience. But whether we like it or not, whether we realize it or not, whether we speak against it or not, we (the collective “we”) do stand as witness of how this mindset gets applied.
Coming back to the European study: there is no way for scientists to determine how their findings would be used. But I am afraid of that group, maybe some rogue members, or some with vested interests, or with a point to prove, or with a score to settle – maybe someone would convert that knowledge into an action that we’ll all regret.
I sincerely hope that day never arrives.
Friday, April 30, 2010
What does technology do for us that previous generations could not do?
It depends on whether we view technology as an end in itself, or a tool that assists in our tasks. If it's the former, then let's call it a resounding success, and end the conversation right there.
Why end the conversation? Because if we don't, then the converse question comes up and forces us to consider what technology truly is, and what it provides to or for us.
Let us examine that. And let us be open to whatever it takes us!
Why end the conversation? Because if we don't, then the converse question comes up and forces us to consider what technology truly is, and what it provides to or for us.
Let us examine that. And let us be open to whatever it takes us!
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
In memory of Jaime Escalante: a Mathematics Teacher who cared
A teacher who cared ... and who mattered in the lives of his students.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Quality versus Quantity
They say you cannot please two Gods; you cannot work for two masters; you cannot put blind faith in two different principles.
They are right. You cannot. Quality and Quantity are two such areas. In an extreme case, one boss (“quality”) tries to get you to do what is right, no matter the cost. If something is broken, fix it. Buy the best raw material, engage in the best (and often the most expensive) tools and produce something that passes the ultimate test in quality.
The other boss (“quantity”) is all about churning. Producing numbers and meeting with production goals. Something is a problem only if it halts the assembly line and deters us from the goal.
We all understand that our reality lies not at either of these extremes, but somewhere in between. It is a compromise. It is a decision that while we might be concerned about and watchful observers of one, we are actually fixated on the other. It is an internal decision, where our bosses are the shareholders, stakeholders and their elk. And for many companies out there, it is this internal decision that makes them who they are. It defines them. It brands them with this reality.
Everything else is just a façade.
I hope, and wish, that we would all do the right thing. I hope we find a way to please both the gods, and if there’s ever a conflict, I hope we find a way to do what’s right, no matter the cost!
They are right. You cannot. Quality and Quantity are two such areas. In an extreme case, one boss (“quality”) tries to get you to do what is right, no matter the cost. If something is broken, fix it. Buy the best raw material, engage in the best (and often the most expensive) tools and produce something that passes the ultimate test in quality.
The other boss (“quantity”) is all about churning. Producing numbers and meeting with production goals. Something is a problem only if it halts the assembly line and deters us from the goal.
We all understand that our reality lies not at either of these extremes, but somewhere in between. It is a compromise. It is a decision that while we might be concerned about and watchful observers of one, we are actually fixated on the other. It is an internal decision, where our bosses are the shareholders, stakeholders and their elk. And for many companies out there, it is this internal decision that makes them who they are. It defines them. It brands them with this reality.
Everything else is just a façade.
I hope, and wish, that we would all do the right thing. I hope we find a way to please both the gods, and if there’s ever a conflict, I hope we find a way to do what’s right, no matter the cost!
What happened to Toyota?
Toyota is a standard bearer. Not just for the quality of their products but for how they have run their ship over several decades. There’s hardly any line, within Automotives, where they have entered and failed to make a mark through their distinguished products and features.
I don't think anyone would argue against TQM, or lean manufacturing, or about the "Toyota Way" as it has been over several decades. They have dominated the markets worldwide because: (a) they built quality products; (b) they were reasonably priced; (c) they remained vigilant and continued to evolve as needed; and, most importantly; (d) they remained true to their core principles.
The recent years, however, caught them with their guard down. While the financial pressures from the top (ownership, management) caused them to reduce some focus on quality, they also failed to notice the paradigm shifts in the competitive landscape. They were forced to contend with new companies that came out of nowhere; were considerably more agile in their adaptation, and were suddenly a force to reckon.
This need to change too quickly can cause the best of 'em to stumble: the fact that it happened to a company that was built on "slow and steady ..." made them fall harder, with a thundering sound.
Edward Deming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Deming) is a pioneer in the concept of Total Quality Management. His name is often evoked in the discussions about Toyota, often to suggest where they deviated from the age-old principles. There’s certainly no denying Deming’s contribution to management and quality.
That said, we we should also consider that it's not sufficient to just invoke a principle: it needs to be adapted to suit the environment and times. Deming does not inspire innovation; it is designed around age-old established principles.
Times are changing. Buyers are changing and demanding what the guy across the street is offering.
Deming also focuses on improving the product itself rather than relying upon the quality assurance feedback loop. Certainly a noble goal. But what is to tell a human how to categorize something that works but is badly designed? Juxtapose that with the lean manufacturing notion which invariably means an unwarranted adjustment to your assembly line, which can cause a $5 fix to become a $5 million headache. How do you handle that?
Many companies try to shove that under the rug, hoping that nothing happens, and they get away with it. Toyota also tried to do just that, but got caught. As often happens (politics notwithstanding), the principle grievance is generally not about what happened but about when you first found out and what you did.
People have lost their lives. Families have lost their loved ones. Many are rotting in jail for what now turns out were events outside their control. Their defense now has a new lease of life. There are responsibilities, for sure. There are culpabilities, and Toyota would be well advised to do what is right. Not just to put this mess behind them but also to safeguard their name – their reputation – that takes a lifetime to build.
I don't think anyone would argue against TQM, or lean manufacturing, or about the "Toyota Way" as it has been over several decades. They have dominated the markets worldwide because: (a) they built quality products; (b) they were reasonably priced; (c) they remained vigilant and continued to evolve as needed; and, most importantly; (d) they remained true to their core principles.
The recent years, however, caught them with their guard down. While the financial pressures from the top (ownership, management) caused them to reduce some focus on quality, they also failed to notice the paradigm shifts in the competitive landscape. They were forced to contend with new companies that came out of nowhere; were considerably more agile in their adaptation, and were suddenly a force to reckon.
This need to change too quickly can cause the best of 'em to stumble: the fact that it happened to a company that was built on "slow and steady ..." made them fall harder, with a thundering sound.
Edward Deming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Deming) is a pioneer in the concept of Total Quality Management. His name is often evoked in the discussions about Toyota, often to suggest where they deviated from the age-old principles. There’s certainly no denying Deming’s contribution to management and quality.
That said, we we should also consider that it's not sufficient to just invoke a principle: it needs to be adapted to suit the environment and times. Deming does not inspire innovation; it is designed around age-old established principles.
Times are changing. Buyers are changing and demanding what the guy across the street is offering.
Deming also focuses on improving the product itself rather than relying upon the quality assurance feedback loop. Certainly a noble goal. But what is to tell a human how to categorize something that works but is badly designed? Juxtapose that with the lean manufacturing notion which invariably means an unwarranted adjustment to your assembly line, which can cause a $5 fix to become a $5 million headache. How do you handle that?
Many companies try to shove that under the rug, hoping that nothing happens, and they get away with it. Toyota also tried to do just that, but got caught. As often happens (politics notwithstanding), the principle grievance is generally not about what happened but about when you first found out and what you did.
People have lost their lives. Families have lost their loved ones. Many are rotting in jail for what now turns out were events outside their control. Their defense now has a new lease of life. There are responsibilities, for sure. There are culpabilities, and Toyota would be well advised to do what is right. Not just to put this mess behind them but also to safeguard their name – their reputation – that takes a lifetime to build.
Back ... after an looooong silence!
I am back, with a renewed ambition to revive the concept of this dialog. What I had set out to do three years back, the need for a discourse is even stronger now.
Let's get rolling. Let's get-together, for a no-holds-barred discussion. No limits to what we can say here, as long as we say it decently, and allow others to provide their contrarian views.
Let's get rolling. Let's get-together, for a no-holds-barred discussion. No limits to what we can say here, as long as we say it decently, and allow others to provide their contrarian views.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)