Sepi­a­mutiny has a link about a girl who has to write a paper on “Hindu” for a col­lege course, and asks for help from a ran­dom dude she accosted on IM (whose AOL pro­file said he was inter­ested in “Eat­ing Hindu Sculp­ture”), and who con­ve­niently hap­pened to be some­thing of a com­edy writer. He plays along, and in return for a promised $75, writes an essay that includes lines like:

Your actions in each life­time affect your karma, and if a Shu­dra watches dharma and greg, it will have a pos­i­tive effect on his karma, per­haps ele­vat­ing him into a class in which she will be allowed to study the Vedas and progress along its spir­i­tual path.

While the authen­tic­ity of the story is ques­tion­able (maybe an April Fool’s prank, accord­ing to Boing Boing), it is funny as hell and a nice (if slightly tan­gen­tial) segue to what I wanted to talk about:

An intrigu­ing premise for a book — a ghost writer com­ing out of the closet.

For nearly 15 years I wrote hun­dreds of let­ters that weren’t from me. They ranged from per­func­tory thank-you notes and expres­sions of con­do­lence, to exten­sive cor­re­spon­dence with the great and the good: politi­cians, news­pa­per edi­tors, bish­ops, mem­bers of the House of Lords. The pro­ce­dure I fol­lowed with a more inti­mate let­ter was to type it up, double-spaced in large font, and print it out. My employer — the sender of the let­ter — would then copy it painstak­ingly on to embossed notepa­per using a Mont Blanc pen and blot­ting paper, sign­ing it with a flour­ish at the bottom.

The book is start­ing to gen­er­ate a lot of buzz prior to its US release on April 12th — a classier Nanny Diaries maybe?

The Guardian has an excerpt.

Ghost-writing is not new. It might almost qual­ify as the old­est pro­fes­sion if pros­ti­tu­tion had not laid prior claim. And there is more than a ran­dom con­nec­tion between the two: they both oper­ate in rather murky worlds, a fee is agreed in advance and given “for ser­vices ren­dered”, and those who admit to being involved, either as client or service-provider, can expect neg­a­tive reac­tions — any­thing from mild shock and dis­ap­proval to out­right revul­sion. A pro­fes­sor at my old uni­ver­sity, a dis­tin­guished clas­si­cist with fem­i­nist lean­ings, was appalled when she heard what I did for a liv­ing and pro­nounced me “no bet­ter than a com­mon whore”. This — the whiff of whore­dom — is per­haps the main rea­son why peo­ple opt for absolute discretion.

Google setting standards

 Etc.  Comments Off
Mar 282005
 

A num­ber of law­suits involv­ing Google could

1) hurt the com­pany
2) set legal stan­dards for the rest.

Like this. Putting up thumb­nails of high qual­ity pic­tures on other web­sites is con­sid­ered fair use. But, how big can the thumb­nails be? Accord­ing to Joi Ito’s web, Google uses 150×150, so that’s prob­a­bly fair. If not, hey some­one will sue them, and they’ll fig­ure out.

Link through Words: Fair Use Thumbnails

Hunting in Groups

 Uncategorized  Comments Off
Mar 272005
 

With the sheer quan­tity of infor­ma­tion avail­able on the inter­net, min­ing it for rel­e­vance is where a lot of cool tech­nol­ogy is being devel­oped. Pager­ank rev­o­lu­tion­ized search and made it more demo­c­ra­tic. Search­ing is no longer hit or miss — today, Google can search over 8 bil­lion web pages and return the most rel­e­vant results in less than a second.

What’s next in search­ing? What search engines lack is the abil­ity to cus­tomize results depend­ing on the user. Spe­cific search terms return good results: (“Fourier Trans­form”, “Aish­warya Rai on Let­ter­man” etc.) Vague, gen­eral searches (“Inter­est­ing sci­ence fic­tion “, “Funny blog”) might not return what you expect; even if they do, every­one gets the same results — your “funny blog” might suck ass to me.

Col­lab­o­ra­tive Fil­ter­ing, might be the solu­tion. The idea is sim­ple enough — if some­one else buys the same books that you do, then there is a good chance that you’ll be inter­ested in the next book she buys. Ama­zon, and Net­flix use it to rec­om­mend books and movies to users; it is straigh­for­ward for online mer­chants to do this.

But how could a search engine use Col­lab­o­ra­tive Fil­ter­ing to tai­lor results? The easy way would be to ask users what they like, but that’s not gonna work well, is it? At Ama­zon, appar­ently, only about 1% of the items have user ranks. More sub­tle, implicit meth­ods would look at the user’s brows­ing pat­terns and form “opin­ions” from them.

A fas­ci­nat­ing arti­cle from the Econ­o­mist Tech­nol­ogy Quar­terly. Will this be the next PageRank?

Col­lab­o­ra­tive fil­ter­ing starts off by col­lect­ing data on indi­vid­u­als’ pref­er­ences. This can be an explicit process, by which a user ranks a book (or CD, or restau­rant) on a numer­i­cal scale, typ­i­cally on a scale of one to five. It can also be an implicit process–a pur­chase, for instance, is a clear indi­ca­tion that an indi­vid­ual is inter­ested in the item in ques­tion. But implicit mea­sures can also be more sub­tle; for instance, the amount of time spent view­ing a web page, or even just the “clickstream”–the sequence of links clicked on by a per­son brows­ing on the web. These dif­fer­ent meth­ods can then either be aggre­gated into a sin­gle score, or stored sep­a­rately to allow more detailed analy­sis. And some­times, con­sumers will be asked to score the same item in dif­fer­ent ways–for instance, what one thought of the food at a restau­rant, and what one thought of the service.

Where the user of a search engine is on a soli­tary quest, the user of a collaborative-filtering sys­tem is part of a crowd. Search, and you search alone; ram­ble from one rec­om­men­da­tion to another, and you may feel a curi­ous kin­ship with the like-minded indi­vid­u­als whose opin­ions influ­ence your own–and who are, in turn, influ­enced by your opinions.

Mar 272005
 

Being mar­ried to a fel­low elec­tri­cal engi­neer has its advan­tages. Tell me, how many cou­ples you know could’ve had a con­ver­sa­tion like this?

“Why do you care now? You didn’t seem to in the afternoon.”

“Umm.. well…”

“Your con­cern goes up and down like a sine wave. I hate that!”

“Oh, come on! What do you want me to be?”

“Con­stant. Like the Fourier Trans­form of an impulse.”

Anamika, there is at least one soul that under­stands you when you say “I want to col­lapse my wave func­tion into you.” Sorry, but Lavanya thinks that’s inane.

Stop Thief!

   Movies  Comments Off
Mar 262005
 

This is more up Manoj’s alley, but the pla­gia­rism is so glar­ingly obvi­ous here that the moment I lis­tened to the song all I could say was, Ada paavi! (or Holy Crap!)

Prema Prema, by Chakri from the Tel­ugu movie Kabaddi Kabaddi, ~ circa 2004.

Poovarasam­poo, by Ilai­yaraaja from Kizhakke Pogum Rail, Tamil, ~circa 1980.

Ada Paavi!

 

Ten more days. Next Mon­day, dad and mom are leav­ing for India. After nearly a year, mak­ing tea twice a day (with gin­ger and car­damom); fret­ting end­lessly over how much we work; wor­ry­ing con­stantly about why I sleep so late and con­vert­ing each dol­lar spent into rupees, they’ll be gone. Farewells are hard. Farewells are hard, but this is the hard­est of them all. Because my dad is sev­enty and mom is not much younger than that, and when peo­ple are that old…

Lavanya tells me there are angels in the sky that say ‘Tha-Dhas-Thu’ at ran­dom inter­vals. If you say some­thing out loud , and it hap­pens to coin­cide with a thadasthu, it will come true. So, she says, think good thoughts. I will. Maybe the angels will hear me now when I say I want our par­ents to come back here and spend a long time with us, make me more teas, call me lazy and play monop­oly with us as we wait for hur­ri­canes to pass. And that they get to play with their grandkids.

Dumbness ain’t a defense anymore

 Uncategorized  Comments Off
Mar 242005
 

Bernie Ebbers tried the “I didn’t know it defense and failed, but that’s not stop­ping Ken Lay from try­ing it again. And he just got some sup­port from a book called A Con­spir­acy of Fools by Kurt Eichen­wald, that seems to sup­port Lay’s con­tention that it all hap­pened behind his back.

This would be ironic if it weren’t sad: The Econ­o­mist says Lay is on a “charm offen­sive” telling any­one who’d lis­ten that he is in fact pretty dumb, and that he was not pay­ing much atten­tion to his com­pany. The Times’s review of Eichenwald’s book explains why that is hard to believe.

Ken­neth Lay, the company’s long­time chief exec­u­tive, who hired Mr. Skilling and mostly turned over the man­age­ment reins, emerges in Mr. Eichenwald’s telling as a kind of ami­able sim­ple­ton, glad-handing his way through Houston’s mon­eyed upper crust. But unlike, say, Bernard Ebbers, the recently con­victed for­mer bouncer and high school coach who ran World­Com onto the rocks, Mr. Lay is a Ph.D. econ­o­mist and a for­mer deputy under sec­re­tary of the inte­rior, who had trans­formed the nat­ural gas indus­try. Does Mr. Eichen­wald believe that he really had no clue? That he never noticed the mad scram­ble to man­u­fac­ture prof­its at the end of each report­ing period? That he never won­dered about the plau­si­bil­ity of a ten­fold jump in rev­enues in just five years?

In case you’ve for­got­ten what Lay presided over: (from the Times’s review again)

In early 2000 For­tune mag­a­zine selected Enron as America’s best-managed and most inno­v­a­tive com­pany, and Enron’s stock mar­ket val­u­a­tion peaked at $73 bil­lion that August. The fol­low­ing March the com­pany announced that 2000 rev­enues had more than dou­bled, to $100 bil­lion. The com­pany paid its nor­mal quar­terly div­i­dend in Octo­ber 2001, announc­ing that reg­u­lar earn­ings were up 26 per­cent and that it was “on track” to meet its full-year profit targets.

Six weeks later, Enron filed for bankruptcy.

Kettle to Pot: I am catching up!

 Uncategorized  Comments Off
Mar 242005
 

Built with your secu­rity in mind, Fire­fox keeps your com­puter safe from mali­cious spy­ware by not load­ing harm­ful ActiveX con­trols. A com­pre­hen­sive set of pri­vacy tools keep your online activ­ity your business.

A spate of secu­rity flaws and updates, cul­mi­nat­ing in ver­sion 1.0.2 yes­ter­day, call that con­tention in ques­tion. Microsoft would have been hauled over the coals if it had been Inter­net Explorer, but peo­ple are will­ing to cut Fire­fox a lot of slack, because, um.. because it is not Microsoft.

The spate of vul­ner­a­bil­i­ties and the updates bring into ques­tion the assump­tion by many that Fire­fox is more secure than Microsoft’s Inter­net Explorer, one of the rea­sons many experts and ana­lysts have given for Firefox’s rapid climb from 0 to about 6 per­cent of the usages hare in the United States.

Every browser will have secu­rity flaws, it is just that none of them had mar­ket shares large enough for any­one to care. Now that Fire­fox is grow­ing rapidly, it’s flaws are get­ting vis­i­bil­ity. To be fair to Fire­fox, IE has done this emer­gency patch thing a lot more, so Mitchell Baker could still be right:

There is noth­ing that will be per­fect,” said Mitchell Baker, pres­i­dent and chief lizard wran­gler of the Mozilla Foun­da­tion, dur­ing a panel dis­cus­sion at PC Forum in Scotts­dale Ari­zona. (PC Forum is owned by CNET Net­works, pub­lisher of ZDNet UK.)
Still, Fire­fox, devel­oped by the Mozilla Foun­da­tion, won’t har­bour nearly as many secu­rity flaws as those that have Microsoft’s Inter­net Explorer, and increas­ing pop­u­lar­ity won’t change that, Mitchell predicted.

PS: (weasels out of con­tro­versy by stat­ing that) I still like tabbed brows­ing though. And the plu­g­ins are great.

 

Anar­CapLib has a post about the Nobel foundation’s jus­ti­fi­ca­tion for the egre­gious omis­sion of Mahatma Gandhi from its list of peace prize winners.

Mahatma Gandhi, the Miss­ing Laureate

There is no hint in the archives that the Nor­we­gian Nobel Com­mit­tee ever took into con­sid­er­a­tion the pos­si­bil­ity of an adverse British reac­tion to an award to Gandhi. Thus it seems that the hypoth­e­sis that the Committee’s omis­sion of Gandhi was due to its mem­bers’ not want­ing to pro­voke British author­i­ties, may be rejected.

Dur­ing the last months of his life, Gandhi worked hard to end the vio­lence between Hin­dus and Moslems which fol­lowed the par­ti­tion of India. We know lit­tle about the Nor­we­gian Nobel Committee’s dis­cus­sions on Gandhi’s can­di­da­ture in 1948 – other than the above quoted entry of Novem­ber 18 in Gun­nar Jahn’s diary – but it seems clear that they seri­ously con­sid­ered a posthu­mous award. When the com­mit­tee, for for­mal rea­sons, ended up not mak­ing such an award, they decided to reserve the prize, and then, one year later, not to spend the prize money for 1948 at all. What many thought should have been Mahatma Gandhi’s place on the list of Lau­re­ates was silently but respect­fully left open.

Excuses.

 

Wikipedia, on Madras bashai, the curi­ous tamil vari­ant spo­ken in Chen­nai. The tongue-in-cheek usage exam­ples at the end are amusing.

(Through an email for­ward from Kuzhali)

© 2012 etcetera Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha

Switch to our mobile site