Rock-alicious

Bon Jovi rocked Key Arena on the 6th. Old favorites coupled with some surprisingly thoughtful songwriting on the new album made for a fun show. Then of course, there were the screaming women. I had ringing ears long after I came out, and the number of people singing along to "I'll be there for you" was enough to make you cringe.

I realized that the songs of Bon Jovi I like are different from the ones that are the most popular. The most loved ones are the "power ballads" - what I'd call the sappy love songs - "Always", "Bed of Roses" and "I'll be there for you". I prefer their "young rebel" ones ("Blaze of Glory", "Dead or Alive", "Keep the Faith") - keeping with the age I started listening to them.

I'm not complaining since they did sing the songs I wanted to listen to.

So, here goes the list of big acts I've seen live so far:

Mark Knopfler
Bryan Adams
Def Leppard
Coldplay
Bon Jovi

If I see U2, Eric Clapton and Pink Floyd (fat chance eh?) perform live, I can die satisfied.

Sci-Fi scare

A question to Sci-Fi fans...is a post-apocalyptic scenario a necessity for every major sci-fi book that is written? Why does there have to be a world war, or a war of the worlds for life to change so drastically that things get scarily out of our control and in the hands of the Thought Police or the robots?

This fact was driven home when I was reading Philip K Dick's The Minority Report and Other Stories a few months back. Dick is one of the most well-known and respected authors in this genre, and I have been fairly impressed with what I've read so far. However, in many of his stories (The Minority Report being a notable exception) , it is inevitably some apocalyptic incident, a world war of sorts which brings things to a head, causing major issues with authority over-reaching itself, and some sort of sinister, all-pervasive government/corporate body taking over. Mercifully, Mr. Dick uses this premise sparingly.

But he is influential. Influential enough to have a major science fiction writing prize named after him. Which doesn't help aspiring wannabes any. All of whom seem to looove the idea of a apocalyptic war ending Life As We Know It.

An interesting thought I read somewhere was that Japanese culture (especially anime) is obsessed with this, because it is the only true post-apocalyptic society in the world today. Interesting thought to chew on, but it doesn't explain the rest of the world being obsessed with this.

IM(Very H)O, nuclear weaponry has made it difficult for countried to go to war easily. The détente produced between countries possessing nuclear weapons makes it impossible for them to go head-to-head. The real danger is going to come from the so-called Clashes of Civilization. This rise of terrorism has been unexpected (at least to the general junta), and it is something that may affect how we see life over the next 50 years unless something drastic happens (unlikely).

Technology as a disruptor

Disclosure: I hold no shares or interest in any of the companies I talk about here. This is an amateur's opinion. Hang yourself on it - I am not responsible.

In the past few years, the commercialization and corporatization of all entertainment forms has led to a drastic reduction in standards of mass entertainment all around. After the Telecommunications Act of 1996 , many radio stations in the US are controlled by one of two big conglomerates - ClearChannel or Infinity. (There are places where they own all the FM stations in the market between them).

This means that music heard from coast to coast is identical with no variations. Playlists change very infrequently. In fact, if you are in an interior small town, there is a good likelihood that the local DJ who you think lives up on Walnut Street may be living in the Upper East Side in Manhattan. They have taken you for a ride, localizing the DJ without hiring a local DJ. In addition, they have been found guilty of accepting money and other considerations for playing music. Tie it in with venues owned by sister companies, ticketing by another group company, and we have the dreaded 'c' word - cartel.

The music companies themselves have merged and married among themselves, and there are only four major record labels left. They control the majority of what goes on in the mainstream industry. MTV and VH1 are no better (Viacom owns Infinity, MTV and VH1), turning into celebrity reality channels with gems like "Laguna Beach" and "Celebreality", losing the reason they became such phenomena in the first place. It isn't about the music anymore, is it? Do you remember the time when MTV was cool because of its music? Heck, I cut my teeth on MTV India in the early 90s.

As always, in a free market, the solution should present itself, right? The problem is, when there is an oligopoly of this kind, with no real enforcement of laws and wink-wink,nudge-nudge considerations, there is nothing of that sort. These people have a stranglehold on the airwaves.

Technology and free markets however make for a formidable combination. Enter satellite radio. Satellite radio has over 10 million subscribers in the US. We know this number because these people pay around $10 a month to either one of the two major providers, Sirus or XM. At an average of 2.5 people per family, it means satellite radio reaches 8% of the US population. Not a bad number, come to think of it.

I personally feel that technology at times may provide a left-field facilitator for opening up markets in such situations. Maybe satellite radio is not significant enough. However if the affluent demographic shifts to satellite radio, they will take advertisers with them, forcing terrestrial radio to get better at their programming. With digital radio having the potential of doubling the number of local stations, there may still be hope.

Another classic case where technology and old-fashioned infrastructure (the kind we sorely need in India) has brought about a real revolution is movie rentals. Netflix presents an all-you-can-rent option for DVDs ranging from $10 a month (1 DVD out at a time) to $17 a month (3 DVDs out a time). DVDs are delivered to your home, and you choose movies and put them on your queue online. The great thing about this is, Netflix is likely to carry that obscure movie you desperately wanted to watch, while your local Blockbuster will not. In fact, Netflix made its cachet off stocking Spanish and Hindi movies for immigrants who did not have easy local access to these movies. It gives you a chance to pick up a rare movie that may not be in circulation. Of course, Netflix has taken this a step further with its ratings and recommendations system. There's a whole community it has generated - people who keep getting great movies in the mail simply because they were recommended by people with similar tastes. The Long Tail is put to work really well here.

This has forced Blockbuster to drop late fees, at one time a big revenue-earner for the company. They've started their own all-you-can-rent service, both in-store and mail-order. With the kind of DVDs available increasing, there is now a much better market for documentaries or off-beat TV shows.

IMO, in the popular arena, things are going to go downhill or remain stagnant in terms of quality. No business is going to spend $150 million on an experimental movie idea unless it had some hope that it could recover its money. Which explains the antiseptic cookie-cutter summer blockbuster. LoTR or some exceptional superhero capers notwithstanding, most films fall in this category.

The challenge for governments and lawmakers as always is to do the right things (get a great postal, road and connectivity system in place, for instance, or facilitate the happening of that). Remove obstacles. Watch the entrepreneurial spirit take over. For excitement, add a dash of tech bravado. For sizzle, add an IPO. Serve with a side of media hoopla, and soak in the praise. (Egads. Mixed metaphors going overboard here.)

Sox-y Adventures

I'm not given to Seinfeld-esque observations because I'm simply not as funny as the man. However, there are quirky everyday mysteries that make you really wonder about the laws of physics and suchlike phenomenon.

One of them involves my laundry.

I saw this advertisement within my office building for an internal company campaign of some sort. It shows a washing machine and a single sock. The theme of the advertisement was: "Some things will always remain a mystery."

Tell me about it. One of the most mysterious (and infuriating) things about doing your laundry is sorting all your clothes once you are done. If you have clothes in the load which are prone to attracting static, heaven help you. By the time the dryer's done, many of your static-y clothes are filled with enough electricity to power a small bulb (I'm sure Mohan Bhargava could have put this idea to some use) and they are all sticking to each other. The worst culprits, of course are the socks. Invariably, one sock (or three, or five. It has to be an odd number) will go missing. After sorting all your laundry, you are left with that mysterious odd one out.

More than once in the past few months, I've had this wonderful mystery. All my laundry's put away, making for a successful weekend (or rather, a peaceful week ahead) and the next thing I know, there's a single sock left. It sits there, in the corner of my bedroom, in silent admonishment of a job badly done. I look at it before I go to sleep most nights, wondering if I should get up and turn my wardrobe upside down to search for it. Invariably, sleep is too tempting.

I dread the day when I'll wear a sweatshirt to work, and some pretty girl (the kind I absolutely don't want to be embarrassed in front of) will say "What's that sticking out of your sweatshirt"? and it'll turn out to be that pesky sock stuck to the inside of my fleecewear.

Thanks for all the views...

This blog started out and continues as a personal exercise, a place to flesh out thoughts, to tame those whirling dervishes that dance in this head, and to bring a semblance of sanity to a mind that is “A Greyhound station, where I send my thoughts to far-off destinations”

Writing for me was catharsis, a way to lay those demons in my head to rest. It was a way to retain my sanity as the world about me fell apart, me the Nero, writing as my Rome burnt.

Well, I exaggerate. My world was/is fine, the sky isn’t falling on our heads, but yes, I’m probably a bit wack in the head, as you may have concluded from some of the stuff I post here. That some of you think it’s worth their while to come here and give my wild thoughts their time is touching.
When I meet or talk to people in meatspace, and these people tell me that “I read your blog. You write well.” I wonder what this world has come to. I look at my sitemeter. Though it doesn’t move like the meters on the rickshaws in most Indian metros, it has shown a steady trickle. I look at the hits and where they come from. I wonder, “Why are these people here? Is any of my writing this interesting? The purpose of this exercise was that – to better my writing. Is it working?”

Maybe it is. Maybe it isn’t. But thanks for keeping the faith. Keep coming back. Especially if you think any of this is worth it. The best analogy to personal blogs like this one is the one Michael Higgins uses – some of these blog posts are chocolates – the quick taste gives you a few seconds of pleasure. Some may be gold coins – genuinely valuable nuggets that you may want to pass around in perma-link form. Be it for chocolates that you come here, or for gold coins or maybe just for vela time-pass, thanks.

No, there are no anniversaries or landmarks coming for this blog (It’s almost eighteen months and over 200 posts old). This is just one of those “from the bottom of my heart” posts that I’m putting out because I feel it from the bottom of my left ventricle.

On Rocky And the Underdog

*Spoiler alert* for someone who's not seen the movie and cares to not know the ending to a non-thriller with a non-Shyamalanesque twist.

Rocky is one of cinema's big cliché movies. The story of the underdog who overcame the odds to become something bigger than himself. The backstory of the movie itself is similar, with Stallone pushing the script door-to-door, refusing to make the movie unless he got to be Rocky as well. The story to trump all stories, the movie won multiple Oscars, including Oscars for Best Film and Director, and nominations for Stallone for the screenplay and (gulp) for his acting. Rocky got so crazy that there were eventually five Rocky movies. Stallone went on to become a billionaire, giving us other classics like the Rambo series and some really bad acting too.

When I first saw the movie, I was underwhelmed. There was a bit to the tale, but I didn't see much. One of the explanations that me and my friend (whom I saw the movie with) could muster for the success and resonance of the movie was that it was arguably a function of the times. The late 70s with a bad economy and the movie symbolized hope for the underdog in some ways. Maybe in the more prosperous '0s, that wasn't so true anymore, and we couldn't (and could never) 'get' the movie.

I was wrong. Even as I think back to the movie now, it (the movie) makes more and more sense. Part of it is arguably that I've grown older and seen more of life since then. The character-building itself is one thing, but what holds the key to the film is the last, actual boxing match. The night before the match, Rocky says to Adrian, "Cause all I wanna do is go the distance."

Then of course, there's the fight. Even as Apollo pummels Rocky, he just keeps coming back, doesn't he? He really shows no sign of giving up. He does go the full distance to lose on points. What matters there is the fact that he goes the distance. Every blow that he gets, he manages to get up again, ready to fight.

Like Simon and Garfunkel sing poignantly,(not about Rocky, though this could apply)

In the clearing stands a boxer, and a fighter by his trade
And he carries the reminders of every glove that laid him down or cut him
’til he cried out in his anger and his shame
I am leaving, I am leaving, but the fighter still remains
Yes he still remains

Hell, yeah. Rocky's my hero. Now, if only they hadn't made those sequels...

Economics and Us

Two books that in the media recently have caught my attention and are going up high on the list of books I wish to read.

One of them is The Argumentative Indian by Amartya Sen ( a good review on the BBC )and the other is The Undercover Economist. The Undercover Economist seems like an interesting read. Freakonomics has caught attention all over, thanks to the accessibility of its content, and the popstar-styled title. I've read that, but as this review states (via India Uncut) , The Undercover... probably has more in terms of learning value. It definitely seems to have some interesting points to make.

In a related thought, there was a great joint interview with the two richest men in the world in Fortune a few months back. One of the most pertinent points Bill Gates made in the interview was (I'm paraphrasing here) that normal people were genuinely lacking in economic education, which made debates related to jobs, outsourcing and the economy emotional and not well thought-out.

I personally find this extremely relevant. While one course does not an armchair economist make, I've seen my thinking on many aspects of business and the economy shaped considerably by the one "Managerial Economics" course I was required to take during my Masters. The concentration of the course was on demand-supply and pricing related theories (mainly macro-economic theory as it were), but it opened up a fresh insight into a whole new area of thought.

In the US, a common complaint is about the scientific temper being lost. With strident protests against teaching evolution in schools, and an impressively insidious campaign raising skepticism about global warming, there is definitely a greater need for debate to take place in scientific terms, and for these to be accepted by the mainstream.

India, of course has a greater challenge of educating a large proportion of people who are still uneducated. However, even among educated people in India, there is a genuine need for a greater economic temper as well.

What's in it for me?

One of Business 2.0's themes for successful businesses in 2004 was that they were businesses that allow other people to make money as well. The web affiliate system has made it a lucrative way for genuinely savvy people to make money without really bothering other people (unlike some of the more unsavory incidents related to 'independent ventures' that we hear of). This has been an important trend over the past couple of years.

There are infinite variants on this scheme, with more ingenious ones coming out all the time. The first major one, of course, was AdSense from Google. Other services like Overture existed before this, but this was the first one to really take off. Then there are other ones like Amazon's affiliate system where you click on a link to buy a product, and some part of the proceeds go to the seller.

An interesting new job site called Refhounds got forwarded to me recently which is to an extent looking to tap into the same 'entrepreneurial' spirit among people. If you refer a person to the site and he gets hired, they pay you. I wouldn't be surprised if there are other similar services, but this is the first one I've seen of this kind.

Ben of Ben's Bargains apparently makes a cool $20,000 a month only on the basis of his site. I'm sure there could be some kind of entrepreneurial model built around all of this.

Hiatus

General ennui and busy-ness in general has led to this unprecedented 10 day gap in blogging. Apologies. Beethoven, I'll be. hmm.

Commenting on the Grammys cannot be done without though. U2 are the media, industry and crowd favorites at the Grammys. I don't mind them winning, but there is something about double-dipping. They won a number of awards last year, and exactly how they won again this year isn't something I understood. I wish they'd keep the rules simpler.

More names have been added to the list of artistes to listen to. Books have been read and discussed, and posts will be made when this phase passes.

Till then, sample this fine video from SNL to keep you entertained.

Color Me Good

Rang De Basanti will have its share of critics - people who didn't like the film for a million different reasons. I could pick a few faults in it myself, but my advice to anyone who actually reads this blog is: go out and watch it.

I liked the movie. Because there are a million small reasons to like it - small nuances to appreciate about the way the movie is set up. Apart from that, there is an intangible 'it' factor a movie has. There are movies for the head and the heart. However, this movie hit me straight in the gut (and I mean that in an entirely good way). Admittedly, everyone won't feel the same way. But, heck, that was one $10 ticket well-spent. (I see more viewings in my immediate future)

No spoilers here - just go out and experience the (filmi) 'awakening of a generation'.

Can't still get "Roobaroo" out of my head...

Munich

Munich is a film that seems to be in two minds. It seems like Spielberg, the accomplished director, was out to make a spare, intimate film about killing and vendetta and the human toll it takes. Entwined in it is a grand tale of Israel, the PLO and the 1972 massacre at the Olympics. Telling this second tale is Spielberg, the biggest blockbuster director of our era. They collide in uncomfortable ways, sometimes making you scratch your head.

I've been reading about the film, and though I've tried to avoid the reviews, methinks the coverage carried by Time and elsewhere is reading too much into a film, that, of course, has to have a lot of reading between the lines done to it. After all, it has all the characteristics of a zeitgeist-defining film.

1. Oscar-winning director with top box-office appeal? Check.
2. Middle-Eastern context? Check.
3. Moral Dilemma? Check.
4. Applicability to current political context? Check.
5. Gratuitous shot of the WTC? Check.

Except for the last bit, which would probably have been more surprising for its exclusion (see: The Gangs of New York*), the film itself isn't manipulative in any straightforward way. Spielberg sticks to his best skill: that of the story-teller. Albeit a stricter editor could've done something about the pace, this story of a bunch of Mossad spooks on a vengeance mission is although uneven, definitely worth a watch.

The film succeeds in its primary intent. We are drawn into the conflict faced by the agents with a license to kill. The quest to not cause collateral damage of the human kind starts off as an important part of the mission, but the blood-letting and the blood-let-ters grow increasingly nonchalant and even callous as the film progresses.

IMO, the film does put across well what it sets out to say- an eye for an eye, however hated or 'evil' the enemy is, takes its toll on the executors. Anyone but the most hard-boiled of ideologues would find it difficult to digest the kind of deaths the protagonists see and engineer. An uneasy encounter with people from the 'other' side (this scene is too pat IMO) adds to this discomfort, and the retaliations that ensue mean that the cycle is endless. The film offers no easy solutions, and I'd be loath to demand any.

The film is best watched without reading too much into anything, as that gives too much weight to what is ultimately a story of individuals. But as I mentioned earlier, the film is too important not to be minutely analyzed, every phrase parsed for nuances.

A thing that works for the film is the lack of serious box-office star power. Geoffrey Rush as the team's liasion with the government is (as expected) to the manner born. Eric Bana is surprisingly competent (except for an uneven accent) as the upright, no-questions-asked agent who starts having doubts down the line. The support cast is again competent with the future Bond (Daniel Craig) making an appearance too. With no couch-jumping antics, the focus of coverage on this film has been on the film and related issues, a welcome relief.

It's been a pleasant surprise - two good movies over two weekends, (Syriana and now this), with well-known stars/directors doing their serious turn.

* The ending credits of Gangs of NY showed a CG-created animation of the NYC skyline (as seen from the Brooklyn side) evolving over the years. It stops with a shot of the WTC. The film was released in 2002. Scorsese chickening out? Not really, further research reveals.

GMail Problem

Boy, I'd have loved to see the reaction this would have evoked if it had been a Microsoft offering.

Linky here. Fun stuff.

Insightful

Ari makes an eloquent point over at his blog that I'm still trying to digest for the clarity with which it explains the erosion of civil liberties in the US with the Patriot Act, unauthorized phone-tapping, fear-mongering et al.

"It seems to me to be that the fundamental position of the right in response to 9/11 is to be as much like our enemy as possible; torture as a tactic, drive religion into the public square, and a super powerful executive branch. Their message to the troops who defend us is that they are not defending the US anymore but just the collection of people who are (legally) sitting between Canada and Mexico."

I think that for me as an immigrant, the idea of the US as a haven of freedom (yes, I know it sounds clichéd, but admit it, it's true) and as the Land of Opportunity is something that makes more sense than the "Us Against Them" mindset the far Right brings into the argument. The US is losing part of what makes its democracy great by these unwelcome intrusions into personal lives in the name of "The War on Terror".

Me Against the Music

Ars Technica (a fine site for the compute technophile) has this nice opinion piece on growing apathy towards music.

Quote from the original study:

"The degree of accessibility and choice has arguably led to a rather passive attitude towards music heard in everyday life.

"In short, our relationship to music in everyday life may well be complex and sophisticated, but it is not necessarily characterised by deep emotional investment."

Ars Technica refutes:

"In the end, it was people like Britney Spears and Ashlee Simpson who turned music from an emotional human experience into a mass-market commodity, not the advent of music downloading and MP3 players. If anything, Internet downloading has offered alternative music a better chance at reaching new audiences than it ever had before."

I'd agree with the second piece. It's not downloading, or too much easy access to music that is causing this apathy. Music on most popular stations on radio and TV is bad. It's as simple as that. There are other factors, like the fact that this generation has many more distractions (computers, the Internet, games, cellphones...), but music media has to do some serious hard work to ensure that it stays relevant to the set of people other than the airhead set who'll lap up anything the mass media throws at them. The discerning people are the ones who are passionate enough to spend on buying CDs, and going to concerts, which is where the real money is.

My morning drive (when I'm not listening to a CD) is punctuated by repeating cycling through local radio stations in the hope of finding a half-decent song to listen to. The same standard set of songs repeat through with hardly any changes. If I hear "Boulevard of Broken Dreams" by Green Day or "Somebody Told Me" by The Killers a few more times, somebody (or something) is gonna get hurt real bad...

There are amazing songs I've heard out there. They are generally by bands with the weirdest of names like Gorillaz, Death Cab For Cutie, and My Morning Jacket. They pop up on one of the "Alternative" stations or on listener-supported 'eclectic' stations like KCRW or KEXP. These stations surprise you with the sheer variety of music they have on offer.

To paraphrase an (in)famous management institute, Dare to look beyond MTV and popular radio stations?

In the case of Hindi music, dare to look beyond Jatin-Lalit and Anu Malik (or is it Annu Malleeek for numerological purposes now?). Try Indian Ocean or Strings. There are pleasant surprises out there. You may just get passionate about music again.

* The title of this post is the name of a Britney Spears - Madonna single. Exactly my point, it's them against the music. I choose music.

Et Tu

U2 is the world's biggest rock band. Period. Wannabe upstarts like Linkin Park and Coldplay will have to wait before they can prise the cup. In all likelihood, it will be from the cold, clammy fingers of Bono on his deathbed. Incredibly enough, the band has gone from strength to strength in its 25+ years of existence.

You may think Bono's politics are too strident or that their melodies sound too jaded now (I disagree), but one thing you cannot deny is their success. The scalpers in Seattle had a happy smirk on their face as they sold tickets for thrice the already steep list price on craigslist. This for a concert in Portland - a 3 hour drive from here. The Seattle concert took place just before I moved here, and I can only imagine the frenzy then. I didn't even try this time, unlike my scrambling for Mark Knopfler tickets. I knew the exercise would be futile.

U2's career, as anyone reasonably interested in them knows, spans four distinct phases. (These are unscientific and of my own making, so bear with me).The first was as a small but highly visible and rising Irish band with anthems like "Sunday Bloody Sunday" and "New Year's Day". They were always strident, with a point to make and the world was theirs to change.

The second phase was when they exploded on the world stage. This was when they released the monster success "The Joshua Tree", spawning classics with very long-winded-names like "I still haven't found what I'm looking for" , "With or Without You" and "Where The Streets Have No Name". I'm sure the inlay designers had a hard time with that album.

The third, and IMO most interesting phase of their career came with Achtung Baby, Pop and Zooropa. Bono famously pronounced that "Rock is dead" and they went through this experimentation phase. Bono tried some serious multiple-personality business with alter-egos called "The Fly" and "Mephisto". The distinctive, soaring rock sound took on an electronic tinge, and the music was fit for a late-night lounge rendezvous more than the arenas that U2 filled with lighter-bearing fans.

Achtung Baby was either lauded or reviled with very few opinions in between. Pop on the other hand was almost universally panned and did not do too well in the commercial sweepstakes either. (I loved both albums to varying degrees, though)

IMO, this phase, though the most derided of their career,is what saved the band. After participating in Live Aid, and doing The Joshua Tree, U2 were in danger of becoming too strident, too serious and too full of themselves. There was a good likelihood of them becoming insufferable. (There are people who'll say they are insufferable enough as it is)

This New Age phase, if you will, helped them learn to let their hair down. U2 fans, try and remember a fun U2 song before this time. Except Rattle and Hum, which had "Helter Skelter" and "Desire", there isn't a single U2 song I can recall which wasn't a call to arms of some sort, or a lament of some other sort.

The result was that when they returned to basics (Phase 4, if you were paying attention) with "All That You Can't Leave Behind" (please, what's with the long titles?), they had learned the fine art of restraint. Their sound, though essentially the same, has evolved over the time, and this album showcased it off to great effect. There was the unusual beauty and grace in songs like "Beautiful Day", the cause-embracing "Walk On" (that stands on its own as a completely awesome song), but there was the bit of tongue-in-cheek with "New York", and the robust, uplifting "Elevation".

"How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb" repeats the formula in some ways (including the long names), with "Vertigo" providing the sass to the solemnity of "Sometimes you can't make it on your own".

Bono gets a lot of attention, but U2 is an incredibly tight band. The Edge (lead guitar), Adam Clayton (Bass) and Larry Mullen (drums) have had a big hand to play in the success of the band. (OK, it's one of the few bands other than the Beatles where I know the name of every band member) I cannot think of "Where The Streets Have No Name" without the wall of sound the guitars and bass create, or "Sunday Bloody Sunday" without the marching band drums. Stroke of genius, that.

Media mavens, charlatans, showmen, business gurus, call them what you may. U2 is the world's biggest rock band. Period.

Roshambo, anyone?

Wordsmith is the best. They send you a new word in the email everyday. This is one of those things that would have been really big among many of us preparing for either the GRE or management entrance exams. Of course, back in the day, email was a weekly affair since paying Rs.25 an hour for just checking email or surfing while at the hostel seemed a bit much. Our source of difficult words was the Times of India editorial.

However, I subscribed to 'A Word A Day' recently because I thought it'd be interesting. It's been fun mostly, and you learn new things on the list all the time.

There are additional meanings to words though, that Wordsmith will not elaborate. Roshambo is probably one of these words. For a full treatise on this French word, read this.

For the pop-culture summary (much more interesting), read this.

As for the 'inviting' title, no thanks. I'd rather watch.

"Bad, bad server. No donut for you". Orkut, the bottom-scraping dog of all the online services out there. Yes, it is owned by Google, my favorite online company.

"Please excuse us while our server is having a massage." - Flickr, the media darling photo site. Owned by Yahoo!

Cute, yes. But am I the only one who is so so pissed off? (In Eric Cartman's words). 'Free' services by these notable service providers means that we have to put up with sub-standard services. Instead of raising the bar on service and availability, why do I see that the bar is being lowered? Of course, Google is introducing new services quicker than people can say "We are not evil", but at what price? I remember reading and being impressed by the number of servers they ran, with their legendary clustering software and the GFS, but they can't keep a puny social networking site going? Or is it that 'Beta' means you get away with it?

I remember how in the early 0's I used to be impressed by Yahoo!'s uptime figures - they apparently had servers which had not been switched off for more than a year at a time. Now, every other time I log on to some online service, there's a cutesy message, asking me to twiddle my thumbs while the server gets a spanking or a massage or whatever the perverts at the data center can think up for it.

In the past two weeks, my favorite email app, GMail died on me once for no reason (I press the send button, and there is an error message from the server), and did not send out an important attachment on a different occasion.

There are some very maddening aspects to this attitude:

1. I'm not paying for the service. I am expected to be grateful that they are providing this service. I am also expected to be grateful that I am giving them eyeballs and the opportunity to make their billions off the ads I click on. I'd like to see Amazon have such a down-time. Because they stand to lose millions in lost transactions for every error, employees are on pager duty to ensure things go well. Things like diagnostics and support are taken seriously.

2. It's 'Beta'. So, STFU and play nice. Wasn't beta something you did for a few months while you ironed out kinks? Isn't 'software as a service' at least partly about the fact that you could fix things quickly on the server end? I won't even go into the time I was locked out of GMail for a whole day for no reason.

Orkut is apparently run by a three-person team within Google (Some business magazine I was reading talked of this as being a good thing. They obviously own or want to own Google stock and have never used Orkut) I am not surprised. With the quality of the site, it is obvious that three people with an IQ of 200+ cannot handle all of this.

There are unsexy things associated with running a website that the alpha-nerds at Google and Yahoo! need to learn. Things like uptime, maintenance, tech. support. When they learn this, maybe we can talk of Web 2.0.

Note: I am not panning any MSN services here because I don't use any other than MSN messenger. I am a fairly tolerant customer. These services have really raised my hackles, which is some achievement by itself.

1024 * 768

Until I get a new computer, that is.

I fall in the category of not making New Year's Resolutions. Actually, I fall in the unique category of not making just NYRs. A New Year is a reasonable time to evaluate where life is going and if you like the direction it's taking. (Many people seem to like doing it).

But I find it more useful to take stock every once in a while, especially after what the insurance companies call a "life-changing event" or something thereabouts. So, most of my good intentions have been intended at the beginning of semesters, changing of jobs or cities, or on a Friday night when sleeping early seems too wasteful. Like tonight.

Resolutions for this epoch? Watch more movies. Good ones. Read more books. Good ones. Make more friends. The kind worth keeping.Fall in love.*

Be kind to people. Be hard on yourself. Expect less of other people. Expect more of yourself.

And, always wear sunscreen.

* The day this has to be planned for is the day it freezes over you-know-where.
** The title of this post is pure genius, spouting from the fount of wisdom that is Alhad.

In-joo-nity

Leavenworth is an interesting tourist spot. Situated in the Cascade mountains close to the Stevens Pass ski resort, it is a Bavarian-themed village where everything from the local Starbucks to Bank of America have Bavarian/German-themed signs and architecture. The village is full of shops and restaurants with the same theme. Summer sees Bavarian-themed dances in the village square, and Winter sees elaborate lighting for Christmas with a full choir accompanying a town crier on a full-fledged "Lighting the Christmas Lights" ceremony.

So, what's with the Bavarian theme? Is it that a group of people moved here from Bavaria some generations back and decided to re-create their homeland here?

Actually, no. From the official history of the town...

"For more than thirty years, Leavenworth lived on the brink of extinction.

But in the early 1960’s, everything changed. In a last-chance effort to turn their precarious situation around, the leaders of the community decided to change Leavenworth’s appearance, hoping to bring tourism into the area. Using the beautiful backdrop of the surrounding Alpine hills to their advantage, the town agreed to remodel their hamlet in the form of a Bavarian village.

Hoping to create more than a mere facelift, the entire community rallied to create the illusion of Bavaria in the middle of Washington state. Besides the complete renovation of the downtown area, community members worked to begin a series of festivals. The Autumn Leaf Festival, Maifest and the extremely popular Christmas Lighting Ceremony were the first of many attractions Leavenworth offered to passers-by.

It worked. Since the change to a Bavarian motif, Leavenworth has become a pillar of the tourism industry in the Pacific Northwest. Today, more than a million tourists come to Leavenworth each year, each visitor finding their own individual love affair with the community. The story is a landmark case of the human spirit: Not only did the people of Leavenworth survive their most critical hour, but they endured."

I doff my hat to the ingenuity and chutzpah of the fine folks of this town. What amazes me is not just their spirit, but the fact that they are able to pull this off without having *any* historical links to the German province. While the food items and such may be authentic (as is the architecture), I did not find many things in the souvenir stores with serious German provenance. In a restaurant, a few friends interested in trying German beer found that they had only one variety in stock.

I think more than the place itself, the idea of such a place was more interesting. I must say there is something to this American spirit that so many people keep talking about. More than in rhetoric and jingoistic country songs, this is where the never-say-die spirit of the American settlers shows itself.

Look, if you had one shot, or one opportunity
To seize everything you ever wanted
One moment
Would you capture it or just let it slip?

- Eminem, "Lose Yourself"