Techlure

Posted by Author On Month - Day - Year

  • 3 columns
  • Right sidebar
  • Customisable Sidebar

Woodmag

Posted by Author On Month - Day - Year

You can write post summary here

  • 3 columns
  • Right sidebar
  • Wood background

Fashion Press

Posted by Author On Month - Day - Year

You can write post summary here

  • 2 columns
  • Right sidebar
  • Image slider

Holiday

Posted by Author On Month - Day - Year

You can write post summary here

  • 2 columns
  • Right sidebar
  • Featured Posts with thumbnails

Clover

Posted by Author On Month - Day - Year

You can write post summary here

  • 2 columns
  • Right sidebar
  • Fixed width

Antennagate & Apple’s claim

Posted by Cognitive Bias On 1:27 PM 0 comments
The antenna-gate episode took a very bad turn last week when Apple tried to turn the media attention away from itself in such an un-Apple like manner. Apple claimed that other phones, specifically RIM’s Blackberry, have similar reception problems.

RIM has come back strongly with an email that declares  Apple’s claim as unacceptable’.  Apple’s claim is not totally baseless though. If they are subjected to some standards for reception, FCC should hold everyone else to the same standard. That really calls for thorough tests and study of all the phones out there. What’s really wrong is the timing of this statement. Apple is really in the middle of a self inflicted mess and now is definitely not the best time to point fingers at others (more importantly their chief competitors) to escape from the media scrutiny.

What really disturbed me is that by taking such a stance Apple has gone against the very principles that has made it such a cult brand. In terms of products Apple is in a league of its own, each of their products is so different from their competitor’s products and Apple puts a lot of effort in its design and production to make it so different. By going this route they have themselves opened the door for comparisons to be drawn, they have basically brought themselves down to be on par with the market. This really is going to take a lot to undo. 

“That guy is always there”

Posted by Cognitive Bias On 12:01 PM 0 comments
An interesting little incident took place while I was on my way to office today morning. It wasn’t groundbreaking nor eye-opening but it did epitomize what the fourth estate has been blaring about for some time now.

As I entered the first floor of my office building, a woman entered through the door on the opposite side. Something about her caught my attention; she was probably in her late thirties, petite and good looking. But it wasn’t that which distracted me, she was staring in my direction rather ungainly. Even though the cafeteria (filled with people queued up to get their morning coffee and bagel) and the large television screen was on the side where I was walking, my limited skills in kinesics was indicating that it was probably me that she was disturbed about.  As we got near the elevator door and I pressed the elevator button my mind began racing – was it my dressing sense that bothered her, was it about this Indian guy (me) walking into office when so many Americans (probably some close to her too) were out of job or was it the middle age crisis that she might have been going through. Thankfully before my mind could come up with more absurd reasons the elevator door opened and I let her go in first, so glad that my etiquettes were still intact.

In the elevator, she got a chance to look at my confused expression and probably realized what the cause was. To my good relief she said “That guy is always there”.

I was so glad to hear that. So, it was not me. It was some other guy. The relief that sentence brought, reflected on my face and I smiled at her in acknowledgement.

But now I wondered who “that guy” was? Was he the colleague on my floor who could always be spotted at the kitchen area or the canteen? There is a joke going around in my group that “Wherever there is food he will show up”. I began to think if this guy was equally notorious on the fourth floor too (where this lady worked, I am on the sixth floor).

I politely asked her “I didn’t notice… who was it”.

“Didn’t you watch the TV” came the pat reply. I almost blurted “Lady…I was so perturbed by your distraught expression that I missed the big screen!”. So it wasn’t my colleague that she was talking about, he could not be on TV, at least not on the AM news primetime. Then who was it?

I realized she was better at kinesics than me as she answered the question I had only asked in my mind. “It was the President”.

I quipped “Certainly it had to be him, the President”.

She went on “It’s been more a year since he took over. Nothing has improved, things have only got worse. All his big promises have fallen apart. But, he still lives the life of a rock star and is always on TV. He is no different than Woods or Edwards who are always on TV these days just for the wrong reasons and does not deserve that star treatment …”

Before she could complete her sentence the elevator stopped at the fourth floor, she slowly moved out and I could barely hear her say “Have a good one!”

I did not respond to her as I was still in a trance. Her statement was not an out of the world revelation by any means, but I was surprised by the level of resentment. That too towards the same guy who was the darling of the masses, not just America but the whole world loved him, a guy who I think is genuinely capable but somehow has not been able to walk the talk yet.

As I reached my office the first thing I did after logging onto my machine was to google for “president approval”. Google returned tons of blogs, news articles and polls. The Gallup poll pretty much summed up the presidents plight. I remember having woken up to “What goes around…comes around” in the morning, the graph on the Gallup poll reflected that so well.

The firm believer that I am in the president’s abilities and vision, I hope for his good, for America’s good and for a better world that he is able to turn the tables soon. Hopefully the graph has reached its nadir with only one way to go now…up!

Till then “that guy” will continue to take the flak. 

Aussies – stop ‘monkeying’ around, will ya?

Posted by Cognitive Bias On 10:09 AM 0 comments
Aussies – stop ‘monkeying’ around, will ya?

A lot of noise is being made out of the ‘monkey’ chants heaped on Andrew Symonds during the recently concluded ODI series. Something that started out with a small bunch of spectators has taken an ugly leap with the whole of Cricket Australia, fans from India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Australia and a lot of present and past cricketers getting involved. Ponting has always been a moaner and he seems to be the torchbearer in making this an issue, even though Gilchrist had clarified that the Australian team will not be making a song and dance out of this. The frenzy has reached such dizzying heights that Australian fans are already threatening Indians of ‘payback’, Sri Lankan cricket authorities have already expressed their concern that they will be the first to face the wrath when they tour down under.
I was discussing this issue with my wife, and we were thinking why only he was called ‘monkey’ and no one else and why ‘monkey’ and nothing else. The conclusion was unanimous, with that big white paint on his lips giving them an inhuman look, those strands which suggest that he hasn’t had a bath for quite some time and gawky grin – he does look like one! My wife was curios, was he always like this? So we googled for some for his images and there we found a beauty. There was this image of Symonds with his childhood sweetheart Brooke Marshall, and he looked a handsome young man in the snap without the paint and the locks. Now if he wants to look this way, he should be prepared to take what people think of it.
Intrigued by the whole episode I did some digging, to find why this was taken as a ‘racist’ remark a not just a taunt. What I found is interesting. The aboriginals (native Australians) were considered inhuman (you can read it as ‘monkeys’) till much part of the 20th century, it only changed when the ‘White Australia policy’ was repealed in the 1960s. Symonds happens to have an aboriginal mother and a white father, so you see Symonds is a half breed and the word ‘monkey’ must be reminding him of the trauma that his clan might have undergone during the last few centuries. The point here is that, it’s not the fans who are the culprits for making this a racial issue. It’s that wide mouthed Ponting and the Australian media who are responsible for this. Australia is the most racist country in the world, they treat the aboriginals as monkeys and now when some irate Indian fans accidentally bump onto that word they create such a hue and cry. Poor Symonds, he is only going to get more exposed due to this whole episode! I am sure the fans were ignorant about Symonds’s background; they just went by looks and found some words to taunt a dangerous player who was carting the Indian bowlers to all parts of the ground. Even some of the past cricketers (mind you Australian cricketers – Waugh and Border) were surprised as to why Ponting and Symonds were acting so ‘precious’! I don’t want to read too much into this, but probably Ponting has a sense of guilt over the treatment of aboriginals by his community (The Australian Whites) and sees this opportunity to shed some of that!
Getting back to the ‘monkey’ chants, we are forgetting something that happened not too long ago. The Australians have always been preaching about ‘being prepared to take what you give’. But they don’t seem be following this at their end. It was almost a decade ago when McGrath called Jayasuriya a black monkey. Isn’t this double standard by the Aussies? When they taunt someone its fine, come on it’s just a jibe – get over it. But when they end up at the receiving end, they just can’t take it. Everyone ends up whining, with Ponting leading the pack. These morons should be told that respect has to be earned and it goes both ways. Its high time these Aussie cricketers stop jumping and whining around, its time to have their feet on the ground and their tail between their legs…err I meant hold their horses.
Reliance Retail to venture into Non-Vegetarian food segment

News about Reliance Retail venturing into the non-veg segment and coming up with a non-veg chain has been doing the rounds for the last few months. So has been the silent but persistent murmurs criticizing Mukesh Ambani and the Reliance Group for coming up with this ‘unethical’ way of making money.
According to the news Reliance plans to get into this segment pretty soon and will initially be selling existing products until they come up with their own abattoir and manpower to roll out their own product. Initially the Retail group would be a part of Reliance Industries and a few years down the line it will be demerged into a different entity. According to the grapevine Mukesh has not yet been able to convince the market operators to stick with him for this venture. Seemingly this notion has not gone all that well with the broker community majority of whom are ‘jain’ and ‘marwadi’. Many HNI’s are crying foul over Mukesh for straying away from his ‘Gujrati Vaishnav’ beliefs, there are people threatening to pull out their investment from Reliance Industries, then there are those contemplating to stay out till the demerger, there are some special cynics who are urging Kokilaben to put some sense into Mukesh’s head, some are predicting that God will punish Mukesh and his group heavily if they go ahead with this plan.
Are these pig headed morons really concerned about ethical values here? If that were the case why didn’t they raise their voice and move out of Reliance when Reliance was ‘muscling’ and ‘greasing’ its way to superpower status, or is that the ‘Gujrati Vaishnav’ tradition supports such acts? As far as their threat to move out of investment in Reliance is considered, it should be taken with a pinch of salt. These pig heads are damn smart when it comes to making money; they know for sure that for every one of them prepared to liquidate their holding there would be hundreds looking forward to possessing it. With our markets opening up for the world, there will be many FII’s too - queuing up for those stocks, Mukesh might even get an offer to produce something to suit their palate on the eve of thanksgiving. As far as investments are considered Reliance certainly is ‘The Goose that lays Golden eggs’, and these morons, however vociferous they might sound, just do not have the spine to get rid of the Goose and its Golden eggs.
What then is the actual issue? It’s not at all an ethical question, because if that were the case why should cosmetics companies, cigarette and liquor companies and even the pharmaceutical sector (since they test their products on animals) be allowed to survive, and I am sure I have missed a big list here which some way or the other hurt animals. It’s not even a case of vegetarianism or non-vegetarianism, there is an age old squabble going on about it and neither side has ever managed to convince their opposition. This truly is a question for Mukesh Amabani, for him to choose between his business interests and traditional values. He, and only he, has the right to even ponder about this, every other word on this will be nothing more than noise out of clattering empty vessels. Mukesh’s business acumen might nudge to go ahead with the venture and he surely should do it then, but if his tradition beckons him not to do so he has every right to step away too.
If at all I see an issue out here, it is about the brutal treatment of animals while they are transported, it is about the pathetic conditions of abattoirs in our country (if you thought meat eaters do not have the right to think about that, that’s crap, as even a criminal with capital punishment is treated fairly in jails till death), it is about the use of children in these abattoirs, it is about the human deaths because of the unhygienic conditions that exist in these abattoirs, it is about the violence that builds up in the minds of teenagers who end up chopping live cattle in these abattoirs. That’s the issue which needs to be tackled, because there will always be a large population of non-vegetarians, leading to a large market for non-veg products and if not Reliance someone else will be tapping on to that.
As a matter of fact Reliance getting into this field might help solve quite a few problems. Reliance being such a premier group and always under the public spotlight, it might be forced to take up measures that are more human. The inhuman condition prevailing in the slaughterhouses of UP and Rajasthan might be replaced by hygienic ones, use of western technology and machines might eradicate the need of child labor. So if things fall into place properly, Mukesh can kill two birds with one stone - Improve the miserable conditions prevailing around the Indian non-veg industry as well as make handsome profits out of this new venture. Wow, so if he kills two birds with one stone, isn’t that ‘dugna munafa’!

    About Me

    My photo
    A technology & finance aficionado, web 2.0 enthusiast, gadget freak, movie buff, avid reader, and occasional blogger.