Underdogs and Bipolarity of The Internet

Microsoft has been castigated ever since its inception.  Whether it was because of the closed source platform, proprietary products or buggy operating systems and software, Microsoft has always been the punching bag of all and sundry. While a lot of the criticism has been totally warranted, a similar amount, if not less, has been unwarranted. Despite all the shortcomings, Microsoft still has the best office suite available and after nearly 25 years, Windows still remains the standard to beat and the standard which made computers accessible to all. More on Microsoft later.

Which brings me to Google.  Anything that Google touches nowadays turns to gold. People extol Google for its role in empowering people and promoting open-source software (read Android). Google has been commended for providing great software (Picasa, Chrome just to name a few) for free. The internet community in turn has taken to Google in droves.  Everybody loves Google. Ask anyone why and they would be quick to tell you that Google supports open-source and gives great stuff for free and obliterates monopoly on the internet into oblivion.

Then comes Apple (the Antichrist, if you consider Google to be Christ or vice-versa), the veracious antipode of Google, the company that rose like a phoenix from the ashes. Somehow, anything by Apple is inherently super cool. While anything by Google is gold, anything by Apple is solid weapons-grade plutonium. Ask anyone what’s so dandy about Apple’s stuff and comes the propitious riposte, its interface. 

Really? Are cute-looking devices and glossy icons that seamlessly glide into each other all it takes to be cool? Then how come the Samsung Pebble S2 and Windows 7 never came close to being cool with their dainty looks and glossy icons?

Apple has been assiduously monopolistic in their approach towards everything they produce. Apple wants us to pay for putting songs on iPods (at $0.99 a pop!) to even pay for software for using the devices they manufacture. What started with Bluetooth-less iPods, progressed to iPads without USB(!) ports to the requirement of gazillions of Apple-licensed adapters and Apple doodads to connect Apple devices to other devices or even to each other.

Weren’t you just blabbering on something about everything being open-source and free and bringing power to the people? Wasn’t that cool just a while ago? How come suddenly the exact contrariety of that got cool?

Giving power to the users? Just try installing a different browser on an iPad or using different, non-apple licensed earphones(!) on the latest Shuffle.

The fact is, all of these three have been monopolistic in their approach.  While Microsoft has always been criticized for its monopolistic tendencies, Apple while being ostentatiously monopolistic and milking customers out of their cash, is still considered the uber-cool and anything by Apple is nirvana personified.

Google’s alleged corporate motto, ‘Don’t be evil’, certainly doesn’t ring true in light of the workings of the company. What with Google placing cookies that don’t expire till 2038 to stealing personal data and passwords from Wi-Fi networks. Is this Google sticking to its motto? How else do you explain Orkut allowing only Youtube (a Google service) to post videos and Google bundling tons of useless stuff along with Firefox and other software it promotes (just like MS)?

Want to try it youself? Try using Opera to open websites by Google, Apple or Microsoft. As soon as you visit Orkut, Bing maps, or iTunes, you get a friendly message stating “Your browser is incompatible with this web content. Please upgrade to a compatible browser” while they proudly ask you to download their own browsers.  Amusingly, as soon as you mask Opera as IE or Firefox, everything becomes compatible(!)  miraculously and all of these seem to work splendidly. (Opera developers have added a feature in which you can hide/mask/impersonate the browser to identify itself at IE or Firefox)

Interestingly, a highly resource-intensive website like Facebook (which is not owned by MS, Google or Apple) works splendidly with Opera. Incidentally, Opera is the only browser besides Safari which passes the Acid3 test with flying colors. (If you wish, you can test your “precocious” browser here.)

The consequence of the above big three fighting for monopoly is that the underdog or startup companies which make some really neat products are being neglected. It is already difficult for them to complete against the financial might of any of these companies and furthermore, netizens don’t seem to be bothered about it.  They are perfectly happy with Microsoft’s buggy software, Apple’s cash milking ways and Google’s monopolistic approach and data thefts.

Nothing stays number one on the internet forever. Remember AltaVista? You do, barely. It was once the king of the internet hill once, like Google is now.  None of these 3 are gonna stay on top forever. However, they are making sure it doesn’t happen anytime soon and are being quite successful in delaying the next wave of change.

I, personally, root for every underdog with potential. Remember, Google was once an underdog too. I, for one, am ready for the next wave. Are you? Are you willing to go out on a limb and give the underdog a chance to prove itself and play a role in bringing the change? If yes, how about helping and supporting an underdog today?

(PS: My sincere apologies for the inordinate length of the article)

Life ain't god's intellectual property

(This is probably gonna get me tons of hate mail, but here goes)

There has been considerable brouhaha ever since the creation of the first synthetic organism was announced. There has been too much debate on whether man should be allowed to create life. The popular view is that man shouldn’t obtrude in god’s matters. The mainstream sentiment is that life is god’s personal demesne and should be left to him only. So is Life, god’s personal intellectual property?

No. It is not.

The argument is that man should not interfere with nature and should not create life where it shouldn’t exist. It should be left to god to decide whether there should be life or not.  Amusingly, man has been doing precisely that for a long time and no one seems to have bothered, till now.

With the recent advances in medical science, man has been creating life according to his needs. Life has been created where it shouldn’t have existed had things been left to god only. Stem cell therapy models cells as they are needed, you could make skin cells out of them or any tissue as needed. IVF creates life in wombs where there should be none. Consequently, a baby (or organism, in science speak) spawns which should not have existed had it not been for the intervention of man. Cloning is another example, a creature is made which shouldn’t have existed in nature (remember Dolly, the sheep?)

Hell, even 'condoms' interfere with the divine workings of god by preventing life from existing where it should exist.

So, isn’t this all interference in god’s work?

The risks of creating synthetic life are great but that doesn’t mean that mankind shouldn’t proceed because of them. Every great discovery has been replete with risks. Fire, electricity, ICEs, airplanes, nuclear energy, all of them carry considerable risks.  If that would not have been the case and things would have been left to god alone, we would still be cowering in fear whenever we came across lightening or still rubbing stones together. Or perhaps we still would have been thinking that the Earth is flat and is the center of the universe.

We must continue to make progress. Even if the risks are risibly humongous. We cannot stop making progress simply because we think some things should be left to god.

Which brings me to god. The problem with the theory of god is that the evidence for non-existence of such an entity is massive. Nevertheless, people still believe in the idea of the god and anything that man is not able to comprehend is left to god. But that doesn’t prove zilch .

Any idea that is widely held does not prove its validity. Even though our ancient texts are full of incidences in which god(s) played a significant role, history has given us no superhumans or entities with supranormal abilities. Modern religion is basically nothing but stories embellished over time.

As for man playing god by creating synthetic life. Considering the fact that it took “god” nearly 700 Million (!) years to create the first semblance of life (Prokaryotes) and taking into consideration that humans have been around for only 200,000 years, and we have had only around 800 years of what we call Modern Science, Man has already  created the first living “synthetic cell”; [1]  I think humans have every right to do so.

The math is incomplex, 800 years vs. 700 Million Years. I guess nobody invented microscopes when god needed to create  life.

As for me, if I would be leaving my life in somebody else's hands, I would rather leave it in the hands of somebody who at least thinks he knows what he is doing, rather than something that probably doesn’t exist.

 

 

Note:[1] Earth was created 4.5 Billion years ago while the first life form originated 3.8 Billion years ago. Modern Humans first appeared on earth 200,000 years ago. (Read more)

 

Adversity is the name of the game

I had previously written how India has a four-wheeled fixation. Anything that has four –wheels is the shortcut to nirvana and anything on two wheels is usually shunned. Sadly, this mentality is taken to the roads too.

Anyone riding a bike in traffic is usually considered a poor monger who is on his bike only because he doesn’t have anything else as medium of commute or simply can’t afford a car. Self-righteous car owners consider themselves inherently superior to everyone around them simply because they have got those little 4 wheels, however small they might be is not of importance. For them, Bikers are not traffic. They are targets.

Predictably, these people riding the cars think that they have got the first right of the way on the road and bikers are lesser mortals who have no right to be on the road.

They can’t be more wrong.
Contrary to popular opinion, most of the bikers are on a bike simply because they choose to be. (And by bikers, I don’t mean just anyone who gets on a 100 cc and wrings the throttle.)

Most of the bikers have been riding on for years, if not decades. They usually have access to 2 or more transport choices with them but they choose bikes for the freedom and the involving experience they offer. There are bikers who have got BMWs parked at home but they simply can’t resist the lure of two wheels and the intense ride they offer.

And the saddest thing is that most of these “superior” drivers are secretly in awe of bikers and their rides. They admire them secretly but are too pusillanimous to admit it in open. If they see a biker enjoying the ride on the road, sliding around and banking too much, they will be looking at the spectacle like their eyeballs are gonna pop out but later on they will just say how foolhardy this is.

The cops are no different and they also consider Bikers to be a class lower than all and consider them as targets. Harassing Bikers seems to be their favourite pastime and I don’t think the attitude is gonna change anytime soon.

Perhaps the reason for this is that people think of Biking as an underground activity. And the word ’ underground ‘ conjures up images of everything from mafia to drugs to trafficking. People just don’t understand Biking and motorsports. Their minds are just not willing to accept biking as an activity/sport.

What really flummoxes me is that people are willing to consider figure dancing as a sport but not Biking or motorsports. Hell, people might even consider pole dancing as a sport.

A seditious change in popular mindset is needed but I don’t see it coming anytime soon. Bikers have had to face adversity since the day Bikes were invented. But I take heart in the fact that despite all the adversity from everyone, from one’s own family to cops to maybe even the pope , Biking and bikers have survived and continue to flourish. Perhaps that is enough for me.

But is it enough for biking on the whole? I can’t say.

Bikes and the 4-Wheeled Indian Fixation

India has a fixation with 4 wheels. Rather than a fixation, it borders on obsession. India moves on bikes, and cars. However, bikes are the primary medium of commute for a large number of people. They ride their bikes, they care for them, the bikes take care of them but still a number of them are still obsessed by the idea of possessing a car.

India being a developing country, has different ideas about bikes and cars. According to popular ideology, while bikes are supposed to be the first vehicle one gets, cars are largely believed to be the next logical step. You are supposed to get a bike first and later on you MUST buy a car and let the bike and your biking days go.

But why should it be like this? Back when the HH CBZ was launched @60,000 Rs., people deemed it to be too expensive. The popular opinion was that you should get yourself a used small car for that kind of money. People who still went ahead and bought a CBZ were considered heretic and were admired, though mostly for their eccentricity.

Times have changed but not the thinking. Ten years hence, bikes are still considered the bottom and first step towards achieving four-wheeled nirvana. With the arrival of the World’s cheapest car and the Yamaha R15, the same sad story continues. For a hundred thousand rupees, you should get yourself a new Nano instead of “wasting” money on a bike with the latest tech. After all, you get a roof, air conditioning and the orgasmic 4 wheels.

I’ve nothing against the Nano. I believe it’s a honest effort which will help many. This is really a boon for a family which couldn’t afford a car earlier. But if you are single and free, why would you want to buy a Nano?

What you come in/on is part of your identity. Many times, the first thing a person notices about you is what you come to meet him in/on. They say, the first impression is the last impression. So what do you want yourself a to be remembered as? The guy who just pulled up in the World’s cheapest car or the guy who just got here on the coolest little thing available?

Perhaps you might argue that it’s a very skewed view from a biker’s viewpoint. Perhaps it is. But many college-going youngsters share the same view i.e. “I would rather get a car for some hundred thousand rupees than get something with two wheels.” And therein lies the problem.

What kind of a biker are you? The one who forgets his biking days at the first chance he gets of possessing four wheels? The kind who forgoes his freedom for domesticity? Or the kind who lets go of something personal and gets a group affair? Am I criticizing other bikers who think like this? Maybe I am.

Biking was never supposed to be a group affair. Biking was always supposed to be personal. And cars, they tried but never were totally successful getting the personal part right. Perhaps that is the crux of the issue. Indians expect their vehicles to be group affairs which keep doing their job and nothing more and the bikes are expected to be like that too. But since bikes, by their inherent nature, just can’t agree to be part of group affair, they are mostly shunned. And that is why Bikers are labeled heretic.

Thinking about duties/responsibilities isn’t wrong and that is what you should be doing mostly. But what about you, personally? Once in a while, one should do something is that is totally his own, totally personal.

If you’ve never had something totally personal, how about letting go of your 4-wheeled obsession and going for a test ride of those two wheels that you were eyeing at the local showroom?