One more busybee homage.
A few random thoughts on a wednesday
Bombay has rickshaws (Yay!)
Bombay has rickshaws (Groan!)
Bombay food(Yay!)
Bombay food(Groan!)

On Ideas

Years ago I had wanted to build something similar to www.yummly.com - when everything was going to be XML.

But I didnt get 1.8M and I didnt even try. We search for the killer idea that will make us a lot of money , but I'm coming to think that its not the lack of ideas that stops us. Its that we don't actually go and do something about it. Seeing the idea through.

Brilliant!

Source The Golden Rule

Irony meter goes SPROING

Ive always believed that one common characteristic of religious fundamentalists is that they dont have a sense of humor.
They probably cant recognize irony either.

http://biologos.org/blog/doing-battle-with-jerry-coynes-army-of-straw-men/

a. Cherry picking: the act of choosing examples, as if they were typical, ignoring equally valid examples that contradict your position.

Now if you have ever spoken to any religious (even moderate) people , you should know that Cherry Pickers are more likely to be religious. You can give example after example. When a non believer points out bad stuff , its rarely to say that your religion is uniformly bad , but to prove that your religion can't really be a source of morality. To prove that your religion can't be a book of peace. To prove that your God can't really be a loving one. You'll note that some bad stuff found in a religious book is enough to disprove any of the above and no amount of equally valid quotes disproves that position.

False analogy: making an error in the substance of an argument—the content of your analogy—even though its structure seems acceptable.

Apply it your article!

Hasty generalization: when you use a few inadequate examples and then generalize about the whole.

Irony meter close to SPROING

Because Coyne’s arguments are so universal I want to address some of them in my next blog series

If we want to engage the conversation, then we need to put some effort into understanding the issues. And the New Atheists rarely do that. Dawkins is the most famous offender

This series of blogs will address the army of straw men with which Jerry Coyne and the other New Atheist generals wage their war on religion.

A few inadequate examples like Coyne and Dawkins are enough to generalize all New Atheists!

Spotlight fallacy: This is a specific form of hasty generalization that occurs when we assume that all the examples are like the most famous ones getting media attention.

See above.

SPROING!!!

Believe nothing

"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who has said it, even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your reason and your own common sense." - Buddha
How many religions can claim to preach/practice this?

Late Adopters

There was a time when I was an early adopter when it came to technology. Or atleast an early adopter wannabe when I could not afford it. Use email! Use the latest and greatest technology! Use webcams! Use chat! And look at the older generation with sympathy when they couldnt use Outlook Express or a Mouse. Or even worse when they could not understand why a computer + the internet was so great.
Till it came to ebooks. Can't stand them. Only use them for technical books where the value of copy and paste overrules the distaste for ebooks. But fiction? No way. Kindle? Thats to be burnt. And now IPad and Digital Comics. So far there had never seemed to be a viable device for reading comics (and Im glad to see that some people still think that the IPad isn't it for comics yet) but the game seems to have changed with the new tablets. Print comics will die or atleast be ridiculously expensive. I just hope it will be after my time. I can't see the value of possessing a file - my comic has always been my copy and thus has value- Though this has taken aim at my philosophy of I'm a reader first, collector second and shot gaping holes through it. Lending a book still had value than copying a file. I suppose because while lent, you can't read the book. So valiantly I spend 70 bucks per weeks hoping that these contributions will keep the print industry in business just a little while longer, while knowing that the early adopters look at me with maybe a little sympathy, maybe a little frustration.

Moderation

In Living Color: I Can't Make You Believe Me if You Don't
If I ever needed examples of strawmen I'd look at Jean Kazez's post.
For e.g.

#1 Some think that by standing up for Chris Mooney on the issue of how he vetted Tom Johnson

See now there are multiple issues here.
a. Did Chris Mooney vet the identity?
b. Did Chris Mooney vet the incident?
Whatever has come out so far only points to a), and people have commented numerous times that even if Tom Johnson existed , the incident seemed fishy. There has been no information at all about whether the incident was true or not and what was done to check it out. Continuously harping that Chris Mooney did vet the identity of the person is missing the point. Mooney did use this incident as Exhibit A. and has not apologized for it, he has said sorry for being deceived , not the same thing.

#2 Some people think it's "ethically blinkered" to deal with the vetting issue, without concerning myself with other gripes people have about Chris.

Again its ethically blinkered , but its not to do with the other gripes(for e.g. banning Ophelia Benson). Its to do with this incident in entirety. Chris Mooney could have been deceived convincingly, yes it happens to all of us, but what has been the response after the deception was discovered?. It is being blinkered to just look at whether the vetting (See also #1) of the identity was thorough. It is also silly to expect that we should take a couple of people statements as face value. What next look at Dick Cheney to vet G W Bush's policies? (Trust me . the evidence for WMD's is sound!)

#3 Some have an irrational level of trust in "William

No we dont. We dont know when he lied and when he didnt, But we also cant take Chris's word at face value now, and there is no reason to take Jean's either. The whole way this has been handled is bad. The evidence could not be shared with identities protected? Really? It had to be shared with TB and I cant think of a single example where TB has had any disagreement with Mooney. It has to be shared with Jean who seems to have an uncanny talent of missing the point ?

and I can go on for almost all the points.

But the real irritant is this

"know to some degree have said such insulting things about me in the last 24 hours. In fact, I don't think it would be out of order for them to apologize. I'm certainly not giving anyone an opportunity to throw more inane insults at me, so comments are closed."

Jean Kazez has no problem calling people juvenile, insulting , gullible etc etc. But oh we cant criticise Jean. Whats more we should not respond where accusations are made. I wonder why people don't have the courage to have their views questioned?. If you wish to take a public stance on something, be prepared to answer questions about it. Im not sure why Jean Kazez expected that saying "Ok Ive looked at the evidence , it looks good" would have everyone fall in line and say "its ok with jean , so its ok by me!"

Not all the people who criticized Jean on Jean's blog were insulting (I can't see what I commented was insulting and even then one of my comments was deleted)
Its one thing to say I dont have enough time to respond to comments, its quite another to present a flawed version of attempts and not give people a chance to respond. Yes Jean's blog and Jean's rules, but I'm not saying she can't do what shes done, just that this violates common courtesy. And yet , in some time , we can expect Jean to post some more on how Jean has been persecuted, victimized, insulted etc etc etc.

Science, Religion, Morals, Curiosity etc.

I blame Sam Harris for kicking off a topic regarding science and morals. A generally observed viewpoint is that Science makes no comment about morals. It can tell you how to make a nuclear bomb but cant really tell you whether to use it or not. Science does not provide a framework to evaluate moral right or wrong. Sam Harris thinks otherwise, that there are some calls that science can make. And takes some non controversial and some controversial examples related to human wellbeing (which I suppose he equates to morally right). Other people like Sean Carroll weigh in , a debate ensues and some insults are flung , some apologies are made. I'm not sure what the answer to the question is , but one thing is certain, if Science can't make a call, ever, (as Carroll implies), then probably no one can. Religious people and scientific accomodationists love to step in here and say morals can be determined by religion, but history shows that religion can be trusted to almost always make the wrong call. In any case while religion may put forth a claim of what it deems moral, there is really no way to verify , nor can you really evaluate competing and contradictory claims made by different religions. If you could do this , then the principles you would use would have to be scientific and then you are back to where you started, science can evaluate morals. If science can't evaluate then we can only say we think, what we assume but we would never *know*. The only way forward would be consensus, and again we can see from history this doesn't really work. While a lot of people may believe that discriminating against gay people is morally wrong, the *consensus*, read majority, don't hold that view, just as erstwhile majorities didn't hold the view that slavery is wrong or imperialism is wrong.

Which leads us into one of the major difference between a religious person and a scientifically oriented person, the scientifically oriented person always wants to know. The religious person not so much. Take for e.g. The question "Does prayer work?". A scientific person would already have experiments in his head about how to verify. You would want double blind tests to eliminate placebos. You'd try out various types of prayer and by various people. The religious person on the other hand doesn't really want to know, he wants to have his beliefs reinforced. He'll either state that you cannot determine the answer to this question scientifically. Or in the rare cases that he does agree , he will wait till the results are in. If the tests show that prayer does work (perhaps in some limited circumstances) we'll be told I told you so. If it doesn't work , then we will have a list of excuses why the dragon in the garage cant be verified. Even worse , it is the scientific person who is accused of being close minded. Whereas clearly if the data did show that prayer works , repeatedly, using independent experiments, then the point would have to be conceded. On the other hand the religious person never accepts that prayer doesn't work. What's interesting that though people claim they believe in prayer , all their actions indicate that they don't really. You might pray that you get a job, but rarely does everyone think that if you pray there shouldn't be unemployment , the prayer will be answered. While people may pray for a particular sick person to be healed, they don't pray that there should be no sickness (or atleast they don't expect it to be answered). It looks like they believe God can only perform small miracles, not major ones. Cure a blind person, sure , just pray. Cure blindness for all? Uhh no that can't be done - God can't solve all our problems, or Humans are responsible for suffering or where there is happiness there must be sadness etc etc, but evidently all those excuses don't apply while you are dealing with a small miracle that might have happened anyway. It looks dishonest and I wonder if people who give explanations like the above , really , really believe what they say or is it just whats the harm attitude? (possibly quite a bit)

On Ambition

Ive once been told that I have no ambition (because I never did anything more than a BE and because I was, at that time , employed in the same company for > 6 years). I remember laughing at that time and saying that what does someone mean when they say they want to earn X amount of money or be the CEO of some company or start their own business , be their own boss, be famous , be the best in their field , because surely thats not their end goal?
What exactly are people looking for when they want money or power or fame or expertise? Simple answer really.
It reminds me of another time when I had visited a friends house whose uncle was down from America for a vacation, a big shot manager in a big company(GE I think). He told me (since I was introduced as the smart guy) that I should come and work in America. I wasn't I think experienced enough then to just smile and nod, and I said "Why?". The uncle look surprised. I don't think he expected that answer. After a brief pause he said "Because you can earn more money", to which, I asked "Why?" . After another pause he said "So that you can buy whatever you want". I said "I have whatever I need" He said "Then you don't want enough" , he didn't understand the nuance between needs and wants. Before I could point out the circular nature of his argument, my friend nudged me and shook his head, and I laughed and let it go.

At various points in my life , I have wanted to be a scientist , a detective , revealed to family as something beginning in 'D' (which they thought meant Doctor, surprising , considering my aversion to blood), a self sufficient Farmer, a Teacher, a Librarian or Book shop owner and have ended up as a Software Engineer. But not without fulfilling some of my previous ambitions. Well fulfilling is a strong word, things that could be interpreted as fulfilling my ambitions.

Science experiments mainly consisted of being able to burn paper boats in the afternoon when my grandmother was asleep, with or without candle wax. All in the pursuit of a boat that would burn but would remain intact. I'm not sure why I thought wax would achieve this. Also burning firecracker tiklis in the box. Some school experiments in physics and chemistry is all I have to show for the scientist's ambition. I guess my claim to fame is that I never got caught by parents.

I never manged to make Teacher either but I did teach my neighbour's kid some maths, he got full marks in the next exam, my crowning achievement. I taught two people for Drawing and BEE K.T.'s , they passed. I taught another person in engineering with some limited success. I have taken some courses in MBT. Not quite what I expected when I said I was going to be a Teacher, but atleast I can tick this.

When I wanted to be a Detective, I imagined myself as an Alistair MacLean loner. However it looks like all my sleuthing skills have only been used to figure out bugs in code, quite successfully as well. Among all my colleagues, there have been better coders, designers, architects , managers than me, but so far in my own biased opinion, I am the best bug detective.

I briefly held the title of Librarian at St Peter's YSS. I had imagined myself as the male version of Meg Ryan in You've got mail, reality ofcourse was far different. All I did was make entries in Library cards. No pretty woman(girl at that time) ever asked me my opinion for which book she should read.

And now its almost time to fulfill the ambition to be a Farmer.

Movies

While watching 3 idiots , I realized something about movies, sometimes the most boringly predictable movies are the ones you really like. In the blue corner you might take movies like Sixth Sense, Memento or Seven. The movies that you must see at least twice. Because the first time, the twist catches you unawares and you have to go back and see the movie with that fresh bit of information. In the red corner you have movies like 3 idiots, Avatar, The Munna Bhai series, The Pixar series where a few minutes into the movie and you already know the major plot points and how its going to end. And you like the movies anyway. And you watch them again because you remember the good times. What then makes a movie a complete package? A good story? A good twist? Good actors? Humor? Action? A combination of the above? Anything , everything? I'm not including critics choices, because they seem to have tastes that are alien to the rest of us(dark depressing movies always seem to do well, as do any movies that deal with the holocaust) or they have expectations that, well, defy expectations. Do you go into a Transformers movie expecting excellent performances and believable plot lines? but evidently the critic does. Sometimes an incredibly complex sophisticated movie does well, and sometimes a popcorn dumbed down crowd pleaser. You might say the audience is fickle but then I'm only dealing with my tastes, I like both the crowd pleaser and the complex movie. The fast paced action flick as much as the slow burn art movie. I like a comedy as much as I like a human interest story. I like good acting as much as watching Captain Kirk ham it up.
Perhaps the journey is more important than the destination which is why the twist or lack of it doesn't make a difference.

Blasphemy

Some blasphemous quotes here
What is interesting to note in the 'blasphemous quotes' is the religious figures who have made blasphemous comments about other religions (including the leading lights of the two major religions).