Dasher

David MacKay gave a talk today on an idea of his. Called Dasher, it is meant to make writing more efficient. I encourage you to try it! Its fun, its conceptually cute, and, hell, it works!

David's work reflects his ideas. His book is free to download, his software free to install. He hates the concept of patents, and dislikes the current American government. Most of all, he is very undiplomatic in declaring his ideas. All this is quite evident from his website. But I realized the extent of simplicity of the thoughts only when I met him.

During the talk, his enthusiasm was palpable. Even infectious. His eyes would widen, and shine, as he would explain some interesting idea. He would rise on his toes to impress some important problem on the audience. He speaks quickly, in the pleasing British accent (quite a welcome change from the American accent, where every sentence ends in a question mark). With the exciting gadgets, and the numerous demonstrations (he 'wrote' using his breath), the talk was quite well received.

There was visibly greater energy in the presentation hall. And even greater in the Wireless Foundations after the talk, when we discussed some ideas with him. I got more work done in the evening than usual!


Quotable quotes:

"Writing is navigating through a dictionary of all possible books"
"Let them come and sue me, nothing would make me happier" (regarding a question on possible patent infringement)
"Dasher comes with Linux. But you can download it from my website, if you are unfortunate enough to use Windows"

Beautifully depressing

Fernando Botero's paintings were on exhibit in the Doe library at Berkeley. The subject: torture of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib at the hands of American soldiers.

Botero has attempted to capture the event which the American government is all set to erase from its memory. The government has ordered that the prison be brought down.

The hall had a melancholic atmosphere. No one spoke throughout. Not even in whispers. I can not describe the paintings. The words would only be too crude. It was quite depressing to stay in the exhibition hall. I realized it after quite a while. And I realize now how depressing, how sickening, it could have been to undergo such torture, when it was so depressing to stand there, and so difficult to write now about the paintings.

After a successful display in Europe, there was no museum in the US which offered space to Botero. Indeed, Berkeley is the first museum exhibit of the paintings in the US. As I walked out, I realized that the exhibition was open to everyone. Nevertheless, the fact that most museums turned down the offer does demonstrate the parochial, almost escapist attitude that most of the American institutes have.

A society is healty if it can take criticism. If it can look inside and find faults. And I see a possiblity of a healty society by the popularity the exhibition had. By the fact that there was no malicious attempt while the exhibits were on display.

Which brings me to my second point. Could such an exhibition have happened in India? I think Indians are more open to criticism. Indeed, the greatest cynics of the India Shining story are Indians themselves. But the attitude undergoes a total change when it comes to certain beliefs. Religion, early leaders, religious heads, to criticize them is akin to attacking people personally. Surprisingly, some criticisms which non-secular countries in the world are able to digest, there are uproars in India. The Da Vinci code, the Satanic Verses. Or sometimes, the zeal to protect those beliefs is such that the protestors miss the whole point. The criticism of Gandhigiri, and of Gandhi himself (I am sure Gandhi wouldn't have agreed with the protestors. Or their methods.). Why are we so averse to differences in opinion? Why are we so insecure? Are we being escapists, too?


Update : A university article : http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2007/03/27_botero.shtml
says fifteen thousand people visited the exhibit while it was on display. Commendable, isn't it?

Nobody has black eyes

I was walking on Berkeley's rather famous Telegraph Avenue. There are some roadside shopkeepers, alongside their carts. My friend was taking money out of a nearby ATM, so I started looking at a cart carrying ear-rings, for time pass. This seller comes near me, almost silently, and asks

"What color are her eyes?"

I was a bit taken aback, so I just murmured "Oh, I am just looking".

"No, what color are her eyes?", he insisted.

I thought when I have all this time, let me humor him. "Black", I replied.

"Nobody has black eyes" he argued "they must be dark brown"
"Ok, dark brown, maybe" I say, as I roll my eyes.

"Look at these ones, the green jade ear-rings, or these ones, they would look nice"

He then proceeded to tell me how I should present the ear ring (!), and I looked at him as if I were really listening hard. My friend joined me, with a smile, trying to understand what's going on.

"It's $10, and are you a student? It's $8 for students" he offered.

"I'll think, and come back" I concluded, and turned around trying to make a hasty exit.

His voice stopped me for one last time, and I turned back.

"Don't become a communist, be an engineer!"

The old man was trying to give me some message, as his last words, for he was sure I wasn't coming back. But why? And what exactly did he mean?

Maybe, just maybe, it takes a Ph.D. to figure that out! :-)


(a rehashed version of an email I sent out loooong time back! Just felt its appropriate today. Wonder why green ear-rings attract me so much! :-D )

Stallman visits Berkeley!

I like Richard Stallman. He is easy to draw. A few strong pencil strokes for a big face, accentuated by a long, unkempt beard and moustache, a few more for the big, voluminous hair, and you're already smiling! A huge belly, which declares out loud how little he cares of his looks. A straight back, a confident, arrogant facial expression. His pale red T-shirt hangs loosely from his belly. I remember thinking that this makes good air-conditioning.

I tried drawing him during his talk, and was surprised by how closely my sketch resembled him. Then again, I had expected some surprises. We received an email about him coming to Berkeley, and him wanting to stay with a grad student, rather than in a hotel. Very Berkeley, I thought.

So much had happened before I entered the lecture hall, that the talk could only be an anti-climax. It wasn't. Not a bit.

He hopped on one foot while the person introducing him described the awards he has won, he interrupted the introduction, correcting the person. He interrupted again, and announced "You are getting yourself into trouble here!". He started his talk with an unfinished introduction. He took a bow before he started, something I believe he doesn't do everywhere. He used the word "freedom" uncountably many times, much to the elation of the audience. He seemed as idiosyncratic as the Stallmen can be, but with a hint of rationality, which came as a pleasant surprise! The hall was, for once, full, as it vibrated with the giggles, the smirks, and the verbal blows.

My favourite words :

If technology could resurrect the dead, being murdered would be a mere annoyance

(when explaining how technological changes can change our perception of what is moral, and what isn't)

A gem on telegraph

Lost in thoughts, I ambled down the telegraph street in Berkeley one Saturday. Sellers of handstiched clothes, jewellery, and other trinkets stood alongside their carts. A glittering ear-ring caught my attention. It was pear shaped, pale blue-green, reflecting light at all angles, displaying myriad shades of colors. Instinctively, I stopped.

"What is it?" I asked, raising my head to see a bearded man of about sixty.

"Its beautiful" he responded.

Berkeley's Farmers' Market

"I have a few live ones too, want some?"





Berkeley's farmers' Market





... some live music....








... and some narcissism :-)






... and the result : yummy bhel-puri!

Protest II - Living at a higher level

The year 2006 is the centenary year for a massive earthquake in the Bay area. The current football stadium in UC Berkeley has an earthquake fault line passing through it. I presume the centenary served as a reminder, for the UC regents decided that a new athletic center and a stadium would be built at another place.

For this stadium to be built, some oak trees need to be cut down. That's where the protestors come in. These are people from all over Berkeley, some are UCB alumni, some current students, and some just residents, who love the oaks, and can not take them being cut down.

What is interesting is the method of protest. The protestors have taken up residence on the trees! These residents take shifts in staying up there.

It is raining now. Tomorrow, it would be chilly. Its hard to imagine someone would be trying to catch some sleep there. But the protests would continue. And not without being noticed! They have had an effect already. The UC is reconsidering its decision. In time, I believe, the protestors would withdraw, but with better guarantees from the UC.

Which brings me to my point. Countless number of times, we merely accept an evidently wrong decision. The protests are limited to whining in private, and occassionally, in public. In IITK, a few years back, the then new director imposed several autocratic rules, and made numerous seemingly strange changes to the hostel gates, without any public justification.

My heart protested. I wrote about it on newsgroups. Some more people wrote. But that's about it! Nothing happened on ground. The administration escaped without having to explain their decision. That is what bothered me. A justification is minimal.

Protests are necessary. The authority must understand that it is governing, not ruling. That its decisions are not always accepted. Absence of protests against a decision which deserves protests sends wrong signals.

But that's only secondary. Sometimes, you need to protest merely for yourself. A protest that may not yield any results on ground, and you might know this right from the start, but it is important for you to still do it. To convince yourself that you do not take decisions lying down. That you disagree, that you have the courage to disagree, and know what is right and wrong for you. To convince yourself that when the time comes, you would protest, and make a difference.

Protest, protest, protest!

Jaswant Singh visited Berkeley about a month back. This is what happened. Find some pics here.

In recent times, Jaswant is the only Indian politician to be on the receiving end of such a humiliating protest. I was pleasantly surprised that this happened in my backyard. Surprised, and proud. Nevertheless, it bothered me that a senior Indian politician was insulted in this manner, outside his homeland. I was not sure if such a forceful and violent protest was in need.

Was a more restrained protest called for? What is the boundary which a protest shouldn't cross? What factors determine this boundary?

Gandhi once noted that it is important to register your protest even in the face of obvious loss. That registering a protest makes the authority feel that their move hasn't gone down as well accepted. He would have stood against the BJP, but not in this way.


There are different ways to protest. The contrast, however, is nowhere as stark as in India's freedom struggle. The two ways were those of the revolutionaries and Gandhi. Both set their boundaries. Both seeked to achieve some aim. In Gandhi's case, however, the aim determined the methods. As he himself put it, an India ruled by a few Indians is no better than an India ruled by a few Englishmen. The power had to come from the people themselves, and not a small fraction of the population.

Therefore, the methods are not arbitrary. The aim classifies the methods as legitimate and illegitimate. So, were the means used in Berkeley legitimate? Or, were they merely justified?