Am I the only one tired of following politics?

This has been a never-ending barrage of messages from different political parties for different positions. Should we be surprised at people's wonder that very little gets done, given candidates are constantly busy trying to get elected for the next election?
Three suggestions:
1. Fix the amount of money that can be spent on campaigning. This way, candidates can demonstrate their effectiveness with limited resources. Time does not have to be restricted; candidates can decide how much time to devote based on available resources. Fund raisers don't have to be held and folks running for reelection can be busy actually doing something useful for people other than to schmooze with donors.
2. Electoral college system? Come on, only a few states appear to be deciding who ends up winning the presidency. What a mockery of people living in other states.
3. Fix the number of years any one can be in Washington (5 years? 10?). Folks running for reelection are focused only on that. This change can lead to their focus on actually making a mark on the society (hopefully, a positive one) and also give a chance to people with newer ideas.

Google's Goggles (Project glass): Cool and privacy stripping

Sergey Brin's demonstration of sky divers wearing Google's glasses was cool. (See here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7TB8b2t3QE&feature=youtube_gdata_player) The introduction video of the glasses was also cool. (Intro video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9c6W4CCU9M4&feature=youtube_gdata_player).

What can the glasses potentially do for us? The glasses essentially displays the web in our peripheral vision and could potentially provide feedback in multimedia format. So, you could have a map showing you where you have to go while you are walking. You could gather data on any object/person/entity/institution on the fly when you approach it or see it or hear someone talk about it. This information could either be read out to you or can be read while you are engaging in other tasks in your 'real' world, in contrast to the 'virtual' world. There is absolutely nothing unavailable to you at your finger tips (rather your eye lids) when you put on your cool glasses.

Now isn't this all good? Yes and No.

Yes, because you now have access to the web and everything related to it without having to pull your smartphone out of your pocket and looking at that while walking. The glasses let you interact with the real and virtual world simultaneously. You could be making better decisions, buying better and cheaper products, and the benefits such as these are almost endless.

No, because of a host of similar reasons. You could be subject to tons of ads for products/companies you are close to, coupons for stores/services you are approaching, and a never-ending barrage of unsolicited messages. Any one can gather pretty much all public information about you by just seeing you (the glasses could potentially take a picture of yours and find everything about you from google's vast databases), knowing where you are and what you are doing. Similarly, one could gather potentially all information about your home by just looking at.

Of course, on-road distractions will increase, multitasking would be required, and attention will be divided among several competing tasks. This, of course, appears to be a good recipe for more accidents on road and other cognitive problems.

What can be done? By limiting the functionality of glasses, Google can address some of these concerns. However, this isn't a solution that will be acceptable to consumers themselves. I guess, we just have to accept the further stripping of our privacy by this more convenient product/service.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Why women can't have it all: Blame it on the society?

To my beloved wife - my only blog follower, apologies for not boring you with my blogs for the past few months.

The media has been abuzz with an excellent article by Anne-Marie Slaughter in the Atlantic on why women can't still have it all. It addresses the difficulties women face in having a work-life balance and it essentially suggests that while one of these sphere has got to give whenever time as a limited resource poses a constraint, women are more likely to compromise on this 'work' part of the equation than men. This, according to her, is a likely explanation for the lack of women at the very top echelons of the professional ladder. She contrasts this with the 'lack of motivation' hypothesis, which is being proposed by Sheryl Sandberg. (This hypothesis suggests that women are missing from the top because they are not driven enough, not motivated enough, than their male counterparts.) Anne-Marie proceeds to suggest few options work-places could adopt to make women more welcome and more likely to continue to grow professionally.

Some thoughts...
1. What does 'having it all' mean? Assuming we had a fixed appetite (our stomach's capacity) and we had two types of chocolates on the table - one a 'professional' chocolate and the other a 'family' chocolate. We could fill our stomachs with either one or both types of chocolates in any proportion and the amount we decide to fill of each type determines the extent of success in that sphere. (A side note: what does success mean.) Does having it all imply a 50-50 split in what we consume? If it does, one will definitely encounter people who'd have one type more than the other, some times to an extreme (a 100 to 0 split). Therefore, in any sphere, one is clearly going to find someone else more successful unless they have a 100-0 split in that field. (This is not to suggest that two individuals who give their 100 to their professional fields will be equally 'successful'. There are several other factors that determine that, assuming there is a definition of success we can agree on.)
2. To what extent does our society create a bias in the ratio of 'professional' versus 'family' chocolate we consume? As an illustration, these pictures from a 'Drop in and Play' center at a local shopping mall presents the following associations.... a play home has inside it a cooking range, washer, and dryer, and this home is pink colored. No guesses for knowing which gender is supposed to be at home.






3. Can men have it all or is it expected that they have a 100-0 in favor of the professional chocolate? Or is this notion of "having it all" fairly fluid and subjective?


-Posted using BlogPress from my iPad