More on the failure-proof theory.

Incidentally, I didn’t say that Amit Varma was wrong, only that his argument was fallacious. There may be a good case for dealing with Musharraf, but it cannot be “We must deal with him because in the slim chance that we succeed, the payoff will be really good.” Any decision to deal with him must look at what realistic chances of success are.

Amit says that there is no harm in trying. That’s silly. Of course there is. The potential harm is that we will be suckered into making concessions once again, without getting anything in return. He also says that this time its different because Pakistan has agreed to abandon the primacy of Kashmir. Huh? He has never said anything like that. It’s just wishful thinking on the part of the “Shower so much love on the Pakistanis that they get overwhelmed with emotion and agree to become our friends” crowd.
Continue reading

On Rules and History

The Pope’s death reminds me of Chapter 3 of Joel Spolsky’s book on User Interface Design for Programmers. . That is not surprising, because a lot of things remind me of Chapter 3 of Joel Spolsky’s Book on User Interface Design for Programmers.
This is how Chapter 3 of Joel Spolsky’s Book on User Interface Design for Programmers starts:

When you go into a restaurant and you see a sign that says “No Dogs Allowed,” you might think that sign is purely proscriptive: Mr. Restaurant doesn’t like dogs around, so when he built the restaurant he put up that sign.

If that was all that was going on, there would also be a “No Snakes” sign; after all, nobody likes snakes. And a “No Elephants” sign, because they break the chairs when they sit down.

The real reason that sign is there is historical: it is a historical marker that indicates that people used to try to bring their dogs into the restaurant.

Most prohibitive signs are there because the proprietors of an establishment were sick and tired of people doing X, so they made a sign asking them to please not. If you go into one of those fifty year old ma-and-pa diners, like the Yankee Doodle in New Haven, the walls are covered with signs saying things like “Please don’t put your knapsack on the counter,” more anthropological evidence that people used to put their knapsacks on the counter a lot. By the age of the sign you can figure out when knapsacks were popular among local students.

So what has this got to do with the Pope’s death? I was wondering about the fact that the Pope does not have a deputy who can take over from him automatically. There’s usually a reason for that, and the reason is to pre-empt rivals and plots. That tells you something about the history of the Papacy. If you need further proof, look at the rules for electing a new Pope.

Gmail sets a moving target

Despite my best efforts, I been able to fill up only 10% of my 1 GB quota in Gmail. Now they’ve gone and decided to increase the limit as and when they can. Ah well, I must redouble my efforts.

Secondly, I am greatly interested in knowing how Google’s plans for world domination are proceeding. The reason for my interest is that the maintenance and further development of the world’s huge population of 6 billion are proving to be too much of a strain on the Cartel’s resources, what with our advancing years. I don’t want to name names, but the recent tsunami, the re-election of George W Bush and Abhijeet Sawant winning Indian idol are all directly traceable to a particular Cartelian missing out on feeding some crucial variable into the Prime Radiant.
Continue reading

Kiruba’s alleged retirement reminds me of something I tried to pull off in my younger days.

It was graduation time at IIML. Convocation was next day and we graduates had to go through a rehearsal to make sure that nothing went wrong. It was nothing great – we had to bow to the chairman, then walk a few feet, bow to the chief guest and take the diploma. But it so happened that one of the class missed the rehearsal. His name being Abhay he was supposed to be the first to take the diploma (It was in alphabetical order). So he asked me. I told him what to do, but I added that after receiving the diploma, he was also supposed to bow to the audience.
Continue reading

The Presidential System and States

Nilu, in response to my post saying that going for a parliamentary system was a mistake, says that a presidential system will hurt the smaller states. I don’t understand his argument, and I don’t think that the presidential system will hurt federalism (or smaller states in particular) in any way. But before even I get to that, I must say that Nilu is missing the point. If you want true federalism, the way to go is to give power to the states, not worry about how much influence the states have at the centre.

I mean, take Maharashtra and Bihar. Maharashtra has Mumbai, which contributes most of the Union’s taxes. But Mumbai doesn’t get anything in return. It has to beg the Centre for money to build its railway lines and roads. Naturally, Mumbai thinks that the Centre discriminates against it On the other hand, Bihar is considered by everyone else to be a drain on the country’s resources. But the Bihari has a complaint too. He thinks that the Central Government is taking his state’s coal without paying it any royalty.
Continue reading