Goobi's Soggy Shit

I’ve stayed away from writing technology on the the sh.it since I started. Any techie thought usually lands up at that big blog no one knows about. However here’s something that doesn’t quite fit into the whole Apple thing, yet I want to rant about it. Wave, the latest services from the internet overlords, Google.

Google Wave is said to be the next evolution of email. I watched the demo, and was pretty excited about the possibilities. To understand what Wave is, you have to either use it or watch the video; it’s impossible to explain. Well I’ll try to anyway. It all starts by creating a new ‘wave’. Think of it as an idea. The idea is sent to a recipient (so far so email). The recipient then looks at the idea, and contributes to it in his own way. He can reply to certain bits, add ’stuff’ to it, and return the idea. However, unlike email, he doesn’t return the idea back to the sender, as the idea is out of the hands of the creator the moment it’s created. It’s just an idea floating around in the cloud. So either parties can add people to the idea, much like a brainstorming session calls in additional members into the team. The team members can look at the idea, see what the original recipient had contributed, and add their own comments. More importantly, they can even ‘replay’ the wave as it was formed. It’s still a single idea, a single wave. Sounds brilliant? It’s not.

As soon as I got the Wave invite, I got into the system hoping to reinvent my system of communication. I was just set for disappointment. I’ll mention the sluggishness just in passing, as I know this is a ‘Preview’ and they’ll eventually get things sorted out. My complaints are more conceptual, which probably won’t get fixed even if and when it gets out of beta.

First up, is Wave is a mess. The UI is splattered across the window. New and updated waves show up bold in your inbox. But unlike email where you have incoming messages, there is no obvious way to tell what part of the wave is new. Sure the replay thing is there, but it’s kind of a roundtrip compared to just reading the new content in your mailbox. Next, is the idiots using Wave. I have a bunch of waves in my inbox, with over 60 people added into the conversation. Why the fuck would I be interested in some discussion about some tech project? I can remove myself from the conversation, but that’s just like saying I can remove spam from my Hotmail inbox—sucks. This is mainly because adding people into waves is so darn easy, and you don’t have to explain why the person is added—they can read the whole wave. This kind of choothyagiri would never happen with email.

One other trend I’ve noticed with Wave, is that it’s treated more like an offline IM conversation rather than email. The current waves are like mini social networks. Small >140 character messages, which I refuse to accept as a meaningful way to communicate (case to point: twitter). Add to that Wave supports apps. Don’t we have enough of those on facebook already that I have to play Sodoku inside my email client?

The third part of Wave, which is touted as one of the more significant features, is live-type. As you’re typing the other parties can see it. I’ll quote Farhad Manjoo [Slate] as he explains it best:

Chatting on Wave is like talking to an overcurious mind reader. On a conventional IM, you only see what other people say once they hit Enter. (True, the IM program will tell your partner whether or not you’re typing, but this is too little information to get embarrassed about.) On Wave, every misspelling, half-formed sentence, and ill-advised stab at sarcasm is transmitted instantly to the other person. This behavior is so corrosive to normal conversation that you’d think it was some kind of bug. In fact, it’s a feature—indeed, it’s one of the Wave team’s proudest accomplishments.

It scares the crap out of me. I usually don’t type badly, but with Wave I always end up making mistakes, and having to correct them with someone watching is unnerving. There’s a mute button, but it’s not yet enabled. I will stay away from wave until that button breathes pixels.

At the end of the day, Wave is an interesting concept, and might just make sense after Google has fixed the sluggishness, and more people start using it. But it will not replace email. Not in this lifetime at least. What Google Wave will serve, is for those few people who come across projects they want to collaborate on. That’s correct. It’s a good tool for collaboration, not communication. I can see Preshit, Avner, and myself discussing affairs of the big blog I mentioned earlier, but for regular communication, email still serves the best bytes. The one way I can see this working, and it’s possible that Google already has this in their roadmap, is integrating Wave into Gmail. That way you have the option of both services, as you slowly move towards waving. Till then, I’ll be waving something totally different. I should also note that I’m fairly unreceptive to new services, but eventually get hooked to them. That salt will come in handy right about now.

So, if there’s an obnoxious jackass shouting “Wave!” on twitter or facebook, know that “Yeah? Go fuck yourself” is the right answer.

So you can use the keyboard right? The relative meaning of pixels is apparent to you. For how else would you have landed on this blog? It’s not in print; it never shall be. So you got here using your not-so-fancy computer (stats show majority of you are PC users), using a decent browser (Firefox mostly), and are reading this entry posted in english. I consider you intelligent, even if maybe a little on the lower side because of that crummy PC.

Every year, in India alone, 60,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide is disseminated into our atmosphere because of fireworks. It also dispells toxic metals like lead, sulphur, and other carcinogenic elements. Breathe that in. Okay I made the CO₂ stats up myself; I don’t know the amount of CO₂ released by fireworks, but I’m pretty sure it’s a lot. So this Diwali, to celebrate with your family, what you gonna do? Buy fireworks right? I couldn’t think of a more arrogant human being than one who lights fireworks.

First of all, it has nothing to do with tradition. Fireworks have, to the gen-pop, come in style only in the last two or three decades. Before that the only fireworks were the sparks flying out of Rawana’s hairy ass. Second, nobody’s going to judge your wealth—if that’s your end goal—by the amount of smoke you create. In fact, it’s just going to annoy everyone who isn’t celebrating the birth/death/something of your God. And third, think of the children.

To understand the stupidity of firecrackers, and fireworks in general, I propose an experiment. Just this once, buy a pack of firecrackers, or even a rocket if you will. Now light the fucking thing, and observer as it bursts, shoots, or spits out flames. See that? It’s fucking stupid! Dumbest idea one could possibly think of, and can only serve as entertainment for those with the intellect of a 15th Century chinese farmer. Save yourself the embarassment, and light a cigarette instead. It’s cool, and for most part you’ve the only one who’s going to suffer a horrible death.

If you buy and light fireworks (outside of conducting that experiment), you are a sick excuse for a citizen of this country. I spit on you.

A lovely display of fireworks for you [via]

I won’t start by telling you about my fascination for cameras since a young age. Instead I’ll start with seeing gorgeous photography on Flickr, and wanting to be like one of those gods. I don’t really know why I need a dSLR camera, or what use I would put it to (I have a few in my mind), but I’ve always wanted one. I know I’ll put it to good use, even if it doesn’t yield me any money. I’ve seriously wanted to get a dSLR for the past year or so, but it was only like a week ago when I said, “Fuck it!” (literally) and decided to get one.

The worst part about getting one of these cameras, is reading reviews. I’d suggest you don’t read any reviews, unless you’re looking for something specific. My point is, any dSLR from Nikon or Canon are nothing short of excellent. Reviews drove me nuts. I had Amazon reviews, Ken Rockwell’s sharp reviews, DPReviews’ reviews, and their forums. One nut speaks volumes about a camera, while the other ridicules it to the point that you wouldn’t ever buy that cam. Yet, Flickr shows gorgeous images from any of these cams. Ultimately, while a lens or two might help, I’m sure it’s the photographer who matters.

Finally I settled on the Nikon D3000, even though Ken Rockwell said it might be the worst camera Nikon has ever produced. The pictures on Flickr were good enough for reassurance. Paid 28k for it, and got it the very next day after ordering it. It’s a grey market piece. Another something for the memory card and UV filter, and I was on my way home with a sub-30k dSLR which was pretty good. Pretty good because I don’t know squat about what makes a good camera¹; but it looks domineering. The rugged black look feels solid in the hands, and the faint ‘is it really there?’ purple sheen in the lens makes it all worth it.

Yeah, I’m left to shooting fucking coconuts in the backyard

I had about a day and a few hours to learn the basics of photography, and create images for this blog post. A lot of people said Canon’s cams were easier to use, but I find this one, including the menu system and physical controls, far easier to use than my brother’s Canon 300D. The menu settings are very accessible, easy to understand, and I soaked it all in within a few hours. I’m yet to determine whether the “VR” in the lens really works though.

When it comes to my idea of photography, I have a few principles to adhere to. I will try not to use Flash unless really really required. I will use manual focus. And I will stay away from the auto-settings. I tried some of the presets, and while they produce decent images—better than the crap I’ve shot using the manual controls—I won’t be lazy, and will make sure I stay as manual as possible. I mean, what’s a photographer if he can’t describe why it was that exact aperture that made the image what it is!

Amateur hour!

I’ll be posting most of my images on Flickr, some of it on Tumblr, and a little bit on Twitter as well. For right now it’s the basic ‘newbie’ shit like experiments with traffic, highly saturated landscapes, and low depth-of-field macros. If you have comments against my camera, keep them to yourself. I will however entertain ridicule of my pictures and practices as a photographer.

[1. Well, more than the average joe for sure, but not enough to fly]

I’ve suddenly transformed into a huge fan of Larry David, the lead character in Curb Your Enthusiasm, a TV show about the life of Larry David, co-creator of the Seinfeld show. Curb your Enthusiasm is a light comedy, where Larry goes about dealing with every day life, in a manner which makes you feel like he’s actually living life the way it was meant to be.

Larry see’s things with a degree of clarity and rationality that you can’t help but agree. He hates those ’stop and chats’, he’s always concerned as to what the limo driver will be doing while waiting on his party, and always speaks his mind no matter the occasion. Larry tells it like it is. Society has evolved far from rationality; always putting cultural idiosyncrasies before logic and reason. Larry on the other hand bends society over like it’s never been bent before.

In an interview, the real Larry admitted that he wished he was like his character in the show. It does bring some reality to the whole affair, but the character is still something I long to be. I’m not. No. But I want to be like Larry—save for the few stupid things he does here and there.

Curb Your Enthusiasm is an HBO production, so it’s filled with profanity. If your name is Aayush, do not watch this. The word motherfucker is freely thrown about—as it should. It’s a beautiful word that tests the insecurity of a person. Currently running into its 7th season, with 10 odd episodes per season, get ready for some awesome fun. The show is also shot in the ‘improv’ style, meaning the dialogs are not rehearsed, and things are done on the spot. It’s really good. And the hero doesn’t always win. He wins sometimes, but not always. As it should be.

Larry and Jeff laughing it off to the ‘freaks’ book

There have been so many movies based on this by now. Looking to the future and flying without wings are two things man has yearned for but not achieved. I’m not talking about flying an airplane or gliding down from a hill—those aren’t nearly awesome enough. Still, there is a distant possibility that someday Ironman-like flying abilities might come to man. But knowing the future on the other hand seems to be a logically impossible feat.

Now I haven’t researched on this, and I’m sure there has been a lot of conjecture on the topic, but here’s my take on why future watching is not going to be in reality. Sorry to disappoint.

Past, Present, but no future?

The biggest problem with the future is that it affects the present. It causes us talk off reverse change it again affects the future causing a sort of infinite loop that even God cannot get out of. Here’s our basic understanding of what happens when we see the future¹:

• You look into the future and see that on your trip to town a big black wolf will pounce out of nowhere and ass rape you.
• You avoid going to the city on that day.

The moment you don’t go to the city, that big black wolf phenomenon is no longer a reality, and hence, not the future. Now you could say the future didn’t know you were going to look into it, so you have in-fact changed future, and not a non existent reality.

The problem lies with time and its continuity. Now I agree no one really knows what time is. It’s either just a mental construct to help us remain sane, or it’s actually a series of events. Now, if every event was set in stone, it would have already figured out that you were going to look into the future, and hence made that change about the big black wolf. This of course has an infinite loop of changing the future that would inevitably lead to the destruction of the universe.

Me, myself, and Mickey Mouse

Now what about third party action? What if I can see the future of a group of people in Nebraska, or a Russian ship being blown up. Kinda like that God person does ‘up there’.

a. I could tell them about it, and we’re back to square one.
b. What fun would that be?

Third party action again keeps us in the same loop as we were. After all, actions generate change, and altering those actions will result in a different change. You seeing a bomb exploding on a bridge, and you’re making sure all the authorities know about it. They might not listen, but there’s a chance that the future can be changed this way.

We’re just puppets

The other way to look at this is, that the future is preordained, and that we’re just puppets. The one who see’s the future, as said by Dr. Manhattan in The Watchmen, “is merely one who can see the strings”. Now what kind of bullshit is that? In the movie, he knows that his girlfriend is cheating on him because in his future he see’s her telling him so. He even tells his girlfriend that “in a few minutes, you’re going to tell me you’ve been cheating on me”. And when in a few minutes she does, he’s all surprised. This clearly goes against human nature, as our inherent knowledge of things makes us act upon it. In fact, it’s just plain nature, as most living things will act upon anticipated events. If you see the future, it’s going to change.

Some other clever subtitle

There is one argument that’s intriguing though, and that’s futures based on actions. Life is a series of choices they say. Well what if you could see beyond those choices?

a. Choose action x, follow the path, and the Big Black Wolf shows up. Rape ensues.
b. Choose action y, follow the path, and a Megan Fox shows up. Rape ensues, but this time you’re the one with the cooking spoon.

The situation shows that while you have full control over your actions, the rest of the universe will merely fall into a set pattern based on those actions. And it’s the most plausible one of the lot, but it’s still flawed at its core. It’s not really the future, but a mere rendering of it based on your actions. Sort of like mathematics. The future I’m talking about is like opening a christmas gift. It’s going to happen, but you have no idea what it is. And peeking into the future, is knowing what’s inside that wrapper.

Jesus saves.

Now just for fun, let’s bring God (or the concept of him) into this? God is said to know the past, present, and future, all at the same time. Yeah, think how boring a life he must be living. I hope there’s porn ‘up there’ for him to watch. Getting back to the topic at hand, can God actually see and change the future? Man is said to have power over his actions, right? So God should not know what his next action might be. But, if he knows the future, he knows when Mr. Francis is going get horny and rape his neighbour’s wife. God can:

a. Enjoy the show, as he always has been.
b. Change the future.
c. Not know the future.

If the future is already set in stone, Man no longer has free will. Mr. Francis was destined to find his neighbour’s usually ugly wife unusually hot that day, and make a stand on that.
If the future is set in motion, it also means that God doesn’t have infinite power, and is easily tricked by his confusing illusion of knowing the past, present, and future.
If God changed the future, he would be robbing Mr. Francis of his free will, thereby negating his entire reason behind heaven and hell.
I don’t say it’s illogical for God to know the future, be able to change it, but not do so because of protecting the notion of free will (there go all your prayers calling for miracles). There is a possibility of him being present in different times, while still keeping Man within his ‘free will’ policy.

I admit. My ‘God reason” isn’t top notch. Perhaps it’s because I always tend to think of him as an afterthought.

In Essence

Besides me being a crazy nerd with a lot of time on my hands, it’s safe to say that there can never be a clear understanding of the future. God might be knowing about it, but I don’t think even he dare act upon it. It’s a delicate balance between time, free will, and an all powerful mind, all of which might prove to be too much for even God to handle. Of course, the bigger question is, why on earth would one want to see the future? Life’s a series of Christmas gifts. Enjoy them as they come!

1. I had a discussion with the Lion about this. His opinions though were totally useless in this regard. He reasoned out a more ‘mystic’ form of the future, where things will happen no matter how you spin it. Vague statements like “two years from now you will be a very rich guy but sad at the same time”. That kind of shit had to stay out of this argument. I’m talking about the future in high definition, where you can count the leaves on the tree you will be looking at.