tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-288828842024-02-06T22:24:00.364-08:00InferenceUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger23125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28882884.post-83860745999944543082009-07-12T13:44:00.000-07:002009-07-13T09:48:26.483-07:00Free Software as Catalyst for Positive Feedback in Winner Take All markets<h4>Free software is priced to sell</h4><blockquote>Well, the product we are introducing tonight is Internet Explorer 3.0. And there's a lot of neat new things about Internet Explorer 3.0. The product is priced to sell. -- <em>Bill Gates</em></blockquote><br />Free software is indeed priced to sell. But this isn't a post about open-source or the freemium business model that is notably a <a href="http://www.techmeme.com">meme</a> these days. Nor is this a ringing endorsement for or against free software. In this post I attempt to take a hopefully un-cynical look at the disruptive influence of free software in a marketplace, not in itself, but as a tool complementing a profitable strategy. In doing so I will use a recent announcement as case study.<br /><br /><h4>The case for Chrome OS</h4>Google recently <a href="http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/introducing-google-chrome-os.html">announced </a>Chrome OS, which at this stage is a blog post about vaporware involving a browser on a locked down Linux kernel. Sometime next year it is to be reality. To me the biggest feature of Chrome OS is that it will be free and therefore priced to sell. Just like Android. And Google's myriad web services from email to mapping.<br /><br />Now you may be wondering what the point of introducing Chrome OS is when there's already Android positioned to do nearly the same kinds of things. That's a <a href="http://dashes.com/anil/2009/07/googles-microsoft-moment.html">fair question</a> but <a href="http://fury.com/2009/07/googles-apple-moment/">not important</a>. If a company can keep a lean team executing on several such things, all of them free, when its competition sells their wares for real money, then it has disruptive potential in the marketplace. Even if the overall product line-up make no coherent sense.<br /><br /><h4>Getting your competition playing defense</h4>Now I don't for a moment think that Chrome OS or even Android are serious offerings that uniquely solve end user needs or problems yet unsolved. Or even pushing the envelope on what an OS should do. They aren't meant to be. They're meant to be "good enough" offerings priced to sell. This has a twofold effect, both disruptive.<br /><br />One, the competition is on guard and is forced to revisit their strategy, incurring costs and opportunity costs in the bargain.<br /><br />Two, it causes customers (in this case PC OEMs, device manufacturers and carriers) to introspect on their offerings. It also gives them leverage to talk their other vendors to price down. It's not like lack of choice is a problem in the operating systems space across PCs, netbooks and phones. But <a href="http://www.photopla.net/wwp0503/supplier.php">reducing the bargaining power of one's suppliers</a> is an old standby of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porter_5_forces_analysis">successful strategy</a>. The past year has seen PC OEMs across the board introduce so-called netbooks - low priced computers that drive down margins for all involved. A veritable race to the bottom.<br /><br />Google's fervent hope is that their competition Apple, RIM and Microsoft spend cycles playing defense.<br /><br /><h4>Fragmentation of the marketplace</h4>Google thrives in a fragmented market. If there are a hundred different ways you connect to the web, then native clients and rich clients are at an inherent disadvantage for developer mindshare. This mindshare drifts towards least common denominator solutions like standards-based commodity technologies (e.g. HTML/JavaScript) to address the breadth of clients devices. In such a world, the back end remains the only common entity: the old faithful. And Google has a gusher of web services for you - which they will tell you work consistently regardless of your device or browser or OS.<br /><br />I don't have existence proof of a singular focus on free software being a clear determinant of a winning strategy. In fact most evidence - e.g. time, resource and treasure spent by the likes of Sun and IBM <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staroffice">pawning </a><a href="http://java.sun.com/">free</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Lotus_Symphony">software </a>where Microsoft made most of its revenues (and profits) - points to the opposite conclusion. That an obsessive focus on disrupting your opponents isn't going to win you anything.<br /><br /><h4>Positive feedback loops in a "winner take all" market</h4><p>Google's motivation seems slightly different though, in one key way. Regardless of what offerings come out from its various development teams, they are all aligned toward carving the search/ads business a bigger moat. Of making their web services the common theme across apps. Resources you should truly rely on. This engenders a postive feedback loop to their central search and ad businesses.<br /><br />Search is a "winner take all" market. With demand side economies of scale, the strong get stronger and the weak get weaker. So it should be no surprise that Google's strategy is to get people to search more and to make their ads more relevant, so there's a good chance you will click on them on a search engine results page. Still, winner-take-all markets tend to attract entrants. Just look at the US Presidential races. </p><p>To ensure is remains the winner, Google <a href="http://biz.yahoo.com/e/090213/goog10-k.html">spends</a> <a href="http://seekingalpha.com/article/11288-will-traffic-acquisition-costs-bite-google-back-goog">a lot of money</a> in traffic acquisition costs paying the likes of AOL, Firefox (Mozilla), Dell etc. to send users its way, say via the search bars or by making Google.com the default home page. Once the users are past that gate, Google keeps them in the party with a staple of free web services. </p><p>Chrome OS and Android will play both roles. They will be gateways to get users to Google.com, and pricing them free will ensure incentives exist to keep users there. This has the potential of creating substantial <a href="http://repositories.cdlib.org/iber/cpc/CPC06-058">switching costs</a>, making it a long stay indeed for the users.<br /><br /><h4>In conclusion</h4><p>A strategy based purely on purveying free software is doomed to failure. However pricing to sell can be a great complement to an existing profitable business model. <br />Chrome OS and Android do not so much compete with other operating systems as they play a role in increasing the positive feedback loop for Google. With the deftness of an artist proficient in his craft, Google recognizes how <a href="http://www.hbs.edu/research/pdf/07-094.pdf">multi-sided markets</a> function. It subsidizes its consumer audience using the profits it generates from the advertiser audience. Everything else in the middle is a series of delicate brush stokes that earn your rapt attention.</p><br /><br />More on multi-sided markets soon...Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28882884.post-35683268959250439132009-05-31T10:40:00.000-07:002009-05-31T10:55:06.709-07:00A toast to Semantic Web<p>Not really. <a href="http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/">Semantic Web</a> is one of those things that have a grain of a great idea but fail miserably in execution. Its failings arise from asking its constituency - content authors and publishers - to do something unnatural with little incentive or help by way of tools that fit into existing workflows.<br /><br />A good idea is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a successful platform. You need to line up the incentives for your target audience; make it worth their while. And as importantly, you need to provide tools, patterns etc. to get your platform into people's natural development processes and habits. </p><p>Semantic Web has therefore been supplanted by lesser powerful but good enough technologies, namely your friendly neighborhood search engines. They do a reasonably good job locating names, places, reviews, etc. Of courses there's room for improvement, but the latent demand isn't nearly enough to warrant unnatural actions such as Semantic Web requires. This is notwithstanding <a href="http://blogs.zdnet.com/semantic-web/?p=105">tireless</a> <a href="http://microformats.org/">advocates</a>.<br /><br />Moral of the story? Any platform/framework/pattern that: <ol><li>requires you to do something unnatural,</li><li>doesn’t fit into your workflow / tools,</li><li>provides you little incentive to change status quo<br /></li></ol>is toast. Even if it is borne out of a great idea.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28882884.post-44592035578305456572009-05-18T06:25:00.000-07:002009-05-18T06:42:50.862-07:00What the twitter, glittr Web 2.0 sites look like if they had a business model<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjkPSNh26WQRWkLsfUAWMfuorl2Xj1q9nI1s4jCyDsElnCmlRTlO8l_pJGhY28Q0sYPU7y7yvEuFSqtfmOGJ8hp8ekS9PeIGYIfpzgArdx5nlLwWVS97WcDPL_qL5wKo5HLDHuy/s1600-h/Notificator.png"><img style="TEXT-ALIGN: center; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; DISPLAY: block; HEIGHT: 290px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5337155292446134754" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjkPSNh26WQRWkLsfUAWMfuorl2Xj1q9nI1s4jCyDsElnCmlRTlO8l_pJGhY28Q0sYPU7y7yvEuFSqtfmOGJ8hp8ekS9PeIGYIfpzgArdx5nlLwWVS97WcDPL_qL5wKo5HLDHuy/s400/Notificator.png" /></a><br />Notice the <em>"...and drops a coin..."</em>? More about the Notificator <a href="http://cultureandcommunication.org/deadmedia/index.php/Notificator">here</a> and a web version <a href="http://www.notificator.com/">here</a>.<br /><br />The only business model I see in Twitter (and its ilk) is of being bought by one of the big fish, perhaps for their data. This is probably why they're in no hurry to reveal how they're going to monetize the site. They're perfectly willing to ride the current wave of buzz in the mass media until some <a href="http://www.oracle.com/us/corporate/press/018363">sucker</a> shows up with wads of cash.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28882884.post-74412644233702673622009-05-03T08:16:00.000-07:002009-05-03T09:03:46.985-07:00Gradually... then suddenlyThe silence at the demise of the Seattle PI - one of only 2 major dailies in this area - was deafening. Yes there were a few blog posts with "I told you so" or "bloggers are the new reporters" garbage. Yes there was that persistent refrain about Seattle being a "one newspaper town" on the way to a "no newspaper town". The media loves to talk about itself; but never in any breadth or depth that truly matters. Stop this cliched garbage, please. How about something a little more substantive - even analytical perhaps?<br /><br />Tren Griffin - one of the characters that makes Microsoft such a great place to work - says that newspapers are doomed because news content is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good">non-rival and non-excludable</a>. He is right. The newspapers dug a good portion of their grave by conditioning us all into getting stuff for free; and deluding themselves that they can have high operating incomes from online ad sales. Craigslist and Google also played small parts in shovel duty. <br /><br />But what about blogs? Did they play a role in killing newspapers? I don't think so. Bloggers with their large egos may choose to believe this. But they're kidding no one when they claim people get their news from blogs. That's like saying I get all my oxygen on my commutes from the car a/c. Please.<br /><br />Regardless, now an institution that fosters transparency and further accountability is dying. The big fish will find a way to cobble together alliances, get investors to suspend disbelief and survive for some more time. Its the local rag that is toast. Sucks for us. No more oversight on our local officials, teachers, law breakers and enforcers. <br /><br />But there are other consequences too. I'm curious how the public relations industry adjusts to this. Lefsetz <a href="http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/index.php/archives/2009/05/02/the-idolmaker/trackback/">gets what few recognize</a>: <blockquote>[there is a] SEA CHANGE in publicity/image-making. In other words, you can no longer spin the public. You can have friends in the press, but didn’t you hear that newspapers are dying?<br /><br />So you have to ask yourself what you’re selling, and focus on THAT!<br /></blockquote><br />I don't think we've quite grasped what changes are in store for us. Having the luxury of newspapers for a century has conditioned us into not thinking of what its like to have a world without them. To paraphrase Hemingway, the demise of newspapers happened gradually... then suddenly.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28882884.post-45064355781479703122009-05-02T05:44:00.000-07:002009-05-02T11:37:04.321-07:00Attention to Detail == Differentiation strategy<div>Michael Porter has argued that you need differentiation as much as you need operating efficiency for a sustainable competitive advantage. Most companies get the latter; in fact incorrectly associate good strategy with having a cost advantage against competitors, only to their detriment. They ignore the value of doing things differently than their competition.<br /><br />I've noticed many cases where the central idea cited as differentiation isn't "moat"-grade but yet the company enjoys the fruits of the strategy unimpeded. [<em>I am using "moat" as Warren Buffet likes to use it to indicate the economic moat of a company, similar to moats in medieval fortresses that made it difficult to penetrate.</em>] This is likely due to things like core competence and corporate DNA at play. I think <em>attention to detail</em> is one example of such an elusive competence.<br /><br /><a href="http://blogmaverick.com/2009/04/26/1269/">Mark Cuban talks about an epiphany with newspapers </a>asking for a payment via envelope several times a year, each time giving you an opportunity to rethink this relationship, when they could just go the Amazon route and have your credit card on file. This is an area where Amazon does most of the things you're supposed to to: have low prices, low COGs etc. but also does what few others grok i.e. systematically remove all barriers in the way from desire to purchase. </div><br /><div>Having your card on file is just one piece of the puzzle; lots of other online merchants do that. Most don't; especially the brick and mortar ones, likely because it is hard to get that level of customer trust. But customers trust their utilities with their cards. Most newspapers are currently consumed by thinking of ways to achieve operating efficiency. It is thought to be their only chance of survival. By paying attention to detail, Amazon removes the systemic hurdles that exist for a shopper from desire to purchase. It does things that keep it from being thought of as just another store. Perhaps not for the sake of differentiation, but because this is the outcome of having focused thought on carving out a niche. </div><br /><div>Another example I recently stumbled upon was how each of the three big search engine players position their advertising solutions. Search engines are "free parking" for the cash cow that is advertising, much like malls and fast food joints have free parking for shoppers. One assumes that search engine providers are highly incentivized to put on their best face for what's effectively their store front. Here's what you see when you search for "<a href="http://search.live.com/results.aspx?q=google+advertising">google advertising</a>": <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhDyG32zhA9s0MyPhtJ9RNPePulJ9Ekk72Ae8ixX1XJxMeoJN1ZdHZsUxSt2iP8b5hvis7TCOqra6AEsfVqLt1t2i4ifYIUnr-kpn9zTRIVFwzVi7AS_3uGirwJQKl0IeSxSc_-/s1600-h/GoogleAdvertising.PNG"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 264px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhDyG32zhA9s0MyPhtJ9RNPePulJ9Ekk72Ae8ixX1XJxMeoJN1ZdHZsUxSt2iP8b5hvis7TCOqra6AEsfVqLt1t2i4ifYIUnr-kpn9zTRIVFwzVi7AS_3uGirwJQKl0IeSxSc_-/s400/GoogleAdvertising.PNG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5331294725400135634" /></a><br />And here's the "<a href="http://search.live.com/results.aspx?q=yahoo+advertising">yahoo advertising</a>" page:<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgnie3b5Qwqj1I90IWe4qQ3krb75GcPtJkh3Z-6vWGFNCDmc0eJ_EKFWI7Ad0FOeJpAsyVgtlCNNE_mOTBbhPPwGhZ81wVvSZpZ3Qycp-PujtCc456NP3NEBE68csLkXJDvxkrc/s1600-h/YahooAdvertising.PNG"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 274px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgnie3b5Qwqj1I90IWe4qQ3krb75GcPtJkh3Z-6vWGFNCDmc0eJ_EKFWI7Ad0FOeJpAsyVgtlCNNE_mOTBbhPPwGhZ81wVvSZpZ3Qycp-PujtCc456NP3NEBE68csLkXJDvxkrc/s400/YahooAdvertising.PNG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5331294734883126754" /></a><br />and here's the "<a href="http://search.live.com/results.aspx?q=microsoft+advertising">microsoft advertising</a>" page: <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjeHbJLoKOTqP4xUBEhOBOFDdkmOlYHk1XVyEc-tCMii61v91qIz0zBHhcbqsWInIDxYZc6xQsFy9FajllXwYSFs3__wsG_anKST0D_O93KvAJSdN6DsGOKxZAQZQoWciqazH9r/s1600-h/MicrosoftAdvertising.PNG"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 338px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjeHbJLoKOTqP4xUBEhOBOFDdkmOlYHk1XVyEc-tCMii61v91qIz0zBHhcbqsWInIDxYZc6xQsFy9FajllXwYSFs3__wsG_anKST0D_O93KvAJSdN6DsGOKxZAQZQoWciqazH9r/s400/MicrosoftAdvertising.PNG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5331294740318600290" /></a><br />The last one can do with a little more attention to detail. For one, as a multisided market, it needs to do a better job delineating the entry portals for each of its customers: the publishers and the advertisers. For another, there's a lot going on in that page that has no correlation to happier user experience. <br /></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28882884.post-43075661714612874732009-05-02T05:01:00.000-07:002009-05-02T05:07:51.318-07:00What's Stephen Thinking Now?A study by OSU threesome <a href="http://hij.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/14/2/212">on what people thought of Stephen Colbert</a> reveals:<br /><blockquote>[...] individual-level political ideology significantly predicted perceptions of Colbert's political ideology. Additionally, there was no significant difference between the groups in thinking Colbert was funny, but conservatives were more likely to report that Colbert only pretends to be joking and genuinely meant what he said while liberals were more likely to report that Colbert used satire and was not serious when offering political statements. </blockquote><br />This is just comedy gold!Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28882884.post-41073369018521777192009-05-01T05:37:00.000-07:002009-05-01T05:45:26.969-07:00Zero-Infinity DilemmaA zero-infinity dilemma is a situation where the probability of occurence is tiny while the consequences are enormous. It is typically used in cost-benefit and risk analysis, however in this case the "zero" refers to the risk and the "infinity" refers to the cost.<br /><br />A common reference of this dilemma has been when characterizing the choice of nuclear power: the risk of a mishap is incredibly small (close to zero) but if one does occur, the cost and repurcussions are infinitely large.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28882884.post-23384351600297856942009-04-25T11:49:00.001-07:002009-04-25T19:28:28.224-07:00How They Did by the NumbersThese numbers are from <a href="http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy08/hist.html">Budget of the United States Government: Historical Tables Fiscal Year 2008</a>, specifically <a href="http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy08/sheets/hist01z3.xls">Table 1.3 — Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits (-) in Current Dollars, Constant (FY 2000) Dollars, and as Percentages of GDP: 1940–2012</a><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhb6ILqeznQbJH04YOxltccinkdaq7YBEzjlbmkn2nLRgsYMs_XL53Rib4r4g63Pi8SPnzaqVDDaZV6jYpApf56nTXpek__R_n-21BVgmrbxWW2z_R_prLE9NvfGi4563Nw_j_c/s1600-h/TaxersAndSpenders.PNG"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 285px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhb6ILqeznQbJH04YOxltccinkdaq7YBEzjlbmkn2nLRgsYMs_XL53Rib4r4g63Pi8SPnzaqVDDaZV6jYpApf56nTXpek__R_n-21BVgmrbxWW2z_R_prLE9NvfGi4563Nw_j_c/s400/TaxersAndSpenders.PNG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5328703402985045714" /></a><br />Click on the image to see it bigger. <br /><br />The conditional formatting and president names were my additions. The blue formatting shows the trend of budget surpluses and deficits for the past 5 presidents. The green formatting shows the top 10% and red the bottom 10% in the list.<br /><br />A word of caution to the wise: these are mere statistics. As Disraeli once said, there are lies, damned lies and statistics. So look at this as one view; one piece of a jigsaw and no more.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28882884.post-19624549653940565352009-04-18T07:43:00.000-07:002009-04-18T07:47:15.014-07:00No apathy for politics among the Indian electorateThis factoid from an article on <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7973477.stm">Six myths about Indian elections</a> on the BBC News website was an interesting eye opener: <blockquote>In advanced democracies, as you come down the various tiers - from national to local elections - the turnout of voters goes down. <br /><br />In India, it is exactly the opposite: the turnout in federal elections tends to be around 60%, in the state elections it is around 70% and when it comes to village council elections it is anything upwards of 80%<br /></blockquote>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28882884.post-24490713737654377332009-04-14T20:30:00.000-07:002009-04-14T20:39:21.388-07:00Apple Mighty Mouse trackball not working?I had some trouble with the Mighty Mouse scroll functionality suddenly not working. It'd scroll up but not down. I'm running the beta Boot Camp and Windows Vista, so figuring it to be an Apple driver bug I booted into OS X - which I rarely do. Well the same scrolling issues showed up there. That led me to suspect a hardware issue, likely related to a foreign object stuck in the receptacle under the trackball. A little bit of searching later, I came across <a href="http://macoshelp.blogspot.com/2008/01/mighty-mouse-scroll-ball-stopped.html">this tip for cleaning the Mighty Mouse</a> which worked like a charm!<br /><br />PS: I've never had this happen on either of the 2 Microsoft scrollwheel mice that I use on my other computers. Perhaps something for Apple's trackball design dept. to revisit.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28882884.post-16854908540778760672009-03-18T18:07:00.000-07:002009-04-12T18:12:43.611-07:00I love these new iconsI love the new icons for offline/out-of-browser Silverlight apps. Thanks to John Marstall for this creation, and Corrina Black for her UX insights with this and the rest of the out-of-browser feature set.<br /><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; width: 400px; height: 259px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjfAfDm1XZB8UeL2jixG2NyE2mWEbAyL6i6ET8f70KDet5Ee7RQyLSZrdtlGbwbeCrXXevTWBzwgr0y17RtzFTeVr5lcvMDhx9pXQy328xTWMDp0VY5r3Hruq4jLSTGqZbWFFIA/s400/SilverlightOutOfBrowserIconComps.png" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5323977217486702194" />Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28882884.post-1158526361660786352006-09-17T13:52:00.000-07:002006-09-17T16:16:12.526-07:00Bad car namesFor the most part car model names are catchy and words that are easy to pronounce, memorize and recall: my min bar for a decent name. The names you will see below are real, rise to the min bar, but also make you want to question, "What were they smoking?".<br /><br /><p><strong>Mercury Villager</strong><br>The word villager does not exactly evoke zippy thoughts.</p> <p><strong>Oldsmobile Bravada</strong><br>Bravada (noun) Old Spanish for a pretentious, swaggering display of courage. As opposed to real courage.</p> <p><strong>Chevrolet Cavalier</strong><br>Cavalier (noun) haughty, disdainful or supercilious; offhand or unceremonious. You're not really selling it aggressively enough, my friends.</p> <p><strong>Chevrolet Caprice</strong><br>Hmm, caprice is a tendency to change one's mind without apparent or adequate motive. Bad attitude for drivers.</p> <p><strong>Chevrolet Citation</strong><br>Citation (noun) an official summons, especially one calling for appearance in court; as in <em>traffic citation</em></p> <p><strong>Chrysler Crossfire</strong><br>As in <em>caught in the crossfire</em>.</p> <p><strong>Chrysler Town & Country</strong><br>Wha...?</p> <p><strong>Daihatsu Charade</strong><br>Did you say travesty? Dictionary.com: A charade is a blatant pretense or deception, esp. something so full of pretense as to be a travesty</p> <p><strong>Daihatsu Rocky</strong><br>Subliminal advertising about the drive?</p> <p><strong>Ford Probe</strong><br>Ouch!</p> <p><strong>Mercury Marauder</strong><br>As in someone who raids and pillages for spoils. Definitely not what you want your insurance provider to think of you.</p> <p><strong>Plymouth Scamp</strong><br>A scamp is an unscrupulous person; a rogue or rascal or scallawag. A tip of the hat to car salesmen, perhaps?</p> <p><strong>Subaru Brat and Subaru Justy</strong><br>I swear, I'm not making this up.</p> <p><strong>Volkswagen Golf</strong><br>Takes after the pace of the game, I presume.</p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28882884.post-1157231720682131372006-09-02T14:09:00.000-07:002006-09-02T14:17:04.020-07:00Not valid in Alaska or HawaiiWhy is it that all those ads that talk about offers and contests display fine print "Not valid in Alaska or Hawaii", effectively restricting the goodies to us in the contiguous United States? I feel for those poor sods in the two far flung states. Well, maybe not the Alaskans... they have their sweetheart oil pipeline deals and bridges to nowhere. But the Hawaiians? They live on volcanos! They deserve to win a contest or two, don't they?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28882884.post-1155996430799146062006-08-19T07:07:00.000-07:002006-08-19T07:08:04.436-07:00Coffee as a health drink<p><a href="http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/294/1/97">A study</a> has found that habitual coffee consumption was associated with lower risk of Type 2 diabetes, while <a href="http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/83/5/1039">another study</a> attributes coffee to reduced risk of death by inflammatory and cardiovascular diseases. </p> <p>Speaking about another report in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, the New York Times <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/15/health/nutrition/15coff.html?ex=1156132800&en=afcf16557c7708cf&ei=5087%0A">said</a>, </p> <blockquote> <p>...researchers found that a typical serving of coffee contains more antioxidants than typical servings of grape juice, blueberries, raspberries and oranges.</p></blockquote> <p>These benefits are not attributed to caffiene as they've been found to occur with de-caf coffee as well. Of course, none of this wipes out the fact that previous studies have revealed the downside of caffeine in increasing blood pressure, or significantly decreasing blood flow to the heart, particularly during exercise at high altitudes.</p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28882884.post-1155960528297528102006-08-18T21:08:00.000-07:002006-08-18T21:08:48.300-07:00Can you be too sure?<p>The Moon (Luna) is not generally considered a planet. It is 1.5 times bigger than Pluto, which is. The Moon is considered to be planet Earth's moon. The gravitational force of the Sun on the Moon is more than twice as much as the gravitational force of the Earth on the Moon. So what does that make the Moon: a planet or a moon?</p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28882884.post-1155342898465414272006-08-11T17:30:00.000-07:002006-08-11T17:34:58.480-07:00Detailed picture of Jupiter from the Cassini spacecraft<a href="http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpeg/PIA04866.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px;" src="http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpeg/PIA04866.jpg" border="0" alt="Picture of Jupiter from the Cassini spacecraft" /></a><br />Courtesy of the <a href="http://jpl.nasa.gov">JPL at NASA</a>.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28882884.post-1153533776712614452006-07-21T19:01:00.000-07:002006-07-21T19:02:56.720-07:00Skiing: Did you know?Did you know that the Vikings had a god and goddess of skiing? Yes, that'd be Ullr and Skade.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28882884.post-1152479898755932042006-07-09T14:13:00.000-07:002006-07-09T14:21:52.366-07:00France lose to ItalyAfter dominating Italy for most of the game, France lost 3-5 in penalty shootouts. The score after regulation was 1-1.<br /><a href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6755/387/1600/FIFAWorldCup2006FinalScore_2.png"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6755/387/320/FIFAWorldCup2006FinalScore_2.png" border="0" alt="FIFA World Cup 2006 Finals - France v. Italy" /></a><br />A humdinger of a game. Congratulations, Italy.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28882884.post-1152466492766818982006-07-09T10:30:00.000-07:002006-07-09T10:34:52.766-07:00France v/s Italy: before the big gameThe Azzuri and les Bleus will go head to head in a few minutes. This is the culmination of 3 years of competition between 192 nations. It is down to these two now.<br /><br />Vive la France!Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28882884.post-1152456095460171402006-07-09T07:06:00.000-07:002006-07-09T10:35:45.276-07:00AutoantonymsTwo words with opposite meanings are referred to as <em>antonyms</em>. A word that is the opposite of itself (no, I'm not making this up) is called an <em>autoantonym</em> or antilogy or contranym. Let's look at a few examples:<br /><ul><br /><li>lease (<em>verb</em>): Means <em>to lend</em> or <em>rent out</em>. Can also mean <em>to borrow</em> or <em>rent for oneself</em></li><br /><li>oversight (<em>noun</em>): Can mean <em>watchful care</em> as well as <em>omission</em></li><br /><li>root (<em>verb</em>): Can mean <em>to remove completely</em> (as in <em>to root out</em>) as well as <em>to become firmly entrenched</em> (as in <em>to take root</em>)</li><br /></ul><br /><strong>Links</strong><br />See my entry on Wiktionary for <a href="http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/autoantonym">autoantonym</a>.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28882884.post-1152458883513853432006-07-09T06:57:00.000-07:002006-07-09T10:32:02.763-07:00FIFA World Cup 2006 retrospect: TV commentaryGrowing up in India, sports telecasts for football games have traditionally been European, mostly British. The BBCs and Sky Sports ruled the roost. There is something to say about the commentary on those telecasts: sparse, impartial and devoid of human-interest pieces. Football afficionados (I like to think I'm one of this large group of people) like this experience. <br /><br />I contrast that to World Cup broadcasts on American networks, ABC and ESPN, I've been watching this past month; and see how the networks' experience and insight into basketball, baseball, ice-hockey and American football have influenced their commentary and overall presentation. These broadcasts are chock full of random statistics on players, sidelights on the venues and teams, and much too much talk. There is an unusual focus on the (perceived) stars, creating a cult of personality: where some chosen men get too much attention, sometimes undeservedly so. I've seen England games where Beckham and Rooney were on the commentators' lips practically every other minute but these two (I admit talented) gents didn't do much in those games to merit that kind of attention. Thankfully, the camera isn't in the control of the commentators; it followed the ball for the most part, save for those occassions when the producers would cut to a replay of a move that happened ten minutes ago. As the Times' <a href="http://worldcup.blogs.nytimes.com">World Cup blog</a> puts it:<blockquote>American TV sportscasting is full of factoids, full of graphics, full of breakaways from the midst of play for prerecorded human-interest backgrounders, full of color analysts overexplaining what happened a couple of minutes ago even as new, more urgent things are happening in front of our eyes, full of overpacked broadcast booths with three-man teams, sideline reporters, spotters, graphics people and telestrators, all breathlessly jostling for air time.</blockquote><br /><br />At times the impartiality of the commentators was also in question. Some teams like Brazil, Argentina and Italy were treated with godlike status -- their glorious past history was the subject of much banter while their performance on the field was conveniently ignored -- while others with arguably as much talent and potential, if not more, didn't get even a passing mention. The one common strain I've seen in all my life of watching and playing the game amateurly is that every game is different. On a given day, anyone can beat anyone else.<br /><br />Football is a very fast-paced game and the play on the fields -- the players' skills, passing, and set pieces -- mesmerizes millions around the world, in every possible timezone, to stay glued to their TV sets. In this world cup, <strong>192 countries</strong> competed and were whittled down to <strong>32</strong> that got to play for the cup in Germany. That's what makes this the "World" cup. It is a stature unmatched by any other. Sadly, the stature of the broadcasts begs many questions. My pet peeves:<br /><ul><br /><li>Play the team arrivals and anthems before every game; show some respect.</li><br /><li>Cut the smalltalk; I don't need to be reminded you showed up for work. I also don't need play by play commentary.</li><br /><li>It's okay to talk about a player's club affiliation but don't wax eloquent about what he did that summer 2003. It distracts from the game I'm trying to watch.</li><br /><li>Be impartial. Please.</li><br /><li>Don't elevate personalities and obsess with them. This is still a team sport. One man makes or breaks a game as much as one man can make or break a space shuttle.</li><br /><li>To the networks: please employ people who know what they're talking about. Wynalda and Lalas were good players (not great, mind you) but are bad analysts. Get someone who understands the game and can articulate it better than us unwashed masses. Ditto for commentators.</li><br /></ul><br />I understand football isn't like American football where you stop the clock every minute and go to commercial break every other minute. Some things you've learned from American sports can be reused, just not everything. Some things need to be learned anew, or re-learned. We can strive to do better, can't we?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28882884.post-1151950663942804842006-07-03T11:11:00.000-07:002006-07-09T14:22:51.873-07:00HitherThe word <em>idhar</em> in Hindi refers to "here" or "on this side", just like the Old/Middle English word <em>hither</em>. They come from the same Indo-European demonstrative base, possibly <em>hider</em>. The sound of "d" is more like "th" as in <em>father</em>.<br /><br />See Merriam-Webster etymology for <a href="http://www.webster.com/dictionary/hither">hither</a>.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28882884.post-1151620528507157932006-06-29T15:33:00.000-07:002006-07-09T14:22:14.540-07:00OriginsFor a while I have used my other (more prominent) blog - Even a chimp can write code - to highlight various epiphanies, deductions and inferences I've drawn. Some of these were about software development and therefore appropriate given the slant of that blog. Others had tangential, if any, relationship with the spirit of that blog and turned out to be line noise (unfortunately) to its techie audience and aggregator services. A new blog was merited to catalog these entries. That brings you to this blog: <strong>Inference</strong> or <em>anumaana</em> in Sanskrit.<br /><br />I don't plan to restrict myself any one topic here. But the ethic of this blog remains <a href="http://nerddawg.blogspot.com/2004/04/why-are-we-here.html">the same</a>: There will always be questions that raise issues [thank you Kafka!]; questions that will raise further questions when first answers are given to them; questions that could seldom be answered simply by Yes or No; hypothetical questions that present suppositions -- the implications or consequences of which are to be examined; questions that are complex and have many related parts, to be taken up in an orderly manner. <br /><br />Yes, inconvenient questions must be asked. Uncomfortable situations must be created. Ideas need to be thrown around. That's why we are here.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com