1. Page needs to be reloaded when you submit a comment
2. Can’t vote up or vote down comments
3. Can’t reply to comments via Email

The first one is the most important by far. I’d like users to have an immediate feedback that their comments have been posted. I tried several Ajax plugins to achieve this but none of them worked properly. So I decided to implement a third party commenting system. There were two and I tried them one by one – Disqus and IntenseDebate. As of this date, I’m using IntenseDebate for the reason given below, but I’d like your feedback on which commenting system you like or if you’re totally happy with the native wordpress comments.

Problems with Disqus Comments

A lot of the things that are important to others are not important to me. For me, Disqus was great because it allowed the comments and replies to be posted immediately without a page refresh – very useful for slow Internet connections.

The problem with Disqus was that people who post as guests don’t see the “Name” “Email” and “URL” fields easily – and it requires a separate click to enter the URL. I realized this when I saw Sraboney’s comment on my Climate Change post without her usual “URL”.

I didn’t want to have potential commenters drop out because of this so I chose IntenseDebate instead which shows all three fields clearly. That’s what you will see below this post. I really need some feedback on which one you guys like. So here are two screenshots – you choose which one you’d feel more comfortable using:

Disqus Screenshot:

Disqus comment form - See how the "Name", "Email" and "URL" fields are missing - you enter them after posting the comment

IntenseDebate Screenshot:

IntenseDebate comment form. The input fields are clearly visible beforehand

Any more feedback would be welcome in the comments.

Along with your answer, do let me know your reasons for any of the three answers…

Often these people take a certain pride in defiantly stating that they’ve “made up their own minds” and haven’t bought in to the corporate scam/misinformation campaign that everyone else has fallen for. And while I don’t disagree about the importance of using one’s mind, this sort of Ayn Randish “Oh I’m such a stud independent person” mindset is faintly nauseating. Because in plain fact, very often “finding out the facts for yourself” and making up your own mind isn’t a good idea. It fact, it’s downright foolish.

"Making up your own mind" isn't a luxury we can afford

We live in an age of specialization. Gone are the days of Gauss when a single person could know everything about every field of scientific and mathematic endeavor. Even the most common devices today – like cell phones – are so mind bogglingly complex, that I can state with confidence there’s not a single person on earth who knows everything about how they work, including the chip design, electronics and the software stacks and protocols they implement.

And yet none of us hesitate for even a moment before entrusting our lives to an airplane – the workings of which are pretty much mysterious to most of us. We can use fancy words like “aerodynamics” to pretend that we know something, but we don’t. We don’t know the first thing about aircrafts. We don’t stop to “make up our own mind” about it.

I graduated from St. Stephen’s with a B.Sc (G) in physics. I can confidently state that my understanding of the subject is superior to the vast majority of humanity. But even I can’t prove something like the General Theory of Relativity. The mathematics is too complex for me. And yet every educated person knows about this famous theory (some even know what it means!) and people don’t doubt it’s validity or usefulness. If I were to bet my life on the theory being accurate or inaccurate, I would choose the former without a moment’s hesitation. So would everyone else. How come? Why doesn’t everyone try and “make up their own minds” about it?

I’ve played chess for a long time and a few years back, I achieved an ELO rating of around 2000-2100. It’s quite a decent rating, but not master level. Many times I’ve tried to follow a game between Grandmasters and have been totally perplexed as to why a particular move was played. And yet in the post analysis, most GMs will agree that a certain move is the correct one though for the life of me I can’t figure out why. But I believe them! I realize my limitations. I don’t go around making a fool of myself by saying “But if you do that, you’re putting your queen in danger!” I have enough intelligence to know that they would see what I see – and much more. I don’t try and “find out the truth” for myself. Not unless I spend many more years forging my skills and proving myself in battle.

There are many more examples I could give where it makes infinitely more sense to listen to competent minds instead of torturing oneself by trying to figure out the truth – with a very high probability that you’ll reach a wrong conclusion anyway. This doesn’t mean you’re giving up your intelligence or sacrificing your integrity. Quite the contrary. It means you’re using all facets of your intelligence to draw conclusions which a brute force method could never reach. It means you use your powers of observation to know your limitations and choose which battles to fight. It’s a more efficient way of gathering knowledge with a higher chance of success.

But when it comes to Climate Change, suddenly everyone wants to “make up their own mind.” And facts are there in plenty to pick and choose from – enough to support any given view! Never mind that 98% of the most active scientists in the field accept the evidence for human induced climate change. These scientists are from all over the world, from multi disciplinary backgrounds, and working for different organizations and governments. To say it’s unlikey they’re all wrong is an understatement. A skeptic will have to somehow convince me that they’ve all been deceived and that their analysis from a layman’s point of view is more valid.

Good luck with that. So let’s just stop this nonsense shall we? Enough is enough. It’s time for people to stop trying to figure out the truth of climate change for themselves and use their intelligence in a more creative manner. It’s time to use other people’s knowledge to fill the gaps in one’s own. It’s time to stop trying to reinvent the wheel. Because it’s counterproductive, and a waste of my time.

When True Night Falls - Coldfire Trilogy

Damien is pretty much what we saw in the first book, but Gerald…we see new sides to this guy at every page turn. One thing’s for sure, this book has lots of surprises. Friedman seems extremely keen to break out of the mold of normal fantasy as she once again demonstrates the ability to kill of main characters without a moment’s notice!

This is really surprising because at one point I thought she had introduced a permanent character into the series who would play an important role. But I’m getting perilously close to a spoiler here so I’ll just leave it by saying that you have to expect the unexpected.

This is the second book of the Coldfire Trilogy with just one more to go and it ends with a cliffhanger. The villain of the series is diabolic, insanely powerful, demonical – and radiates a cold malevolence that’s all the more scary because that’s just the nature of this being. It’s not personal. It’s the way he/she is. No one comes even close to his power except for Gerald Tarrant – and Tarrant has his own priorities.

Unlike the first book, “When True Night Falls” doesn’t start off slowly. It lands us right in the middle of the story a few months after the first book left off, and we’re back in the familiar environment with new enemies and personalities. Like the first book, it has very little “fluff” – no long boring descriptions of landscapes and people’s clothes like the Wheel of Time series (though that one was in a class by itself.) Very good plot pacing.

I’ve done a bit of thinking and one of the reasons why this series isn’t as compelling as the “Wheel of Time” is that Friedman doesn’t leave plot lines hanging unlike Robert Jordan. That was a criticism of Jordan’s work, but it sure kept people coming back to the books to find the resolutions. If I had to choose, I think I would go for Friedman’s style of writing. There’s less tension, but it also makes you less involved. Different styles for different times I suppose.

There are people in Kashmir who want Azadi, or Freedom. So I have to ask, freedom from what? I did some research and found Kashmir has an elected government. The voter turn out was 61% – a very high number compared to other states. Kashmiris are clearly making use of their right to vote. So they’re not protesting against oppression – or at least no more than any other Indian state can complain :D

You call this a peaceful protest?

Are they demanding freedom of religion? From what I understand, there are no restrictions placed on that aspect of their lives. Are they being censored? On the contrary, it’s because of the media that I know about it and many videos are coming through. The Internet is uncensored and lots of people have made their own clips which they uploaded to Youtube. So it can’t be that.

They have the freedom to travel to any part of the country they want, settle down there and work. They can marry whomever they please, be bound by the same liberal laws that govern the rest of India…so what on earth are they asking for?

Yes – Kashmir is militarized, and for good reason. Our neighbors are hardly the most peace loving and trustworthy in the world. There’s no choice on that score. Kashmir’s geographic position necessitates the presence of armed forces.

The New York Times had a video of protesters throwing stones all over the place. This video was made by the agitators themselves and is supposed to show how they’re fighting without weapons. Bollocks. Throwing stones is damned dangerous and one can see the hapless security personnel barely defending themselves and acting with great restraint. The video made by the protesters harms their own cause.

Indeed most of the comments on the NYTimes article said that the protesters had no business being violent. If they put the same energy into forming their own party, and if they claim to represent the will of the people, they shouldn’t have any problem getting themselves elected and taking charge. Why aren’t they doing that instead of wasting huge amounts of time? What do they want?

You can’t expect the government to sit quietly when mobs are rampaging all over the place. Even if we agree in the abstract that they want “Freedom” from India, let them do it the same way we got ours. Peaceful protests, civil disobedience and the like. Not by throwing stones. Why do I get the feeling Gandhi would not approve? And what does it mean to be free? In tangible terms?

I may be missing something out here. Perhaps I’m being ignorant and judgmental. In which case, I gladly take the opportunity to learn. Someone please tell me – what do the separatists in Kashmir want?

It’s shocking to see the support that the government has. Many have congratulated the administration for “being firm” and “not bowing down.” As if being an arrogant, overbearing jerk somehow validates your worth. This adolescent prick waving by the government to show their strength only highlights its insecurity. By telling me that everything I say and write has to be monitored, it’s asking me to trust them completely. Is that even possible?

Body Scanners at Airports. Hey, if you have nothing to hide, why should you be ashamed huh?

It’s astounding how some people can criticize the government no end on one hand, and at the same time demonstrate a touching degree of faith in Big Brother. Hello split personality!

The Indian Supreme Court has ruled several times that privacy is a Constitutional Right in India. Now we’re expected to believe that giving it up and letting bureaucrats scan my life will bring me some sort of security. But will it? In reality, the chances of me being killed in a terror attack are fifty time lesser than being hit by lightning! So to prevent this miniscule number of deaths, the citizens of a free country are expected to give up their right to confidential communication? It’s absurd on the very face of it.

Moreover, we should remind ourselves of India’s nature. Freedom comes with risks. I’m willing to take the risk of dying in a terrorist attack if I’m allowed my civil liberties. I don’t want to hide away in closed rooms and have all my communications monitored. That’s not life worth living. And when we became independent in 1947, we decided to take that risk.

India isn’t a country for the feeble hearted. It’s not a place where you can be secure and get offended by every little thing. If you want foolproof security, go to another country. Some ultra nationalists claim that the Indian government had the right to demand concessions from BlackBerry because China and Saudi Arabia had them. What a comparison! What proud company we keep…

Let’s remember the quote of Benjamin Franklin. One that has been repeated very often these days and which is still ignored.

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Is our government listening?

I’m sick of such statements. Not just because they’re stupid (as I will try and show), but because they have a powerful emotional value that tends to override our rational responses. Have we ever really stopped and analyzed such claims? Imagine aliens from Mars who hear a statement like “Pubs will destroy society.” The rest of us will say things like “No it won’t!” or “Please show me how it will destroy society” or even “Destroy in what way?”

Society - just a collection of people

But guess what the Martian’s response will be? They’ll simply ask “Society? What’s that?”

And we stand speechless! How do we tell them what society is? The reason why we can’t explain it to them, is because it doesn’t exist! We made it up. Like the bogeyman.

It may seem easy to define it as a collection of people (as the dictionary does.) So far so good. But when you say “This will harm society”, what does it mean? That it will harm every single individual in that collection? That it’ll harm the majority of people? Let’s say only 49% are “harmed”. Does that mean “society” is also harmed? Will 49.5% be enough?

We use “society” as a noun. As in “This is a society.” But what are it’s characteristics? I challenge anyone to give me the characteristics of society and which characteristics are harmful and why. Individual people can be harmed, though we must understand what it means to “harm” someone. But society can never be harmed. Because it’s artificial. A fiction. A convenient tool usually used to control others.

I’ve found that the best way to counter these statements is to force the person to provide specific examples. I got this inspiration from the Supreme Court when it struck down the cases against Khushboo for her remarks on pre marital sex. It simply asked her accusers to show a few examples of people who had been “harmed” by her remarks. Those accusing her were stumped! It’s very easy to say “This is harming society” but it’s notoriously difficult to give even two examples :D

The same goes for those who say that legalizing homosexuality for example will “destroy marriage.”  Simply ask those who say this to give even one example of a marriage breaking down just because homosexuality has been legalized. It’s possible that someone is a closet homosexual and that the freedom to be gay will lead a homosexual to walk out of a false marriage. But that means it was doomed even before the legalization. No one becomes gay just because it’s legal!

Narrowing down like this helps because it forces the moral police to become specific and demonstrate actual harm. It forces them to use rational evidence instead of emotional hooks that work because of fuzzy concepts. And it effectively pulls the carpet out from under their feet. Try it!

Black Sun Rising - The Coldfire Trilogy

So I picked up “The Coldfire Trilogy” by C S Friedman, and I must say it’s very different from any other fantasy book I’ve read. Lots of fantasy books including this one are set in a time when medieval technology rules. Haven’t you ever wondered why on earth no one invented gunpowder, or discovered oil or began to explore electricity? Of course we all know that for fantasy to be a powerful read, technology can’t advance very far, but it’s always been a bit odd.

“Black Sun Rising” gives an excellent explanation of why technology hasn’t really caught on big time. I can’t tell you what it is, but it’s convincing. Also, I really like the orgin story. It’s set on another planet and all the humans know that Earth was a stud place where mankind took to the stars. No one really knows more than that – so while it brushes the fringes of Sci-fi, it remains firmly in the realm of fantasy.

There’s also a very cool anti hero. It takes a while for the story to get to him, but it’s well worth the wait. He’s surely one of the most fascinating characters I’ve met in any fantasy series till now, and while you know how you’re supposed to feel about him, you can’t help but root for the guy.

I also like the author for his willingness to kill off main characters. One of them wasn’t really going anywhere and was gotten rid of. Unlike other writers who might have used this to give a great heroic end, this one was just scary. And you never see it coming.

The book also rates well on the “no fluff” factor. There are hardly any long boring descriptions of places and scenes, and I had to skip just two pages in the entire book. Moving onto the second part now – and it’s with quite a bit of anticipation :)

Sleight of Hand in Parliament

There have been two attempts so far to play this game with the Nuclear liability Bill. In the first instance, the word “and” was inserted into a crucial line on Page 30 which gave nuclear suppliers a way out in case of a nuclear disaster.

In fact, whoever played this trick was so sure it would go unnoticed, that they didn’t even bother to do a good job. The final version had Page 30 crossed out with a pen and a new page was stapled in. The Hindi version of the bill was even worse. The extra word was written in by hand!

The second attempt was more skillful and actually managed to get the Cabinet’s approval. The latest change is that nuclear suppliers can’t be held liable for damages unless there is intent to cause nuclear damage! This is so ridiculous, it defies belief. How on earth can you prove that a supplier wanted to cause a disaster? That won’t be liability, but sabotage. It’s an impossible standard of proof and will in effect, let all suppliers off the hook no matter how much at fault they are merely because they didn’t “intend to cause it.”

By this standard, even those responsible for the Bhopal Gas tragedy wouldn’t be accountable.

This kind of cheating isn’t restricted only to the Indian parliamentary system. Many other countries also have these loopholes. The recent Wall Street bill in the US had something of the sort. The heartening thing is that the opposition and the media are doing their job. Recently, the BJP has been doing a better job of being in opposition instead of just disrupting the house all the time. And the media’s coverage reflects the public’s interest in the matter. All good signs.

When the final bill comes up in Parliament on Wednesday, you can be sure that none of the parties is going to accept the second change. I’m proud. At least something’s working the way it should.

Isn’t it easy to “harm” someone these days? Look at these examples:

1. Parents are “harmed” when their children marry against their wishes. So they kill them.
2. People are “harmed” by Khushboo’s remarks on pre marital sex. So they take her to court.
3. Society was “harmed” when homosexuality was legalized. So homosexuals are outcasts.
4. People are “harmed” if a book on Shivaji is written. So the book is banned.
5. Someone is “harmed” when M F Husain paints something offensive. So they threaten to kill him.

Can some paint on paper really "harm" you?

It seems everyone can choose to be “harmed” by what other people do – even when it doesn’t really affect them. Convenient isn’t it? There’s only one problem. It just doesn’t make sense!

The only type of “harm” which is acceptable in court, is one which causes measurable damage. The key word is “measurable.” So if someone hits me, the force of the blow, the ultimate effect on my body etc are all factors that can be determined from outside. If I’m robbed, the amount of money I lose is measurable. Every law exists to limit measurable damage to others.

But when khaps and parents claim for example, that their “honor” was besmirched because their adult children married against their wishes, that does not qualify as harm. In the first place, “honor” is a subjective word that defies measurement. Secondly, there’s no proof that any “damage” is caused when a person’s honor is taken away. These are intensely personal issues. They need to be dealt with in a way that doesn’t break the law of the land.

Why this focus on measurement? Because justice needs to be applied consistently and to everyone in the same way. If something cannot be measured in a way that is obvious to everyone, the law can’t punish someone over it.

However even so, there are some imperfect laws which seek to punish people for subjective and dubious “harm.” Laws relating to offensive books for example. But even here, the Indian legal system has set the bar very high for proving “harm.” Not every Tom, Dick and Harry can go around claiming that their delicate sentiments have been harmed by a book.

When the Indian Supreme Court struck down the ban on Shivaji’s book, here’s what it said:

“The effect of the words used in the offending material must be judged from the standards of reasonable, strong-minded, firm and courageous men, and not those of weak and vacillating minds, nor of those who scent danger in every hostile point of view. The class of readers for whom the book is primarily meant would also be relevant for judging the probable consequences of the writing”

Those who claimed they were “hurt” by M F Husain’s paintings fall into the latter category of “weak minds.” After all, strong minds are much more resistant to damage caused by simply viewing a pattern of paint on paper. Strong minds aren’t damaged by hearing the views and opinions of other people no matter how different from their own. Strong minds aren’t hurt when their adult children choose to take charge of their own lives.

So the next time someone tells you that society is being “harmed”, that “marriage is being destroyed”, that “People’s sentiments were harmed” and that “children are being corrupted,” just ask them one question. “Show me who exactly has been harmed, and precisely how much damage they’ve sustained!”

Our first attempt at using the dishwasher. Who needs special detergent right? Why not just use regular dish washing liquid?

The first shock

This is what our Sunday nights have been reduced to!

Sweeping Suds

Gathering up the suds isn’t enough either :D

Kitchen sink a mess

That’ll teach us to read what’s written on labels the next time!