Faux feminism (a.k.a tinhat behavior)

Having commenced my Sunday morning with a healthy doze of cartoons (on Nickelodeon; yes, I see the absurdity in the picture. I'm beyond my teenage years and my knowledge of contemporary Disney, Nickelodeon and to some extent Cartoon Network is probably more diverse, more reliable than yours), I went on to catch up with the happenings around the internet.

Then, I came across Neil Gaiman's (whom I religiously follow on Twitter) new journal post which led to the preceding post where he talks about his unwell cat as well as some minute kerfuffle from the feminists of the internets. (a.k.a self appointed internet police propagating gender equality [read: female superiority] since the beginning of time)

It sparked off with this post where he explains to a fan about the rules of entitlement regarding George R.R. Martin. Basically the crux of his lengthy explanation is that George R.R. Martin is not your bitch.

Of course you can imagine this being the internet, it sent more than a few knickers into a nasty twist.

But let us be honest: The use of "bitch" here is not merely a misogynist slur. To be someone's "bitch" is to be sexually subservient to hir, and the phrase is typically associated with nonconsensual sexual subservience, i.e. rape. (Specifically, it originates with prison rape.)

Source of LAWL

I'm not suggesting that rape isn't wrong - it is. And those who've suffered it, or who have suffered any form of physical abuse, misogynistic or otherwise, have my deepest sympathy. I will never defend rape. Or degrading a woman's dignity - physically or otherwise. So let me just set it straight, in bold fonts, before anyone else gets their panties in a twist. To me, rape is wrong. Degrading a woman's dignity is wrong. Holding chauvanistic and misogynist ideals in this modern era is a sign of sheer uncalculated stupidity.

BUT.

I fail to see what is so misogynistic or degrading about the phrase I am not your bitch. Yes, I agree, that a small portion of the reference can lead to the association with non-con sexual subservience and rape, but then we must ban the use of the word bitch entirely.

I find it to be gross double standards that when a woman says she isn't someone's bitch everyone applauds her liberalism; for standing up for herself. We view it as iconic, a testament to the progress of the modern woman in this generation. However, the second a man is found to have used the same phrase (albeit a POV switch), in a purely non-sexual context, he becomes a misogynist? That it insinuates making a travesty out of the seriousness of rape? DUDE SERIOUSLY?

The way our language has evolved today you can hear most English speaking twelve year olds with the word bitch and sometimes more insulting phrases readily available at the tip of their tongue. So are we to say they are potential misogynists we must take steps to rectify and set straight? That they are making a mockery out of the rape culture?

I use the word bitch very liberally; as does everyone else I know. After a bad day at school, I might come to complain that my teacher, who did nothing short of grinding my nose to the grindstone, is a bitch. Am I implying that she is sexually subservient to me? (The image is frightfully disturbing) Or does that make me a misogynist (though it might be physically impossible to reduce me to a careless, condescending misogynist - I'd require boobjobs. Not the kind you see most women getting for themselves.) My best friend and I freely address each other as bitches. I can tell her at a restaurant in the middle of our meal that, "Dude you are such a bitch!!!" or I can start a Skype conversation with "Hey bitch! What's going on?" I've made very casual posts on forums and journals where I've called so and so (most famous people) a bitch for doing something that wasn't to my liking. I know I'm not entitled to how they carry themselves in public, but if I disagree with something they've done, I'll tell how I see it. No one, not even on the internet has accused me of being insensitive to women with my remarks - because I'm a woman and by default spared any and all misogynistic accusations?

Perhaps if bitch sends everyone's knickers in a twist, we need an entirely new nomenclature that puts forward the same set of intentions and feelings, but that won't drive every other person to cry Misogyny or Chauvanism at their utterance.

I read Neil Gaiman's post (see link above) and from what I understood of it, a misogynist slur did not even cross his mind when he was explaining about fan entitlement to a fan who had written in. (By the way, you should read it: the way he breaks the traditional delusion that writers OWE us is frighteningly awesome) The comments at Shakesville makes me wonder if people actually know the difference between genuine feminist concerns and stirring up pointless shit in the name of feminism. It no longer remains a wonder that feminists are branded with a big LAWL like Hester Pyne on their foreheads.

Having said that, here a few things I feel I need to reiterate. Rape is intrinsically bad, and rapists should face the toughest punishment the law can impose on them. To rid a woman (or sometimes a man) of his dignity by forcing her/him into sexual acts, violating their personal space is wrong. Being a chauvinistic pig towards women is wrong too. Using the word bitch in a purely non-misogynist way however is NOT WRONG. Perhaps Neil Gaiman should've exercised a better choice of word; given his popularity, and given the existence of people whose sole purpose in life is to stretch a seemingly harmless comment into ground breaking proportions. Perhaps he should've just stuck to George R. R. Martin is not working for you. throughout the entry.

But my respect for Neil Gaiman still holds (unless he really is a misogynist, which I'm sure he isn't) and I find myself snickering at the general out of proportion perception of his remark.

I have more things to say about rape culture and misogyny in the 21st century; but I'll save that for the next post which, hopefully, shall be composed in a calmer state of mind.

LOLWHUT

Italian PM Silvio Berlusconi spent a settled night in hospital after being hit in the face by an attacker, Italy's Ansa news agency said

How much do you want to bet the attack is a Nerazzuri fan?

Going back home in two days. Mightily excited to get myself (re) acquainted with the sights and sounds that makes home what it is. The terrible traffic, the dust pollution, hearing cab drivers engage themselves in a war of words in the middle of traffic jams, the street foods, the bargaining with shopkeepers in the market, the authentic continental food in restaurants, the familiar languages reverberating in the air, the smell of burnt wood, the sights, the sounds...and a catalogue of things that invokes memories, thoughts, left untouched for over a decade now. I miss home and the kind of life I would've had there, if I didn't come here...

I won't say I regret it entirely because the opportunities given to me to succeed in this country are in abundance. Not sure if I'd have gotten similar chances if I stayed home. However, there is certainly an element of home that I miss. The slangs, the inside jokes, the familiarity which takes me a while to get used to every time I go back marks my displacement from home. Sometimes I feel like I'm neither here, nor there. I cannot call this place a home away from home, simply because I do not feel the emotional attachment I feel with Calcutta. At the same time, when I am there, sometimes I feel like an accidental tourist. Like a person without a purpose, just wandering, not sure what he or she is hoping to find.

Lots of packing to do. * groans *

links dump (placeholder)

10 Proposals for Fixing the E-Mail Glut - it's an interesting piece and some of the proposals I see myself agreeing with. But others...lolwhut? For example, implementation of twitter-like 140 characters cut off limit. No, a big no, and I'm sure the verbose strata of the email-using population will (violently) object to its imposition. But check it out nonetheless.

Iron Man Versus the Imperialists Nice parallel between Iron Man and American Imperialism. Will properly finish reading after I'm done devouring sushi.

Wikipedia's Known Unknowns and Ontology overrated will come next. (Too much sushi, too little time)

Last night out of boredom, I watched New Moon and today I indulged myself in Zombieland. My derision/loathing/radical antipathy towards Twilight is well known in my friend's circle; so chances are if you and I have moved beyond the customary "Hello, how are you doing?" you'd have been treated to, at least one, my diatribe over Stephenie Meyers and Edward Cullen. I'll spare that here except to say LOLOLOLOL Edward actually sparkles in the film. LOLWHUT.

Zombieland on the other hand is a bucket of fun once you get by the blood dripping, flesh eating zombies - here's a bonus: Bill Murray? Zombie!fail. Stick to Ghostbusters Billy.

Now off to eat those sushis. The reading...well we'll cross that bridge when we get there.

U-Go-Slavia

To quote my friend, "I feel smart for existing."

You mean Jesus was gay? REALLY?

Copenhagen climate summit in disarray after 'Danish text' leak

No number of flabbergasted WTFs can be seen as an adequate response to this.

For the sake of this world (and my sanity) I'm going to hope that this is a hoax to stir up tension before the bulk of the talks is underway.

Really now. I understand this is a talk shop where diplomats will hug, shake hands and eat expensive caviar but at least conduct it with some dignity.

Edit: The actual leaked text which I am too tired/annoyed/resigned to read through. I'm just going to rely on The Guardian's summarizing skills and send my best regards to the vitriol and backlash it is going to receive on the internet.

The climate change saga

My father says Copenhagen "is just a talk shop" and that nothing substantial is going to come out of it. He can be cynical at times, but I don't think his cynicism has anything to do with his judgment of the Copenhagen talks. I think it is another talk shop too, and while the optimist desires some kind of positive outcome from this, the pessimist yawns in boredom.

To start off, Climategate and its consequences is going to soak up the atmosphere in conference rooms and the most important question anyone without insider information is going to ask is: Is Global Warming really as bad as it is made out to be?

John Tierney has a well summarized account of Climategate: E-Mail Fracas Shows Peril of Trying to Spin Science. It sums up the controversy surrounding the hacked emails that suggest scientists, in order to pursue definitive actions over rising temperatures, have manipulated the data to exacerbate the situation. That, I believe, is a very inconvenient truth. (Are you listening Mr. Gore?)

Placeholder: More links on Climategate controversy here, here and here. (note: The last one shows the actual emails exchanged - with date and timestamps!)

Alright, Climategate aside, the Cop15 official site is a good place to track the conference, get related news and other projects/initiatives that are underway to tackle the potentially-catastrophic consequences of climate change.

In an ideal world, the Copenhagen talks will achieve something substantial; something more than a promise. A definite action(s) into tackling global warming. Assuming we are in that ideal world here are the few ways, I feel we can tackle climate change.

1) Egotism: We need to stop trying to pinpoint who is historically responsible for global warming and who should be made to pay for the clean up. It should be a joint effort instead of a series of compromises made by countries based on what their competitors do. US wants to cut their emissions by 17% below 2005 levels by 2020, according to the Bill introduced to the Senate by Senators Barbara Boxers and John Kerry. That's fine. China wants to reduce theirs by 40-45% by 2020. It's a start but the consensus is that if US and China (accounting for 40% of pollution in the world) do not live up to their words, the others are reluctant to lower emission. I think by now there are no strong deniers of global warming - everyone's accepted the phenomenon and hopefully are aware of the consequences that await the generations to come. So why the wait? Why did we even need to go as far as the Copenhagen talks to reach a consensus?

2) Aid: Financial or otherwise. One of the reasons why countries are unwilling to cut emissions is because they are worried about their economic growth. If countries, especially developing ones, make a conscious effort to reduce emission then, they should be helped out for their efforts. China and India's primary concern these days is sustaining high levels of growth to pull their people out of poverty. If the world expects them to reduce pollution/emissions, then there should be ways set up whereby they can reduce without sacrificing the livelihood of their citizens. That's where aid can be an useful incentive to build up the momentum of reducing emissions.

3) Free flow of technology: It goes without saying, the more efficient your methods of production are, the better your chances of saving on your scarce resources. The flow of technology from the west to the east needs to be sped up. More developing countries should have the latest techonological know-how in order to ensure their methods of production are least destructive to the environment. Less IPs and patents might help. Multi-nation funding for Research and Development to find better ways of producing a good, and then distributing that knowledge worldwide can help too - basically the trade off here is your personal ambition vs. the environment's well being.

4) Social responsibility: Pretty much similar to the first one. Countries cannot say, "If X is allowed to pollute more than me, why must I reduce my emission?" Look, in the end, if this continues, we are all screwed. Global catastrophe is not going to pick and choose which of the countries it wants to hit. Everyone dies, so it doesn't matter who is allowed to pollute more and who isn't. Which is why carbon trading in some way does not answer the problem; it doesn't substantially reduce the aggregate amount of pollution present in the air. It shifts the burden from one country to another. Which is why, I think conscious efforts to sacrifice economic prosperity for better, cleaner environment would be better. But here I am, indulging in wishful thinking.

Of course in stating my four points I made several assumptions including the complete insignificance (and disregard) of political agenda, ideological difference, competition (between states), the on-going wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, HIV/AIDS, the stubborn presence of poverty, current financial crisis...yeah the list just goes on. However, I did set out an yardstick where the operative word is ideal.

We see that in every Hollywood blockbuster (or not) dealing with the end of the World - like War of the Worlds, Independence Day, The Day After Tomorrow and more recently 2012 - nations come together, as one, after the first wave of damage has been done. It is important to realize, the consequences of rising sea levels will in the future, maybe in 2012 or perhaps even maybe in 2070, have an impact. We can't be certain when it's going to hit us. And unlike in Hollywood movies, mass deaths and destruction will not be performed by cool CGI or stuntmen. It is going to have a definite impact, and people will suffer. All because of our inability to put aside our egoes and work together. (yes I'm very much aware of how I'm sounding like a doomsday prophet, but it is true. It will happen one day. Today, tomorrow or in the next millennium.)

Lastly, this guy tries to manifest a climate-change-oriented version of The Devil's Dictionary. Makes me laugh; and not always in the funny bone tickling way.

Billy's Law

A few post's back I mentioned about Paul Krugman's desire to add onto Godwin's Law.

Now I'd like to propose a similar extension or a brand new introduction of a variance of Godwin's Law in the football fandom at large. I'd like it to be named Billy's Law; Billy being an esoteric conception between the Sanctimonious Fanatical Pickle and an accomplice who goes by many names, most prominently George.

Billy's Law should read like this:

It states that whenever someone uses Reductio ad Failerum™ to justify their arguments, they have effectively lost it.

Examples include, but are not limited to:

1. "Excuse me...I first stood on the ___________ [enter Club stadium name] in the _____ [enter date, prior to 2000], so don't preach to me about what it means to support a club like ___________ [enter Club name]." (Source)

2. You don't live in Europe therefore you don't know what it's like to support a football club.

3. Shut up, my club has it harder than your club!

4. You are a football Nazi.

Make it happen, powers that be. I am offering first borns here.

health care? what's that?

Senate's 2000+ pages of Health Care bill.

Perfect time to apply the tl;dr symbol.

So there.

tl;dr

I feel accomplished.

Obamafication.

Mike Tomasky assesses the recent spur of Obama-hate quite accurately in his piece titled, "Hate Obama? You may not be a racist. But you will be white.".

I am personally not a fan of Obama's public health care. My reason is simple - I do not believe that it is sustainable in the long run. Of course the incumbent health care isn't sustainable either, but the alternative, in my view is just as bad. Especially after the government budget deficit is projected to remain over 1 trillion dollars for the next decade. This is going back to the Regan and Bush sr. era, except now there is an ongoing recession; even if the worst bits of the recession is over, as analysts say, the left over effects are still being felt by the main street.

I digress.

I intend to talk about Obama. When Obama won, the headlines from then can be summarized as A NEW DAWN AFTER AN ETERNITY SPENT IN DARKNESS - darkness here being the Bush Administration. I feel we made a cult figure out of Obama even before the man resumed office. We took his campaign rhetorics and went along with it, expressing our awe at the man's (potential) capacity to right the wrongs made by Bush.

So far Obama's delivery in his promises is going less than impeccably. Guantanamo Bay is still operating (EDIT: Guantanamo won't close by January 2010 - Obama) - even though the trail for the perpetrators of 9/11 has been ordered. US troops are still in Iraq; okay granted the crucial bill was passed, and a ray of hope has emerged, it still doesn't guarantee anything. Afghanistan is still a mess. Pakistan is deteriorating.

Politics aside, US unemployment rate broke into double digits last month, jobs are still being lost, companies are still not hiring, and China continues to peg its exchange rate against the dollars. In a nutshell, eleven months after Obama assumed office, the United States is still being screwed.

Because of the impossible ideals we built around Obama, making him nothing short of a miracle worker, the current state of the world and primarily the US economy is breeding discontent with the Obama administration. We are beginning to doubt his capability - which, I am not questioning, but simply reiterating that thanks to our sky high expectations, whatever Obama does henceforth is not going to be enough. Unless one day we wake to find that unemployment rate has gone down to its natural level, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has miraculously ended, China is allowing the Yuan to float against the US $ etc. Basically, Obama has to deliver us Utopia to silence the critics.

Of course the racial factor will ALWAYS be there. I'd like to give USofA the benefit of the doubt and assume that the race factor is a small proportion of people - mostly prevalent in the white conservative camps. Someone mentioned a very valid point last night on BBC's World Have Your Say. Because Obama is African-American, and because race has been such a highly debated, and controversial issue in the USA, a lot of people voted for Obama simply because he was black. Similarly, a lot of them voted for McCain just because he is white. The speaker actually went on to explain, if instead of Obama it were Hilary Clinton running for presidency, a lot of the feminist advocates would vote for Hilary just because she is a woman. And the alternative is true too.

What I am trying to highlight here is that the post-Obama euphoria is subsiding. And people are beginning to realize that Obama is not a miracle worker. That Iraq and Afghanistan will take time to be mitigated; that the financial crisis will also take time to level out and for the US economy to start growing sustainably again.

Obama needs time.

Whether he gets it or not will most certainly influence the future of world politics.

More edits: Veto of Iraq's Election Law Could Force Delay in Vote, and China Holds Firm on Major Issues in Obama's Visit. More backlash in the horizon? It'd be a shame if Obama is ousted from office even before his first term as President reaches its half way mark. Give the guy some time, world at large. Please?

You are a nazi because I say so!

Paul Krugman on extending Godwin's Law (and rightfully so).

My desire?

To include anyone who thinks that just because they have read university level economics modules, political science modules, and public policy modules (and believe in extreme government intervention- basically the concept of a 'nanny state'), they are well educated, knowledgeable liberals. Though by Mr. Krugman's definition, the parenthesis has already been covered in his point no. 1 and 2.

Wish me luck, as you wave me goodbye. Cheerio, here I go,on my way...

Obama Says U.S. Seeks to Build Stronger Ties to China. You know what they say; If you can't beat them, join them. Does this mean the world at large will gradually accept China's pegged exchange rate? (Point of note/amusement): Some kook confidently said to me before that China has a floating exchange rate because...well his uncle thinks so.

Though I object heavily to the article's sweeping generalization that ASEAN is just an economic group. It is more than than that - it was formed to regionalize South East Asia with the aim of promoting regional security and strengthening cultural ties. Economics has hardly been the driving factor behind a significant portion of ASEAN's four decades worth of history.

If it were, the Asian Financial Crisis would not have dented Singapore's economy as badly as it did; when the Baht fell, the Rupiah fell, the Ringgit fell, it was a "Beggar thy neighbour" attitude that prospered in the region. Anyway, I am not nitpicking here - as someone who is studying ASEAN as part of her university coursework, I oppose to blunt generalization of its function as just an economic group. Oh and for posterity's sake - ASEAN is not the Asian version of the EU.

A caveat (of some interest): ASEAN members never interfere with the internal politics of their member countries; which is why it's credibility has been repeatedly questioned over its stance on the crackdown that happened in Myanmar two years ago.

I'm curious to see what they achieve out of APEC Summit this weekend. The securities have locked down major roads leading up to the central business district here in the name of housing so many important leaders, including the man touted to be the most powerful in the world. Despite my cynicism towards the USofA, I am a fan of Obama. I believe he has a strong character that was seriously lacking in Bush. Though I must say, so far, after resuming office for nearly a year he hasn't made as much progress as he had been projecting during the presidential campaign. However, Iraq's recent passing of the election bill and the recent decision to try Khalid Shaikh Mohammed - the mastermind behind 9/11 in court (in the process of shutting down Guantanamo Bay) injects some optimism among those beginning to question the validity of Obama's campaign promises. The healthcare bill - I am not certain how durable it is going to be in the long run; from the little I have learned in Economics, government sponsored bills are not sustainable in the long run. Granted I have not actually seen the bill properly - though if you scurry around the NYtimes website, you'll find a copy up for download somewhere. I came across it the other day, but my misfortune that I forgot to at least save a link for it.

I am going to put the following point as a place holder:

Due to my inability to sleep without listening to the radio, I have developed a long standing habit of listening to BBC radio on 88.9 FM. Thanks to the time difference, at exactly about 2 a.m. local time they air the BBC World Have Your Say. I am a huge fan of the debates that go back and forth for the hour - some of the arguments are enviably well thought-out and effortlessly executed. Others are just plain stupid. Every time I formulate my own argument and post it on their blog, the show ends. IT IS NOT A MERRY COINCIDENCE. Yesterday they were discussing about Depression and should sufferers be more forthcoming with their conditions. I had a lot to say on this issue - I do suffer from it, and while my case isn't serious enough to seek intense medical help, I have had to drastically adjust my life, my schedules to cope with it. I do just fine - I don't need pills or therapy anymore. Granted the episodic outbursts cannot be helped (it's like epilepsy; the medicine helps to keep it under control, not fully cure it), I have done just fine for five years now.

I don't like advertising my condition to people - I don't want them to treat me differently. I certainly oppose the idea of conveying a very weak and fragile state of my mind. I am neither; I am tough as a diamond and to be denied opportunities or given leeway because people pity me is not acceptable to my conscience. It can even be annoying at times, when, unintentionally, I divulge into people that I do suffer from depressive episodes from time to time. The first response, quite naturally, I get is, "You are depressed? Why we had no idea!" Of course you don't. Most sufferers of depression you see appear perfectly normal in plainsight. There is a clear distinction between emo/gothic/punk and those who actually have clinical depression.

Anyway, back to my comment about World Have your Say, WHO DO I HAVE TO SHAG/MURDER/DEFENESTRATE (not necessarily in that order) TO GET MY COMMENT READ OUT ON AIR? I'll try tonight. Wish me luck, as you wave me goodbye. Cheerio, here I go,on my way...

This is the dilemma I encounter frequently.

Oh and this boy using the computer on my left at the computer stations in the library is wearing too much cologne. My nose itches.

Now back to more Hypothesis testing and Solow Model of Growth until 4p.m.

I should probably make a daily rant about how much I loathe the long breaks I have in between classes - of course studious people would welcome such gaps and fully utilize them to study, revise, write out notes. Yours truly missed the cut off percentage point, to access the studious strata, by several decimal places.

This must be mentioned too - since it is Real Madrid, and I did predict teardrops at the Bernabeu. Is it masochistic of me to say I thoroughly enjoyed the large volume of boos and jeers the players got from the crowd? Yes I enjoyed it. They were awful. Perhaps not entirely true; they started off well, but without flair, without creativity and from then on it descended into an air of resignation hanging over the Estadio Santiago Bernabeu. If I'm honest it is upsetting - because we were playing a Third division team (without taking away any credit from Alcorcon, who were fantastic in every aspect on both legs of the tie) and we had a packed Bernabeu. The Real Madrid boys broke more than 76,000 hearts; they left a permanent stain on Real Madrid's history, which, leads me back to an assertion I have been making since June: THIS IS NOT FIFA2010 ON YOUR PSP; GALACTICOS 2.0 IS NOT GOING TO WORK IN THE LONG RUN.

I hope we keep Pellegrini though; that man can do wonders, if he has the right players. By right, I do not mean skillwise, because we have already paid 200 million euros to cover that. We need the right combination of motivated, hardworking footballers who go out to prove to the world at large that they are indeed worth every penny paid for by the club. Like LASSANA DIARRA and GONZALO HIGUAIN. Period.

It must take an extra ordinarily brave soul (which, I am not) to decide that snacking on wasabi coated dried peas helps to accelerate the process of understanding 200 pages worth of material talking about the economic history of the country. For me it was a bad, on a scale of 1 to 10 rated 15.5, decision. Right now I cannot concentrate on which particular bit of my upper body hurts most – my throat? My tongue? My nasal passages? My jaws? Everything aches. Terribly; alarmingly resembling someone prodding my delicate flesh with a molten hot iron rod straight out of your best gore fantasy.

That aside, I’m still trying to come to terms with how my meticulous schedule planning at the beginning of the semester left me with a six hours break in between classes on Monday. Either reality is cruel; or I’m excessively ignorant of potential pot holes laid out before me. (This might come in between my aspirations to learn how to drive. Lordy.)

crying over spilt milk

Nokia loses it.

The infamous lawsuit that's been buzzing the world as of yesterday 22nd October 2009.

If you read on, you'll see that Scott Lindvall aptly summarizes the situation; "They (Nokia) have kind of declared war on the iPhone."

Apple has a reputation of not playing by the books, but filing multiple patent infringements in one lawsuit is what makes this interesting (we all love a bit of drama don't we?). The claims by Nokia are legitimate and the suit comes after months of negotiation ended in futility. (Case-in-point: Product wise, Apple wins the competition hands down. Service and durability wise I'm still undecided. As a Nokia user, however, I admire how sturdy their phones are)

From Nokia's official press release:

The ten patents in suit relate to technologies fundamental to making devices which are compatible with one or more of the GSM, UMTS (3G WCDMA) and wireless LAN standards. The patents cover wireless data, speech coding, security and encryption and are infringed by all Apple iPhone models shipped since the iPhone was introduced in 2007.

Watching this case progress will be interesting. If Nokia wins, they stall Apple's development in the telecommunications industry and pocket a couple of hundred millions (see Economist link above). But if Nokia loses, I think its share in the industry is going to drop further - maybe to 42% or so, and continue doing so for the next couple of years. The timing of the suit makes it more controversial; especially after Apple posted record profits in this quarter and Nokia, acknowledged losses in the industry. As a consumer I'd tell Nokia to focus on the attractiveness of their phones. The iPhone wins hands down because it is sleek, flexible and has plenty of interactive features. Nokia's high end N-series doesn't make the cut - not entirely. Maybe hire a few new designers, or invest more to find out from your consumer base why people are turning to Apple these days. Apple's got this brand status; Nokia doesn't. A lot of people view Nokia as an ordinary man's phone, whereas the iPhone reflects status in layman communities. Or at least that's how it comes across as.

Either way, I can't wait to read what Apple has to say to this pending suit. *excited*

...lilies that fester smell far worse than weeds...

How Plagiarism Software Found a New Shakespeare. I strongly believe that my twitter dashboard is a maze of wonderful things (at a 99% confidence interval rate) waiting to be unearthed. This was one of them. I find the concept truly fascinating - precisely so because of the (over)emphasis the academia places on Plagiarism and plagiarism detecting softwares. I've heard my Professors harp on the seriousness and consequences of plagiarism for over a year. While it doesn't apply to me directly (at least not at this point in time), I have always wondered the depths to which students will venture to, in order to get that perfect A+ without doing an ounce of work. Finding Shakespeare while trying to catch cheats, is a delightful composition of irony which I hope will assist to further expound on this chance discovery.

ETA: I take back what I said about my twitter dashboard - I now reduce the confidence interval to a 95% after a this post about Why Jews are liberals came up. I clicked with the hope of reading a (adequate) explanation to this direct, slightly controversial question asked by none other than The Gaggle (Newsweek). Duly disappointed and would like to claim back the 5 minutes of life wasted on reading it. Thank you very much.