Author: JP

Knocked off their Perth: Why I’m looking forward to the Adelaide Test

I have the fortune of being able to support two cricket teams, India (where I spent the first half of my life) and England (where I’m spending the second). That means I follow a lot of cricket. [And when the two countries meet, I’m not conflicted. The Tebbit Test has me supporting India when they play England. ]

So when it comes to playing against Australia, I’m doubly privileged. Two sets of Ashes to watch, the original ones and the new ones. At least that’s how it felt to me. I really felt that India-Australia had reached “Ashes” status over the last decade or so, that the Border-Gavaskar Trophy was competed for as passionately as the Urn.

_44364616_indiacelebrate416

I wondered whether it was just me, or whether the statistics would bear me out. Here’s the summary of Australia versus Everyone Else over the last ten years:

Versus England: Played 25 Won 17 Lost 5 Drawn 3 Win-Loss 3.40
Versus West Indies: Played 16 Won 13 Lost 3 Drawn 0 Win-Loss 4.33
Versus Pakistan: Played 12 Won 10 Lost 0 Drawn 2 Win-Loss —–
Versus South Africa: Played 13 Won 10 Lost 1 Drawn 2 Win-Loss 10.00
Versus New Zealand: Played 11 Won 7 Lost 0 Drawn 12 Win-Loss —–

Versus India: Played 20 Won 10 Lost 7 Drawn 3 Win-Loss 1.42

Now if you bear in mind that those statistics include the recent Sydney Test, you get an idea of just how competitive the match is. I hope that everyone has learnt from the last two Tests, and that in the end cricket won.

Just thought the cricket-mad amongst you would be interested in these figures.

“Communal” data and trust

I’m for data and information portability; you only need to read About This Blog to know I care for it, passionately, and have done so for a long while.

But.

Not all data is mine alone. Not all data is mine to share.

So. Before we get too hung up about what’s right and what’s wrong we need to understand more about communal data.  That’s something I’ve been trying to do for a while, and something I need to continue doing.

Liquidity with privacy and accountability is not that easy to achieve. We can get there. We will get there. But only if we work together and figure out how.

Geist der Neuzeit: The Spirit of Modern Times

Stephen Smoliar was relentless in his insistence that I read Ferdinand Tonnies. And he was right to insist. I am now on my second, slow read of Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft (Community and Society), as I strive to understand how he differentiated between the two and why. I will write more about what he says when I have assimilated it all, something that will take me a while. But I’m working on it.

I’m reading the Charles Loomis translation in the Dover Edition, and second time round, I spent a little more time on reading the Introduction. There, in a reference to Tonnies’ sister work to Community and Society (called Geist der Neuzeit: The Spirit of Modern Times) Loomis quotes Tonnies as follows:

In the Middle Ages there was unity, now there is atomization: then the hierarchy of authority was solicitous paternalism, now it is compulsory exploitation; then there was relative peace, now wars are wholesale slaughter; then there were sympathetic relationships amongst kinsfolk and old acquaintances, now there are strangers and aliens everywhere; then society was chiefly made up of home- and land-loving peasants, now the attitude of the businessman prevails; the man’s simple needs were met by home production and barter, now we have world trade and capitalistic production; then there was permanency of abode, now great mobility; then there were folk arts, music and handicrafts, now there is science — and the scientific method applied, as in the case of the cool calculations of the businessman, leads to the point of view which deprives one’s fellow men and one’s society of their personality, leaving only a framework of dead symbols and generalizations. 

Now there are strangers and aliens everywhere.

Leaving only a framework of dead symbols and generalizations.

Hmmmm.

I will continue to read this guy. Of that I am sure. I have to thank Stephen for his insistence, there is much I can learn about community from Tonnies, and much I can learn about things communal.

Now you can have your own space conspiracy

I’m a little strange. But then I guess you know that by now.
I believe that man did land on the moon for the first time in 1969; I believe that the images I saw of Apollo 11 on that July day were real, the images I saw as a 11-year old in a very crowded USIS in Calcutta (the name and the location may have changed by now, but I think it used to be on Chowringhee then). I believe that there were children like me all over the world, busy trying to memorise the names of the astronauts, the Command Modules and the Lunar Excursion Modules, for every Apollo mission since then, and a few before. I believe the pictures from Apollo 8 were real as well, and I believe I was really excited to see pictures of earth from the dark side of the moon. I believe that Apollo 13 did have a problem, and I believe I was really tense listening to the radio and wondering if they’d make it back safely.

So I don’t understand the conspiracy theorists who believe it was all made up.

And if you’re one of them, don’t despair. In years to come, you should be able to make up your own outer space conspiracy, and join up with like-minded people to act out your fantasy, thanks to NASA. They’ve issued an RFI for the “development of a NASA-based massively multiplayer online learning game“.

Incidentally, for those of you who wonder about the “waste” of space exploration. What I know is this: I cannot remember any other “scientific” event in 50 years that had children all over the world wondering, dreaming, listening, learning, yearning. What I know is this: when Neil Armstrong said “That’s one small step for man, a giant leap for mankind” (you can listen here) I wasn’t thinking, the US made it to the moon; my first thought was, Man had made it. Mankind had made it. What I know is this: even today, I hold what was done by NASA with awe and reverence.

Butt me no Butts: A sideways look at the Because Effect

No, I haven’t forgotten how to spell. This is not a post about cigarettes or even about archery. Or any of those butts.

It’s about Scrabble, the game invented by Alf Butts around 70 years ago. The game at the heart of the dispute between Hasbro, Mattel (or more correctly, its subsidiary JW Spear) and a couple of youngsters in Calcutta.

I love Scrabble. There were times, in the early 1980s, I used to play 20 games a night, all with a close friend, Viraf Mehta. Somehow he found the time to become UK national champion at the game, something he richly deserved.

What the Scrabulous guys have done is to give the game a much-needed fillip, a real boost. If I was at Hasbro or Mattel, I’d take a close look at sales of the game in the last six months or so, and compare it with sales in prior periods, prior years, prior decades. I’d take an even closer look at the sales figures in locations where Facebook take-up is high.

And I would wonder. I’d wonder whether there was a connection. And I’d be very careful about what I did. Just in case I was making an omelette out of geese and golden eggs.

You see, I think the Scrabulous guys have done a bit more than given the game a boost. They’ve given sales of the game a boost. For free.

The guys at Hasbro and at Mattel should be trying to figure out where the scarcity lies, in the physical board game or in the digital version. They should be trying to figure out whether they can make money because of Scrabulous, not with Scrabulous. It really doesn’t matter what sort of deal they’ve done with EA, they’re not going to wean off the current Scrabulous players that easily. But they can alienate them. And they’re close to doing so right now.