- Car security alarms. They are really loud. In India, honking on roads or reverse-gear alarms in residential areas take the cake as well.
- Cell phone ring tones: both the incoming call ring tones (some are really bizarre), and the "hello tunes". The "hello tune" is a song or music piece or the voice of your child which you hear when you call someone, instead of the usual canonical ring-ring, ring-ring.
- Music in malls, public spaces, LCD screens in restaurants and public transport terminals.
- Billboards by the side of the road, hoardings, small-sized billboards on every street light, small posters in trains, buses, backs of buses, sides of buses, taxis, etc.
- Advertising in newspapers, magazines, pay channels on TV, and so on.
- People talking loudly on their cellphones in public spaces.
- Heavy bass music being showed off by car owners cruising on a busy street.
- Loud motorcycles (some with modified exhausts), and in India: auto-rickshaws.
- Loudspeakers at places of worship, during religious ceremonies at home and at wedding celebrations. They are illegal in big cities, but not in small-town India, where protesting against them is considered anti-social.
- Advertisements which take your time and which you cannot avoid, e.g. at the beginning of a film in a theater, trailers at the beginning of a DVD, the front page of a newspaper having a full-page ad, etc.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Sources of Noise and Cognitive Pollution
Some notable pollutants (some of them lesser-known) in urban areas:
Monday, August 18, 2008
Responsibility for a phishing fraud
Recently, an elderly friend ('A') of mine got the following email in his Yahoo inbox:
The friend being not very hep with computers, naively replied to the email with the "requested" information.
The scammer took over the Yahoo account, and sent the following email to all in his address book:
He is a globe trotter, and many of his friends (who were themselves very naive and hadn't heard of Nigerian scams) were genuinely concerned. One of his very caring friends (let's call her B) sent GBP 1500 via Western Union. The scammer sent back his gratitude and asked for another USD 1000. She got suspicious and made a few calls and came to realize her mistake.
By this time, I was able to intervene and get back the Yahoo account for my friend. I immediately noticed that the scammer was corresponding with many of his contacts and some of them were close to sending him money. Of course, I immediately sent a FRAUD WARNING message to all in the address book.
Now, A and myself were discussing the financial responsibility of the lost GBP 1500. He was inclined to compensate B the full amount. However, I was of the opinion that both A and B had exhibited gullibility and stupidity, and the loss should be shared. I suggested that he compensate B for 25% of the amount. He finally agreed to pay her 33%. I don't know how B will take the suggestion once it is communicated to her. It should be kept in mind that B might get very offended due to the public loss of face, and A's offer of only 33% may add injury to insult, leading to a breakdown of the relationship.
Here's the problem in semi-formal terms:
Dear Valued Member,
Due to the congestion in all Yahoo users and removal of all unused Yahoo Accounts,Yahoo would be shutting down all unused accounts,You will have to confirm your E-mail by filling out your Login Info below after clicking the reply botton, or your account will be suspended within 24 hours for security reasons.
UserName:
Password:
Date Of Birth:
Country Or Territory:
After Following the instructions in the sheet,your account will not be interrupted and will continue as normal.Thanks for your attention to this request.We apologize for any inconvinience.
The friend being not very hep with computers, naively replied to the email with the "requested" information.
The scammer took over the Yahoo account, and sent the following email to all in his address book:
Did you get my previous email, I sent you an email some hours ago, I am in a hurry writing this, i had travelled to Nigeria for official purposes, Unfortunately for me all my money was stolen at the hotel where i lodged, I am so confused right now, I dont know what to do or where to go,I didnt bring my phone here, i have access to only emails, please can you send me $2500 today so i can return home, as soon as i get home i would refund it immediately, you can send it to me through western union as i dont have an account here, this are the informations to send it. Mr A ,Address/location: 30 cole street,lagos, Nigeria,23401, use this text question when sedning it: what is my date of birth, text answer:19xx
Please as soon as its sent scan and send me the receipt of the transfer or just write out the money transfer no and the senders informations, i realy dont have time to write much now, would be waiting. thank you.
He is a globe trotter, and many of his friends (who were themselves very naive and hadn't heard of Nigerian scams) were genuinely concerned. One of his very caring friends (let's call her B) sent GBP 1500 via Western Union. The scammer sent back his gratitude and asked for another USD 1000. She got suspicious and made a few calls and came to realize her mistake.
By this time, I was able to intervene and get back the Yahoo account for my friend. I immediately noticed that the scammer was corresponding with many of his contacts and some of them were close to sending him money. Of course, I immediately sent a FRAUD WARNING message to all in the address book.
Now, A and myself were discussing the financial responsibility of the lost GBP 1500. He was inclined to compensate B the full amount. However, I was of the opinion that both A and B had exhibited gullibility and stupidity, and the loss should be shared. I suggested that he compensate B for 25% of the amount. He finally agreed to pay her 33%. I don't know how B will take the suggestion once it is communicated to her. It should be kept in mind that B might get very offended due to the public loss of face, and A's offer of only 33% may add injury to insult, leading to a breakdown of the relationship.
Here's the problem in semi-formal terms:
- A and B have emotional ties (which for the purposes of this discussion, is worth amount R).
- A loses his identity to S due to ignorance.
- S asks B for money, posing as A.
- B is conned and responds with X amount of money.
- A and B discover what has happened.
- A wants to make an offer of settlement (Y) to B for her loss.
- A is apprehensive that B might get offended and
Sunday, August 03, 2008
The Name of the Ruse
Bollywood producers have embraced a curious practice of naming their films in accordance with numerological tenets, astrological advice and tarot readings.
The names of films and soaps in India have added letters to make sure the Goddess of Wealth, Laxmi, is happy with the result. Forget the viewers, please the Gods!
It is extremely silly. Let's observe the names of some recent films and soaps:
Singh Is Kinng
Heyy Babyy
Jaan-e-Mann
Kahaani Ghar Ghar Kii
Kasautii Zindagii Kay
Kkusum
Kasamh Se
In the past, films and serials used to have the image of a deity and some chantings before the titles, complete with the fresh incense sticks and proper lighting.
Didn't help. Most of them still flopped.
The names of films and soaps in India have added letters to make sure the Goddess of Wealth, Laxmi, is happy with the result. Forget the viewers, please the Gods!
It is extremely silly. Let's observe the names of some recent films and soaps:
Singh Is Kinng
Heyy Babyy
Jaan-e-Mann
Kahaani Ghar Ghar Kii
Kasautii Zindagii Kay
Kkusum
Kasamh Se
In the past, films and serials used to have the image of a deity and some chantings before the titles, complete with the fresh incense sticks and proper lighting.
Didn't help. Most of them still flopped.
The Dark Knight by Christopher Nolan
The Dark Knight is the second Batman film directed by Christopher Nolan. The first was the entertaining but average Batman Begins.
The film has garnered immense and superlative praise from a large number of critics. It is currently at #1 on the IMDB Top 250 films of all time, and has a rating of 9.3/10 with close to 200,000 votes.
I have seen the film twice in theater, and there are certainly some great moments in the film. However, I don't think it is the "best film ever made" or anything like that. This is not a great film, just an enjoyable one, because it is not content with whatever subtlety it has (which in itself is debatable) but wants to indulge in crowd-pleasing tricks.
Cinematically the film has some great moments: the images of the Batman cruising on his motorcycle, the lonely Batman perched at the top of a building at night, the feverish acting of Heath Ledger, the sound design (the static hum when Joker enters the frame, the action sequences, and especially the ending). The editing and the sound design in the end sequence of the film (The creation of the Dark Knight) is superlative.
But the techniques of the film can also be faulted for a number of reasons. The narrative is slightly disjointed (though well-paced). Some crucial scenes have been edited in less than satisfactory ways. The bank heist, the chase, the Joker's jail-room antics, the final showdown with the SWAT teams had the potential to become cinematic milestones. Instead, the editor juggles too much, as if he's not too sure of himself.
Also, some narrative elements are not fully formed. The film seems episodic rather than fluid. Some smarty-pants bits of dialogue ("Cuz I'm not wearing Hockey Pants") cheapen the tone of the film.
Coming to the serious thematic issues raised by the film, here is my take on them:
Anarchy versus Planning: The Joker claims he does not plan, but actually he plans to a fault. Sometimes his plans don't work, but there is definitely a method in his so-called madness. If anything, it seems like he has planned every step of the film leading to the final showdown.
The Dark Side of a man: To an audience nourished on black and white characters, it would probably seem deep to see the creation of Two-Face. But is there anything new in saying that men can be corrupted and pushed over the edge?
Rules: The Joker wants to defeat the Batman who plays by certain rules. And the film tries to show that rules are limiting when fighting with a madman. This is one of the most serious issues raised by this film, and one which does tend to make one think.
Surveillance: A deus ex machina defense of an Orwellian device. See The Conversation for a far more interesting take on this theme. I have written more about it here.
US as the Dark Knight: The parallels are unmistakable. But what dilutes the whole treatment is the inexplicable motives of Joker. To equate terrorism with madness is unfair, and only (falsely) affirms that US was not culpable in a number of international crimes, and that the escalation is completely the fault of those criminals and terrorists. It is just not true.
The Good People: I didn't buy the final response of the people on the ferries for one minute. In the real world, there would have been riots. And it is grossly misleading to boot. In fact, preemptive strikes has long been a major part of US foreign policy. The US has bombed and destroyed faraway regions faced with far less provocation than shown in this film.
I thoroughly enjoyed the film, and recommend it to everybody as a cinematic experience. But don't take it too seriously (as the Joker would say)!
The film has garnered immense and superlative praise from a large number of critics. It is currently at #1 on the IMDB Top 250 films of all time, and has a rating of 9.3/10 with close to 200,000 votes.
I have seen the film twice in theater, and there are certainly some great moments in the film. However, I don't think it is the "best film ever made" or anything like that. This is not a great film, just an enjoyable one, because it is not content with whatever subtlety it has (which in itself is debatable) but wants to indulge in crowd-pleasing tricks.
Cinematically the film has some great moments: the images of the Batman cruising on his motorcycle, the lonely Batman perched at the top of a building at night, the feverish acting of Heath Ledger, the sound design (the static hum when Joker enters the frame, the action sequences, and especially the ending). The editing and the sound design in the end sequence of the film (The creation of the Dark Knight) is superlative.
But the techniques of the film can also be faulted for a number of reasons. The narrative is slightly disjointed (though well-paced). Some crucial scenes have been edited in less than satisfactory ways. The bank heist, the chase, the Joker's jail-room antics, the final showdown with the SWAT teams had the potential to become cinematic milestones. Instead, the editor juggles too much, as if he's not too sure of himself.
Also, some narrative elements are not fully formed. The film seems episodic rather than fluid. Some smarty-pants bits of dialogue ("Cuz I'm not wearing Hockey Pants") cheapen the tone of the film.
Coming to the serious thematic issues raised by the film, here is my take on them:
Anarchy versus Planning: The Joker claims he does not plan, but actually he plans to a fault. Sometimes his plans don't work, but there is definitely a method in his so-called madness. If anything, it seems like he has planned every step of the film leading to the final showdown.
The Dark Side of a man: To an audience nourished on black and white characters, it would probably seem deep to see the creation of Two-Face. But is there anything new in saying that men can be corrupted and pushed over the edge?
Rules: The Joker wants to defeat the Batman who plays by certain rules. And the film tries to show that rules are limiting when fighting with a madman. This is one of the most serious issues raised by this film, and one which does tend to make one think.
Surveillance: A deus ex machina defense of an Orwellian device. See The Conversation for a far more interesting take on this theme. I have written more about it here.
US as the Dark Knight: The parallels are unmistakable. But what dilutes the whole treatment is the inexplicable motives of Joker. To equate terrorism with madness is unfair, and only (falsely) affirms that US was not culpable in a number of international crimes, and that the escalation is completely the fault of those criminals and terrorists. It is just not true.
The Good People: I didn't buy the final response of the people on the ferries for one minute. In the real world, there would have been riots. And it is grossly misleading to boot. In fact, preemptive strikes has long been a major part of US foreign policy. The US has bombed and destroyed faraway regions faced with far less provocation than shown in this film.
I thoroughly enjoyed the film, and recommend it to everybody as a cinematic experience. But don't take it too seriously (as the Joker would say)!
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Beowulf by Robert Zemeckis
Reviews of this film have focused either on the motion-capture technology, or on the controversy surrounding the shots of a nude Angelina Jolie.
The technology is imperfect and a work in progress, and the shots of Ms Jolie would be interesting only to a celebrity-fetishist.
However, I do have something to say about a particular aspect of the mythical story. Whereas aggression is celebrated as manly, lust is distinctly condemned in this film. According to Beowulf, a hero is one who is brave, and one who doesn't capitulate to a lustful moment. He may compete, he may plunder, he may kill, he may loot, he may have many wives, he may mistreat his slaves and workers, but he may not give in to a lustful temptation which brings woe upon his kingdom.
It is a rather interesting viewpoint, but one which is eminently understandable. A King's foibles are acceptable (even if they are rooted in animal-like behavior) if they bring prosperity and glory to his kingdom. His wanting of sons, his desire for immortality, and his manliness exhibited in having many queens is perfectly acceptable. But if he gives in to a temptation which is treacherous towards his people, then shame is in order.
(Can one perhaps draw a parallel to Clinton's forgivable indiscretions while he was President?)
What is also curious is that people want to believe in unblemished heroes. The pain and denial expressed by Beowulf's deputy when Beowulf tries to tell him about the fall is one of the most interesting aspects of this story. So also is the seemingly inexplicable suicide of King Hrothgar.
The Queen is shown to be in the know all along, and she is probably the most self-aware of all characters in this story.
The technology is imperfect and a work in progress, and the shots of Ms Jolie would be interesting only to a celebrity-fetishist.
However, I do have something to say about a particular aspect of the mythical story. Whereas aggression is celebrated as manly, lust is distinctly condemned in this film. According to Beowulf, a hero is one who is brave, and one who doesn't capitulate to a lustful moment. He may compete, he may plunder, he may kill, he may loot, he may have many wives, he may mistreat his slaves and workers, but he may not give in to a lustful temptation which brings woe upon his kingdom.
It is a rather interesting viewpoint, but one which is eminently understandable. A King's foibles are acceptable (even if they are rooted in animal-like behavior) if they bring prosperity and glory to his kingdom. His wanting of sons, his desire for immortality, and his manliness exhibited in having many queens is perfectly acceptable. But if he gives in to a temptation which is treacherous towards his people, then shame is in order.
(Can one perhaps draw a parallel to Clinton's forgivable indiscretions while he was President?)
What is also curious is that people want to believe in unblemished heroes. The pain and denial expressed by Beowulf's deputy when Beowulf tries to tell him about the fall is one of the most interesting aspects of this story. So also is the seemingly inexplicable suicide of King Hrothgar.
The Queen is shown to be in the know all along, and she is probably the most self-aware of all characters in this story.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
