My talent is reading.

That’s it. I read. I understood this in a training session a couple of months ago when the instructor asked me what I like to read.

I read novels, books, newspapers, tweets, facebook posts, signboards, labels anything. Once I even tried to read an EULA. Of course it helps if the text is not something I’m “supposed” to read, like something academic or official.

Yeah I know. It’s not a particularly useful talent, unless you can remember everything you read. Which I can’t. But them we all have to play with the cards we’ve been dealt with. So, no complaints.

That’s why I don’t understand the hue and cry people who love reading make over ‘books’, the dead tree type, being replaced by ebook readers and their ilk like tabs, phones etc. I do understand the fact that ebooks and the like don’t give you a feeling of possession like an actual physical book can, but isn’t a book much more than the medium it is printed on?

A ‘book’ may be an idea or a set of ideas when it is non-fiction, or it may be something less serious like a story or poem when it is fiction. The paper or the electronic device on which it is read is just the channel/medium to bring the idea/story to you. To put it in crude terms, it’s function is similar to that of a middleman or a tout like the ones you see hanging outside RTO offices in India. You pay them for the convenience of getting a driver’s license license (even though you may not know how to drive). The paper or the device provides you a similar convenience by making it easier to get access to the thoughts of the author.

Would you be disappointed if the touts outside the RTO get replaced by someone/something more convenient? Then, if you like to read, why romanticise dead trees?

And if the teleported packets also take random paths to reach their destination, you know, like data packets on the internet, what if you try to teleport a human and there is data loss on the way? Will he get splinched? Is it how JK Rowling came up with the idea?

The trend I’m talking about is people professing their love for some gadgets in their twitter bios. As far as I knew, the bio (short for biography, I think) link was to tell people about who you are, so that they know who they are following. At what stage does your love for a gadget (or a brand, for example) become so strong that you start using it in your bio. In other words, why do people let a gadget/brand define who they are?

The most noticeable brand that I’ve seen appearing on peoples bios is the iPhone. Followed closely by it’s parent, Apple Inc., and it’s other products like the iMac, Macbook etc. The Enfield also makes it appearance but in a reduced number, comparatively speaking.

All of these are brands/products that have achieved cult/iconic status. So it is natural for people to feel nice getting associated with them. And Apple fanbois would’ve existed ever since the Macintosh  made it’s debut. But when you have just 140 characters to write about yourself, wouldn’t you resist the temptation to squeeze in the name of your favorite phone/laptop in it?

… (if) Facebook could provide an email address (you@facebook.com), provide the ability to fwd mails and messages, tag and group mails and do all the other cool things that gmail allows us to do, wouldn’t that be awesome? It already has all the other things with it. It is already the biggest database of photographs. You can embed videos in it, you can share links with people. Almost everything that you would want from an email id is right there.

And if you’ve managed to peek out from under your rock anytime in the past week, you would’ve certainly seen this, or some variant of it flying around on the net. In fact, as I write this, Mr. Zuckberg is in the process of proving me right (WSJ Live blog, TechCrunch’s Coverage). Even though, he explicitly says that he is not competing with Gmail, this may just be the biggest threat that Gmail has faced, yet.

“We don’t think a modern messaging system is going to be e-mail,” Mr. Zuckerberg said. He said that e-mail is too formal, too slow and too cumbersome, especially for young people who have grown up communicating using online chat and text messaging systems. The new Facebook service, which will allow users to have @facebook.com e-mail addresses, intends to integrate the three forms of communication into one inbox that is accessible from PCs or mobile phones.

(Source: NYTimes)

Personally, I love the Gmail experience, but I’m still willing to bet that Zuckerberg has a killer of a product on his hands.

Now, can we just sort out my royalty amount please, Mr Zuckerberg?

Posted with WordPress for BlackBerry.

Samar Harlankar (Editor-at-Large, Hindustan Times) has a great article on the up and coming hardliners in the Kashmir Valley. These are the people who are largely responsible for what is called the biggest series of protests in the Kashmir Valley today. Do follow Samar’s writing, if you’re not doing so already and are interested in the human aspect of the Kashmir protests. The truth, as always, is pretty different from what the hardliners on both sides want us to believe through their PR pitches (TV appearances/Newspaper articles etc.).

The article in question - http://bit.ly/9mstUh

My tweets:

1. 
   Gagan @samar11 Excellent article, Samar. But did you ask this new breed what Azaadi means for them? Independence frm India & Pak both? Or just 1? 10 Sep 2010 from web in reply to samar11
2. 
   Gagan @samar11 First define what they mean by ‘Azaadi’. In exact, concrete terms. The pre-1947 history of the Congress is an excellent place (1/2) 10 Sep 2010 from web in reply to samar11
3. 
   Gagan @samar11 for the new revolutionaries to start from. Merely pelting stones & shouting “Azaadi” is pure nonsense and won’t get them anywhere. 10 Sep 2010 from web
4. 
   Gagan @samar11 The fact that there is no common, concrete definition of ‘Azadi’ in Kashmir is proof that what there is no such thing possible yet 10 Sep 2010 from web

Samar was gracious enough to respond to the question in my first tweet above.

1. 
   samar11 @Gagan yes I did ask. Independence from both. Pak isn’t in the pix 10 Sep 2010 from Twitter for BlackBerry® in reply to Gagan
2. 
   Gagan @samar11 I hope someday they realize that a demand of Azaadi arising out of a (misplaced?) sense of victimization doesn’t have a future. 10 Sep 2010 from Seesmic Desktop in reply to samar11
3. 
   Gagan @samar11 And the Indian State realizes that the way to remove this feeling is not thru creation of actual victims. (Thanks for the reply) 10 Sep 2010 from Seesmic Desktop in reply to samar11

Even though, I responded to Samar again, I suspect I may not have been clear enough in what I wanted to convey in my first set of tweets.

What I really meant to say was that even though the concerns of ‘Mandela’  and others may be genuine, the method of protests reveals a great amount of immaturity and recklessness.If they believe that throwing stones is enough to get them any closer to their goal, they are greatly mistaken. The only thing that it can indicate is that Kashmir and Kashmiris need a genuine leader. Someone who is not just intelligent enough to just articulate their concerns in clear, precise and civilized terms, but also honest and strong enough to call these childish displays of anger to an end and not use it for his own benefit.

The situation in the valley is bad and the Indian State is responsible for indirectly fanning it by its various actions, but stone-pelting is something that is the preserve of mobs and not of genuinely ostracized people . And no self-respecting country should give into the demands of a mob.

As always, the issue is deeper and more intricate than what I make of it here.

(Related – Vir Sanghvi’s take on the same issue.)

I bought a new phone a couple of months ago. A BlackBerry 8900. Not at all top-of-the-line, but a very capable phone which satisfied all my requirements (more on those later), plus I got a SUPER deal.

Like everything we buy or even think of buying, the first thing I did before getting the phone was to google the model in question. Among the other things, one thing that was mentioned again and again was how bad the default browser is. And after buying the phone I found it out myself – the browser sucks. Big time. But that didn’t stop me from getting the phone. Because the same reviews which take RIM apart over the browser, also offer a solution to the consumers reading them. The Opera Mini. Or the Bolt.

Now a few days later, just before the launch of the Torch 9800, the internet was abuzz about the new browser being used in the new phone. Apparently RIM went all out to create a decent browser, and going by the largely positive reviews, they succeeded too.

But why waste a large number of man-hours on something as trivial as a browser?

Okay. Not trivial. A browser is a very important component of the phone. What I mean here is why waste your budget on something that is being done very well by others. All RIM should’ve done is get Opera to make a browser specially for the new phone. In other words, they could’ve just outsourced the browser.

To be honest, a crappy browser is the least of RIM’s problems. In my opinion, they really need to get their app strategy in order. And their brand positioning. And other things.

But let me not digress. The BlackBerry app store is nothing compared to the iPhone and Android stores. The choice is limited and the few apps that are there are (usually) costlier and worse than their iPhone and Android siblings. I’m the kind of user who’s satisfied with having a core set of “productive” apps (no iFart for me, please). And even I think the range of apps is utterly limited.

And why am I concentrating so hard on apps? Because that’s how we increasingly traverse the Internet. Even Chris Anderson and Michael Wolff think so. Read.

If RIM has any wish to NOT go down the path Palm and other before it have walked on, getting their app strategy right is absolutely imperative.

(More thoughts on the BlackBerry later.)

One such movie is the 2006 spy drama, The Good Shepherd. The movie has a star cast that is guaranteed to get it a second look. Though if you just watch it for the big names, you are guaranteed to be disappointed. Robert DeNiro as the director brings a host of actors to the table who are as precise in their acting as he is in his direction.

It is loosely based on real events and looks into the birth of the CIA through the deeply personal story of one of it’s founding fathers. The role Damon plays is based on the man who goes on to create the Counterintelligence wing of the agency. And he is good, very good in fact, as the spook who almost doesn’t have any emotions. Except for his love for his son. Come to think of it, this is more of a family drama than a spy thriller. The wars, the espionage, the spying are merely props around the actual story that is the story of one man and his family.

The movie is long by conventional Hollywood standards. At 2 hours 45 minutes, it almost encroaches into Bollywood territory. And it is slow too. A spy thriller without fast cars and gun fights is something that you don’t see made too often. It is more of a John le Carre novel than an Ian Fleming creation. In fact, some of the interactions between Damon’s character and his Russian counterpart are reminiscent of le Carre’s spymaster George Smiley and his bete noir, Karla.

Each scene is crafted with a delicateness that makes it necessary for the viewer to watch the movie again if he intends to make out the brilliance in it. On first watch, the movie has the potential to overwhelm you a bit. Due to which repeat viewings are a must.

The camera angles, the lighting, the dialogues and the performances are all top class. But special mention has to be made of the editing. Going back and forth in time, it manages to hold your attention beautifully.

Do watch this gem of a movie if you haven’t. A personal recommendation.

Update – For those viewing this on a blog reader, please click on the title to take you to the blog. The WordPress Slideshow thingy doesn’t work on feed readers, apparently.