Disqus - Latest Comments for Ranjit Mathoda

Re: Bringing The Web Into Our Living Room

Ranjit Mathoda — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 19:54:18 -0000

I've been contemplating something similar. What software do you put on your Mac Mini? Do you sync laptop itunes library with a server itunes library?

Re: Launchy | mathoda.com

Ranjit Mathoda — Wed, 30 May 2007 11:12:10 -0000

Great to know. Apple has done a great job improving their operating system, whereas with Vista Microsoft to a large extent made improvements that aren't very visible to the end user. Maybe with the coming of multi-touch devices the competition between Microsoft, Apple, and Linux will get even better.

Re: Book review: The Audacity of Hope by Barack Obama

Ranjit Mathoda — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 14:35:18 -0000

Obama has the standard Democratic point of view on global climate change, namely that it is a danger and serious measures need to be taken with respect to it.

You can find out more about his perspective here: http://presidentialprofiles2008.org/Obama/tab1....

I would add that Gregory Mankiw, a very smart Harvard economics professor, and an advisor to Mitt Romney, spoke highly of Obama's understanding of the benefits and costs of different methods of environmental regulations on his blog: http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2008/01/pigou-cl...

Re: Book review: The Audacity of Hope by Barack Obama

Ranjit Mathoda — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 20:30:56 -0000

Yes, Prof. Goolsbee is still Mr. Obama's economic advisor.

Re: Is Walmart really more evil than Google? | mathoda.com

Ranjit Mathoda — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 02:20:51 -0000

Dear Anonymous,

It's a fact Google simply wouldn't hire most of the people at a Walmart skill level. I don't disagree that Google gives the people it hires a very high level of pay and perks (including 20% time to work on self directed projects), but that doesn't mean they give any perks or pay to people that Walmart will hire and give pay and benefits to.

In pointing out that Google is very profitable my intent was not to say it is evil for making a profit, but to point out the criticisms of Walmart relating to its dominance, market share, mind share, profit per employee, etc., pale in comparison to that of Google.

With respect to your point about Walmart treating its employees badly, my point is that Google treats those same people worse (not offering them a job, pay, or perks). I actually think it is fantastic that someone figured out a way to utilize workers at a low level of skill profitably.

I do think it is terrible that such workers aren't given more opportunities to obtain higher levels of skill, which I hope my essay makes clear.

Re: Unlimited music coming soon to your pocket? | mathoda.com

Ranjit Mathoda — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 18:21:09 -0000

As music is sold more and more in mp3 format without copyright protection schemes (thanks Amazon.com!), pre-selling a device with unlimited music could be a way for Apple to keep customers locked into their device ...

Re: The most impressive web company today… is Facebook | mathoda.com

Ranjit Mathoda — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 18:41:36 -0000

For the argument that Facebook really isn't that special, I highly recommend the blog post at http://mattmaroon.com/?p=345

Re: The Coming Digital Presidency

Ranjit Mathoda — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 15:43:27 -0000

According to Compete (http://blog.compete.com/2008/04/10/presidential...), Barack Obama beats Hillary Clinton 2 to 1 in Web traffic, 4 to 1 in Wikipedia article readers, and 10 to 1 in time viewers spend watching their videos on YouTube.

Re: Book review: The Mystery of Capital by Hernando de Soto

Ranjit Mathoda — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 17:55:18 -0000

The NY Times has an interesting story on the effect of mobile communications on the under developed world's poor: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/13/magazine/13an...

Re: Air travel is about to further crush the car and bus

Ranjit Mathoda — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 19:05:21 -0000

The airline industry over its history has been a net loser of money. That hasn't stopped it from being very useful for the rest of us. Of course if it's really unprofitable no one may provide this type of service.

Re: The most impressive web company today… is Facebook | mathoda.com

Ranjit Mathoda — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 11:48:24 -0000

The creator of Gmail and cofounder of Friendfeed explains the power of Facebook: http://paulbuchheit.blogspot.com/2008/04/facebook-knows-who-you-are-and-thats.html

Re: On buying land (aka, how to tell if there is a real estate bubble) | mathoda.com

Ranjit Mathoda — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 17:44:32 -0000

Kit, I've actually left my private law practice to set up an investment management firm. More on that later...

Re: HD-DVD or Blu-Ray? XBOX or Apple TV?

Ranjit Mathoda — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 17:27:29 -0000

You may find my post about the Apple TV (and other internet connected devices) competing against high definition dvd players interesting.

http://www.mathoda.com/archives/168

Re: Please Discuss

Ranjit Mathoda — Fri, 30 May 2008 12:40:56 -0000

Unless you favor the tax, you are being coerced with both a high and low tax. Seems to me we are all made to do things we don't totally want to do in life, but the question of how much of our life is effected by coercion is a very important one. Example: if I don't let you speak freely on 20% vs 80% of the topics you discuss, in both cases there is coercion/limitation, but you are restricted with respect to more resources in one case than the other. Depending on utility you get out of the 60% difference in the coercions, you may feel powerfully harmed or not by the difference.

Re: Barack Obama: fundamentally changing the world’s perception

Ranjit Mathoda — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 17:36:29 -0000

You may find my post, "The coming Digital Presidency", of interest: http://mathoda.com/archives/189

Re: Welcome to Online Learning circa 2002

Ranjit Mathoda — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 21:22:32 -0000

The article says the professor has a microphone but doesn't mention a video camera. Seems like it's audio and text only. Pre-youtube. Pre-EduFire. Definitely 2002ish.

She has to rely on a university to provide her the online teaching infrastructure and brand to reach the customers. She can't reach them directly.

Re: What do eBay, Google and Facebook have in common?

Ranjit Mathoda — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 12:28:37 -0000

They helped you connect to things you can trust. Google: websites you trust. Ebay: buyers/sellers you should trust. Facebook: connect better to the people you already trust.

Re: How much of the world’s collective intelligence in online and indexable by Google?

Ranjit Mathoda — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 23:51:24 -0000

Great question! I'd estimate less than 0.1%, but I've posted a more thorough reply at http://mathoda.com/archives/205

Re: 2007/02/11/barack-obama/

Ranjit Mathoda — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 16:53:41 -0000

You may find my post, The Coming Digital Presidency, about how social network technology will transform not just getting elected, but governing, of interest:

http://mathoda.com/archives/189

Re: 2008/06/27/bono-paul-mcguinness/

Ranjit Mathoda — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 17:54:30 -0000

Disintermediation is a myth, in the "get rid of the middleman" way people usually mean it: http://mathoda.com/archives/195

Re: 2008/08/05/government-2-an-insiders-perspective/

Ranjit Mathoda — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 12:05:02 -0000

You may find my essay on the implications of Internet technology on government of great interest, The Coming Digital Presidency: http://digitalpresidency.com

Re: 2008/10/14/crowdsourced-beltway-pandits/

Ranjit Mathoda — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 15:04:48 -0000

The "Coming Digital Presidency" is an article I wrote about the use of social networks and web tools in governing: http://mathoda.com/archives/189

Re: The “live web” arrives on Twitter and FriendFeed

Ranjit Mathoda — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 19:44:50 -0000

Definitely a fun innovation, and a neat way to pass the time. Hopefully generations of kids won't be flunked out of school because they were watching their live friendfeed / facebook / myspace stream.

Re: Microsoft on your telly: a history of the company’s Internet TV strategy

Ranjit Mathoda — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 00:25:14 -0000

Interesting reading. You may want to check out my post on Apple's Apple TV, comparing it to the strategies of Sony and Toshiba's next generation DVD players.

You can find my post at:

http://www.mathoda.com/archives/168

Re: Wal-Mart and Food

Ranjit Mathoda — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 07:56:30 -0000

You may find my essay, "Is Walmart really more evil than Google?", questioning how people think of Google as fantastically good and Walmart as fantastically evil, of interest:

http://mathoda.com/archives/184
</p>

Re: Who's Qualified?

Ranjit Mathoda — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 19:12:30 -0000

Mr. Obama is actually well aware of the benefits of free trade. He sees people's concerns with free trade as an outlet for their general economic fears. I describe his perspectives on trade in my concise but thorough review of his book The Audacity of Hope: http://mathoda.com/archives/174</p>

Re: A very brief history of sushi

Ranjit Mathoda — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 02:19:11 -0000

Yes, my blog post was based on the Trevor Corson book The Zen of Fish, The Story of Sushi, from Samurai to Supermarket

Re: Book review: The Audacity of Hope by Barack Obama

Ranjit Mathoda — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 02:42:37 -0000

as i recall it took me about 6 hours to read Obama's Audacity of Hope because i took notes while reading the book, and then it took me about an hour and a half to put the notes into book review form. while that may not seem like a long time a fair amount of my review just reiterates what was in my notes and i tend to not rewrite.

Re: Is Walmart really more evil than Google?

Ranjit Mathoda — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 17:06:07 -0000

It's a fact Google simply wouldn't hire most of the people at a Walmart skill level. I don't disagree that Google gives the people it hires a very high level of pay and perks (including 20% time to work on self directed projects), but that doesn't mean they give any perks or pay to people that Walmart will hire and give pay and benefits to.

In pointing out that Google is very profitable my intent was not to say it is evil for making a profit, but to point out the criticisms of Walmart relating to its dominance, market share, mind share, profit per employee, etc., pale in comparison to that of Google.

With respect to your point about Walmart treating its employees badly, my point is that Google treats those same people worse (not offering them a job, pay, or perks). I actually think it is fantastic that someone figured out a way to utilize workers at a low level of skill profitably.

I do think it is terrible that such workers aren't given more opportunities to obtain higher levels of skill, which I hope my essay makes clear.

Re: Is Walmart really more evil than Google?

Ranjit Mathoda — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 21:50:18 -0000

The discussion of how medical services should be funded (private by wealth and desire, public by majority rule coercing resources from all, some hybrid or out of the box approach) and delivered (competitive providers, monopoly provider, etc.) often does involve a discussion of whether capitalism or socialism or something else is better, but to my mind those terms are fairly crude and vague, and really are about how you organize the effort to get to the goal, rather than a goal itself. The goal, what I called the just society, is for everyone to be healthy, which surely includes receiving a certain amount of basic services. How that can best be created is worth discussing.

Re: The Coming Digital Presidency

Ranjit Mathoda — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 01:39:03 -0000

Thanks Drew. I think you're right that Barack has demonstrated considerable vision in using such technologies. And how Barack uses such technology may also have significant effects on how states and municipalities use it.

Re: Philosophers are wrong to state the unexamined life is not worth living

Ranjit Mathoda — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 04:24:41 -0000

If Socrates said "If you have the wisdom to correctly examine your life and you fail to examine your life you may make mistakes that you later regret" I would agree with your interpretation of his statement. On the other hand if someone doesn't examine their life at all perhaps their life has more worth to them then if they do start examining it. If someone is unwise in how they approach examining it perhaps they'd be better off not starting on such an examination. A flaw in what Socrates said is that every human life is examined to some extent. What I really think he meant was "If I am not allowed to teach the examination of life in the manner I consider wise then my life is not worth living." If that is what he meant, the statement is definitely vague and ill written in terms of communicating an idea. Vague statements are fodder for scholars to ponder, so it certainly hasn't hurt his brand any. But as I suggest that may have more to do with philosopher's receptivity to the statement then its actual truth.

Re: Philosophers are wrong to state the unexamined life is not worth living

Ranjit Mathoda — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 04:26:43 -0000

Thanks for your extensive thoughts Anita. There's two issues I'll tackle. The first is what Socrates really chose between. The second is what role examination has in determining worth.

As you mention, what Socrates really chose was death via hemlock over exile. Arguably he saw exile as being deprived of the right to teach the examination of life in the manner he thought wise to the community he wanted to belong to, and saw this as worse than choosing death. By choosing death he could transform himself in the minds of his philosopher student community into the protector of the community's ideals. He would also be proving to his society and all future persons the strength of his conviction. The small irony is he could still have examined his life all he wanted, while in exile. He would have lost the ability to teach his current students in his current society. He would also have lost his halo of respect to the like minded community of philosophers that have followed him in time. To Socrates staying loyal to his community was very important, even at the cost of death. I think that's the real choice Socrates made.

To my mind, worth is in the eye of the beholder. If you don't examine yourself at all, you could assume your self worth and you could have worth to other people in your life. What Socrates said wasn't "If you have the wisdom to correctly examine your life and you fail to examine your life you may make mistakes that you later regret or you may not have as rich a life." What he said (according to Plato) is "The unexamined life is not worth living."

It seems to me some people examine their lives hardly at all, but still have worth to their families, their friends, themselves. Many animals don't appear to examine their own lives, but they are ascribed worth by others. A plant doesn't appear to examine its life, but it is ascribed worth.

Socrates statement has a potent ring, but its vagueness has left it open to a myriad of interpretations. Self examination is how we may define self worth, but a person may define great self worth with even a cursory self examination or an unexamined belief. We may feel they are wrong, but that's our judgment of their worth. The point I'm making is that worth is not defined just by self examination. It can actually be assumed without any examination at all.

To pretend that it requires great self examination is really an unexamined statement put forth by philosophers. I do think unexamined statements may have worth. They could have worth because they are actually right or because they have meaning to those who fail to examine them. The point I'm making is that worth is a value judgment, so the statement "The unexamined life is not worth living" is only true to those who want it to be true. To everyone else, it's false. Philosophers have interpreted Socrates' statement as if it is universally true, and that can't be right. To them it has worth, and to me it doesn't.

Re: Philosophers are wrong to state the unexamined life is not worth living

Ranjit Mathoda — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 06:56:44 -0000

Since we can't actually read each other's minds, arguably none of us really knows who our friends truly are. We rely on a belief that our friends are our friends, backed up by some circumstantial evidence, which we'd perhaps prefer not to test, to help maintain our happiness. I get your point though that examining the strength of your friendships at an early stage successfully would be useful to maintain happiness later when life throws you a curveball and the friendship comes under stress. But I'm not sure that really is analogous to the link between self examination and self worth. Do you have to live a moral life to have a life worth living? Do you have to know you lived a moral life to have a life worth living? A lot of people find great worth in their pets, and I'm not really sure their pets are that self aware. Does a person who is in too much pain to examine their life have a life no longer worth living? Do you have to be happy to have had a life worth living?

Re: Philosophers are wrong to state the unexamined life is not worth living

Ranjit Mathoda — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 23:20:18 -0000

Since we can't actually read each other's minds, arguably none of us really knows who are friends truly are. We rely on a belief that our friends are our friends, which we'd perhaps prefer not to test, to help maintain our happiness. I get your point though that examining the strength of your friendships at an early stage successfully would be useful to maintain happiness later when life throws you a curveball and the friendship comes under stress. But I'm not sure that really is analogous to the link between self examination and self worth. Philosophy, if it is anything, should be exact in its use of words. Do you have to live a moral life to have a life worth living? Do you have to know you lived a moral life to have a life worth living? A lot of people find great worth in their pets, and I'm not really sure their pets are that self aware. Does a person who is in too much pain to examine their life have a life no longer worth living?

Re: Philosophers are wrong to state the unexamined life is not worth living

Ranjit Mathoda — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 06:46:49 -0000

Thanks for pointing out that interpretation of Socrates' statement, for mentioning Kraut's interesting book and for the praise of my thoughts on the topic. One of the reasons I phrased my essay the way I did is that this is the common English translation of what Plato said about what Socrates said. That does introduce multiple potentials for errors.

I'm therefore more about criticizing the statement itself, the way it is parroted, than really criticizing Socrates himself, who seemed like a great chap to have a chat with, and who may have intended to say something different. Since he could have kept examining his life in exile from Athenian society, what he may have been saying is that it was his life's work to teach others in his society how to examine their lives, and if he was denied that right by Athenian authorities, than he would use his conscious choice of death as a final lesson to his society of how much worth he ascribed to what he was trying to teach.

That sentiment I find interesting, kind of a judo move on the society in which he lived that has lasted in the minds of philosophers ever since. But the actual statement that the "unexamined life is not worth living" I don't think is right, for all of its resonance through the ages. I think that just because a statement resonates with our minds doesn't make it true. In fact I'd argue that a lot of great ideas that have resonated at times in history have been fundamentally flawed.

Arguably Socrates also understood this point, as he saw his understanding of his own ignorance as the source of his wisdom. Which is why I've always thought it strange that the statement "the unexamined life is not worth living" is translated in that fashion, attributed to him and itself left unexamined.

Re: Learning to split water into hydrogen and oxygen as efficiently as a plant leaf

Ranjit Mathoda — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 00:54:50 -0000

what is it you're trying to do in your project?

Re: Learning to split water into hydrogen and oxygen as efficiently as a plant leaf

Ranjit Mathoda — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 02:02:59 -0000

assuming there's an available oxygen atom and nothing else for two hydrogen atoms to bond to, i'd say the number of times you can split the H20 is equal to the lifespan of the universe divided by the time it takes to split and recombine once

Re: Learning to split water into hydrogen and oxygen as efficiently as a plant leaf

Ranjit Mathoda — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 02:27:45 -0000

burning hydrogen in the sense you're using it (eg, not referring to reactions inside a star) is another name for oxydization. so you burn hydrogen by adding adding oxygen to it, forming water. this releases some energy. splitting water also takes energy, which for plants comes from light (photons). the point of this blog post is that you can use less energy than before by using a catalyst. the amount of energy obtained from burning hydrogen or used up in splitting water depends on the specifics of how each is done. notice that according to the law of conservation of energy, the energy doesn't disappear... it always goes somewhere, just perhaps in a different form.

Re: Getting to know Sarah Palin, one bad interview at a time

Ranjit Mathoda — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 18:16:37 -0000

I'd say Ron Paul is a libertarian. Apart from his conviction that abortion is always wrong, he seems to favor both social liberty and economic liberty, with a very limited government role.

Sarah Palin is not a libertarian. She appears to favor laws governing how people can culturally live, and she seems unconcerned that the government can hold someone they deem a terrorist suspect in confinement without any judicial review.

On economic issues she's in favor of a Paulson type plan, while being unable to describe why (as her interview with Kouric shows). While I think it's possible for a libertarian to favor the Paulson type plan, I think they'd have to do so with the greatest reluctance and with a far better understanding of why it's needed than she has shown.

She may be a smaller government Republican than George W. Bush, but that's not that high a hurdle, really, and frankly Alaskan citizens have the lowest taxes and highest benefits (eg, subsidy) of any state in the union. She favored the "Bridge to Nowhere" originally, and even when she turned against it she didn't refund to the taxpayers, she kept them for state use. I think a true libertarian would have said neither the Congress nor the state of Alaska should be holding onto such funds.

Re: The Coming Digital Presidency comes to the New York Times

Ranjit Mathoda — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 02:30:39 -0000

Thanks Andy. I think there is a book that could be written, and the most interesting part may be the implications for governing.

Re: Favorite Quote: Shackleton’s ad

Ranjit Mathoda — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 02:05:00 -0000

Nice! I've always liked this quote about journeys: "We shall not cease from exploration and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time." T.S. Eliot

Re: When humans become flying squirrels

Ranjit Mathoda — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 14:05:31 -0000

Some people do seem to get bored by their loving relationships, and craving excitement, do self harmful things... I suppose it varies by individual and context how much "novelty" matters.

Re: Favorite Quote: Pickens Sr. on the importance of having a plan

Ranjit Mathoda — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 05:05:00 -0000

Thanks Andrew! I started with Disqus, but Wordpress bought IntenseDebate so I bet that'd be better long term.