last post

This will be the last post in this blog. I am moving to a different way of thinking.

Simplicity favors regularity was a tip that I learnt in design. Now I intend to make everything simple, my intuition, my life.

The leaf detaches from the tree and slowly, safely lands on the green grass.

When you start to work, there is really a lot you should do to do things you want to do. I kept saying to myself, that I really don’t know what I want. I just sat for a few hours contemplating on this, I was wrong.

To focus on this, I will experiment with something different and I am closing this blog. I will continue to document albeit in a different way.

Change and experience.

The end.

P.S.: I will update the new link here, once it is done.

Link: Blog moved here.

On free will

After lot of analysis, I have kinda come to some conclusion on the subject. It is more closer to the concept of “compatibilism”[1]. At the same time, if Conway’s proof[2] is true, then the situation turns around, but I am not so sure, if it demands a change in the attitude I am going to take towards this as a whole, so it is worth to have some thought on this.

Free will needs to be defined clearly. It is for most of the time confused with “control by ego”, but control is still possible in deterministic view. In fact determinism might possibly demand/ lead to control by ego. These are the definitions I have gathered when seen from different angles.

a. Free will means the actions are under my[sense of ego] control. All my actions are NOT predetermined.

b. Free will means the future actions are not predetermined.

c. Free will means the future actions cannot be determined by any human being.

There is a great difference between a. and b. and this is what Conway sets out to actually prove. He proves b. and the definition a. is really pointless to him. My understanding of compatibilism says a. is true except for the fact that it is predetermined and c. is also true. My attitude towards both the conclusions are the same.

If one goes by classical physics, then everything is predetermined. But at the same time, c. is also true. It is impossible to construct a device to measure all the data in the present moment. Practically impossible. Most of the time, this result clearly moves into  “we are not responsible for things happening”. This view is totally false. Free will is compatible with determinism, if we are ready to make an assumption on what “we” really means.

i) If I assume that this feeling of “me”, or ego is something that my materialistic brain creates, then it will be me who will take all the decisions which leads to this sense of freedom that I am experiencing right now. Now if I assume c., then no one can actually come and tell me what my future will be. Add to the fact, that the flow of determinism involves lot of effects of past on this sense of ego which drives the decisions. We make the decisions, and our decisions are really based on how brain is wired, which is the effect of all experiences on this materialistic brain. This places experience infront of your ego, your ego is shaped by experience. And your ego drives your decisions. So, I conclude that in this view, you are responsible for your actions even though it is totally determined but impossible for humans to measure. For free will to be compatible in this deterministic view, the definition should be “Ego is in control for its actions”. The definition is debatable ( whethere it is free or not). Ofcourse it is, ego is a feeling generated by state or wiring of brain.

ii) Now come to the conway’s definition. It is b. A state in future is not determined by past and even the present state. There is a a bit of unpredictable randomness involved which hits the concept of “ego” straight. In fact the definition of b. doesnt involve “control” or “ego” which are both meaningless. Are we responsible for our actions in this case? Yeah, but now the definition of “we” changes again. Freedom in this sense is compared to chaos /total unpredictable nature. Note the difference between unpredictable and not – calculable in the former interpretation.

My common attitude to both i) and ii) are the same. unpredictable also includes incalculable. Experience stands on top. The truth can only be 2 things: Either everything is deterministic but not calculable , or everything is unpredictable but not calculable. But the one that hits hard is the definition of ego in both cases which are different.

Ego is a feeling and a part of the state of brain right now.

Whatever we do is intuition. Thinking is no different.

Only way to change it, is by initiating an experience, which is under ego which is under experience again.

Rewiring the brain is the only thing that can change your feeling for an experience.

Which is again initiated by experience.

Free will is not really “free”. Now the word suddenly seems so meaningless to me, it is not required at all.

The state of brain, the feeling under an experience which is influenced by and can alter the state of brain, the sense of ego.

It is theoritically possible to live without the sense of ego.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism_and_incompatibilism

[2] http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~jas/one/freewill-theorem.html

Yea, yea, the IE

Well, this is really not new. I have been reading since last few years on how people are “IE jailed”. Or even “Windows jailed”. Most of the time it is your favourite application that jails you to a particular operating system maximising the benefit for that OS, many times it is hardware [WinTel modems] . A simple example is when the server side checks if the User Agent is Internet Explorer and passes it. In which case, you can spoof the application by using a false User agent. These are simple hacks to get unjailed, but there are more stupid and even involved hacks. Sometimes it is impossible.

This puts me off totally. In case of wintel modems, I simply will buy a well supported one for my operating system. But locking a service [ a predominant one] to a browser is really a silliest thing one can do. The motive of such a move, if any cannot be as important as the customers and their freedom.

Recently I got jailed, when I was expected to use IE for online banking with karnatakabank. I promptly sent an email to support knowing that such attempts might be futile.

From: sagar n <sagar.1986@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 19:13:35 +0530
To: ccc@karnatakabank.com
Subject: Regarding firefox on linux to access MoneyClick

Hi,

My parents have an account in karnataka bank and they recently activated Internet banking. They were not able to log in to their account. After going through the help document:

http://karnatakabank.com/ktk/helpIB.htm

I am really bothered because the Help document does not mention firefox. It is really ridiculous to not support firefox, which is second in the entire browser market share.

Also, the machine runs Linux, and the browser has all latest technologies enabled – sun java, javascript.

Please reply as to if it is possible to do internet banking using
firefox on linux.

Thanking you,
–
Sagar N.

I got a reply:

From: ccc@ktkbank.com
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 10:01:34 +0530 (IST)
To: sagar n <sagar.1986@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Regarding firefox on linux to access MoneyClick

Dear Sir,

Our Internet Banking product is from Infosys Technologies and it supports
only Internet Explorer.  So, MoneyClick will work only in Internet
Explorer.

Regards,
Officer, Karnataka Bank Ltd.
Customer Care Center,
Bangalore
Ph : 080-22955822-824
********************************************************

Ha! They simply dont want me to use what I am using. Customers really dont care as long as they can get their applications and their work done. It is always like the fight between the religious leaders, and very few ppl actually care about it. But locking down to one’s own technology seems like an act of coincidence and not of intent. IF you are still sailing in such a boat, time to drown.

The following is the mail that was made public in the case of Comes v/s Microsoft, it was such a news approx one year back!

From:    Bill Gates
Sent:    Sunday, January 24, 1999 8:41 AM
To:      Jeff Weslerinen, Ben Fathi
CC:      Carl Stork (Exchange); Nathan Myhrvold; > Eric Rudder
Subject: ACPI Extensions

One thing I find myself wondering about is whether we shouldn’t try and make the “ACPI” extensions somehow Windows specific.

It seems unfortuante if we do this work and get our partners to do the work and the result is that Linux works great without having to do the work.

Maybe there is no way to avoid this problem but it does bother me.

Maybe we could define the APIs so that hey work well with NT and not the others even if they are open.

Or maybe we could patent something related to this.

“Software patents”, “OS specific” – a business strategy to curb competitors?

wasted laptop ? not anymore…

After I moved my desktop and set it up, I have not used my laptop for approx. 1 month Well, nobody in home seem to be using it too. After looking at resale price, I dont think computers can be sold with making substantial gain. There are better machines now in market for same price. (If you are lucky you might get old P2 machines for free).

Even selling laptop is not worth. [After I got very bad offers like 8k, and decent offers from skld like 15k - 18k]

There is no reason why the old desktop should still be used for normal functions. After all, this laptop has more memory, better graphics.

Have to spend this day crippling my old CPU box of CRT monitor, keyboard, and packing it. The old CPU can be used as headless server, has time come for “sammilana” [ name of my old box] to become a server? (http://sammilana.thruhere.net)

One problem is bad power cuts. It forces machine to have bad downtimes, net traffic is not a big deal as very few people actually visit. More important pages are better put on googlepages, or wordpress blogs. Let me try running sammilana as a server for a while, and get some data on power usage. “Anathema” [ laptop] will be pushed to normal functions.

fatal eclipse

There was an interesting(?)[1] program related to eclipse in TV where two people where fighting regarding their professions. One was an astrologer and the other was a scientist…

Though the discussion was started regarding the effects of eclipse, it quickly moved to the basis of astrology itself( as expected). However, the one that caught the scientist off guard was this…

Astrologer: Many people have accepted fate to be true, even people like einstein.

Scientist: Not einstein, No, he has never taken such stand…

Astrologer: see this is what Einstein said ” I cannot understand when people talk about Free Will”

Scientist ( a bit embrassed): That doesn’t mean anything… He cant understand Free Will, nothing in it.

I felt an urge to explain what Einstein thought.. but it was a TV show:)

This is what I *hate* about astrologers. Not that they assume fate, but they say it is predictable ( baseless and irrational), also, they play DOUBLE GAME with fate.

e.g: They say ” You are going to have an accident next week” … Ok if it is true , the end, actually there is no point in knowing it too, it is going to happen anyway… but they say that I should be careful and avoid it WTF! That suggests that I have free will…

It is irrational to assume that I have partial free will… so their predictions are clearly of no use… Let alone the truth of the assumption I first made (If it is true…)

There are certain things that I argue:

1. Atheists who believe in free will ARE NOT rationalists. They have no rational argument to support the existence of free will that exists in some other dimensions… ( However anything materialistic that exists in this 3 dimensional space is bound by physical laws and tend not to be free, in which case free will becomes an illusion) -

- For : People like those scientists( and logik, )

2. Rational argument for fate does not necessarily imply fate is predictable. – For astrologers

A rationalist should be non-theistic and fatalist. If not, I would love to hear his rational arguments ….

P.S: Don’t mistake me to be a rationalist, atheist, fatalist, or in the worst case theist, etc … I am working on some metaphysical theory

[1] This was a TV serial and one of my readers[Dha] is totally pissed with it. I should say that I am only bringing a part of the conversation which is normally termed naive and is related to free will. All the opinions in this post are fully mine and not related to the program at all, [ except for the conversation which is used by me to criticise the naive thinking of seemingly rational persons ]. So as a fact, this is not a reflection, or a praisal not a review of any program which might be dumb / intelligent or wdw…

umount life

aarched

Driving class

My DL exam is over. It is weird how these systems work. RTO office, the driving school setups, corrupt officers, huh. Everyone co-exist peacefully in an illegal way. Anyway, during one of my car driving classes, there was this old woman, and the conversation that happened was really funny.

old lady: why is driving so difficult? I mean these gears, they are pretty complicated.

driver: when you get used to it, it will be pretty easy.

old lady: I don’t understand why there are gears. Why can’t we drive in just 2 gears? 1st and 2nd?

driver: ofcourse, you can drive only in 2nd, it will consume lot of fuel (eek, bad for driving school)

old lady: my husband told me to buy saree and not waste money on learning driving, i protested and now i think he is right.

me: ( oh man!!! )

driver: with proper shifting gears you can save petrol. ( why is this guy so bothered about fuel?)

A geared motorcycle is better than gearless. It is more efficient, and more fun. It is like vi. Though notepad seems easy for beginners, vi is just the right way to do it. More efficient. Takes time to get used to, but worth the effort.

P.S.: aarch, I couldn’t stop myself from giving that analogy.

3. Problems of Tivoization, DRM

These are the issues which come up when software is used in a hardware. Software can restrict hardware, or vice-versa. Both brings up issues of DRM and Tivoization. Consider a simple example: You deploy a free software so that you give your hardware “intelligence”. However, you dont want your users to modify, or change intelligence. You ensure it, by having your hardware respond to only “your” code.

Looking from free software perspective, it is blasphemy, because you *want* your users to modify and test the code.

Now, looking from hardware point of view, there seems to be nothing wrong with it. It is a product. Thats what it can do. The end.

The manufacturer wants his hardware to work the way he designed it to. He has locked the software. Many are not aginst this, including LT. However, there are certain problems this view. Consider the following product.

>>This product is called X-Personal-Computer. Look at it as a product. You can browse, play mine-sweeper, write documents, save them, also install few games. Can I install my firmware, or mess with it? Hell no, you cant. There is a mechanism in the hardware which checks if the machine runs *doze, and if not, it wont boot, good luck.!!

This is a problem of restricting freedom. One can always say, well the hardware is not intended to do it, but if you argue that way, the hardware is defective or sub-standard. There are many Linux based phones out there, the phones dont allow to reburn the firmware, ha! dud. GPLv3 addressed this problem, but the nature of the problem is much complicated than free software. As a result, it underwent changes. Consider for example, a medical appliance or a military device, if you dont restrict the hardware, people may mis-use it.

Thats the *whole* problem from the beginning, the freedom. However, people restrict hardware for maximising profit. Can you imagine people using mobile phone, or DVRs as a weapon? Well, in that case even knife should be banned, no way, this is not the way to go.

The law cannot prevent sub-standard hardware, only users can. If a hardware *can* be modified by user, it should be allowed. There is no obligation for industry to do it, and it is not happening.

I wonder if hardware will ever be freed …

2. Case of free hardware

When it comes to hardware, there are many problems. Let us look at them carefully:

Hardware *cannot* be given away for free. Hardware is a material, and by design for maximum freedom, it should have owners. So, an owner will pay money for the material and buy it. Once he buys it, he can do whatever he likes to do with it, as long as it does not take away others freedom. We know that systems which dont give value to materials have failed, though the existing system is not perfect.

So, we will refer to free hardware as free hardware design. (A hardware whose design is made known along with the product).

1. Does free hardware benefit the society as a whole, and does it increase individual freedom?

2. Is designing fun? Are there tools for a free-lancer/student to take it up?

3. Does open-hardware design really benefit improvements in the design as time progresses, also pointing out flaws ? ( analogy to software bugs)

1. When a person buys software, he deserves to do whatever he wishes to do with it, which he will when he gets free
software. (Free as in free speech ) When a person buys hardware, assuming hardware is beneficial to society, the person gets the ownership. He can do whatever he wishes to do with the hardware. The open-ness of design here is just irrelavant. ( It seems so at first).

A consumer cannot change the hardware he has at his hand by proposing a change in the design. End of story.

So, does free hardware have no effect on individual freedom? The person already has freedom to distribute, share the hardware. Though he can modify the design, he cant possibly modify what he has in hand. However, the interface to the hardware *should* be open, the user should be given all information to use it, a.k.a. write a software driver. We have already assumed software to be independent of hardware. Thus, open hardware no doubt respects individual freedom.

Will free hardware design benefit the society ? Thats an issue which is hard to come to a conclusion. As a hardware designer, I think it will, but it
is just my opinion. It is pretty naive because I think it will be fun when designs are shared, just like ideas. But when investigated closely, it is not so naive. However the issue of free design needs to be analysed carefully. It only makes sense when it benefits, other wise there is no advantage.

There are many hard points which makes free hardware difficult:

i). Lack of tools: The EDA tools are too costly and there is no free alternative for people to start off with a free design. Ofcourse there is gEDA still evolving…

ii). Hardware design is not as modular as software. It is more complicated than writing software in the sense that:
a. Additions to design are not as easy as adding code. It may break the basic functionality.
b. Technology dependent. Hand optimisations, etc.
c. Testing hardware is not cheap.

2. Designing is fun but the free tools are not yet mature.

3. An open design with no tools with which it was developed is a dud. There is no guarantee that it will work with other tool. So, free design makes sense if the tools are free. That calls for quality free tools, and this is where it all gets messed up.

Free hardware does not offer user more freedom as free software does, though the question of its benefit to society is debatable. With free tools available, it does lead to further additions and development of design, and the designer can be well educated. An “open-source” kinda model must be gauged before being deployed. However, hardware interface should be open.

1. Case of free software

#Free as in free speech: freedom to use, study (source code is available), modify, redistribute.

Many people are not aware why would anyone want software to be free. People have long forgotten why they exist in the world, so it is not surprising if they have forgotten why society exists in the first place.

There should be minimal rules which maximise individual freedom, and when rules are imposed they should benefit the society, where benefit need not be just money. The present “owner of the material” scenario works fairly good for material goods where replication costs are pretty high and may approach the actual price of the good itself.

Does the same apply for software too? RMS argues that softwares with owners affect society negatively than free software.

1. It decreases the user base. Many users will not be able to use the software.

2. None can adapt or fix the software, no one can learn from it.

His argument also includes analogy to toll roads v/s free roads. One can always raise the question, if you give away software for free, how will the developer make money ?

Can you see how free roads are constructed ?

Money for software development should come from somewhere else. Yea, if you are a big software company running business by only selling prop. software, what it all means is that you should not exist. Though it seems ridiculous, it is not. The conclusion is fairly simple: Society a.k.a individuals gain extra freedom, extra benefit at the cost of developer.

System will not throw away or demean the software developers as it looks when u enforce “free” software as a law to the present scenario. Instead, it will re-adjust in such a way as to maximise individual freedom and benefit to the society. The developers get money from a different channel. One cannot predict the economy, but it is naive to say they wont get as much money as they are getting now.

However, law does not enforce *free* software a.k.a it does not make owners illegal. But still we have seen a surge in this area. Why?

It is because people look at it from two different angles:

<Note that not everyone agrees with the above *benefit* to society as argued by RMS. However, it is hard to disprove. I have not come across with any strong argument which says software with owners do less harm than free software. People are always confused by the short sighted view that “hey, the developers will run out of money”, “why will people even write software?”, the system will re-organise, the software developers will keep getting money from other channels>

One can predict that with no law to avoid software with owners, people will never get free software. It is not the case. People look at the issue with varied angles:

1. Writing software is fun.
People who dont get money still write software in free time. Why? Because it is interesting and fun. No one can stop this. Most of the free software we now have is because of this.

2. Open source software development is beneficial, and increases the quality of the software.
Many people take this as fact. Whether open-source software always leads to a *quality* software is debatable, but people employ it quoting many reasons:
a)Easy to fix bugs
b)Increase user-base

People point out, see, “X is way better than any free software. Your argument is totally wrong”, No, not true. The whole argument is X would be *lot* more better if it was open-sourced, and would have helped a larger community.

Looking along these lines, people release software under licenses which might not always guarantee *freedom* in the lines of *benefit* to society. We have some free softwares which are superior in quality when compared to prop. softwares, also vice-versa.

In the end, driven by views of 1 and 2, we have lot of software which gives the freedom that an individual deserved even without any law.

It is a worthy mention that, freedom refers to use, distribute, modify. For people who are not programmers, “modify” is not really a concern at all. However, from the perspective of developers, “consumer’s” freedom is also not a convern at all. So, I would laugh at people who argue, “why would I want to edit the code?”, it is all a part of bigger sphere. You really miss the point.