Deals and Degrees

A "deal" can be defined as an announcement by a retailer that he has found a new way of getting creative with how to sell his products for pretty much the same price as yesterday giving reasons on why that price will go up tomorrow. Much unlike the popular misconception among the masses that a "deal" is actually an announcement of a low price by a retailer.

This subtle(!) difference gets even more interesting and funny when it comes to consumer electronics because more often than not, their prices actually go down as time goes by. So "deals", in the consumer electronic market almost mean - "If you buy it today, you won't be as much a fool as the one who bought it yesterday!"

I remember the kaathaadi (kite) jargon, where if you got a "deal", your kaathaadi has just been floored by an unseen, unknown opponent. An online deal for electronic goods can easily be seen to be in parallel with the kaathaadi deal.

And there is another parallel too. I don't know if it happens in all families, but people in and around Tamil Nadu should be able to relate. There are these old learned men - who did either a BA or a BSc or sometimes a CA - that you will come across if you spend a little part of your childhood with your grandparents (or even otherwise). They usually talk very fluent english and their topics of discussion vary from corruption to bad roads to British India. Whenever talk hovers around their degree, an elder in the family will remark "Avar andha kaalathu BA" (He is a BA of old times) which is supposedly more valuable that "indha kaalathu BA" (present time BA). Some of these old wise men will have a "Hons." attached to their degree which can be even more valuable.

The reason for my detour about old people and their degrees is that consumer electronics of today can be in a way compared to such degrees. Looking at the way their prices plummet, the only way a buyer can console himself for the higher price he paid is probably by claiming that my camcorder is an "andha kaalathu camcorder"!

Coffee, Tea and Trivia...

Being a true south indian, I have always been a fan of coffee rather than tea. Any day, whether it be at home or away, when offered a choice between coffee and various other beverages, I almost always chose coffee.

But interestingly enough, I remember that, I used to like the tea I had in roadside tea shops during college days. Its been only a very few times, but whenever I had tea at roadside shops they seemed to have a special taste.

Then I recalled that whenever I had tea in such shops, it was usually combined with a light snack - either molaga bajji or the 1 rupee tea cake or butter bisket or whatever else was available. And that happens to be the secret. I find that tea tastes better when it is usually accompanied with a little snack like one of those. It can be literally any snack - yesterday i experimented with just a couple of toasted bread slices. And tea tastes drastically different... And good!

Here is your little great evening tea-time recipe then (for two people) :-)
- Boil milk with two (tea)spoons of tea and equal amount of sugar
- Add pieces of ginger to it and let it boil
- As the tea takes time to boil, get your little snack ready in a plate
- Filter tea
- Have tea and snack in alternate sips and bites (start with a bite of the snack)

And lo! You have discovered the real taste of tea.
Later...

Knowledge...

Knowledge is a product of the mind.

It is output, not input. And it always helps to reiterate to the self simple things like these.

Future Shock...

Interesting thoughts for the immediate future...

Gandhian Principles - Setting Boundary Conditions

When Ravi claimed he is not an admirer of Gandhi, I assumed he was questioning his principles as they were - that is exploring whether they were good principles (taking into account the time in which Gandhi lived) and finding that they weren't. But the way he is arguing it out in the comments portion of that post, I have my doubts on my assumption.

I also remember one of Ravi's earlier posts (the link for which I don't have now) where he took almost all of what we called Gandhi's major principles and questioned their validity.

But on both the occasions there seems to be this confusion in me on whether he wants to debate whether Gandhi's principles were any good at all or that whether they are good when applied to the current times. I seek clarification from Ravi on this because I don't think many of Gandhi's principles can be seperated from his times.

If all he wants to do is to refute "Gandhians", some of whom claim Gandhi's principles are timeless, then I don't think it deserves so many words. Any sychophantic attachment to a man's social and political principles that were between 50 to 100 years old can easily be dismissed. Or so I think. But I have my doubts on whether Ravi is trying to only that? In all the arguments so far, I seem to see a mix of the two issues and if he sees the difference, then I would like to know if he can treat them as separate subjects.

In my view, it is important to keep them separate. Bashing or in softer words criticizing a popular leader is a pretty attractive thing to do. It offers so much scope for showing one's individualism, so to speak! And by mixing the two subjects as above, one can easily get carried away doing that.

Moreover, if you want to raise a legitimate criticism against a successful mass leader like Gandhi, then clarity is very much needed. And for clarity, the topics that we pick for debate need to be more granular. We won't have a result debating on as broad a topic as, say, whether Gandhi was "good" or "bad"!