May 2007 Archives

Going through newspapers searching for good news might get to become a good business model for a search engine company. That is the status of things in the world. Especially with the world politics and terrorism, and the war that they exchange.

With "dont-know-how-many" DKHM, number of people being killed in war and terror attacks everyday, all we have in the developed world is guilt whether we are living at the cost of the poor world. And what the developing world has is advice.

There are many people,
who pity the consequences of war,
who try-to-do something to put right the mess soldiers create while cooking war,
many kind hearted who make sure they donate,
many who care to get the donations to the needy...

and those few brave hearted, politicians, who take up distant 3rd world problems in their country's parliament and brave odds to allocate funds and resources for them.

In that sense, there has been a strange but brave link between the British and the African continent.

The britons seem to consider problems in Africa nothing less important, though the britons are not the people who most benefit out of african outsourcing or resources, and though they don't seem to have any strategic interests in defence, or resources, or oil, or any men and material..(neither british or americans will fall short of any of that for the kind of number of immigrants they have even with such stricter immigrant laws compared to the rest of the world).

From my observations of news, I always have a feeling that the british are the first who voice African problems in world stage. BBC seems to have a committment with Africa, in doing special programs on African issues, their lifestyles, their infrastructure, etc., braving commercial pressure. Being one of the top 5 news channels on air, BBC World never seems to close a day without news on Africa.

There are many channels who are talking Africa.. newspapers and magazines writing Africa... but, nothing close to the air time, value and the impact that BBC World has created for African issues.

I even have wondered whether BBC World have a committment with the United Nations to have Africa on air so many hours a week.

Investments of troops, and resources by British government in different locations in Africa have been praised by Africans nothing less of a god's gift to them for surviving longer.

Recently, yesterday, Tony Blair the british premier who has announced his retirement in June 07, has been given a very warm welcome in Sierra Leone in West Africa. The people of Sierra Leone have all hands up in praise for Tony Blair's actions in deploying troops there to check civil problems, and to ensure release of 100's of UN soldiers who where held hostage.

This one exercise, the people of Sierra Leone claim, overturned the climate of the country overnight changing it from a disturbed civil war-torn country to a nation building-up gradually.

Like they say in proverbs, "you never know.. small actions of yours might make big differences to someone". Of all the troop deployments, UN committments, and committments in Iraq and Afganisthan, this act of a comparatively small deployment of troops of british soldiers in sierra leone have had a big impact in that country as a whole... which the british even wouldn't have understood immediately. Read about it here.

Tony Blair didn't stop there: On his visit there yesterday, he has suggested a model of working together with people of sierra leone, to strengthen the African Union that is trying hard to make itself credible enough to solve problems in Africa by itself. This, Tony Blair has said, can be done by trianing and equipping more soldiers for them and enabling them to defending themselves and securing their future.

By this model, the African union will have to make available more troops, and britain will train them and equip them for warfare and defence. Collectively, Tony Blair hints, the African union should be made strong enough to help themselves in solving all problems in Africa, without running behind the UN or any other foriegn nation for help with troops and other resources.

That soungs a good plan, and having that committment from Tony Blair should itself start the Africa Dream slowly.

And such suggestions, like what Tony Blair has given, from his position as a British Premier, can come only from hearts that really have some interest in caring for the issues in Africa.

For that, the Africa continent is probably the Briton's own country.

While all this stays my opinion, you sure should find your perceptions based on the following articles, some of which suggest indirect strategic interests or reasons for british committments in Africa.

1. Britain and the scramble for Africa
2. Imperialism in Africa: Britain
3. Britain and Africa: The new propaganda
4. CNN: Africa losing nurses to Britain
5. The Anti-Apartheid Movement, Britain and South Africa
6. Guardian unlimited: If Britain wants to help Africa's poor, it must stop acting like an emperor

First, The Facts:

Who is a President?
> The President (of the Republic Of India.. discussed in this post) - is the highest position in the polity of Indian democracy - and hence the Indian president called the 'First citizen'

The President's powers?
> The President appoints the Government under him, i.e., the prime minister, and all the central ministers. Unlike many developed countries, and unfortunate for Indians, the President is elected by the members of the lok Sabha, and not directly by the people. This one simple reason is what makes a president less brave in India, though his/her powers support lot of possibilities to streamline the Indian political system itself.

Its like, the members of parliament vote in the Presidential election.. and the President elects a set of these members (who are elected by people of India) to form the Government of India. Other than that, the president recognizes the leaders of both ruling and opposition party.

It is actually the President's government and not the Prime minister's government actually. But then the weak link that the president is itself elected only by the politicians allows the president's powers to look lesser than that of politicians.

All ministers including the Prime Minister report directly to the President, and the President has all authority to disqualify, suspend, question, appoint the ministers and the prime minister who are part of the government. Possibly if I am right, he can't directly disqualify or suspend members of lok sabha or rajya sabha who are not part of the government.

> The President appoints the Chief Justices of the Supreme court of India, the tallest legal body in the Country. The President, and only the President, has authority to suspend, disqualify, transfer, or appoint justices to the supreme court. Also the President has the final say or the authority of approving appointments, transfers, suspensions, for all High court judges as well.

This means, the justices in the country are only to fear the President, if at all. And unless the President transfers a supreme court judge, the politicians in the country cannot try to replace or remove unfavourable judges.

What has Abdul Kalam done as President?
As President of the Republic of India, Abdul Kalam,
> Gave strength to Supreme court judges in not firing or transfering them when the judges boldly practiced judicial activism, bringing to justice many influencial politicians and the rich who were guilty of their criminal or civil crimes.
> Made an impression with his counterparts in other countries, on the image of the India. His audience at presentations always praised his excitement, his knowledge, and among many other things, his technologically updated government executive image.
> Helped setup or continue good programmes of get-togetherness for non-residential indians.
> Awarded deserving Indians with Indias prestigious awards like padma bushan, padma vibushan, etc., There was no known controversy of a candidate's eligibility for the award, unlike there was in previous presidents tenures.

> And, last but always the first on his mind, was education and children.
He held high the importance of education in a country where more than 60% of people are reportedly illeterate.

This indirectly,
1. Induced interests in the Finance ministry allocating more budget for upgradation of educational institutes and projects,
2. All india organizations and associations of colleges and institutes became more careful and strict on their policies in providing better education in all member institutes.
3. Started a shift in whole, helping the people of India move towards giving more importance to education to all children.
4. Boosted non profit organizations and educational organizations alike, to aggressively campaign and promote education. Examples include CRY.org which had their highest number of educational campaigns during Abdul Kalam's rule.
5. and many more..

Why current politicians won't give this 'Peoples president' another tenure as President of India?
How Indians can't and may not have an intelligent president like Abdul kalam again?

1. The ruling politicians are very disturbed with kalam's interest in things:

All past, present and probably future politicians of india, like to hold the authority to do anything with the country, and if the president (their employer) asks questions, they don't like it.

Kalam questioned the breach of code by many members of parliament who had other source of income. Members of parliament including opposition members, prime minister, and ministers, are not supposed to hold any non-governmental positions, and should not have any other sources of income.

He refused mercy to a terrorist from kashmir, which was claimed by the ruling government for political gains in kashmir.

He questioned politicians on what actions they were taking to the bigger issues like tsunami relief, or for stopping child labour, or for avoiding the bird flu, etc.,

Importantly, kalam did not react to any pressures on transferring chief justices of any court, and did not do anything to stop judicial activism by supreme court justices.

These issues has affected politicians from exercising thier power "Freely", without any limitations. Because of the grudge, the politicians are not interested in giving kalam a second as president in the forthcoming elections in June 2007.

And so, kalam will not be president again.

Based on the above issues they faced, politicians will be more careful in electing "only" dummy presidents hereafter... best chosen from dummy politicians they already have in their pack instead of making the mistake of choosing an outsider to politics like kalam. so that the dummy president so elected won't take bold decisions, nor interfere in the "functioning" of the government under them, and transfer judges as per the ruling party's recommendations, and be faithful to them "happily ever after" for electing him/her as president.

Hence, I say, India will not have another president like Abdul kalam hereafter. The good days are numbered till June this year.

But, thanks to APJ Kalam for his doings.

Saw this thing recently.. A google ADsense AD but with culture specific language text for 'ADs by Google' and 'Advertise on this site' links at the bottom of the AD.

Saw this on chennaionline.com, a particularly very AD based regional news portal in the Tamil language.

Somethings are interesting and notable, thought I agree and everybody knows that every bit of a thing that Google does is quite hyped up by the community around since its a favorite company for getting every big thing free on the web.

What's is a Calorie?
Simply an unit of energy.. while energy itself is imaginary by nature, its measurements are also based on studies and are only approximates.

That means, there's no truth in someone saying "this has 23.21 calories".

Technically, 1 Calorie is the amount of energy required to raise temperature of 1 KiloGram of water by 1 °C (sometimes defined as 1 gm of water rather than 1Kg.. then its called a small calorie with small 'c' in calorie.. big calories are what we are talking in this article).

Also, it is not correct to say that a sandwitch with cheese has so much calories because energy acquired by the body through foods most often is also dependent on the person eating. Haven't you known people who eat good, and burn up less calories, but still are slimmer than you.

First burn.. The myth:

> Myth: Calorie ratings in foods, and workouts..are exact.

Calorie ratings in food labels and items are only indicatory and approximate.

Does it mean.. all those labels on food containers are wrong?? No. But they are crude approximations. These ratings should only be used to help you understand which of two foods is higher in energy or Calories, so you can decide. Only for referrence. Also the same with your workout machine's calorie reading in your health gym.

History of the link between calories, diet and workouts.
People made observations under lab conditions that fats have so much calories, carbohydrates have so much etc., and the food manufacturers add up the calories based on the ingredients they have used in the food, and put it on the labels.

The same way, personal trainers calculated per hour calorie burn-ups in certain workouts based on how much people reduced in weight doing the workout for a month. And the numbers were set into the machines you workout on..finally giving you a number of calories you burned by exercising on them for 30 mins or so.

This later got mixed up with dieticians making cocktails of calorie charts custom made for people of certain ages, in a crude and approximate way, and all this became standards of measurement in diets and workouts...which never had any measuring standards before.

You should only consider the Calorie rating on things as approximations of energy levels.. as said earlier, to compare foods or to compare workouts. That's how dieticians / your gym trainers actually understand it, though some of them mistakenly put it to us as the exact number.

> Myth: Eating less food, means less calories and is good for being in shape.

As stated earlier, Calories are measurements of Energy.

And Energy is required for being active or doing work, so avoiding food intake itself heavily, is going to bother your health and lifestyle itself if you don't understand it correctly.

Take salads at times, avoid high intake of fats at times, etc., but keep a healthy mix.

Everyone's body is different, and the way it reacts to food or workout is also different (though its debateable, medically physiology is a unique aspect of birth and growth).

So, over a period of time, you will find a mix of food intake and schedules which best fits your energy requirements based on your activity levels at different times in the day, and based on your craving for certain foods.

Don't starve your body with a calorie rule book...starve it with giving importance to energy rather than satisfying crave.

> Myth: More Calories, more weight.

This is a misconception. Weight and calories are totally unrelated.

Still this misconception is popular because some people take a lot of food, sometimes 3-5 times their energy requirements... the higher unused energy becomes stored fat (discussed later).

If you don't link your food intake with respect to your lifestyle or activity then you will either be under-nourished or over-weight.

> Myth: More energy requirements means ..more physical activity.

Many many people believe that doing physical activity is the only good reason for higher energy requirements. In my opinion this is not true.

The brain needs energy too..though it is smart to use less energy to do more work. Keep yourself starving for long, you would have a head-ache. Also, for what other reason do you think the brain sometimes makes us feel stressed or sleepy. Why else should caffeine or tea be able to strengthen our focus at work, sometimes over long work hours.

Yes. it means, doing nothing also consumes energy.. but if you are trying to understand, may be sleeping all the time, without nightmares, with low activity in the brain, could reduce energy requirements.. and keep you alive longer without starving to death.

Something like above should answer how an old woman in her 70's survived for close to 14 days under the debris of the Gujarat earthquake in India in 2005(if i am right) without food.

What is meant by "Burning up"?
Physical exercise increases activity and hence energy requirements, and if you still eat based on your old energy requirements, you will be starving your body of some energy, which it has to makeup by burning up the stored fat in your body.

This is when you are typically "burning up" and losing weight.

Hence, when you use more energy than you intake through food, you are losing weight. When you use almost the same amount of energy that you intake, you are maintaining your weight.

How to lose weight.. why it takes time.. why shouldn't you use electrodes and other non-exercise stuff to reduce weight quickly.
Related to the above discussion on stored fats.. we have to understand that, every human being more or less has the same amount of skin and body tissues depending on their age and growth... the rest is all made up of stored fat.

Stored fat is mostly what makes people fat or heavy...and is stored in bulks under the skin. And, why is it stored when you don't want to? When your body needs more energy the stored fat is burnt up and converted to energy needed.

This is a more complex process involving metabolism, breakup of food or fat into acids and molecules, etc., but we are reading this very crudely to keep it simple.

That complexity is what will help to understand why then all the fat can be burned up by simply not taking food.

But, to look at it easier, to break-up stored fats also needs energy which comes through food intake. Food intake, we already know that if it is in excess, it still add up to the stored fat.. So this creates the balanced limit to amount of fat that can be broken up over a period. This is why losing weight is a long-term process by nature.

And since going against nature always has implications, people advice you to not force the break-up of fats through means other than exercising...and even through exercise, only to a limit to avoid over-stress in workouts which could cause other problems.

Why Junk foods are always criticized:

No intentions of hurting anybody when they criticize everything to junk food intake. But everything said is truth.

There's a big difference between junk foods and foods. While people eat normal foods for energy requirements, junk foods are had for satisfying that crave. Also, junk foods are manufactured with no nutritious or low-calorie intentions(and hence called 'junk'), they are just prepared for giving that crave or satisfying that crave.

This means that junk foods are usually high sources of fat, carbohydrates, oils and milk products. Your dietician would obviously scream hearing you had all that in your food.

Junk foods are inevitably the quick and easy sources of food given today's predominant lifestyles...and its difficult to close doors on them. But help yourself by being careful to avoid them, by eating low, and drinking juices or water whenever you get the crave.

References:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorie
http://health.howstuffworks.com/calorie.htm

Power, in Business terms, is considered synonymous with Energy, Strength, higher Intelligence and decision making skills. Sometimes even negative energy (as in Evil) or influence, or, egoistic characterists.

People in powerful positions in Businesses, feel both the positives and negatives of being powerful and some of them strive hard to keep an imaginary barrier in their heads to separate its negative characteristics from tempting the Brain from doing things.

Some Chairmans, CEOs always insist in eating with their lower order employees, having get-to-gether's too very often officially and unofficially to the extent of considering drinking their Coffee with their subordinate employee, even if its thier 8th Coffee for the day.

All powerful people in Business like being there.. in their top post as CEO or chairman or General manager of their company. And only differ in what they like it for. While some, like it because of the feeling of responsiblity and control of their Business's various parameters of growth and attitude, some, like it for the pride of having achieved such high ranks in business after all those years.

Exercising the top most powerful position in the company, is very commonly the interest of all Middle-Level managers and assistants/subordinates of the top ranks. Though very similar to the old days of kings where dynastic successors were numbered based on their heirarchy to the throne, Business obviously don't go that extent to deciding who carries the baton next.

In big Businesses, most often except a few exceptions, the process of identifying a successor from an internal pool of top brass, or appointing a new person to the top post, simply goes by the normal recruitment processes. With interviews and discussions over a few weeks to few months shortlisting candidates and finally selecting the right person.

After living in the top slot for a while, and earning the top pay packet for a few years, some managers decide to step down themselves to give way for a new person. But, many top managers leave office only when they decide to retire.. or when they retire by virtue of health and non-confidence of their collegues.

We could say that a top-level manager giving up his office by means of stepping-down or by retirement is a 50:50 ratio. The top-level manager, however he/she leaves office, is considered responsible for the consequences of the business even for the couple of years after their exit.

This is very often why most CEO's step down to be a chairman / chief mentor of the organization to still be able to control or monitor the newcomers work and decisions in his office space.

In the backdrop of all this, there are many advantages for a manager stepping down after a couple or more years in the top post, which many managers overlook and stay till retirement.

Advantages of Stepping down.. and points to consider to decide when to step down:

> Avoid Stagnation at the top level:

The top order of any company is always the most stagnant part of the company, only because the CEO can't become a super CEO or further, because there are no such positions. And so, the subordinates of a CEO are not happy people after a couple of years being the same CEO's subordinate...in the same level of office. Like in politics, the every other guy next to the prime minister wants to become the prime minister. This is not a bad thing... the idea of doing things for the company from its apex is always a tempting feeling.

Like people age, companies too age with the same people at the top level. Unlike human ageing, the company ages much faster, and a slow down pitches in.

> Leave at your peak, and feel happy looking back:

You would hear the statement from Sports persons very often, that they want to retire or quit the game at their peak.

The advantage is a happy and proud feeling of achievements during their reign(especially if they had a winning streak at things), and also the compassion and praise people and media shower on them for giving up the slot for younger minds...or bringing a new perspective and freshness to the corner office.

For example, very often, people in top government office, step down for this happiness and pride after having been a president or minister and taking pride in having done things for people.

> For personal Gains:

Though not the best thing to do, sometimes people negotiate their stepping down to personal benefits in wealth, or, other personal gains.

Again, people in government office at a top level have been most attracted to step down on preconditions or negotiations with a pre-determined successor for their position. The personal gains sometimes could be to the extent of not being held later for mistakes in office, be it criminal or civil...and the freedom to live like a high-ranked, high-pensioned citizen with special benefits for self or family from the government.

People quote examples that a Russian president allowed his lesser known subordinate and right-hand man to assume his office in the condition of keeping the new government entirely away from mistakes that the president had committed in his office which otherwise would come to light after his time in office.

> For Personal Health & Family:

High office, is for obvious reasons, a lot of stress and workload,
especially, if there are open issues in office already when you are considering stepping down.

Such stress could get a top level manager carried away into work to create sometimes irrecoverable issues with health, their personal life, and family.

While these issues could aggravate or deteriorate based on how a successor to the position deals with them... it is sometimes better to step down to allow for de-stressing and spending time with family, at the same time introduce a new perspective or thought by means of a new comer to deal which might help resolve the issues at office.

For example, Once a top ranked defence department official in America stepped down because of his family facing lot of threats from external agencies whose criminal/civil activity the official had been monitoring. And as the official stepped down to allow himself and his family be given lesser importance by the agencies, the new official who took over helped bring to justice the agencies quickly.

> To pursue others interests:

Everybody has a life outside office.. yes even the top level managers, though most of them realize it only after retirement.

People grow passionate about some sort of work or activity over their younger or youthful years, and always wish to do things that they possibly couldn't do when they were in the top post in their office.

This could be something in charity like working with organizations to fund charities, or, something passionate like starting a management school or yoga center.

Stepping down after a few years of stressful, hectic, number crunching office hours, these new openings for the top managers, give both the satisfaction of work and more time with family. That is a decent balance to most workaholic managers who just can't stay without work.

Also, in charities, the involvement of an Ex-CEO or Ex-Chairman of a big organization helps the charities a lot, quite immediately.

----

The above reasons should more or less cover a spectrum of reasons / advantages of stepping down from office.

There is always a best time to do stuff, especially considering a previously stated point that, though you step down, you will be considered responsible for the consequences or growth of the company for a couple of years after your time, especially if you had stayed in the top post for a considerable time.

Indian currency is currently undergoing heavy re-valuation against the global benchmark US dollar.

Indian rupee is going on a forward looking correction.. It is rising. good for india..but will keep business especially software pricing for multinationals panicky.

Considering what Euro conversions did for many countries in Europe, I am excited at every Rupee the dollar falls cheaper.

Track currency rates here

The Story so far:
Software outsourcing has done a lot for India.. which many other industries in the past tried very hard to do for India, but with smaller effects.

Who markets India
The first strong attempt(in my opinion), and also the long standing attempt in raising indian values in not just economy but also in life, come from unfortunately, you never guessed this... Bollywood.

People could sell hindi movies abroad even before days of sholay... they say one film 'Mother India' which was (if i am right) a movie from pre-independence era, has been the closest to getting an oscar until Lagaan was nominated.
Imagine, Bollywood could sell movies, even before software was just startup in india, and even before ISRO became known for its commercial satellite capabilities.

Many articles in magazines in the west have pleased Indians by saying India changed Software. This is in reference to lowering software costs globally.

But this has also costed a burden to Indian Software, that almost 70% or more software companies in India always try to feast on the lower costs and only keep quality as second priority.

Whenever currency revaluation happens, software companies in India panick. And we know this when our relatives ask us the stupid question "Will software be there for another 5 years?"

As obvious, the most interested people in Indian currency's value work for the central regulatory bank in India 'Reserve bank of India' RBI. And everytime the money seems to grow faster, the RBI attempts to downplay the effect by increasing local lending rates across the nation, and by subsidising foreign exchange rates in a manner, that I don't seem to understand, but that which gets the Indian Rupee valued a little lower than it is actually worth. The American government too, they say, tries to limit the Rupee's rise because American businesses have big interests in Indian Software and services industry.

People prominently watching the software outsourcing radar know that most Indian companies indeed heavily rely on the cost of the US dollar for being competitive in the market. This always had to go, to allow more crediblity to real players in the industry... and as they keep telling.. to Create a level playing field for "all" Software Businesses (I believe "all" here means, companies that care about quality, and those that care about cheap costs for customer).

Finally, the narrow line of quality software in india is broadening, because of currency revaluation.

How currency re-evaluates - In my observation :

1. Businesses that transact using the currency grow, on their interests and efforts to grow. Indian Software giant Infosys is popularly credited for starting the growth drive in the software industry for India.

2. The services of these businesses get valued higher due to better demand.

3. This boosts/motivates "like" Businesses, and the general trust and credibility on the industry or industries grow.

4. The boost triggers a chain reaction in all Businesses getting valued higher for thier services. The general worth of the services or the Products increase.

5. Higher demand, and higher valuation of Businesses somewhere underground has many links to the value of the stocks on the market, to cost of living, to inflation, to asset values, to costs of everything in the adjacent markets, and finally everything links to the value of the Currency the Businesses transact on.

6. As the above point, has too many parameters some known, some unknown, some controllable, some uncontrollable, no regulatory bank or government would be able to stop the revaluation and only allowing it would be the best option, though they have to definitely monitor the impact and minimize it by forcing regular valuation corrections to help the people who use the currency.