Rickshaw-wallas waiting for business outside an urban mall of luxury boutiques and shops
This is going to be an evolving post looking at the style of life, the joys and the difficulties of living in India, with particular experience coming from living in Delhi. If you are a ‘western’ national and are being sent to work in India, or are considering a move, this perspective will serve as a useful insight into the realities of life in India in 2010.
Check back tomorrow for more, but as always, please share your experiences or opinions in the comments, as it is in the communicative nature of the web that we all gain knowledge. If you have some experience in the area, if you disagree with my perspective, or if you have some advice to share, write your contribution below.
Looking at the comments of any major tech blog, and many a mainstream newspaper website one would think that as soon as Apple’s exclusivity contract with AT&T runs out (thought to be in 2010 sometime), the California-based computer firm will leave the mobile network behind. I would be wary of over-speculating about AT&T being in a headlock from an Apple tough-guy position. I think the danger to AT&T of losing exclusivity has been exagerated by some commentators.
Take the following example Megan Lavey’s position in a recent TUAW post:
AT&T has long been the subject of grumbling from the community of US iPhone users who want to use their phones legitimately. Ever since the original release back in 2007, it feels like AT&T has been trying to play catch-up when it comes to service and tower availability. But, the release of the iPhone 3G S might be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.
The ramifications for AT&T will come when it sits down at the negotiation table with Apple to extend its current gig as exclusive carrier for the iPhone in the United States. Apple won’t forget that AT&T didn’t have key features in place when they needed to be there. If Verizon, T-Mobile, Sprint, or any other carrier can convince Apple that they would be ahead of the game while AT&T lags (and, believe me, it wouldn’t be that hard of an argument to make), Apple will take its toys and go elsewhere.
I don’t think this is going to happen, and here’s why. Just by chance I watched Steve Jobs’s interview with Walt Mossberg at 2007’s All Things D (D5) Conference, and I was struck by the sense of loyalty that Jobs expressed when referring to how Cingular took a risk on Apple in accepting the iPhone to their network while Verizon (we hear) wouldn’t give them access. The quote arrives just before the two minute mark:
“I think Cingular invested in us, they took a gamble on us, and likewise we took a gamble on them. So, I will never forget that.”
AT&T, at the time called Cingular, may not be the strongest network, but as CEO Randall Stephenson mentioned in this year’s D Conference, the top complaint for all mobile phone networks in the US is signal; it’s not unique to Cingular. There’s no saying there will be any less of a mob decrying Verizon signal strengths were Apple to release an iPhone CDMA version. I imagine Apple could likely keep a level of pragmatism and institutional memory in its decision making process – it wants the best business result but it also wants a carrier in the US that it can actually deal with, and back in 2007 (let alone 2004 when they started working on the iPhone), Verizon was so locked up in their own software packages, network restrictions and carrier lock-ins, I can’t imagine how a pairing of such companies would have worked. The cultures are, ironically, too similar; both Apple and Verizon want to have full control over their ‘product’ and thus a melding of minds just wouldn’t have worked at the time.
This is not to say that there is no possibility of Apple adopting Verizon as a partner, but I think the importance of institutional memory and personal relationships is incredibly within Apple, evidenced by the number of times that key employees have been hired and rehired again after any attempts to jump ship, taking people like JonRubinstein and Craig Federighi as obvious examples. Who knows whether Verizon will care about Apple’s products once they’ve got them. For the moment the iPhone is AT&T’s golden egg and thus they work to retain it. Once it’s gone how will that relationship with Apple play out? Will AT&T remain accommodating? Verizon might be added as a carrier, but it won’t be without considerable fight and, I’m guessing, significant anguish.
GAY = SIN from Matthew Brown on Vimeo.
Matthew Brown has made a video which he shares on Vimeo, looking at how some people are so thoroughly opposed to the ‘gay lifestyle’ – which I interpret simply as opposition to the fact that gay people exist – that they feel compelled to share their distain for others in a as public a forum as is possible. He overlays critical audio over images captured of friends sharing special times together. The sounds so awfully contrast with the clement, benign and thoroughly gregarious nature of the images portrayed – pictures that could not be further from the audio that accompanies them. The result is artistic and thought provoking, as well as not just a little bit beautiful.
Check out the video link for an High Definition version which, through its clarity, renders the images yet more poignant and meaningfull.
Why greater censure; because Israel has higher relative wealth than Russia and in other contexts acts in an intelligent and rational way. How can we explain away Israel’s bad behaviour as though it doesn’t have other options? Melanie Phillips in The Spectator writes today of the west’s ‘pathological obsession’ with Israel, ‘Selective Moral Outrage‘. The thing is, when we discussing a state that is financially propped up by the US, one should hold them to a higher standard. It’s delusional and insulting to claim that all opposition to the actions Israel takes militarily is anti-semitic, as Bret Stephens implies: ‘As for the Chechens, too bad for their cause that no Jew will ever likely become president of Russia’. Russia is no Israel and visa versa. This but what about argument just doesn’t hold water. As Johann Hari recently wrote in his article in The Independent – ‘How to spot a lame, lame argument‘: There is one particular type of bad argument that has always existed, but it has now spread like tar over the world-wide web, and is seeping into the pubs, coffee shops and opinion columns everywhere. It is known as ‘what-aboutery’ – and there was a particularly ripe example of it in response to one of my articles last week.
As a rhetorical trick, it is simple. Anyone can do it, and we are all tempted sometimes. When you have lost an argument – when you can’t justify your case, and it is crumbling in your hands – you snap back: “But what about x?” You then raise a totally different subject, and try to get everybody to focus on it – hoping it will distract attention from your own deflated case.
Can we back away from the distraction of comparing Israel/Palestine to everywhere else in the world and concentrate on fixing what is clearly going wrong with that conflict itself. Middle-Eastern peace won’t come because one day everyone realises what Russia does in Chechnya is worse, but rather when all sides are honest about they can, could and should do to end conflict and bring about a harmonious life for all. I still think this is possible, though the mindset and honesty from all parties required is some ways off.
Plus, basing an article on numbers of hits from a Google search is elementary-school level journalism.
A certain popular road-warrior, Wes Streeting, on the way to being elected NUS National President. I wish I’d had a chance to meet him. Perhaps in the future. This speech doesn’t seem as impressive as it was at the time. In the hall as he was speaking there was a buzz of energy and of possibility. It’s very easy to sound angry on the podium, but to be angry with a passion and with direction is what’s powerful. Wes, for one, certainly has that power. I couldn’t be more pleased that he was elected.
Absolute comedy pisstake joy at the NUS conference. Ross Stanley is someone to watch out for, he made a number of coherent contributions during the course of the three days and came across well in all of them. Then he came out with this at the end of day two, showing one CAN do politics with a sense of humour.
I am a fourth year Politics student, and I’ve just returned from the NUS Annual Conference. I’ve been involved behind the scenes in LUU LGBT events since my first year, helping plan events and considering strategy. This past term I ran for election to the Union Exec because I want to promote OUR issues and highlight that we are still not truly liberated.
We have too many friends who are silent about the discrimination we face daily, and we have too many friends for whom ‘gay’ is a term for ‘weird’. We must campaign for our rights and ensure that our visibility on campuses across the country is a force for improvement. We must continually compel Student Union Officers to represent STUDENT ISSUES BEFORE ALL ELSE, not political concerns thousands of miles away.
It is easy to be distracted by irrelevant agendas. We weaken our cause by directionless rants about issues not within our mandate. The NUS system takes some work to understand but can be made to work in our favour. I will aid our delegates in casting INFORMED votes and help them understand how to make the system support our positions.
* I strongly oppose and am continually offended by the ban on gay male blood donors.
* I prefer ‘marriage’ to ‘civil partnership’. How can it be acceptable that LGBT citizens are denied the same institutional unions as everybody else?
* FIGHT to encourage the acknowledgement of LGBT issues by the student body. We can and must be more ambitious than we are. When LGBT allies and non-activist friends show their support we CAN BE A FORCE OF STRENGTH AND PROGRESS.
I think Margaret Cho’s piece during her hosting of Outfest (a show) on Wisecrack (a standup comedy series) on LOGO (a tv network) was hilarious. She manages to describe and define the issues about which she’s joking in a way that no other contemporary comedians around seem capable. The video is definitely worth watching, unless you are a huge fan of the Pope’s dresses. In that case you might find this a little bit on the offensive side. I don’t think Cho’s a huge fan of the Pope’s input on social matters. In case you’re in that offended camp, you may want some boules Quiès.
One of the things I notice working to find out the views of others, working to publicise their work, is that you end up hanging around a lot.
This is even more prevalent when those I’m trying to interview are not quite keen on being the subject, on having a microphone under their nose, on me recording their words. There’s an interesting phenomenon that occurs when you’re talking to someone in a journalistic capacity which I see this all the time; you’re having a marvelous and stimulating conversation with a subject, getting lots of really useful information from them. Normally this takes place in the couple of minutes before you decide to start recording. It’s part of the warm-up process so that you can build a form of rapport with the interviewee. They say something very concisely or something a bit unexpected and you say to them ‘Hey, that was really interesting, can I just get you to say that again on tape?’ I ask them the question once more, we kind of run through our conversation again, but the second time it’s boring. People HATE being interviewed and I think often just the concept of having a mic in their face is incredibly off-putting.
I often try and really go past that level of discomfort with subjects and put the microphone so close in that they can’t really get away from it. If it’s too close to really be able to perceive it properly, as in if it’s so close to them that it’s out of their line of sight, people relax a little bit. It’s like a journalist’s blind spot. People end up not noticing the mic, or at least they end up feeling less uncomfortable with it.
But that doesn’t change anything for the subjects who rearrange, who move the location around, or who suddenly discover they’re pulled away. It wastes my time so much. That said, it’s often worth waiting around because those people who squirm are those who give depth of sound. They often have the most raw and real contributions. Waiting around gets good results. When people approach you, I’ve always found, the results are often near useless. Someone spotting you on the street asking about topic X, realises they have something to say about it too, often has a whole lot of five minutes to tell you nothing you want to use.
Rearranged appointments is never ideal, not only because you’ve spent that time to get ready and prepped for the initial occasion but because it no doubt screws up the rest of your timetable. Bang goes your study hour. On the other hand, the one way I’ve found to almost guarantee that your interview won’t be delayed or postponed is to turn up long before the arranged time. If you’re there before they even go into their preceding meeting there is little chance they’ll forget: you’re already waiting in the foyer. So when I have a 09:00 appointment, getting there at 08:30 might sounds like being desperately keen but, bring a book, and you have a much higher chance of keeping the date. On the plus side, planning arriving early allows you to sort out problems like the interview subject being at a different location, forgetting the date or such like. Those minutes are your insurance that you’ll keep to your plans, and it works.
Right now the United States has the highest teen pregnancy rate of any developed nation. Although this teen pregnancy rate has decreased dramatically since the 1970s, recent years have seen that rate become stagnant.
Indeed, as of 2004, 13 states experienced either an increase in teen birth rates or stagnant teen birth rates, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The data also showed that one in seven girls who are 14 and younger will experience an unintended pregnancy, and one in three women will have an unintended pregnancy by age 20.
