Talk Talk

I came across this in http://video.google.com/. Very creative use of people there. I wish it starts a whole new thing and so that I can see more of it

Switching teams, the Google Way

Steve yegge an employee at Google writes that developers can switch teams and/or projects any time they want, no questions asked; just say the word and the movers will show up the next day to put you in your new office with your new team.

I know he is a bit exaggerating. But I love and encourage it. MS definitely needs to make it easier for folks to move. What is the point of holding someone who wants to move?

I speak from my personal experience. I decided to pursue other opportunities at Microsoft after having spent 6 years in the current team. My manager wouldn't give me permission. He suggested that I stay until product ships and also was exaplaining how important my contributions are blah blah blah. Even worse, dev manager was also trying to convince me by explaining why the grass looks greener on the other side. Does it make any sense to any of you? I have decided to try a few things and folks are saying that is a bad idea and asking me to stay? I am not a dumbo and I know how to make my career decisions well.

One good thing is that Microsoft seems to be eliminating the need to get manager's approval and instead notify the manager instead. This is really a good step in the right direction.

I don't know about competing with Google on the products arena. But I love the fact the it is forcing Microsoft to rethink from a HR perspective a lot. I see the Google effect in many aspects of Microsoft.

Sure I hate Bush but I couldn't watch this...

See if you can watch the full video because I could not first. The link is:
Colbert Roasts President Bush - 2006 White House Correspondents Dinner

For some reason, I couldn't watch the entire thing (I watched maybe half of it). I think Steven Colbert went little far. Presidents no matter what they have done, deserves some dignity. Then I watched "President Bush Impersonation - 2006 White House Correspondents Dinner" and felt o.k to see the President making fun of himself and was a bit relieved.

If Israel did not exist...

Please read this first before jumping into conclusions. I am a christian if it matters. I read a lot and thought about a lot and was even pondering (fearing) about being labelled as anti-semetic. But I just want to say it since there is no point in believing in one and not acknowledging it. I wonder if mid-east (the whole sub continent) could have been at peace if the country Israel did not exist. I would have to re-iterate here that I am not saying Jews should not exist. In fact, they have all the right to live and enjoy life just as every one of us have and do (I even have couple of jewish friends with whom I discuss the mid-east conflict). I say this because every mid-east conflict has the country Israel behind it (Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebonon, Palestine etc etc). I do not see any end to the violence since Israel is continueing its occupation and expansion (especially the settlements) and the affected parties are not willing to give away an inch taken from them.

What really perplexes me is that the Arab/Persian countries have so much clout (in terms of oil) and money, they are not willing to come together to bring a resolution to this issue. I really wish they put their differences behind and work towards a common goal of achieving stability and peace in the region by using their political clout.

I empathize with Palestinians and lebonaese who lost their lives or displaced by this conflict more and I feel sorry for them.

I request that you watch this documentary Peace, Propaganda & The Promised Land which touched me a lot and talks about most of what I have gathered and found out. If you are touched by this documentary, please pass this on.

Good programming puzzle that I came across

Here is something that I just came across while preparing for an interview. I did solve the puzzle myself in less than 1/2 hour. Sorry no answers for this one:

A helicopter drops two trains, each on a parachute, onto a straight infinite railway line. There is an undefined distance between the two trains. Each faces the same direction, and upon landing, the parachute attached to each train falls to the ground next to the train and detaches. Each train has a microchip that controls its motion. The chips are identical. There is no way for the trains to know where they are. You need to write the code in the chip to make the trains bump into each other. Each line of code takes a single clock cycle to execute. You can use the following commands (and only these);

• MF - moves the train forward
• MB - moves the train backward
• IF (P) - conditional that is satisfied if the train is next to a parachute. There is no "then" to this IF statement.
• GOTO

Have fun!

About making English the nation’s official language

This is ridiculous. I can't believe America is an "open" society where one does not have the "freedom of speech" (i.e freedom of spoken language).

E pluribus unum was one of the first national mottos of the United States of America. Translated from Latin, it means "From many, one" or "Out of many, one" (e=out of, from; pluribus=many; unum=one). It referred to the integration of the 13 independent colonies into one united country, and has taken on an additional meaning, given the pluralistic nature of American society from immigration.

“We have never been and no serious person is suggesting that we become an English-only nation,” said Mauro Mujica, U.S. English Inc. board chairman, which promotes English as a national language. “But the American people decidedly do not want us to become an English- optional nation.”
Commentary: Where does one get the idea that the majority speaks english? If you combine the Hispanic/Asian/European population, they are probably the majority and they don't speak english as primary language. Secondly, there is no need to enforce language on someone if there is no need. This nation has prospered w/o an Official langauge for almost 2 centiries. What is broken that needs fixing?

Rep. Mark Souder, a Republican, said without an organized official language, “We are all going to descend into chaos.” He said knowledge of English should be a requirement for immigrants seeking permission to work in the United States. “If you are going to come to America, then learn our language,” he said.
Commentary: Our language is english? Indians where the people of the land and they did not speak english. Maybe we should make their langiage the national language. Even a majority does not mean that should be made the Official language. How about making the second largest spoken language as the second official language? I don't think there will be any takers for this one. Also, Hawaiians speak their native language and what do you say to them?

Murder Vs. Destruction of life

Sunday July 23rd, 2006 should go in Journalistic history. I am talking about "Meet the press" by Tim Russet with White house chief of staff Joshua Bolton. Tim who I highly respect (along with Chris Matthews for not being afraid of asking the right questions) grilled Bolton about Tony snow's statement characterizing president's position on embryonic stem cell research as "Murder". In the end, Bolton just avoided answering it directly but I really appreciated the line of questioning. A day later, Tony snow corrected himself saying he overstated president's position but he said president does believes that embryonic stem cell research is "Destruction of life". Well, I am not the master of English langauge but what is the difference? It is a daily affair for politicians to use word play and fool the public. It is despicable at best.

On the overall issue, it looks like Bush does not have any common sense either and is very idealogical.

• If President believes it is immoral and views this as destruction of life, why even allow private research? Shouldn't he ban every form of destruction?
• If the stem cells aren't going to be used and also not being adopted (only 128 out of 400,00 has been adopted in the last few years), isn't this another way to destroy the cells? Also, why aren't we preventing clinics to not produce more until everything that is available is used?

Here are the excerpts from the transcript for your reading pleasure:
MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to domestic politics. The president vetoed a stem research bill, a bill that’s called for the use of embryos that were obtained in vitro clinics that supporters say would have been discarded. And instead, have the government subsidize research to see if they can use those embryos to find some use of the stem cells for cures for Parkinson’s disease and so forth. Tony Snow, the White House press secretary who speaks for the president, went to the podium at the White House and said this to the press corps and to the nation. Let’s watch.

MR. TONY SNOW: The president believes strongly that for the purpose of research it’s inappropriate for the federal government to finance something that many people consider murder. He’s one of them.
The simple answer is he thinks murder’s wrong.
(End videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: Murder. The president believes that using an embryo for stem cell research is murder.
MR. BOLTEN: Let me, let me step back for a second, Tim. Now, I think...
MR. RUSSERT: Because that’s a very important question.
MR. BOLTEN: It is, and, and...
MR. RUSSERT: The president’s spokesman used the word “murder.” Does the president believe the use of an embryo for stem cell research is murder?
MR. BOLTEN: Let me—indulge me here for a moment, and let me, and let me walk through the issue and I, and I will get to your question, because it’s a very complicated, very, very delicate issue, that I think a lot of people misunderstand what the president’s policies were that he first enunciated five years ago.
First, the, the policy announcement that the president made five years ago was not that stem cell research would, would be banned, but rather that federal funding of stem cell research would be banned. Second, it is—and not even all embryonic stem cell research would be banned, just that research that involves the incenting, or the new destruction of fertilized embryos. There’s—this president, in fact, was the first one to permit federal funding to go to any embryonic stem cell research, but only for lines that had been, had already been created where the embryo was already created. The president’s objective in his policy, was to prevent the use of federal funds toward the, the promotion of destroying these fertilized embryos.
Now to your question. It’s a very delicate and difficult balance that the, that the president has tried to strike here between the, the needs and desires of science and the morals and ethics that, that our government leaders are, are charged to, to try to sustain. On the one hand, the president recognizes that embryonic stem cell research has, has promise, unfulfilled as yet, but a, but a great deal of promise. On the other hand, the president believes, as, as do millions and millions of Americans, that that fertilized embryo is a human life that deserves protection. The president recognizes that there are wide differences of opinion on this, and that’s why his policy has been not to prevent that research from going forward altogether, but to prevent your tax dollars and my tax dollars from going to support the destruction of that, that human embryo, because there’s so many of us who believe that that human embryo is a human life that deserves protection, and has the potential to become, become some of the beautiful kids you saw in, in the original clip you showed at the...
MR. RUSSERT: Then if the president believes it is human life, how can he allow private stem cell research to go forward, go forward, if, in fact, that is murder?
MR. BOLTEN: It’s a very, it’s a very difficult balance. I mean, the president recognizes that there are millions of Americans who don’t recognize that as a human life, and that the promise of that research for the saving of life is so important that they, that they want that to go forward. What the president has said is that as far as the federal policy is concerned, no federal funds, your tax dollars and my tax dollars, will go towards promoting the destruction of that human embryo.
MR. RUSSERT: But you’re using federal funds for existing lines, which were of embryos. So were those embryos that the federal government is experimenting on obtained by homicidal means?
MR. BOLTEN: Those, those embryos, those stem cell lines, were already—those embryos were already destroyed, and, and that’s where the president—the president’s policies draw the line. That is that our tax dollars, from the point that the president made his policy statement forward, our tax dollars are not going to go to further incent the destruction of those fertilized embryos. Let me, let me...
MR. RUSSERT: The logic, Mr. Bolten, as people are listening to this, the president is saying no, we can’t use embryos that are going to be discarded by in vitro clinics because, according to a spokesman, that’s murder. But we can use embryos that were existing before I became president, that’s OK. And if you have a private company and you want to use those embryos, that’s OK. Back to the central question: does the president agree with his spokesman, Tony Snow, that the research on the embryo in, in fact, to use that embryo is murder?
MR. BOLTEN: The president thinks that that embryo, that fertilized embryo, is a human life that deserves protection...
MR. RUSSERT: But does he accept or reject the use of the word “murder”?
MR. BOLTEN: I haven’t spoken to him about the use, the use of particular terminology, but the—but let me come back to the fundamental point here, Tim, and that is that there’s, there’s a balance that needs to be struck, and it’s a very difficult balance for, for any president to strike, between, between the needs of allowing science that can be life-saving to go forward, and reflecting the ethics and morals of this society. And as, as far as those, those fertilized human embryos are concerned that are, that are going to be discarded anyway, there was, there was a very moving ceremony, I thought, in the East Room of the White House this week, when the president discussed his stem cell policy. And on stage there with him—you had a clip of it at the top of the show—on stage there with him there were some children who are the products of those fertilized embryos that otherwise would have been, would have been destroyed.
MR. RUSSERT: Well, 128 embryos were adopted. But 400,000 are now not being used, and will be probably discarded. And you’re saying they should not be used for research by the federal government.
MR. BOLTEN: Yes, that is the president’s policy.
MR. RUSSERT: Would you then move to close down in vitro clinics—if, in fact, those embryos are being created and used by private companies for research and the president’s spokesman says that’s murder, and the president said it’s a human life, why not then close down the in vitro fertility clinics? Because they’re creating embryos that, in the president’s view, will be murdered.
MR. BOLTEN: That’s not where the president has, has drawn the balance. He’s drawn the balance with—the line with federal funding, people’s tax dollars not going to—not going to incent the further destruction of the human life. Look, 400,000...
MR. RUSSERT: But he will—he will allow private cell research companies to “destroy human life.”
MR. BOLTEN: That issue isn’t before him. What’s before him is what—the issue of what will federal funds be used for.
Look, those, those 400,000 fertilized...
MR. RUSSERT: But he could take steps to outlaw that.
MR. BOLTEN: Those 400,000 human—fertilized human embryos, I’m sure the president fervently wishes that, that every single one of them is going to get adopted and turn into one of those beautiful kids we saw at the ceremony.
MR. RUSSERT: All 400,000 are going to be adopted?
MR. BOLTEN: No. They’re not likely to be, and that’s, that’s, that’s very sad for this country. But...
MR. RUSSERT: Karl Rove, the president’s chief political adviser, said that adult stem cells show far more promise than embryonic stem cells, and the White House could not identify any scientist who could confirm that. Is—does the president agree with Mr. Rove?
MR. BOLTEN: I’m, I’m no scientist, not, not quantified to speak on it, but I think the point that Karl was getting at is that there are alternative means to achieve some of the promise of the—of the embryonic stem cells that, that scientists...
MR. RUSSERT: No, he said “far more promise.”
MR. BOLTEN: Well...
MR. RUSSERT: Can you—can you cite any scientist who believes that adult stem cells have far more promise than embryonic stem cells?
MR. BOLTEN: Well I can’t cite scientists on either side of it, but what I can tell you is that adult, adult human stem cells have already shown enormous utility in, in the amelioration of disease in this country. Embryonic stem cells have, have yet to fulfill the promise that many see, but, but there—but there is a legitimate promise there, and that’s why the president has struggled so much with that difficult balance...(unintelligible).
MR. RUSSERT: But is there any ev—is there any evidence that you’re aware of, or the president’s aware of, that says that adult stem cells show far more promise than embryonic?
MR. BOLTEN: Adult stem cells have already demonstrated for—in the amelioration of disease...
MR. RUSSERT: So you agree with Mr. Rove.
MR. BOLTEN: I—like I said I’m not—I’m not a scientist and I don’t...
MR. RUSSERT: Well, I don’t think Karl Rove is, either.
MR. BOLTEN: Well, he knows a lot of stuff, but the—look, the, the point here is that there are alternative ways to get to the, the promise that the embryonic stem cells have, and the president, in his announcement this week on, on stem cell policy, also announced that we were going to put extra effort at, at—within our scientific community at NIH into pursuing stem cell research that does not involve the destruction of those fertilized human embryos.