Review - Where Wizards Stay Up Late: The Origins Of The Internet by K. Hafner and M. Lyon

For those unsatisfied with the customary paragraph on the history of Internet in computer networks books, this is just the text you may have been looking for. The book charts the journey from the early conceptions of a packet switching network up to the point where this network was poised to explode onto the world stage, becoming the Internet we know of today. Along the way the reader meets several characters that are otherwise familiar from the many papers and RFC's that they authored - Jon Postel, Wes Clark, Bob Kahn, Steve Crocker, Vint Cerf - along with other less familiar ones that shaped the early internet. (Incidentally, RFCs started as meeting notes kept by Steve Crocker - with the first one being written in a bathroom to avoid disturbing roommates - who choose the name Request for comments (RFC) to avoid sounding too declarative).

The book is filled with interesting incidents, starting with the rejection of the packet switching idea by ATT, which had too much invested in telephone virtual circuits to consider the idea on its merit. Such a network then gets developed by BBN (Bolt Beranek and Newman) , a small company which to everyone's surprise wins the ARPA contract for this. Ironically, later its BBN turn to bury its head in the sand when it fails to have the vision to capitalize on its success by refusing to go into the router business.

Technical details and controversies are presented in a manner that make will make them interesting to the lay readers as well as engineers. To recount just a few.

Initially congestion control and reliability measures get built into the first routing devices - the IMPs or Interface message processors as they were called. Only later, when different networks - the wired ARPANET, satellite based SATNET and radio waves based Packet Radio network, each with different reliability characteristics need to be linked together does the idea of moving these functions to the hosts gain currency. This then gets refined into the transmission control protocol TCP.

We see Bob Kahn arguing for correcting the inherent deficiencies in the original algorithms and design, only to be ignored by the engineers who are too busy building the thing to worry about any 'hypothetical' network scenarios. Kahn of course was right and able to demonstrate this on the initial versions of the network. Effort to iron out these problems is then undertaken.

The reader is made witness to the OSI vs TCP/IP protocol wars. TCP/IP is considered everything from experimental to being suitable only for toy networks. TCP/IP however has the advantage of already working while OSI has only the pedigree of its advocates to show for. TCP/IP, as we know wins, giving credence to the mantra that best solutions are discovered not decreed.

To sum up, this book is a highly readable account of the journey of the Internet's beginnings . It educates even as it entertains. Strongly recommended for anyone interested in this subject.

The movie - a wednesday

Starring Nasseruddin Shah and Anupam Kher, this movie already had the 'possible substance here' hook to get one interested. Given this, recommendations by friends and a hope for luck to shine twice in quick succession (first with Mumbai Meeri Jaan) was enough to prod me to go see this movie. How was it? what was it about ? are the questions that I will try to answer here.


The movie has a decently innovative plot - a common man (aam aadmi) played by Nasseruddin Shah, negotiates the release of four top terrorists, not to help them to escape but to kill them himself. If the plot is new, the theme - of citizen(s) frustrated by the incompetence of their (Indian) government and taking matters in their own hand - has had quite a steady recurrence. Most recently this was also the theme of the runaway hit Raang de Basanti. Why is it so ? .To anybody who has lived in India the answer is so obvious (of course the government is bad) that even asking this question would invite incredulous expressions. The exasperation (of the people) portrayed here is against the government's inability to stop the bomb blasts that continue to kill and maim people across India. These blasts, with terror as their motive, quite intentionally target the nerve centres of the country. Delhi, the political capital was shaken with five bombs on September 13, leaving 22 people dead. Bangalore, the IT city was hit on July 25. Bombay, the financial center was hit most viciously, with 130 people killed, in July 2006. To put things in their grim perspective, more than 400 people have been killed in bomb blasts throughout India since October 2005 [1].


What has been done to soothe the nerves in this situation ?. The government has nabbed a few suspects, issued condemnations and vowed to put to a stop to this. Columnists write paeans to the sagacity of the Indian people [2] and applaud their wisdom for not getting tempted into another riot. Then comes another blast and we get a repeat performance from these actors.
This is the mood the movie taps into and then limits itself to projecting anger and the accompanying desire for retribution.

Meanwhile Nasseruddin Shah is hard at work, he has secured explosives and a quiet place to work (which happens to be the secluded rooftop of a under construction building). He is shown talking to his wife about getting vegetables, to emphasize his ordinariness, after all what can be more mundane than a man's wife reminding/asking him to get one or the other comestibles. This vegetable request, is one of Bollywood's chief ways of introducing viewers to the presence of a wife. Once done, Shah energetically climbs up to this roof office where he has a desk, laptop, cellphone and a stash of SIM cards ready. Before getting here he is shown to have deliberately left a bag in a police station opposite the Mumbai police headquarters. This as we will learn later was his means to establish the credibility of his threat.

As the plot unfurls we see Shah calling the police commissioner, and demanding four top terrorists to be gathered up. Threatening to blow up bombs that he has placed all across the city if his demands are not met. Immediately after receiving the phone call Kher is shown walking into a quite tacky 'war' room. Here we see several people working in front of computer screens. Apparently this will be the command center for dealing with this bomb threat.

War room or not, attempts to track down the man behind the threat go nowhere. The conventional trail followed by extracting information from local criminals (by beating them black and blue of course) who would have likely arranged for the RDX , leads to a different under construction building. On this trail is a very angry Jimmy Shergill, playing a Muslim cop (there has to be a Muslim patriot in a fight for the country movie isn't it ?. I wonder if the Muslim community welcome these unsolicited explanations on their behalf or find it insulting ?).

The technology trail also leads nowhere, the cops are unable to trace the location of the phone number. They must bring in a hacker. This hacker is perhaps the most cliched character of the film. He proudly acclaims he is a college dropout (a la Bill Gates ?) by choice, totes gadgets and while introducing himself to Kher, receives a phone call from a girlfriend (who he refers to as babes) and on hanging up ,with the American goodbye style of love ya, sighs women.

Finally the cops are left with no choice, the four terorists are escorted by two cops (Shergill and Aamir Bashir) to the loaction asked (an airfield). Shah demands all four to be left seated on a bench and instructs the cops to leave. Jimmy Shergill has the idea of taking one of the terrorists with them to guarantee that the location of the bombs is revealed. While Bashir and Shergill argue over this, the three on the bench are blown up by a cellphone triggered bomb. When all the characters involved in the drama , Shah, Kher and the two cops - Shergill and Bashir, grasp what has happened, Shah demands the fourth terrorist to be killed on the spot. When Kher demands answers, we see Shah going into a monologue.

This speech is really the essence of the movie, in less capable hands it could have easily floundered and become a drag. But Nasseruddin Shah does pull it off, at least sort of. Where the speech is high on josh it is low on the quality of its content. While it expresses the fears and tribulations of ordinary man in the face of such attacks, one cannot be anything but sympathetic. Then comes the shaky ground, where essentially what is argued for is an eye (or more) for an eye. Now more questions emerge then get answered, aren't we already playing this game ? what do you suppose police encounters are about ? where has that gotten us ? should we now resort to mob/vigilante justice ? aren't the several riots a form of a mob justice, do we want that ?. The movie does not want to deal with this, it is content in its anger and only understands that. Solutions of the hot headed variety carry the most appeal, perhaps the movie's aim was no more than attracting the maximum eyeballs ?. Oh well ....

[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7614994.stm
[2] http://mjakbarblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/tentacles-of-dread-and-terror-gameplan.html

Book Review - Man's Search From Meaning by Viktor Frankl

Man's search for meaning is Dr Frankl's bestseller, with according to the
jacket more than four million copies sold. Dr Frankl was a
psychotherapist and a concentration camp survivor,where he lost his
parents and wife. As a psychotherapist. Frankl reaction to this was, how
do I respond to all this ?,how do I find meaning in this ?. And this book
provides at least part of the answers he has come up with. The book
consists of three parts, the first one dealing with the actual concentration
camp experience, the second describing logo therapy ,also referred to as
the third Viennese school of psychotherapy and finally a third part in the
new edition titled the case for tragic optimism.

As can be expected with Dr Frankl's background the book is written in a
therapeutic vain, and will strike some readers as at times forcing the
case. Imbuing logic and meaning where some would see none and may
be ready to accept this absurdity as the substance of life. For example
Dr Frankl helps a rabbi who had lost his wife and children in
concentration camps and whose second wife turns out to be incapable
of bearing children. The man is in despair over the fact that there would
be no one to say kaddish(Jewish prayer of death) for him after his death.
To this Dr Frankl replies by asking if he did not hope to see the children
in heaven. This results in an burst of tears followed by the statement
that since the children were innocents they were assured a place in
heaven while he as an old sinner was not likely to get there. Dr Frankl
latches on to this and counters by asking if this was now not the meaning
of the despairing man's life. That is to suffer and purify himself thereby
making himself fit for the heavens.The author assures us that the advice
proves helpful.

I find the part about experiences in the concentration camp as the best
written part of the book. The images of cruelties of foreman and guards is
conveyed humanistic ally rather than succumbing to a simpler temptation
of demonisation. The point about cruel individuals present in all groups, is
appropriately made in the book's context. The author gives examples of
kind Nazi guards and the cruel prisoners, especially the notorious capo,
who tortured fellow prisoners for personal gains.

Although the author does not point to this directly, this section also sheds
a light on how sadists become especially dangerous in such conditions.
There are foremen under whom working can often be fatal. Such people
are present in all groups, the degree of danger they represent is in direct
proportion to the power they possess. Power corrupts acquires an
especially deadly tone here. With the way such individuals are described
here, it makes one wonder about the situations in which people are made
in charge of enforcing discipline, given a license to hard.How people who
relish (and this is always observable) such roles would have faired.

Dr Frankl analyzes the mental states of the inmates of concentration
camps and identifies 1) shock, during initial admission 2) apathy after
getting somewhat used to the camp and 3)reactions of bitterness ,
vengeance after liberation. However - analyzing and presenting
psychology of guards and inmates, Dr Frankl doesn't offer the readers
much more than a peep into his own mental state through the whole
experience. He comes off mostly as superhumanly calm, and the entire
affair seems to be only a difficult challenge to him . A challenge which he
always has the ability to surmount. For example his decision to forgo an
escape opportunity,a escape which could have made the difference
between life and death,in order to be able to help one of his patients is
arrived at,heroically,without much mental turmoil. One is tempted to
ask was it really so (i mean the lack of turmoil not the truth of the
decision) or more generally can it really be so ?

Also It seems that the creator of will to meaning has never been
personally, desperately confronted with meaninglessness in his own life.
The experience of meaninglessness is for him a problem to be solved in
others not so much in himself.For example his threefold solution of
finding meaning through
a) Action or deeds
b) Experiencing things and other human beings , especially by
loving them
c) The attitude towards unavoidable suffering.

This is quintessentially therapeutic - and therefore perhaps aimed at
effectiveness rather than philosophy. Can existential despair really ,
philosophically be answered by these and by "responsibleness".
Existential despair in an individual might be mitigated, forgotten or
overcome and in that sense answered. But what is one to say to the
existential philosopher, who reminds us that these may yet be another
set of tools, another set of dances that we keep inventing to be able
to bear the absolute absurdity and meaninglessness of the affair we
call life.Necessary though such tools might be, their very
instrumental nature has always been a great bone of contention.
Notice the analogous debate between religionists one one hand
- who contend that their belief in heaven and hell is truth itself and
the unbelievers who reply that it is actually no such thing but rather
a means to cope with the truth of our terrestrial condition.

Finally to sum up there are a lot of positive adjectives on can use while
describing this book like helpful,inspirational,influential etc. Then there are
another set of adjectives that one can't apply(without reservations at any
rate) -philosophical,detailed, literary. Your appreciation of the book will
depend on what qualities you like in books. If its the former you will really
like this book on the other hand if its the latter you may probably still like
this book but with qualifications.