Company Man

Book Review : Company Man
Author : Joseph Finder
My Rating : 4 out of 5 stars

This was the first book I read by Joseph Finder, who has written many best-sellers. And I was impressed.

The main character - Nick Conover - is CEO of Stratton, a huge manufacturer of office furniture, based in a small town in Michigan. He has recently fired thousands of employees and almost everyone in the town dislikes him. His house keeps getting broken into and he is receiving threats. To add to the stress, he has to raise his 2 kids (a young daughter, and a teenage son) all by himself, as his wife died in a car accident a year ago.

As the story opens, his family dog gets brutally murdered by the intruder, and during the next intrusion, Nick shoots the intruder and kills him. Instead of going to the police about it, he decides to hide it. Much more is written on the inside cover, but I will leave it there. And I would say, forget the inside cover, just read the book.

The books starts out slowly. Finder takes his time developing the characters, creating their lives in your mind. That's the real strength of the book. The interactions feel real. Their world feels real. Finder has done good research into how such a corporation would function on a day to day basis. It reminded me of Arthur Hailey.

Those strengths made me overlook the weaknesses. Our main guy Nick is not all that bright. Wonder how he became a CEO ! It takes him forever to see through the office politics. His judgment is quite poor. Maybe that's author's intention. The mystery itself and its inevitable conclusion is not that hard to guess. Still I found myself getting glued to the last part of the book, reading late into the night to finish it off.

I also have a problem about how long it took Finder to get into the rhythm. It was well past 300 pages when the book became truly gripping for me. Else I would have given this 5 stars.

I am very happy to have read this book and highly recommend it to mystery lovers

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

Juno

Movie Review : Juno

Director : Jason Reitman
Genre : Comedy
Released : December 2007
Starring : Ellen Page, Michael Cera, Jennifer Garner, Jason Bateman, Allison Janney, J.K. Simmons
My Rating : 8 out of 10

For some unknown reasons, I had simply missed out on watching Juno till now. It had all the buzz when Diablo Cody won the Oscar for Best Screenplay and the movie had a few other nominations. But then I just forgot about it. It was a mistake that I recently corrected.

The story opens when Juno (Ellen Page) - a teenager - discovers that she is pregnant. She chooses the route of adoption over abortion. Fortunately, she has supportive parents (Allison Janney, J.K. Simmons) and even finds the perfect couple (Jennifer Garner, Jason Bateman) desperately wanting to adopt her baby. We see these relationships progress till the story ends with the birth of the baby.

The marketing department for the movie has labeled this as a "comedy". I disagree with that label. Not because the movie is not funny. It certainly is. Although it's unlikely to generate any riotous laugh, but it will surely make you chuckle many times. The reason for my disagreement is, the movie is way more than a comedy. In Juno, what is not being said, is equally important.

Juno does have a tough external shell and is constantly bubbling with energy and quirky one-liners. But we also see her sensitive vulnerable side, and we completely understand what's going on in her mind, without she actually telling it all. That's true for all characters, even the ones that have very little screen time. It's amazing how Jason Reitman and Diablo Cody can paint a complete character with so few brushstrokes.

They are helped by superb performances all around. Juno may come across as a typical teenager initially, but Ellen Page shows us that she is also smart and courageous. Forced into adulthood, she is still learning about the world. Part girl, part woman, she is sometimes confused, even as she doesn't really want to admit it. Jennifer Garner is remarkable too. In general the female characters in this movie are stronger and more likable than the male characters.

The movie navigates around every melodramatic pothole but still clearly conveys the feelings. I would like to highlight the scene at the mall when Juno runs into Vanessa. There are surprising dialogues mixed in an emotional scene. That combination of sweet and tangy flavors is sprinkled all over the movie. And I would also urge you to listen to the songs that play in the background. The lyrics are amusingly offbeat, both musically and literally.

It's a short movie but still feels very complete. I highly recommend it.

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

Lexicographically Lowest Possible String

The qualification round for Facebook Hacker Cup happened last weekend. I was initially tricked by one of the problems. I thought I had solved it - but the next day while browsing some blogs about the problems,  my wife discovered a mistake I had made. Fortunately, I had solved the other problem correctly to qualify for the next round.

The problem appears simple enough. You have been given a set of string and you have to find a "lexicographically lowest possible concatenation" of these strings. An example makes it perfectly clear. Assume that the only characters in the strings are lowercase characters from 'a' to 'z'.

If the input is abc xyz pqr . The correct output should be abcpqrxyz .

Of all the possible ways in which you can concatenate the strings, this will be the first one if you arrange them in ascending order. Conceptually, this is equivalent to saying, find all the N! ways in which the strings can be combined, sort them in ascending order and output the first one.

That brute force approach is horribly inefficient. So the quick solution that comes to mind is, just sort all the strings in ascending order, and then iterate over them to concatenate them one after another. That will work with our example. That's what I did. So what's the issue ?

Problem with natural sort and concat 

Consider the following example case where the input is just these 2 strings[xa xab]
Since "xa" < "xab" a simple sort and append method will produce xaxab
This is not correct, as the other possible concatenation is the correct answer.
Because xabxa < xaxab

And that's the problem.

For any 2 strings S1 and S2, S1 < S2 does NOT imply (S1.S2) < (S2.S1).

This happens only if one string is a starting substring of another. There is NO problem with natural sort and concat in following cases.

For [abc pqrabc] the answer is still in natural order = abcpqrabc which is < pqrabcabc
For [abcd abczpqr]  the answer is still in natural order = abcdabczpqr which is < abczpqrabcd

Even when we have a starting substring, the simple natural sort and concat can be correct.

For [xa xaz] answer is still in natural order = xaxaz.

Correct solution

My new solution is still a sort and append. But when the strings are being sorted, simple comparison "if S1 < S2" should not be used. The correct comparison is "if (S1.S2) < (S2.S1)". So the strings should be placed in ascending order using the comparison of their concatenations.

Generally speaking, before concatenating the strings should be ordered
[S0 S1 S2 ... Sn]
such that
for any k, the concatenation (S[k-1].S[k]) < (S[k].S[k-1])

Then the entire concatenation would be lowest.

Informal Proof

That sounds intuitively correct. Still, since I was tricked once, I just want to make sure that this approach is indeed correct.

Let's say while sorting we decide to order the strings as [S1 S2] because (S1.S2) < (S2.S1). Then we check string S3, and since (S2.S3) < (S3.S2) we decide to put it last as [S1 S2 S3]. This will give us S1.S2.S3 as our answer. It's correct based on comparison of [S1 S2] and [S2 S3]. But what about the comparison of [S1 S3] ? How do we know that S3 should not be put ahead of S1 giving us the answer S3.S1.S2 ?

To prove that above ordring is indeed correct, we need to make sure that our comparison is transitively correct.

Prove that, if (S1.S2) < (S2.S1) and (S2.S3) < (S3.S2), then it implies (S1.S2) < (S3.S1)

The only interesting case in our ordered list [S0 S1 S2 ... Sn] is when the natural sorting order is violated for all 3 strings. Any ordering [S1 S2 S3] generated by our algorithm is trivially correct if S1 < S2. There is no point comparing S3 to S1 here. In fact we can simply combine such string pairs into one bigger string, and keep reducing the number of strings till we have a violation of the natural order in at least 3 successive strings.

Consider the natual sorting order [xa xab xabc]. But for us, the correct order is [xabc xab xa]. This is the only interesting case. We want to make sure our derived answer xabcxabxa is really the lowest.

Another example.

Consider the natual sorting order [xa xab xabz]. But for us, the correct order is [xab xabz xa]. This is NOT intersting as the order for first 2 strings [xab xabz] is just natural ordering. We can reduce this to [xabxabz xa] and now our solution is trivially correct.

To repeat, the natural sorting order of [S1 S2] will be violated only if entire S1 is a substring of S2, and (S2.S1) < (S1.S2).

So let's consider the case generally and name the substrings as X, Y and Z.

S1 = Z.Y.X

S2 = Z.Y

S3 = Z

Clearly S3 < S2 < S1 using natural order, but solution using our comparison came out to be in exactly the opposite order as [S1 S2 S3]. Let's prove it correct.

Also our algorithm decided that S2.S3 < S3.S2 - meaning Z.Y.Z < Z.Z.Y Removing identical substring from the beginignof both, gives us Y.Z < Z.Y and this implies Y < Z.

Now S3.S1 will be Z.Z.Y.X and compare this to S1.S2 which is Z.Y.X.Z.Y. Since we know that Z > Y, it follows that Z.Z > Z.Y. Therefore (S3.S1) is indeed > (S1.S2) and hence S3 should not be placed ahead of S1.

Maybe I made it too complicated. But I could not figure out a simpler proof. I can also prove it a bit more formally using induction, but I don't think it's simpler. In any case, the solution is really very simple to implement, and that's what matters !

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

The Alexander Cipher

Book Review : The Alexander Cipher
Author : Will Adams
My Rating : 3 out of 5 stars

I am always on the lookout for books by new authors. When I saw "Alexander Cipher" and read the description, I was very enthusiastic about reading it. Now, having read it, I am not so enthusiastic about recommending it.

The book calls itself thriller, and it's written in the style of a modern page turner. Problem is, there is not enough incentive to keep turning the pages. That's a shame, because there is definitely a lot of potential here. The idea is cool, the author can write a complex plot and develop characters if he chooses to. But by focusing more on the Hollywoodish presentation than substance, the author lets the potential remains just that - a potential. On the plus side, there are no major logical holes - at the end things are nicely tied together.

During a building construction (in Alexandria, Egypt) a necropolis gets discovered which leads to some clues about the real location of the sarcophagus of Alexander the Great. The excavation of this site and ensuing search for the location of Alexander's tomb entangles the lives of all characters in the story. The hero is Daniel Knox, an archeologist who is connected by just one degree of separation to everyone else in the story.

This is a decent idea, sort of Indiana Jones, sort of Da Vinci Code. And there is plenty of running around - in fact way too much running around. That doesn't leave author much scope to do anything else. There is a bit of history lesson, there is some character development (especially the Egyptians) - but there is no puzzle solving as was in Da Vinci Code. And since we are not invested in any of the characters, we really don't feel much for them, let alone root for them. As a result, the countless action scenes do not feel thrilling, as we really don't care about what happens to whom.

I am OK with mindless page turners, but not if they are this long. And this didn't have to be like that. Egypt, Alexander, lost tomb, treasure hunt with clues - this is more than enough ammunition to sprinkle a handful of historical trivia in a gripping thriller. Just stop making your characters run from a place to place every third page, escaping one danger after another and sit down to develop them, throw in some puzzles, blend in some more history, take the reader with you on an intelligent adventure ! Oh well.

I can neither recommend against reading this book, nor for it. Set your expectations right, and you may like it.

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

It's Complicated

Movie Review : It's Complicated
Director : Nancy Meyer
Genre : Comedy
Released : December 2009
Starring : Meryl Streep, Alec Baldwin, Steve Martin
My Rating : 6 out of 10

Nancy Meyer is known for light, comedy movies and "It's Complicated" is no exception. And .... hmmm, let's just say as it is - this is a "Chick Flick" just like her other movies.

But is it good ? The script starts out well, has some really funny moments. After about 3 quarters of it, the script forgets that it started out as a comedy, tries to change its genre to drama and makes "It's too complicated for itself". That's my attempt to make a pun on the name, just in case you missed.

Jane (Meryl Streep) is the owner of a bakery in an up-scale neighborhood. She is a divorcee, with 3 grown-up kids. She accidentally starts an affiar with her ex-husband (Alec Baldwin) who is currently married to a much younger woman. The romantic triangle is completed by Adam (Steve Martin) who is helping Jane build a dream kitchen.

It makes for an interesting and a bit novel set-up for a light-hearted comedy with a clear target audience demography. I have already stated what's problematic with the movie. Still it has numerous strengths to make it worth watching. The main strength, of course, is the perfect cast. Alec Baldwin does a nice job and we know exactly what type of person his character is. Steve Martin, as a bit of surprise, plays a serious, sensitive and reserved person. The center of the movie is naturally the Godess of Acting herself - Merryl Streep.

The movie is less than 2 hours, but could have been even shorter. It is definitely enjoyable. There are more than a few adult only jokes in it, else it could have been OK for kids. In any case, I really doubt if there are any kids (of any age) interested in watching romance between old folks ! Just watch it for Merryl Streep, if for no other reason.

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

The Brass Verdict

Book Review : The Brass Verdict
Author : Michael Connelly
My Rating : 3 out of 5 stars

Michael Connelly has written numerous best selling mystery books - based on 3 main protagonists - the detective Harry Bosch, or the lawyer Mickey Haller or the reporter Jack McEvoy. "The Brass Verdict" is a Mickey Haller (or called the Lincoln Lawyer) book with a guest appearance from other 2 characters as well. That was the main reason for me to try this out as my first Michael Connelly book - 3 in 1 !

A movie producer is arrested and being charged for a double murder of his wife and her lover. The first lawyer hired by the movie producer is also murdered and the case lands on the laps of Micky Haller. As he starts building his defense, naturally he realizes that there is more than meets the eye. Giving any more synopsis, would give out some surprises.

As a mystery, this is quite decent and well-structured. Everything falls neatly in place by the end, nothing seems forced, there are no logical holes and the conclusion is quite satisfying.

What made me give this only 3 stars is they way clues are tied together. In spite of being written as a first person account - we are not given enough insight into the mind of our protagonist. Of course complete insight will mean no surprises, but some of the real investigation is done by Haller's helper and we are never told what he discovered. We just hear the deductions made by Haller. The best mysteries are where the reader has almost the same amount of information as the investigator, but it's presented in such a way that the reader is never sure how to tie it all together - till it's explained by say someone like Hercule Poirot.

Nevertheless, this is a very nice book to read. Connelly excels at building a real multi-dimensional character of Haller - who is far from perfect. He takes his time, so the book may feel slow to some. To me the character development was a big plus point. We are given a nice tour of how the justice system really works, and the subplots are interesting too.

I definitely recommend this book. Personally, for the next book by Connelly, I would read a book from his other series - featuring detective Bosch - than by the same Mickey Haller.

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

Attack of the Frogs !

I have an epidemic of frogs in my backyard. There are harmless to plants, but there are just too many. But I cannot kill them, because they are "aaawwww so cute".  Now they are expanding their territory and climbing over walls and windows !

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

The Big Bank Theory

The only real financial journalist in the country happens to work for the comedy channel ! Why is it only Jon Stewart's responsibility to catch someone lying ? This time it's The Bernanke who is lying about "printing money".

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The Big Bank Theory
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog</a> The Daily Show on Facebook

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

Invention of Lying

Movie Review : The Invention of Lying
Directors: Ricky Gervais, Matthew Robinson
Genre : Comedy
Released : October 2009
Starring : Ricky Gervais, Jenifer Garner, Rob Lowe
My Rating : 6 out of 10

"The Invention Of Lying" is a very rare comedy that can make you ponder as much as it can make you laugh.

They idea is innovative. Imagine a world where no one ever lies - because they simply cannot ! It's not a matter of choice for the people in this alternative universe - they just speak the truth. All the time. Even when it's the harshest thing to say.

Mark (Ricky Gervais) is a loser who works in a movie producing company. We meet him as he is going on a blind date with an attractive woman Anna (Jennifer Garner). First look, and she announces to him that he is not good enough for her. But out of politeness they go to a restaurant where the waiter tells him that she is way out of his league. This is how people talk to each other in the movie. Not in an insulting tone, but politely stating things as they are. It's a simple and cruel world.  And it's hilarious.

Mark discovers by accident that he can lie - and things get very interesting. Instead of using that ability to lie for his own petty benefits, he starts using it to comfort people. What an idea ! Saying things that are not true can help make someone feel better. Note that there is no such words as "lying" or "truth" in their vocabulary. And there is no word for "God" either.

That's where the movie transcends itself from being just a comedy. It's a funny take alright - but the viewer cannot escape the questions that are being posed in an indirect way. The entire notion of Mark's "Man in the sky", relies on just make-believe statements in order to make people feel better.

That's what I mean when I say, the movie forces you to ponder as much as it can make you laugh. Is lying all that bad if it makes you feel better ? Is that the basis of all religions ? If these unverifiable beliefs actually help people live their life, is that a justification enough for spreading them ? Of course, a comedy movie cannot be expected to answer those questions - these debates have been going on ever since humans developed an ability to introspect. I prefer these subtle questions far more than the extravagant philosophical discussions spawned by the "Matrix" trilogy.

This turns out to be a double edged sword. As much as it helps the movie rise to a different level, it also makes it a bit unwieldy. The comedy sputters and the movie gets very unfocused in the end.

Nevertheless, Ricky Gervais and Jennifer Garner, both make it work. Their acting is spot on. I recommend this movie - it's short, funny and thought provoking. It's not for kids.

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

Last Crop Of 2010

Now that the temperature is dropping below freezing, I decided to remove all the tomatoes and jalapenos (and other peppers) from the plants. Made a huge batch of Insane Hot Tomatillo Salsa.

Take this quick quiz. How many tomatoes and peppers are there ? :-)

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

The Tipping Point

Book Review : The Tipping Point
Author : Malcolm Gladwell
My Rating : 3 out of 5

The complete title of the book is "The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference".

When I read "Outliers" by Malcolm Gladwell, I had mixed reactions. I thought the author wrote a very nice to read book but was portraying some great insight which we already know via common sense. Still I was interested in trying his earlier books. After reading "Tipping Point", I hate to say this, but I don't think I will read his other books.

The books have the same format - interesting anecdotes mixed with author's assertions. In "Tipping Point", Gladwell is examining how a certain product suddenly becomes popular, how something becomes a fad - in short how a "meme goes viral".

This is a very interesting investigation. Gladwell classifies the concepts into various labels - Mavens, Connectors, Salesperson, Power of the context, Law of the few, Stickiness factor etc. Gladwell explains his labels well. There are enough interesting people and stories to keep the reader engaged. Gladwell supports his assertions using diverse stories that range from children's shows to religious groups to crime rates in New York.

All this is fine, and the book is easy to read. It did become a big long and repetitive for me by the end. But that could be just me. The real problem is - the whole premise feels unscientific. This is not real new research in any field of study, but it's presented as such. Like "Outliers", Gladwell is just quoting other researchers in this book. He does a good job of connecting their inferences and there is no plagiarism, but there is very little original contribution. And much less in the way of any new insight. Most of it is just common sense deductions arranged in a pseudo-scientific package.

In spite of giving it the 3 star rating, I may be coming off as a bit too harsh and negative. It's not a bad book, it's just that it doesn't deliver what it promises. The superficiality is frustrating. I know that books should be fun read in order to appeal to as much audience as possible, but serious research and original insight can be fun as numerous books have done - like "Freakonomics" or "Guns, Germs and Steel". This book may help you pass an idle evening or have some nice discussions around lunch table. But that's about it. Expect more, and you will be disappointed.

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

They Really Said It ! [9]

Love him, or hate him, you have to hand it to Peter Schiff on how correct he was and how well he handled all the slander and ridicule he received.

This is a compilation from 2006-2007. Some choicest statement from Peter Schiff's opponent Art Laffer
- US Economy has never been in better shape
- The monetary policy is "spectacular"

The next one have an "expert" proclaiming a return to "only" 10% annual appreciation as that's how the "normal" market works ! Another one shouts "what artificial lending standards you are talking about" and starts laughing at Peter Schiff.

Then we have the famous Ben Stein claiming that the "credit crunch is way overblown" and "subprime problem is a TINY problem". He further advises us as "buying opportunity of the lifetime" when Dow was over 13K. It dropped nearly 50% from there and even today is 15% below his lifetime buying opportunity. Peter Schiff retorts - "The party is over for US". Then everybody proclaims, "Worst is over" and only Pter Schiff says, "the worst is yet to come". Oh, and it gets even hilarious - everyone loves financial stocks - and only Peter Schiff says, "they are toxic".



The following video is just too brutally hilarious. What else can you expect when a Realtor goes against Peter Schiff ?

Click here for previous installment in this chain.

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

THE Simplest Recipe for Artisan Bread

Who doesn't like eating fresh, hot from oven bread ? But most people find the entire process of baking bread very intimidating. First you have to use the right ingredients, get the proportions just exact, then knead the dough to a perfect consistency, let it rise and proof for just the right duration and then bake it at exactly for so long at an exact temperature. The amount of parameters that you have to think about make buying a digital camera seem like a child's play.

What's so special about this recipe ?

I have a very simple recipe, based on ideas from a few books and it will give you a very good artisan bread. It won't win you any prizes in bread baking competitions, but what makes it great is

1. It's very forgiving, you don't need to be super-perfect in order to get it right.
2. It uses the minimum possible ingredients, and can be very healthy if you use 100% whole wheat flour.
3. It provides ample scope for your creativity to do variations on the same theme to get very different breads. More on that later.
4. It's very flexible and can be adjusted to meet your schedule. I will cover that later, for now, let's keep things simple.
5. And it's tested. I have used it many times. I have told others about it and they have had great success with it.

The ingredients :

Generally, bread recipes call for 3 cups of flour. For the first time, use the following measures, and if you want a 3 cup bread, just double everything.

- 1 1/2 (One and one half) cup of flour. You can use bread flour, all purpose flour or 100% whole wheat flour. Whole wheat bread will be denser and heavier, as is to be expected.
- 2/3 cup water - but if you are using 100% whole wheat flour you will need 3/4 cups of water. Don't worry about the temperature of the water, just use regular water.
- 3/4 tsp table salt
- 3/4 tsp yeast (active dry or instant yeast)

Nothing else, this is as pure as bread can be (except of course breads using starters that catch air-borne yeast). Neither sugar nor fat of any kind is needed.

The first thing to note here is, the amount of water is way higher than recipes that require kneading. That's right, there is no kneading in this recipe, in fact so much water makes kneading impossible. We are relying on higher hydration to do the work for us. Apart from eliminating the kneading, high level of hydration will also give us soft, open crumb with big holes - typical of what is often called as an "artisan" bread.

In a large glass bowl (don't use plastic/metal) stir together flour, salt and yeast.

 Add all the water to it.

Using a big spoon, keep stirring the dough for a couple of minutes. You won't be able to do that with your hands. The dough will be very sticky. As you begin, it may feel too wet or too dry, but don't worry. Just work the sides of the bowl to keep the dough in one lump. All you are trying to do is to eliminate any dry spots. It won't take more than 2-3 minutes. That's it. The dough will look like a very sticky lump.

Cover it, and keep it away from sunlight for about 4 hours. Don't worry about the exact duration. The rising won't be done in less than 3 hours, and won't need more than 5 hours. Use the following photos as a guide to decide when it's time to bake.

Halfway during the rising, it will look something like this.

 

When the dough starts looking bubbly like this, it's ready for baking. By this time, the dough would have tripled in size, if not more.

Liberally sprinkle a cookie sheet with flour. You can use a foil to line the sheet, I prefer parchment paper.

Now, very gently pour the dough - which will look like a thick batter - on to the sheet. Just remember to not force the dough, or you will punch it down. We want to protect the air bubbles as much as possible. Tilt the bowl, and let gravity do the work for you. If you have to, just nudge it around edges. But do NOT scoop it out. Do NOT press it. Sprinkle it with flour.

Once it's on the sheet, let it be. Don't try to shape it. Our bread is very similar to ciabatta - which literally means "carpet slipper" in Italian. The only drawback of higher levels of hydration is difficulty in shaping. I would recommend that you don't try to shape it at all. Don't even score it. If you are trying out for the first time, you will almost surely punch it down while doing so. Just keep it simple, avoid the work and as a bonus, you will get a nice bread !

This may look flat - but trust me, you will get a nice oven spring once the dough is in the oven. For first few minutes, the warmth of oven and high water content will send the yeast into a frenzy and before it gives up it's life as the temperature of dough goes over 200, it would have secured you a very airy crumb.

Pre-heat the oven at 425 F. Ovens are different. But you cannot bake it below 400 and anything over 450 is too high. If you have to adjust later based on the result, be within that range.

Put the sheet in oven and bake for about 22 minutes. Again, it won't be done in 20 minutes, and over 25 minutes, it will be almost over baked. Whole wheat may take 25 minutes, but not more.

During baking, the bread will rise and spread. It won't be a super-tall loaf. It needs room to increase its size sideways, so don't bake it like a cake in a pan to give it shape - this needs to be a free standing loaf.

Once it's baked, remove it from oven and let it cool on a rack for at least 20 minutes. It's tempting to just cut it and eat it, but you have to let the steam, that's trapped inside, complete its job.

Use a sharp serrated knife and try not to squeeze the bread while cutting. Best time to cut is when you are ready to eat. This bread will stay for a couple of days, but it will start to dry out once cut - remember there is no oil to keep it soft.

This bread is perfect with an Italian menu and for many Indian dishes like "Paav-bhaji" and "Usal Paav" etc. It will be fresh, homemade, without any chemicals/preservatives and healthy. And very simple to prepare.

If you have any questions or need to make some changes or need variations, let me know.

UPDATE : See the troubleshooting guide for more help if you need any.

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

Changeling

Movie Review : Changeling

Released : 2008
Director : Clint Eastwood
Genre : Drama
Starring : Angelina Jolie, John Malkovich
My Rating : 8 out of 10

Clint Eastwood has established himself as a foremost contemporary director with a distinctive style. With well developed characters, a strong focus on the story and a very deliberate pace, his movies capture our attention and never let it go. Even when the movie is over. "Changeling" is no exception.

The movie is based on a true story. In late 1920s, a single mother (played by Angelina Jolie) is living with her only son, about 10 years old. One day, her son goes missing. Most likely kidnapped. The police claim to have found him. But when the boy is returned to the mother, she claims it's not her son. Why do the police pressure her to accept the boy as her son ? That's not hard to figure out, as the movie shows how corrupt the cops were. But what happened to her real son ? And will the police accept their mistake and find the real son before it's too late ?

That's the real focus of the movie, and hence I won't divulge any further. The movie takes its time in developing the story. But remember, true stories do not have neat fiction like endings. So more than the ending, how the movie reaches there is important. The story progresses on at least 2 lines. The struggle against the corrupt police system, and the real investigation that becomes more and more disturbing as it progresses.

These 2 lines eventually merge together. Neither one is pleasant. Eastwood doesn't take any easy routes and no parent can remain unmoved by what gets discovered in the investigation. This movie is not for the faint of the heart.

Everything about this movie is top class. Great direction, great script and superb editing. John Malkovich does a perfect job in the role of a pastor supporting Angelina Jolie's fight. All other actors perform admirably, especially the alleged kidnapper (played by Jason Butler Harner) is evil personified.

Angelina Jolie received an Oscar nomination for this role, and I happen to disagree with it. She did a good enough job, but I wasn't wowed by it. A role like this offers a lot of scope to the actor to be great. Her acting was very good, but should have been great. That and the length of the movie, stops me from giving it a full 10.

This is correctly rated as R, and kids should be kept away from this movie. For serious movie buffs, this is highly recommended.

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

My tomato is bigger than yours

Had a nice crop of tomatoes this year. Some of them were quite big. The following is a tomato, NOT a pumpkin - it's bigger than a red delicious apple. Wish they had a tomato competition like they have for pumpkins. Maybe I should carve a tomato for this year's Halloween !

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

Your next crisis

This century has began with a series of crisis on the economic front. From the dot com bust to the housing bubble to financial crisis and to sovereign defaults.  I think the US Govt debt - as bad as it is now - is dwarfed by the political and economic crisis that will be brought upon us by the financial disaster waiting to happen at state levels.

This is NOT something that will happen in distant future. It's going to happen soon. See this story on Bloomberg ...(emphasis mine)

California, which has the largest U.S. public-pension fund, faces liabilities that may exceed its annual state-tax revenue fivefold within two years unless lawmakers rein in benefits, according to a study.

To keep their promises to retirees, the California Public Employees Retirement System, the biggest plan, the California State Teachers Retirement System, the second-largest, and the University of California Retirement System may have combined liabilities of more than 5.5 times the state’s annual tax revenue by fiscal 2012, according to the study released today by the Milken Institute. Levies are forecast to reach about $89 billion in the year that began July 1. 

... 

This will not be just a financial problem for the pension funds. This will be an economic issue due to tax implications and a polarizing political issue with potential social unrest. Why ? Because every California resident - is either paying for these pensions or receiving these pensions. A neutral stance is unlikely to be available :-(

California is not the only state in this situation. And this hasn't even started catching the attention of the masses. I have no idea how this is going to play out, but I suspect, it won't be pretty.

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

The "Lara Lappa" girl

This song was played often on TV when I was growing up in India. It's from the comedy movie "Ek Thi Ladki" (released in 1949), but who really was that girl ? The tune is catchy, Lata's voice is very sweet, the lyrics are funny and the actress is cute enough to make you ignore the outdated and forced acting style. But what happened to that beautiful face ? I could never gather much information about the actress herself.

Till man invented internet, of course. I found all the information I was looking for, at UpperStall.

From being the heart throb of India (being known as the 'Lara Lappa girl' at her peak) to begging at a film function in the 1980s in Pakistan for money to marry off her sister's daughters, Meena Shorey's is the classic riches-to-rags story one often finds in the filmline, the world over.

...

Much more information at the link. Looks like a nice site.

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

Quants

Book Review : The Quants
Author : Scott Patterson
Released : Feb, 2010
My Rating : 3 out of 5 stars

The complete title of the book is "The Quants: How a New Breed of Math Whizzes Conquered Wall Street and Nearly Destroyed It".

The financial collapse of 2008, has generated a lot of information on many facets of Wall Street via books, news articles and TV documentaries.  This book focuses on the secretive world of "Quants", or hedge funds primarily using quantitative analysis as their investment strategy.

The people who run these funds are not in the tradition of Warren Buffet, rather they are Math wizards. They depend on their statistical analysis skills and a deep understanding of probability theory to manage huge sums of money. Their models are built on massive number crunching, rather than fundamental economic analysis.

How different it is than traditional investing philosophy ? How did these funds come to manage such huge sums of money ? Who are these people ? How did they do it ?

The book tells us, that it all started with Ed Thorpe. He literally wrote the book on winning in blackjack, "Beat the dealer". He then extended those ideas about using probability, computer modeling and statistical analysis to beat the stock market - the grandest of all casinos.

Calling Wall Street a casino, is not just a cliché. Many of these quants are very good poker players. Peter Muller has won many poker tournaments. They are obsessed with gaining a complete control over risk, not in just managing it. Understanding probabilities and positioning for various outcomes is what they excel at. In that sense, there is a lot of common mathematical ground on which strategies for both poker and trading can be built on.

This is a fascinating story to say the least. Part history, part rough biographies, and part commentary - the book presents a lot of information in a very reader-friendly style. In spite of the heavy sounding title, this book makes for a very light entertaining read - the target audience is general public like you and me.

The author, Scott Patterson is a journalist, and that style is obvious. Very readable, but often time feels very superficial. There is a lot of research done on the historical aspects, no doubt, and it's very informative. On the other hand if you are interested in finance/investing, you will most likely not encounter anything new on that aspect. I also found the order of presentation a bit distracting. It's almost chronological, but shifts back and forth between different people and the transitions are not smooth.

I can definitely recommend this book to everyone. But it left me wanting for more, and only half satisfied. Is the author blaming the quants for the financial collapse ? Of course they played a part in it and the over-reliance on models is one of the main culprits. But how much blame goes to quants ? What about the over leverage in the entire system ? And outright fraud at all levels starting from borrowers to mortgage originators and to all the steps in securitization. Not to mention the bad regulation (repeal of Glass-Steagall) and failure of Federal Reserve. This context is not mentioned at all.

If you keep that in mind, I think you would enjoy the book.

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

Jon Stewart Goes Nuclear On Fox News

They are either Evil or Stupid !
And the conclusion is : If you do not want your money to be used for terrorism, stop watching Fox News !!

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The Parent Company Trap
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

Movie Review : The Trigger Effect

Movie Review : The Trigger Effect
Released : 1996
Director: David Koepp
Genre : Thriller
Cast: Kyle MacLachlan, Elisabeth Shue
My Rating : 6 out of 10

While browsing the TV Guide, I came across this movie - it had an interesting enough synopsis, that perked my curiosity enough to record it on the DVR and watch it later.

Which movie would you prefer to watch about some Aliens attacking planet earth ? Is it "Independence Day" or "Signs" ? (Maybe for you the answer is "neither", but that's beside the point !) Do you prefer loud action ? Or do you prefer to see how ordinary people would react to extra-ordinary circumstances ? That answer should decide if you want to try "The Trigger Effect" or avoid it.

The situation in this movie is not post-apocalyptic, but has certain resemblance to it. Here a mysterious power outage throws a family's life in disarray. The movie does not explain why exactly the outage happened, and that's fine by me. What it tries to do is to show how common people would try to cope up with complete lack of electricity, no telephone, no radio/TV, no communication of any sort. This is 180 degrees opposite of "Mad Max 2". People in this movie are close to a breaking point and there are indications that if power is not restored, there will be anarchy. But everyone's trying his or her best to hang in there.

This is the kind of treatment I like. And if the movie is willing to go off a beaten path, I am more than willing to take a tolerant view of it. So while such a movie may seem boring to some, I am drawn to any such attempt of "new treatment". In spite of such biases, the movie was not entirely satisfying to me.

Generally this happens because of a hasty, contrived ending. The problem here is quite opposite. The latter half of the movie is quite tense and well crafted. The issue I have is with the setup. It takes forever for director David Koepp to establish the characters and their relationship. And even then, we don't really learn much about them. So chances are many viewers would start yawning and switch off before the 1st quarter of the movie is over.

Fortunately, there is no preaching about how over-dependence on the technology is bad. The movie is far away from being a Sci-Fi. I think the movie is incorrectly labeled as a "thriller", and "drama" would be a better genre for it.

I have very mixed feeling about recommending this movie. It's rated 'R' and is not for kids. It's definitely not a waste of time, but I don't see any compelling reason to go out and rent it either.

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest