Skip to main content

Someone to Guide You: For Better or For Worse?

We were trying this out on an Arduino, but we found its computational capacity less, so we switched to an ARM, said a friend of mine who is studying in BITS Goa. In our college, only the most daring would use an ARM. The ones who do are accused of overkill. Most people use AVR, and would not look beyond AVR. What could be the reason?

I believe that a major reason is that we have seniors who have used AVR. Because they knew AVR, they held coding sessions for AVR, which is why we have not bothered to look beyond AVR. Now, this is not so much of an issue as when there is a shortage of AVRs, as there is now. When an AtMega8 costs Rs. 300, i.e. $6 in the retail market, then we have an issue. Not only that, but we also have to be content with the lesser capabilities of the AVR.

This is just to illustrate an important point: is it better or worse to have someone to guide you?

I guess that the example that I stated just goes to show that it really isn't all that good to have someone to guide you. But then, what about the guides who help you academically and with your research projects?

I am ambivalent on having a guide. As long as I do not blindly follow the guide, I am sure to be safe. If I rely too much on my guide, then I am in trouble. I guess that this is very important in research institutes. The goal should be to approach the guide as less as possible.

Is this the reason for the poor research in India? That most students through laziness or sycophancy rely too much on their guides? I think that it may be a major factor if the guide does not evolve as fast as technology does.

Colleges aside, there is an example of where blind faith in a guide can have the most devastating consequences. I am referring to my country's economic policy before 1991. Since independence, my country has largely been ruled by just one party. Nehru was schooled in Fabian socialism. He believed in a socialist state, and heavily regulated industry to keep it under government control. As a result, the industry was crippled. However, even when it was clear that socialism was not the way forward, the party in power, their eyes on the guiding light of socialism could not see the abyss that the light was leading them into. They responded with all the wrong measures like a 100% tax and a monopolies restriction act that killed all incentive to expand.

Of course the mistake was corrected by the same party when they were in power in 1991. But I am surprised that they quickly withdrew from their agenda when the crisis seemed under control. I am indeed shocked that with such a huge trump up their sleeve, there is hardly a mention of development or the change that should be the key point on the manifesto of any government hopeful. People like change for the better, they like development. While banning computers may seem a good election point, people will resent it when computers disappear, not only from office desks, but also from our cars, trains, elevators, phones, airplanes and our lives.

When I first thought of this post, I wanted to name it Are we allergic to change? But then I thought that we really are not allergic to change. We do see that people want to better their lives and betterment is change. We are not really allergic to change. However, there is a small myopic group within us that resents change, and looks at short time gain. But if the recent election results are any indicator, I hope that people will eventually vote the myopics out of power and instead vote for those with key development agendas in their manifestos.

India has greatly missed out on the industrial revolution. Let us not miss the information revolution. Let us grow with the right attitude.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

On Harry Potter and why I dislike the series

There could not be a better time for this post. There could not have been a worse time for this post. Now that the penultimate movie of the series is out, and my facebook wall filled with people who loved the movie. But this is something I really wanted to say, and I shall say it anyway. Harry Potter is pathetic literature. Now, you must be wondering why I say that. There are many reasons. Firstly, the storyline itself is flawed. When a writer sits down to write anything, he/she must set up some essential rules about what is happening. These rules must remain constant irrespective of how many times he/she changes his/her mind. This is so that the readers are allowed to have some sensibility in what they are reading. In the fourth book, Rowling goes ahead and kills Cedric. Then, at the end of the book, the horseless carriages are there again. Nothing special. We all knew that they are horseless. But then comes the fifth book, and BAM, the horses are actually winged beasts that only thos...
18 comments
Read more

On the Dvorak Simplified Keyboard

This is a post that I have been meaning to write from quite some time. Long hours spent typing code on my computer left my hands fatigued, and left me with a lot of pain in my wrists and fingers. That is when I decided to use the Dvorak. But I have got the same bad habit as Dr. Watson, to tell a story backwards. Of course, you must be wondering what the Dvorak is. The story of keyboards starts with the invention of the typewriter. Christopher Sholes, the inventor of the typewriter, tried with a two row piano style keyboard. But then, he got into many difficulties with the design. Then he finally settled for a four row design. This was similar to the QWERTY layout that most computers and typewriters today possess. The engineers at Remington, to whom Sholes had presented his design modified the layout a little further, and then the QWERTY was born. As typewriters became popular, people got used to the layout, and started practising touch typing, i.e. typing without looking at the keys...
Post a Comment
Read more

The paradox of government

I'm fascinated by the concept of government, and the paradoxes it presents. On one hand, governments grant us a certain set of rights or liberties. On the other hand, they work to strip us of the very liberties they promise. Now, I don't mean that all governments strip people of liberties, but there are liberal regimes, and there are sufficiently restrictive and dictatorial ones. Both models may have results to show, it does not mean that people in a restrictive regime are unhappy (refer to Dan Dennett's TED talk , where he states that ideas or memes can be dangerous when taken from one part of the world, where they are widespread, and, using the virus analogy, where people are immune to the memes; to a part of the world where they are foreign, where people may not be immune to the memes and where people may get infected). History has shown that people were sufficiently satisfied with autocratic governments with a benevolent dictator, and that people in other parts of the ...
Post a Comment
Read more