Discourse on SaaS

I take this opportunity to explain a model that has clearly begun to revolutionize the world we live in.

SaaS stands for Spouse as a Service (not to be confused with Sex as a Service).


What is SaaS?

When a spouse (and all the benefits which come with the spouse):

1. are always available in the desired ways and means
2. come with no up-front costs, i.e., you only get to pay for what you use
3. provide you with the ability to easily ramp-up and ramp-down the amount of services that you can receive at any specified time (based on your moods and temperamental levels)

then the spouse is said to be offered as a service.


Why SaaS?

The disadvantages of an on-premise spouse, as offered by conventional matrimony, include:

High CapEx -- CapEx or Capital Expenditure (net expenditure necessary up-front in order to begin enjoying the services of the spouse, e.g., restaurant bills during initial dates, wedding expenses) is high.

High OpEx -- OpEx or Operational Expenditure (recurring costs necessary to maintain the spouse within your premise, e.g., clothes and jewellery) is staggering.

Vendor lock-in -- Owing to [1] you have complete ownership of the spouse (and all the flaws that come with it) and [2] you have already invested considerable time, money and effort in getting used to the spouse, a lock-in is created, removing all possibilities of you trying out another spouse.

Lack of scalability -- You may NOT need all of the services offered by your spouse (and) at all times.

Untapped SMB market --  Most SMBs or Small to Medium-waged Bachelors can never afford to acquire and maintain a full-blown on-premise spouse.

SaaS addresses and eliminates all of the above disadvantages of an on-premise spouse.


Features of interest to a consumer of SaaS

Security -- All of your confidential data (such as bank balances, investments, property) shall be kept secure and highly confidential.

Enhancement -- If you are dissatisfied with a particular service offered by your spouse, this model offers a convenient way of tending to them (faults or change-requests).

Customization -- You would have the ability to customize / tailor your spouse to fit your needs.

Availability -- Your spouse shall now be always available -- especially in those times of hightened emotional / physical need.

Termination -- If you are completely unhappy with the spouse, you have the liberty to terminate the services and find a more fitting spouse.

Integration -- It will now be possible to seamlessly integrate your spouse with your internal systems, such as family and friends.

(Note: All the above come with strict SLAs or Service Level Agreements)

SaaS-y isn't it?!?

CHALLENGE 17:45

I remember watching The Flintstones when I was a kid. I remember how Fred always gets thrilled and cries, “IT'S QUITTIN' TIME!!!!” as he hears the honk signalling the end of the day's work in the quary he works in – how he'd delightfully board his car (with his tongue out), speeds home, parks his car in his garage with a crash, bursts open front the front door of his house, yelling, 'WILMA, I'M HOME!!!”

Sadly, (atleast for me) things have changed much since the stone-ages. . .

What do I do when it's my “quittin' time” at 17:45? Well, I gear up for the several hours' work ahead of me. I'm not alone – almost my entire team continues to remain at their desk heedless of the time. And, lately, staying back till the wee hours of the night does not arouse a “Jee... why do you stay up so late?!?” or a “That must suck!!!” from our friends and family anymore.

I remember a colleague once requesting leave for a Sunday (!). And when her boss asked why she wanted  leave (!!!), she'd plainly replied, “Sir, I really need to wash my clothes – I've none left in my wardrobe!”

...and another colleague who realized that all his undergarments have been soaking in soap for over a week and he had none to wear the following day (He couldn't bring himself to tell me since when he's been wearing the same underwear)!

...and my married team-mates say that whey they eventually return to their dens, they are always welcomed by their beloved wives giving them (just) the finger!

...and the gentleman who announces over the P.A.S., “The 5:45 pm buses and cabs will leave shortly. Thank you!” little knows that he's been cursed more times than an average human being is cursed in a lifetime!

If you can't find a way back to the stone age, here's my set of tips to anyone who wishes to quit office at their regular office quitting time.

Be a sinner - Your superiors would have (almost) convinced you that it's a sin to quit leave office at regular quitting time at 17:45, and you'd even await the jaws of doom for doing so.

Be a slow-worker – The faster you work, the greater the amount of work pushed into your gutts.

Be uninitiated – Your additional hours of work have a direct and almost mathematical correlation to the amount of additional initiatives you make in your project / work.

Be non-communicative – The more you converse and build relationships with your superiors, the more they'd feel entitled to ask you to work for extra-hours (without paying a pittance more, of course).

Be non-courteous – Don't greet your colleagues. Better still, ignore their greetings too!

Keep your health spoiled at all times – Superiors these days demand 'tangible' reasons to “go early” or “take leave”.

Lose your mobile phone – that's when you really want to be uninterrupted from work calls when you're watching that long promised movie with your spouse and kids on a weekend.

Decline on-site work offers – Insomniacs may ignore this point.

If you're a guy, undergo a sex-change operation – “Company policy” has it that female employees are not allowed to stay back late in the office. (Of course there are other benefits!)

Become a manager – Bear the grunt until you become a 'superior'. Leave office before way your sub-ordinates. Give them your mobile number and tell them you're more available than one can ever be.

(and finally...)

Aim for mediocre grades – If you don't and are reaching for those top-grades, close the browser and get back to work!

I welcome further suggestions from my dear readers...

THE'I'SM

    Recently, I was asked by my good friend, Viji, if I believe in God.

    ...
    ...

    Albert Einstein was once asked the same question. And here was his reply:

    “I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a [personal] God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.”

    Courtesy: SJG Archives

    ...
    ...

    My reply was way too snappy! But first,

A Primer on God-belief:

    Atheists disbelieve in the existence of God.
       
    Deists believe that God is the architect of the universe. And like all [human] architects, God only built the         universe and does not control its inhabitants.

    Theists on the other hand believe in a Personal God - He who watches over everything and He who has         complete control over every happening in this world. A theist may be:

    Monotheistic - believing there is and worshipping only one God (and hence one deity).
    Polytheistic - believing there are and worshipping many Gods (and hence many deities).
    Henotheistic - believing there is one God but worshipping many deities.
    Monoaltristic - believing there are many Gods but worshipping only one deity
    Pantheistic - believing that God is the whole [universe]
    Panetheistic - believing that the whole [universe] is in God.

    Fedeists believe that [religious] faiths are independent of reason.

    Agnostics believe that the truth about the existence of God is unknown or unknowable. An agnostic may be:

   
    Strongly Agnostic - "I can't know if God exists or otherwise... So can't you... Ever!"
    Weakly Agnostic - "I don't know whether God exists or not... But one day [in the future] we will find evidence!"
    Agnostically Atheistic - "I don't claim the existence of God... And [hence] I certainly don't believe in any!"
    Agnostically Theistic - "I don't claim the existence of God... Still, I certainly believe God exists!"
    Apothetically Agnostic - "Only you and I are arguing about God... But God doesn't seem to be concerned about     the fate of the humans! If He really cares, why isn't He proving His existence [to us]?"

    And finally, Apatheists aren't interested in claiming or denying the existence of God.

    (Clearly, Einstein was more of an agnostic deist.)



Look ma! I've a theory too:

    [After my first introspection about God in all my life,] I see the the word 'God' as the letter 'i' used in algebra which denotes the square root of -1. Just like the Italian mathematician Gerolamo Cardano, while trying his hands on solving cubic equations, had helped in the conception of the idea of complex numbers, I believe that the ancient philosophers, while trying to answer fundamental questions like "How life and the worlds originated?", had helped in the conception of the idea of 'God'. Just like the idea of 'i' solved many polynomial equations which were never before 'solvable', the idea of 'God' had helped answer many a question which could never be 'answerable'.

    I also believe that it is very likely that humans may lack the intellectual capability to see / understand the answers which explains their very existence. Just like, say, a canine when crossing the road shall be unable to answer questions like "Why are there alternating white lines in the middle of the road?", "What are these beings [on wheels] moving at insane speeds and where are they heading to?" let alone - "By what degree is a V-twin engine more efficient than a V-3 engine?"

    Although these road-crossing-canines, [possibly] have theories of their own as to what cars and buses are (or even have no theories at all), they don't argue with fellow canines to press their theory - don't form herds based on their theories - don't  indulge in"dog-fights" with other herds having different theories - don't kill each other for the sake of their own theories.

...
...

    "For God's sake Viji, I give a damn about God!" I snapped.

    (Non-empathetic apatheism maybe?)