The Limericker

Did you read the latest issue of the Yash Raj Journal?

2010-07-01T21:25:00.000+05:30

Initially posted on facebook, and then a friend wanted me to post it here too... :)

JYRF 37 (420)

A New Young Radical Model of the Meet-Cute Paradigm

Uday Chopra, Aditya Chopra, Yash Chopra

Abstract

The dynamics of the meet-cute paradigm have been explored a lot since early days of film. We construct a new, hip and fresh model of the paradigm which is gauranteed to work with the Youngistan of today. We demonstrate an effective implementation of the Item Number, Family Conflict (both inter- and intra- aspects) and Melodramatic Happy Ending within the new framework, gauranteeing that viewers are fooled into giving us their hard-earned millions of Rupees.

I. Introduction

The properties of the Meet-Cute paradigm within the Dramatic Love Story have recieved enormous attention since the 1970's in Bollywood [1], and even before within the Silent Comedy during the 1920's [2]. It was widely believed till the 1990's that no new grounds could be broken within this paradigm, and most work in the 90's concentrated on either the HLDoV (Hero Loves Daughter of Villian) model [3], either using the Action or the Melodrama mechanism, or the FHTL (First Hate Then Love) model (also known as the DDLJ model for obvious reasons) [4], work on which continues today. However, these efforts have started to turn stale, and a fresh look at the Meet-Cute paradigm is now warranted, especially within the framework of the Love Story. Previous efforts to appeal to the youth have gone in vain, and we develop a radical new model using the same old cliches, which we hope will find favour among the demographic that calls itself Youngistan[5].

II Methods and Realisation

Since our methods are to use the known principles and apparatus of the Meet-Cute paradigm to appeal to Youngistan, we use the following two packages prominently: Rocking Actingless New Bold Istylish Rishi (RANBIR)[6] and Divine Ethereal aEsthetic Plastic Indian Kingfisher Artform (DEEPIKA)[7]. They are not the most flexible packages, lacking several Emotive features [6,7], but we use them since they are among the most popular packages in use in the Meet-Cute community [8].

We first develop a tradition meet-cute situation on a train, using the Opposites Attract method, with DEEPIKA on the 'talkative, bubbly, borderline irritating' setting, and RANBIR on the 'contemplative, suave' setting (we tried other settings, but these seemed to work best with the given packages, which totally failed with other settings). We use some modules from the package Cultural Stereotypes[9] in this section, and end with a song (executed by Pritam Chakraborty[10], details forthcoming in Journal of Stolen Songs), with an out-of-place homage to the 70's work in this area being the inelastic collision of two flowers.

After the train section, we use the PF (Punjabi Family) model (since it is in favour currently, and lots of work is being done in the area [11, 12]) to raise a little dramatic tension and comical mishappenings (the PF being especially suited to this purpose) and interject a Bhangra Item number (this is completely original work, we could not find any references to a Bhangra Item number in the literature). The sequence ends with RANBIR and DEEPIKA being separated from each other, and starting to fall in love.

In the third act, we use the AF (Angry Father) [13] and IF (Idiot Fiance) [14] models to provide a bit of sympathy for our Hero (who our eyes too was getting a little annoying and a bit of a downer, and could only look good opposite the IF). The Hero then avoids the ES (Elope Scenario, looked upon as immoral by the readers of this Journal) and undertakes a Perilious Journey to be with the Heroine, and wins her back in the end (we extensively use the Melodramatic Finale approach here, as outlined in [15], and the results are outlined in the following section).

III Results

Our lead actor and actress, not to mention most of our crew, shed tears when they read the proposal for the present work [16] for the first time. The test audiences watching our trials were also immensely moved, although we cannot discount the biases caused by our paying them huge amounts of money to sit through the whole viewing.

We have been satisfied with the quality of work that RANBIR and DEEPIKA have put through, and the rest of the crew have also been satisfactory, but are not important enough to name here, except Pritam, whose very nice songs will be published in a forthcoming paper [17].

IV Conclusions

In summary, we have described above a new young model for the Meet-Cute paradigm. We used the most popular packages to give the model a fresh new feel. The fact that they are deeply in love after meeting for only a short while, the effective use of the PF paradigm, and the Bhangra Item number, will hopefully cause enthusiasm in the readers of this Journal. We hope to earn millions, especially since it is entirely made up of a mash-up of previous work on the subject, and designed to appeal to "Youngistan" [18].

The Authors would like to acklowedge the YRF Grant No. 128563 for this project.

V References

[1] Om Shanti Om, and references therein.
[2] Charlie Chaplin Collection (it's not expensive), Yash Raj Distributors.
[3] Sunil Shetty (then it was spelled this way) Movies Collection
[4] Dilwale Dulhaniya Le Jayenge, of course
[5] Pepsi Public Relations guys, private communication
[6] Saawariya, also known as Blue Film (and sorry, I tried to come up with a less lame fullform for Ranbir, but couldn't)
[7] [1]
[8] Star Gold Sabsey Favourite Kaun, although we didn't really want to raise it's citation count
[9] Bombay To Goa
[10] Dhoom, and we didn't check anything else
[11] That Akshay Kumar punjabi movie we didn't watch
[12] Jab We Met, which is suspiciously similar to the present work, but we won't file a lawsuit
[13] Mohabbatein
[14] Lots of movies, but we can't recollect a single one right now, because they're all forgettable. But they idea surely can't be our own
[15] Karan Johar Movies Collection, buy it, buy it!
[16] Jo Dil Se Door Hain Woh Jaan Se Door Nahin, Yash Raj Productions internal draft
[17] Pritam Chakraborty, Journal of Stolen Songs, forthcoming. Was rejected by the Journal of Inspired Songs
[18] Pepsi, product placement again

Love, Sex aur Dhokha - a review, and some movies-related musings

2010-04-01T01:28:00.002+05:30

This will be a weird review - mostly because I just saw the movie, and thoughts are just forming in my head about it. It is a brilliant movie, and I am hoping that writing about it will help me flesh out my opinions - and also start fruitful discussions, if I'm lucky.

So here goes: LSD consists of three stories. The first one, and to my mind the best, is the love story between a budding director at a film school and the actress in his diploma film. This diploma film itself borders on lameness, because it seems like regurgitated Yash Chopra stuff (and it is meant to be). Which presents a striking contrast with the real love story unfolding between the two protagonists in our movie. Those diploma film scenes are not a homage - rather, they're there to make a point, which is that the love story of our protagonists, unlike normal bollywood stuff, is shown in stark realism, which means things might not always happen as you expect.

The second story, also a pretty interesting one, although it gets bogged down in one or two unnecessary diversions at times (who's 'the committee'?), succeeds because it, too, is a pretty realistic tale of love. A store manager owes money to this 'committee', and the way to earn it is to make a 'scandal' video clip by recording his seduction of one of his employees. Of course, along the way, he falls in love with her, and he decides not to do it. The ending is pretty solid here too, although the first part had a truly brilliant one. The 'love story' is the sort of story we all know, like the first one. It's strength is in the realism. We know these characters, we've met them, they've fallen in love and behaved in this exact way. Which is why the film moves us - aside from the nice use of security cameras, not as a gimmick (digicams do feel out of place in certain sequences in the movie, but give the director a break, people. It's pretty hard to keep up the pretense that what we're watching for two hours is filmed on digicams without the characters bringing the cameras into sequences where they don't fit. The second story works somehow weirdly naturally in this respect - only four fixed-location cameras, and that storytelling. Brilliant.)

The third story is the weakest - it's the sort of story we ourselves might have thought of and executed - a typical sting-operations story. You don't want to know the details, you can fill them in. Although entertaining, it's been done before, and it's pretty hard (for me atleast) to identify with the characters when they are a sting operations journalist and a struggling model who does the field work for him. As I said before, LSD might have cliched stories but it wins because of it's stark realism - which doesn't work in the third part because I, atleast, haven't met such people. The third part is fun - but it lacks the ability to strike a chord with you like the first two did. It's sad when a movie ends with a whimper.

One more complaint I have about part three is that it has no real connection with the first two - it does kind of help set in motion the events that lead to the second part's goings-on, but not essentially. The first part, for example, crucially influences part two. It is a missed opportunity, in a way, because the second part also provides the emotional outlet for what the first's ending wreaked on us. The third one could've done the same for the second, but it doesn't. The ending of the second is a little unfulfilling - a contrast between what happened to the guy and the girl, and that's all. What about justice?

There I go. Asking for justice in a movie while lauding it's connection to reality, where of course there is no justice. But I don't mean the poetic sort of justice. I mean an emotional outlet, a catharsis, to our frustration, sadness and vibration of the heartstrings after they're pulled at and let go of - come on, don't leave them vibrating there. The second part lacks such an outlet, which doesn't do the brutally brilliant story at its centre - forgive me - justice.

It is an important film. It is well-written, well-executed and put together (for the most part, anyway), and, how can I forget, well-cast and well-acted. I really mean it with the last two. Our protagonists don't look like they're 30 and desperately trying to botox their way into the twenties - real youngters have these mannerisms and an awareness about them that older people don't. Heck, real people have little quirks and a naturalness that stars don't. See the movie to believe it. Watch the actors closely - haven't you seen others, in real life, in similar situations, behaving as nervously, or tenderly, or cruelly?

So it is an important film. I, in my naivette, continue to hope that mainstream bollywood starts casting such actors who look like people I know, and writes stories whose little nitty-gritties I have myself seen in real life. Maybe this film will encourage the mainstream to be more observant and less off-the-fucking-mark than they usually are in their potrayal of (cringe) 'Youngistan'. Or even Oldistan. Middle-aged-istan.

But really, I can imagine some production executive somewhere in a some skyscraper pooh-poohing my Statement Of Hopes and saying, but where is the market, buddy? See out normal bollywood movies, are they not entertaining? Are you not entertained? Are you not entertained?

If only it was the job of movies to simply entertain us. Just to make us forget out shitty lives as we lose ourselves in the richness on-screen. Such contentless entertainment has a minor flaw, though, because when I step out of the theater, I am back again in the real world. It's exactly the satisfaction jerking off gives you - at the end of it, the painful realisation that, well, Alyssa Milano resides somewhere in hollywood, dude. The rich mahals and beautiful babes I see in the movies also reside out-of-reach in Juhu or whats-the-name Hill too, and what we get weekly in theaters are products of their self-indulgent masturbation.

"But why would I go to a movie," you'll say, "where at the end of two hours I feel more uncertain about my future, sadder, less encouraged, than before? You might be a masochist, but I am not." Well, I'm no sadist though. I wouldn't recommend Antichrist or Funny Games to you, because they might scar you for life (especially the former). My point is, two-hour brainless entertainment, while okay on the satisfaction scale, is a complete and utter waste of time. Why just be entertained by fake emotions and buildings, when you can be moved, shocked, and that long-latent underused creative-appreciation side of your brain might flicker a few times too? Why settle for entertainment when you can have... an experience? (Heh. That sounded positively PR.)

But seriously. Bad things happen in this world. They always will. I know you don't need to be reminded of them while going on with your own stressful lives. Why would you pay for being reminded of them? But picture this: you go in, you identify with the characters, you loathe them, want to befriend them, get involved, get scared, get nervous, be happy, be sad, think wistful thoughts, fall in love with a character, wish only that life were not so meaningless as such injustice might happen to such a nice person, be reminded the real world isn't like that, but you see his near and dear do mourn him, or soothe him, help him, and think nostalgically of your own family and friends, and vow to be a better person from them on because being thought of so well is what life is all about isn't it? You might introspect, or extrospect, look at some person you know in a different way, or understand other people better, or maybe not. You might see the situation as it really is, it sucks doesn't it, but the way out is this way, maybe things will be better, why get stuck in this rut? Or heck, you might disagree, that movie was so bad, while your friends like it, and you will learn more about life from the discussions that follow.

I don't know. Maybe you'll just go a screening of an Akshay Kumar comedy, and come out exactly the same person, only a couple hundred bucks poorer. Right. Just a couple hundred. Those popkorn and icecream rates are a bitch.

I love to write my poetry

2010-03-24T01:36:00.001+05:30

Well, here comes, from the creative drylands of my brain, not so much a parody as an extension of I love to do my homework. I have tried to preserve the style of the poem, and I hope you feel it's written by an eight-year old. The moral/effect of the original I've tried to keep, but mind you this is a slightly different poem. Tell me what you think.

I love to do my homework (extended)

I love to get up early
And dress neatly for school
I love to carry books and books
And my sweater of wool

I love to wear my clothes
I wear them crisp and clean
I love the bullies dropping sauce
Those guys are just so mean

I love to do my homework
It makes me feel so good
I love to do exactly
As my teacher says I should.

I love to answer questions
As soon as teachers ask
I love to raise my hand up high,
Perform each science task

I love to top the math tests
I do it all the time
I also love my history books
And poetry and rhyme

I love to come back early
Or even come back late
I love my mom and dad so much
But they seem so afraid

I love to do my house chores
And read the books I've got
I love my mom who told me
To let the TV rot

I love to do my homework
I do it spick and span
I love to do exactly
As my mother says I can

I loved my mom and dad a lot
I killed them yesterday
I even love the men in white
Who're taking me away

An improved 'rock, paper, scissors, lizard, spock'

2009-12-31T13:39:00.004+05:30

(Update: I don't know whether to scream at this in happiness or disgust.)

The purpose of introducing two more (or in one mind-numbing case, 22 more!) elements into "Rock, paper, scissors" is to reduce the probability of two people having a tie. (Or you could eliminate chance entirely by turning it into a strategy game!) But what if three people play RPS? If there isn't a tie, there is certainly a loop.

In the 5-element version, excluding ties (which you really can't do anything about other than memorise what 25 things do to one another), there is a 60% probability that a rock, paper, scissors, lizard, spock game will have a 'loop', in which no one emerges as a winner. Now, there's a simple way to prevent loops from occuring at all, without a) breaking the structure, and b) destroying the symmetry.

Now, the standard RPSLS game looks like thus: (image credit: Wikipedia)

Every element has two arrows going away from it, and two arrows coming into it. Just make one each pair of arrows 'weak' and the other 'strong'. So there is one weak subduction and one strong, and one weak submission and one strong. But which ones to pick? Simple: The five arrows on the outside of the figure (you can see them going clockwise) are "weak", say, and the five arrows inside (which go anti-clockwise) are "strong". (Or the other way round: doesn't matter.)

How does this stop loops from occuring?

Firstly, what is a loop? It is two arrows in the same direction and one in the opposite, which brings us back to the element that we started with. But two anticlockwise arrows actually need a third anticlockwise one to close the loop, which isn't available! This is because the anti-clockwise ones "jump" over one element, and after two "jumps", you come back to the one you started with only with a third non-jumping arrow in the same direction. Namely, anti-clockwise. Which doesn't exist, because a non-jumping arrow is an outer arrow, which is always clockwise. So there are no loops with two anticlockwise arrows. (eg. Rock --> Scissors --> Lizard isn't a loop.)

Loops do exist with two clockwise and one anticlockwise arrow (eg. Spock --> Scissors --> Paper--> Spock). These loops have two "weak" arrows and one "strong". So there is an element which is weakly subdued but strongly subdues. And that is the winner in that loop.

The symmetry is not destroyed because every element is a part of three loops, and in one it is subdued strongly, and one it is subdued strongly. (The anti-clockwise arrows heading towards and away from it respectively). So it is the strongest loser in one, strongest winner in one, and the weak loser in one. This applies to every element, so excluding ties, we are always guaranteed a winner!

"Duur" (Strings) parody

2009-12-10T18:38:00.001+05:30

It's not perfect, but I hope I've done a decent enough job.

(Original is here)

duuudh duuuuuuuuuudh
duudh koi pilaye
kaheen chupke se woh subeh aa jaye
duudhwalaaa...
duuudh duuuuuuuuuudh

Raaton mein ek glass peeke
main so jaaoon
Aur sapno mein raste
pe duudh ki nadiyaan bahaaoon
Tair bhi na paon usme main doob bhi na jaoon
Jaise koi peeta ho chai
waise use main pee jaaoon
duuudh duuuuuuuuuudh

Suraj ke kirno se jaaga hain
duudh ka deewaana
Par yehi deewaana
hain duudh se thoda naaraz-ha
Aakhein meri laal aur ab toh
duudh hain na pyaara
Lakhon litre hain jisne peeya
ab maange thoda bournvita
duuudh duuuuuuuuuudh

duuudh duuuuuuuuuudh (many many times)
duudh koi pilaye
kaheen chupke se woh subeh aa jaye
duudhwalaaa...
duuudh duuuuuuuuuudh (ditto)

Some comeback limericks

2009-07-01T22:14:00.002+05:30

Anne sent me a limerick a long time back:

There was once a time when books slowly dwindled,
Bibliophiles everywhere felt nothing but swindled,
They wanted their books,
By hook or my crook,
But alas, in the end, all of them Kindled!

Which did inspire me to a reply...

The creation of Kindle is but another sign,
That everything else being idiotic, asinine,
Writing shall live on,
Or keep being reborn,
As epaper, Gutenberg, or blogs on-line!

And here are two about computer addiction:

I open my laptop and start wondering what
I should now type in the address bar slot,
Waste my time, and uncycle,
Or old limericks recycle?
But I just stare and the screen and do naught.

For now, I say, I shall stay with just chatting,
Maybe later I shall play online, combating,
And as I ignore my study,
And (the rare) offline buddy,
In the next exam, I will end up splatting!

Depressing, eh? True. But today I've got variety for you. :D (And that rhymed!)

There was once an exam in College Streets,
Everyone copied, and handed in the sheets,

When the teacher spotted it,

He promptly went into a fit,

"If you copy, do copy not John Doe, but Keats!"

Now, A limerick-poem:

Attack of the Troll

A simple forum disrupted, treated with scorn,

On youtube whether it's movie, song or porn,

Or an odd post on your blog,

Suddenly invaded by a hog

Welcome the troll, who's blowing his/her horn!

Whatever you wrote, was it well founded/checked?

Why did, if so, your world-lines intersect?

They'll stumble onto any small

Mistake on your Webwall,

And chastise you for being too politically correct!

What will you do now to gain a little traction?

And save all your posts, or the remaining fraction,

Just click the brain's 'ignore' switch,

Or maybe ban that revolting snitch,

Or just fart in the what-not's general direction!

Do comment. :)

The Physics of MRI

2009-06-24T17:08:00.000+05:30

I had a discussion with Saskia a looong time back about MRI, and I learnt a little about how MRI machines work, in the process. Anne encouraged me to blog on this new-found knowledge, and after a LOT of procrastination, I've finally managed it. Hope you like it: it's layman level, and not too badly written (I hope).

Here it is: The Physics of MRI

If you find any faults, or find some section unclear, or have any critcisms at all (even positive ones ;-) ), do comment.

Death Knocks Thrice

2009-06-13T00:07:00.000+05:30

Inspired by Woody Allen's excellent Death Knocks.

Death Knocks Thrice

By Anonick.

Science Journalism

2009-06-03T15:03:00.000+05:30

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/men_shealth/5426895/Men-live-longer-if-they-marry-a-younger-woman.html

I wonder how many journalists bunked the class when they were taught "correlation != causation".

The Dot Song

2009-04-26T16:42:00.006+05:30

The Idea originated when Anne put Paul Klee's quote as her status message, and I came up with my line. Then I thought, why not start a meme and ask everyone to contribute the same kind of line. We got a lot of enthusiasm going for the thing, and the lines are brilliant. :)

So, here it is:

The Dot Song

A line is a dot that went for a walk.

- Paul Klee (contributed by Bimal Bharath)

A curve is a dot that flew like a hawk.

- Rahul "Anonick" Dandekar

An icosahedron is a dot that didn't know where to stop.

- Madhura Rane

A scribble is a dot not knowing what it sought.

- Anisha "Anne" Zaveri

A circle is a dot that just goes round and round,

A coil is a dot that keeps getting wound.

-Adi Sengupta

An exclamation is a dot with an erection.

-Bimal Bharath

An asterisk is a dot with hair.

-Srikanth Viswanathan

A Buckyball is a dot that was out there to shop.

-Shatabdi "Express" Chowdhury

A doodle is a dot that dances a lot.

-Rahul "Anonick" Dandekar

A colon is a dot who found true love.

-Siddharth "Sid" Joshi

A knot is a dot that lost it's path.

(disclaimer: in a closed space)

-Ravitej U.

A star is a dot that's really really hot.

-Adi Sengupta

A tittle is a dot.

-Anandi Rajan

Z is a dot after too many drinks.

-Shivam Gupta

A bot is a dot, out of silicon wrought.

-Preyas P.

A semicolon is a dot taking a dump.

-Ranaji Deb

A division sign is a dot looking at the mirror in vain,

A curl is a dot that had too much champagne.

-Anisha "Anne" Zaveri

A comet is a dot with a wild streak.

-Nikita Mehra

A shooting star is a dot that can't be caught.

-Shatabdi "Express" Chowdhury

A squiggle is a dot that lost the plot

-Nikita Mehra

An O is a dot yawning.

-Bimal Bharath

A bulls eye is dot that is tough to spot.

-Preyas P.

A fuzzball is a dot with goosebumps.

-Rajani Rajan

A double helix is a dot that is entangled and can't get out.

-Anandi Rajan

A dot is not what you and I thought.

-Achal Agarwal

A dot is a dot is a dot.

-Nikhil Karthik (A Gertrude Stein reference)

(Period)

An ODE to Radioactivity

2009-04-23T16:30:00.005+05:30

One fine day, the century before last,
Henry, a Becquerel, found himself aghast.
The photofilm that he hath so carefully shielded,
To some mysterious radiation had somehow yielded!

But he could protect it, he found, with some layers of lead,
The scientist began to think himself not too right in the head.
The clue lay in an adjoining drawer, a salt of the rare uranium,
Bequerel, satisfied to the core, thanked profusely his cranium.

Scientists soon pounced on the element, and happily played,
It emitted three rays, it seemed, and the emission decayed.
The three types were then baptised, alpha-beta-gamma.
Alpha was the heavyweight, but gamma did the harm-a.
(The radiation, though exciting, was indeed damaging,
Not all the researchers met their deaths by aging.)

The part of radioactivity that's most weighty
Is that you can write a very simple O D E
Although you have to reason a little bit
About the atoms per unit time go oblit.

It's random, jumbled, funbled, culled,
Poisson being the god of that world.
But watch! If there be more atoms,
More must undergo the swat-ems.
If there're fewer for the guillotine
Fewer than previous 'll be keen.

We lay down a new Law this day,
A law that decaying atoms obey.
The number that goes kaboom,
Every fleeting second of doom,
Is proportional to it's brethen,
The number that sec breathin.

And thus, more to see them,
Means more to disappear,
And The Law so ordained,
Is an exponential - swear.

And thus, the atoms die,
One after another, sigh,
Often the offsprings,
Atoms so produced
Decay themselves,
A Little bemused.

But in the end,
Every single
One mingles
With dust.

Or Strong

Ol' Lead.

The end

result.

A first try @ Posterous

2009-03-16T13:46:00.001+05:30

Posterous is a great site for posting anything to your blog via email... try it out! Videos, mp3s, whatnot, are hosted at posterous, for free! So, here I go, with one of my favourite (marathi) songs, and one of my own stories. Hopefully this'll work! :)

Download now or preview on posterous

Reject_s_Club.pdf (49 KB)

Download now or listen on posterous

shukra.mp3 (6267 KB)

Posted via email from anonick's posterous

Science, God and Hinduism

2009-03-07T19:29:00.004+05:30

Note: Long Post. When I say long, I mean long. But sadly, there is no getting around the necessity of a long post on such a deep subject. You deserve an apology.

Sigh, I know what you're thinking. But given my inclination towards philosophy, atheism and, well, science obviously, this one was in the coming for years, at least. So, why now? Well, this post on Anne's blog, and the ensuing discussion below it.

Well, me being an atheist, you know what viewpoint to expect. I just want to be clear that I don't mean to insult anyone. If I do, I'm sorry. (Yeah, I'm writing this before writing the post. It, ehm, might get rough.) If I commit ad hominem or create men out of strings straw, do point it out though.

Enter, stage West

I have read, and debated, a lot about the concept of God in Western civilisation. It all comes down to one thing: The concept of God is what you should take on faith. It is your personal choice. A lot of people might agree with you, but that does not make it less personal, or truer. The email that inspired Anne's post comes from this worldview, but counters by saying that if God is to be taken on faith, so is Science. (Sorry, if I capitalise God but not Science, all my physics Physics books will spring to life and kill me.)

Anne and I begged to differ, of course. The scientific method is a tested and sensible way to develop models of the world. Models which "work", and by work I mean, they are predictive and have be tested in experiments which are repeatable. More can be found at Anne's post, but I wanted to repeat this because we'll need it below. Of course, there are subtleties, and loads of them, in Philosophy of Science. But, in the final analysis, it makes sense, is self-consistent, and works. By works, I mean, you can apply it to the real world. Here I'm quietly assuming a realist philosophy, but please, lets stay with that.

The concept of God (still in the west here) does not predict any observable phenomenon which does not have a valid scientific explanation. God does not lead to many testable, repeatable predictions, of course. (But see prayer.) Besides, the concept of a real true existent God (still in the West here) conflicts with what is the current state of knowledge in Cosmology.

Stage Centre: Science

How do I view Scientific knowledge as a whole? I think all Science has are models, but they lead to testable predictions which have been tested, and although issues like theory-ladenness, underdetermination, the demarcation problem, etc crop up, I think the fact that my hard drive is currently using GMR, and that our satellites have to apply GR corrections, leads me to be pretty confident that even some the most esoteric of today's theories, which have been built on a foundation of older ones, have a direct connection to reality. We may hypothesise about infinite "fields" in four dimensions, but face it, we can accurately predict cross-sections that we actually observe in our backyard accelerators. Science is not just self-consistent, it's held to reality at many, many points by strong connecting wires. You just cannot argue that I take Electric Fields on faith, because every testable prediction made by Maxwell's equations has been borne out.

See, there are theories, and there are the predictions the theories make. You are free to argue with me that Electric and Magnetic fields do not exist, but if you say that an electron placed in a cyclotron will not behave exactly the way my theory of "electromagnetic fields" says it will, I will punch you in the face. I have never observed a magnetic field, and I know I cannot. But if I assume that there exists a "electromagnetic field" which obeys certain "equations" I hypothesise, maybe out of thin air, and if I indicate every point my theory connects to experiment, and if every experiment has agreed with me, you just cannot say I'm taking my theory on faith. Please.

Eastward Drift

And it is here that we enter the Eastern religions. Specifically, those of India. Now I confess at the beginning that I do not know much about Indian religious philosophy. So there are probably many objections you can raise. I will skirt around the actual topics that I know nothing about, and hopefully some of the commenters might illuminate them.

I want to be very clear about my points at the start. A human being cannot live without food. People cannot defy the laws of gravity by pure thought. And finally, today's science is not rediscovering what Indian mystics had discovered thousands of years ago.

[Of course, when I say "Indian religion", I actually mean "Ancient Indian Philosophy". Thanks to Wanderer's comment on Anne's blog, I googled for ancient Indian views on Physics, and I have taken the help of three such links to write the following: One, Two and Three. Actually, just the first two. The third one is laughably silly.]

About not being able to live without food: sadly, the myriad such cases in India are very poorly documented, and the bastardised version of such "practices" in the west is very silly indeed. I cannot give any criticism to this except vouching for common sense. Same for levitation, which I guess is held indoors in secret clubs throughout the subcontinent, because I haven't seen anyone not claiming to be a magician do it yet, and neither has anyone I know. And here I vouch for more than just common sense: I vouch for Schwarzschild, the graviton, and the derivative of the Einstein-Hilbert action with respect to the metric.

A little note about the "Law of Karma": I cannot find a lucid enough explanation of it. Will someone in the comments please enlighten me?

And now for what people claim the ancients knew of Physics. Firstly, let us define two things: Knowledge, and Philosophy. (As I said earlier, I'll be a realist throughout the post.) I'll define Knowledge to be a human conceptual model which accurately represents the "real" world. (I knew philosophers will sneer as that statement and use it for coffee table jokes. For them, I'll define knowledge as the set of all Justified True Beliefs. I'm not a philosopher, mind you, so please refrain from insults and enlighten me in the comments.) Now, let us define Philosophy. It is the set of all human conceptual models. Knowledge is then a subset of Philosophy.

I ask the question: Are the Physics ideas in Ancient Indian texts knowledge or philosophy? Hmm... how we can test if something is knowledge?

One way would be to compare it to existing scientific ideas: here many of statements of Hindu philosophy seem to make sense. But I claim it's all a matter of interpretation. Let's see:

(From link one)
Other universes/wormholes. I saw within [the] rock [at the edge of the universe] the creation, sustenance and the dissolution of the universe... I saw innumerable creations in the very many rocks that I found on the hill. In some of these creation was just beginning, others were populated by humans, still others were far ahead in the passage of their times. [6.2.86]

It's easy to interpret this as the idea of a multiverse (I don't know where he got the wormhole from). But this isn't exactly scientific fact: Physicists are still debating how useful and observable the idea of a multiverse can be, and even though the idea of wormholes connecting different universes might explain some stuff, but no wormholes have yet been observed. Indeed, to travel between universes is almost impossible for human beings. You can object that we haven't yet attained the knowledge that the ancients had, but then I say, they should've given the recipe for inter-universe or wormhole travel too, if they actually knew it (a la Contact).

You can also object that this may just be ancient science fiction. But I object. The presence of science is required for science fiction. I'll come back to this below in the "third way".

A second way to test if something is knowledge is to look for how people arrived at it. The ancients arrived at their philosophy through pure thought, it is claimed (by Raj). Now, although it might be claimed that I'm adopting a modern western viewpoint which is unfit here, I think that knowledge can only be ascertained through experiment. Even the General Theory of Relativity was philosophy until Eddington's legendary experiment in 1919. (Not totally, though. See below.) I find no evidence that the ancients tested, or could test, their "preliminary ideas of gravity" or even those of wormholes.

Besides, there is no evidence that they actually had mathematical equations to accompany their concepts. In the absence of such equations, concepts cannot graduate to knowledge, simply because they have no predictive power. In the spirit of thinking big, Indians came up with their grand conceptions, but they were not based upon reality neither were they tested to see if they agreed with it. They were concepts, pure and simple. They may have been accurate, and I do not claim that there aren't passages where the conceptions sound disturbingly modern, and I do not claim that this isn't a matter of chance. What I claim is, without mathematics and without experimentation, these concepts are philosophical constructs. Philosophy too aims for knowledge. It results in the birth of science. Indian Philosophy is deep and beautiful. But there was no effort made for it to be "true", in our modern scientific sense.

The third way is to analyse a philosophical system and look for where the concepts behind the statements. In Indian Philosophy, we do not find any reference to basic Quantum Mechanical ideas, or to the constancy of the speed of light, or to the spacetime ideas of general relativity. We do not find any reference to knowledge of the nucleus which corresponds to modern ideas; we find references to "worlds within the atoms". In the light of this, I claim, that we should classify the references to "A single projectile charged with all the power in the Universe", or to the multiverse ideas mentioned earlier, as philosophical fantasy, not science fiction. One cannot get to the concept of wormholes without having basic notions of GR. One cannot have nuclear weapons without knowing about the nucleus and its constituents.

I said earlier that I might be accused of taking a Western view when analysing Eastern philosophy, which I did. But common sense tells us that knowledge has to be compared with experience. It has to work. Almost by definition, it has to "be" out there. Science is a very complex process. Theories are built on top of each other. One cannot get to the peak without climbing the mountain, or without your ancestors having formed theories of aerodynamics which allowed you to built flying machines which operated on those experimentally verified principles, and allowed you to get to the peak. Einstein's GR was an accepted theory in the scientific world even before 1919 because it was a generalisation of the experimentally verified SR, and it reduced accurately to Newton in the sensible limit.

Exit: stage East

In conclusion, even if the Ancients had aquired their knowledge differently than experiment, the lack of mathematical expression for it, and the impossibility of putting the cart before the horse in science leads me to be a little skeptical when anyone classifies their philosophy are knowledge.

What about the Idea of God, which we began with? Disregarding the actual prevalent theological ideas in Ancient India (God, Demons, Heaven, Hell and Earth), even if we think of the Sages as thinking God was one with the universe, of him being above, beyond and in time and space, one can only speak of the God as a philosophical construct. Thus, even God in Hindu philosophy is subjective. (That said, not all philosophical constructs are subjective. But there is much more scope for differing concepts in Philosophy then in Science.)

By the way, if you came so far (without scrolling down quickly too much), you deserve a thanks.

Stuck in a shell

2009-02-18T14:02:00.002+05:30

Physicsy poem... It mostly requires just a basic knowledge of atoms. I wrote it when I was bored in class. :)

Here it is...

Stuck in a shell

2n^2 - 1 electrons enjoying universality,
Were looking for a partner to complete orbitality,
They'd soon done a hole-in-one
A spin-down guy with mass 511
But they did not foresee reversal of parity!

"Oh crap," said one, "now our beloved shell,
Once bosonic, is under Fermi's spell.
To get back the fun,
One must transition,
But who it must be, how can we tell?"

"Life in a complete shell is anyway dull,
One of our number will thus, surely, cull."
And there was a bump,
As one tried to jump,
From this to the n+1 orbital.

But he came back, not losing any Joules,
And cried, "All of us, are silly fools!"
We are stuck with this n,
For if we jump, then,
We'll violate nature's selection rules!"

And they had learned to live with fight and bout,
When a photon came leapin' and knocked one out.

- Anonick

N.B.: "Selection rules" are rules which forbid transitions between certain levels in atoms.

Limericks, again!

2009-02-13T19:08:00.002+05:30

After a break of... I have stopped keeping count :( ... here are some lims I made up with Charmaine in a conversation a few days ago.

This needs context: Charmaine's status message was "speak only if you can entertain"... and limericks are the only way in which I can, really ;) ... so, here are the limericks that passed to and fro in the conversation:

there was a girl who, tongue-in-cheek
whenever bored, would entertainment seek
she told her friends
do make amends
and only if you can entertain, speak!

(some conversation)

Me again (a quartet):

and now that you have, she spake
do keep me entertained, for heaven's sake
or stop wasting my precious time
and go away, offline, invisible, you slime!

Charmaine:

it's good i don't have to explain
you're only here to entartain
you're wasting my time
when you don't rhyme
and even then half the time you're so lame!

Me:

and now that I have to keep this up
I have to keep making up, making up
and the road I choose
to avoid the noose
is to use my cup to fill up my cup!

(ie, writing about writing to entertain, sigh, metaphor)

(conversation, and then bye-byes...)

Tell me you liked them! :)

A Birthday Cake

2009-01-04T10:32:00.000+05:30

Head over to Amar's to see the cake I cut at midnight on my birthday! It was a very special birthday, this (and not least because of the Einstein! :D ) .

'On Dentists': A Tribute to Jerome

2008-12-17T09:30:00.000+05:30

Note: This essay is my tribute to the style and humour of Jerome K. Jerome, who is my favourite humourist. :) Do comment.

On Dentists

A lot is thought of dentists, mainly because they let you do nothing else while you are sitting on their couch and they are running a carpenter's workshop in your mouth. Sadly, not all that is thought is fit to be presented on paper, but I gather that dentists save the skin of our teeth, we ought to give them credit for atleast a few escapades we've all had in our young days.

I myself dislike dentists, but that's mainly because I don't take care of my teeth too much, and everyone hates an admonition. But I can't bear a toothache, and I have to run to one (a dentist, not a toothache) every time it starts paining so awfully.

“Oh, Mr. __, you see, you have two bad molars there.”

“Oh, is it?”

“Yes, and the plaque has gotten to your nerves there.”

“It sure has, Doc.”

“No, I mean... I mean, there are only two things you can do. You can have those teeth removed, or you can do a root canal operation on them.”

“What's a root canal?” The word is rather pornographic.

“It's a rather complicated procedure wherein we remove the nerves in your teeth, and...”

“Remove the nerves. Good riddance. I say, remove all of them in any teeth I have!”

I don't get the point of nerves in teeth, I don't. Why should a rock have nerves? Besides, all those little nerve-endings feel and pain and heat and cold. I don't know what the creator was thinking when he ordained that all teeth, tiny or big, molar or incisor, canine or human, should have those nerves in them. The only purpose they serve is letting us know when our tooth is in the final throes of it's existence.

And boy! Do they let us know? They could be subtle (the nerves, not the teeth), and maybe silently whisper in our ears to give tooth number this-and-this a decent burial. But no, they have to scream it in our head. You know how hard it is to concentrate when a beeper is going off? I once walked into a building where such a beeper was proclaiming the existence of what claimed to be a serious fire raging through the top floor and about to destroy the whole structure.

I knew of these things, and ignored the warning. But the guard who I walked up to was quite nervous and looked concerned, and there was pandemonium all round him.

“Is it a new alarm?” I asked him.

“Yes, sir, installed just four days prior.” He said beaming, while another gaurd tried to run behind him and got caught in his own legs.”

“Why is it wailing, the poor soul?” (The gaurd, not the alarm.)

“Oh, he joined just yesterday. He's not quite used to these things.” He answered as the guard got up and tried to jump over his head (Not his own head, you see, but that of the man I was talking to.)

“So, this isn't serious?” I screamed as I put the earplugs I gave in my ears.

“Oh, no Sir. If it were, this building would have burnt to the ground a thousand times over in the last four days.”

They are a real serious problem, these alarms. Our nerves could, if they wished, periodically sound an alarm to the brain, asking to to notice untoward behavious amongst the teeth. But to scream like that and try to put our brains on 24-hour tooth decay alerts. Gosh, those misbehaving nerves. I myself would be pleased with a set of plastic teeth any day instead of these bone-and-enamel ones we have gotten, if it weren't for the unfortunate fact that pulling a teeth our gives you the experience of what a concentration camp would be like.

It's quite painful, that moment where your teeth get pulled out. Or so I hear, because whenever my dentist presents the two options to me, I always go for the lesser evil of root canal. Put I hear that the lack of grace with which a dentist pulls out his teeth would make a carpenter shudder. They're regular carpenters, these dentists. I have been convinced that there is a carpentry class in every dentist colleges, with their miniature drills and little screws.

I was once on the dentist's couch while another patient was being treated by his assistant on another couch. My guy was pretty busy making holes in my teeth (which, by the by, he promised he would fill later), while all of a sudden, I heard a crash followed by a loud cry followed by the name of the lord uttered in vain enough times to make a pious man's heart explode. My guy ran to the other couch, and I heard bits of the conversation, the only printable one of them being: “Atleast now you know you don't need root canal, Mr. __ .” Then my dentist came back to me and told me that his assistant had slipped while drilling into a molar of Mr. __, and the drill was of no use anymore, it now having a tooth attached to it. I feel sorry for him, but Mr. __ finally calmed down and took the tooth home as a sovenier. My dentist afterwards assured me that accidents happen only rarely in dentist's clinics, and I believe it.

That is because dentists, I daresay, are also artists. The minute you open your mouth these skilled sculptors start looking for imperfections, blemishes, and proportions, and would love you to come again some other time and let them turn your 32-set into a marvel that would challenge the 32-piece chess sets of ancient Chinese emperors. The minute they begin drilling, you know that they are only trying to correct, modify and put away all the accumulated sins of your teeth, and give them a fine shape as they were they day they were born.

But they love to see a perfect model like any painter does. Hence, dear reader, let us brush and floss and mouthwash and brush once more, so that the next time you see your dentist, you'll not be the only one showing all your teeth.

Iambic Limericks

2008-12-08T19:37:00.003+05:30

I basically wrote these to practice the iambic pentameter (my regular readers will know that I don't know any metre... but I'm learning, learning, from Stephen's Fry witty and awesome "The Ode Less Travelled".)

(The middle two lines will, of course, be iambic trimeter.)

(And, I know normal limericks don't use iambs.These are just for practice. :) )

There was a clever girl from Kentucky
But ending with line two is not lucky
I write three more of them
Her name begins with M
I never knew more, she was too plucky!

My love, like light, but slow, descends on me
But I, nerdy, start feeling too physicsy
It does not slow, the light
Has constant time for flight
Be one too drunk, frenzied, despo or sexy!

I knew a potter living in a street
He'd make his pots with newly washen feet
But soon numerous fans
Discovered that ol' Hans
Often made them, employing both the hands!

The third one uses a phyrric substitution, and has an aabbb scheme... I know! ;)

Tell me if you like them! I'm writing lims after a loooong time! :D

The Largest, but not the Greatest

2008-12-05T23:32:00.002+05:30

Before we elect our parliament, we don't know who will be the Prime Minister.

Who is this Ashok Chavan, and who knew him day before yesterday? How many people voted for him so that he would become CM?

All I want is transparency. High Command, fuck you.

It Could Happen to You (A new Story)

2008-12-04T22:14:00.002+05:30

I personally think I'm getting better at this humourous-story business. But I'd like your feedback. Do comment. :)

http://anonicker.googlepages.com/itcouldhappentoyou

Happy birthday poem, a new one

2008-12-02T23:44:00.001+05:30

Lol, actually a completely different poem. But, here you go... written by me, drawn by Charmaine. Her drawings are, as always, supercute :D (especially the marriage slide), and sometimes undeservedly sarcastic of my poetry ;). But she draws really well, don't you agree? Do comment!

To Laugh or to Cry

2008-12-01T12:35:00.008+05:30

Politicians unite for launch of RGV film

01 December, 2008

Top party rubber of the "ruling" "party" the Congress, the BJP and of numerous other wannabe parties united today for the launch of Ram Gopal Varma's forthcoming film on the 26/11 terrorist strikes in Mumbai, simply titled "27/11". On the podium together were seen former(?) Maharashtra CM Vilasrao Deshmukh (VD), The Honourable Prime Minister Manmohan Singh (MMS), A faceless lady in a black saree (SG, also known as High Command), wannabe PM L. K. Advani (LKA) and of course, Ram Gopal Varma (RGV, what else?), producer, director, and writer of the as-yet unwritten movie.

After breaking of a coconut model of the Taj Hotel, the "leaders" fielded questions from the reporters.

"Why did the former Dy. CM R. R. Patil not come to the ceremony?"
VD: "He did not want to come to such an insignificant event. Bade bade industries mein chhoti chhoti filmein banti rehti hain."

"Why did you think of making this film?"
RGV: "26/11 is a socially important issue, the public needs to know about what went on in the minds of the terrorists. It is an issue that needs to be handled sensitively you see, and that is why, as soon as I heard the news, I went to the CM's office and requested a tour of the Taj immediately. I hoped to get there before all the dead bodies were cleared."

"Why the name 27/11?"
RGV: "The numerologists we consulted said that 26/11 was too inauspicious a title. You see, 2+6+11 = 19, while this is the 21st century, and since voodoo and wind chimes are incompatible, hence 27/11 is a better date. Anyway, the encounter was going on for 3 days, so even 28 would've worked. In fact, when I called the CM, seeing how important my movie was, he asked if 1/12 was a more auspicious date, and that he could prolong the encounter till then if it was."

"Why did you choose to support this movie, Mr. CM?"
RGV: "As RGV said, it is an important movie. Has any other government ever supported a movie on terrorists? You should be thankful to us. We'll provide RGV with all the necessary videos, you see."

"Mr. Prime Minister, is all this shuffling in the cabinet because of a new sense of accountability in the government?"
MMS: "Yes, yes. Everyone is accountable in this government." (SG is seen pulling MMS to a side, and whispering something in his ear.) "Oh, I'm sorry, not everyone is accountable, but most people are, yes. Besides, RGV wants to use actual leaders in his movie, and you have to admit Chidu looks much more suave than Shiv."

"Mr. Advani, what did you think of RGV's movie?"
LKA: "Well, of course it is an important project. Also, RGV said he was not making any movie on Malegaon which would distract him from this movie, and he won me over instantly."

"Would you mind a little gossip, RGV, about the conclusion of your movie?"
RGV: "Heh, I never mind a little gossip. The conclusion will be a little twisted, different from the real events. After the commandos kill the terrorists, they will also kill all the reporters who made their job so dangerous in the first place."

"Mr. Advani, if we get back to reality for a little bit..."
LKA, MMS and RGV: "But only for a little bit..."
"Yes, yes. Who do you think is responsible for these attacks?"
LKA: "Of course this government is. They go easy on Muslims, they make up stuff like 'Hindu terrorists', and..."
MMS: "Excuse me. Remember the Parliament attacks?"
LKA: "That was a Congress-Muslim conspiracy!"

"Excuse me, gentlemen. But what is to be done about the security situation now?"
MMS: "Oh, a committee has been set up. We're looking into it."

"Mr. Advani, it seems this government was warned about the attacks six months ago."
LKA: "Hah. But we knew about the Parliament attacks twelve months prior."
MMS: "That's nothing. We knew about 26/7 two years before it happened."
LKA: "Ahh! We knew about the Malegaon blasts even before you got elected!"

Immediately SG and MMS jumped in joy and started the tango, but were interrupted by someone's phone ringing. It was Vilasrao. He said on the phone,"Oh, mi yetoy, mi yetoy." He bowed to SG and then to SP, whom we have neglected to mention. "Sorry, I am late for a Marathi cultural programme." He left in a hurry.

LKA and SG started throwing desi sandals at one another, while the PM waited for SG's order to pounce on LKA at a vulnerable moment.

Outside the building, people were throwing stones and shouting slogans for safety and security, and a new united India. The CM waved to them from among his Z+ security men, and left.

A City ravaged but alive

2008-11-30T22:11:00.005+05:30

Note: It's a rant, yeah, its a rant. I could try and collect my thoughts in order to make a more factual and informed post later. But I cannot guarantee it.

--------------

In some strange way, I suppose, it is just as well that the terrorists chose Bombay and not some other Indian city. At least, Bombay knows how to take misfortune and is capable of bouncing back.
-Vir Sanghvi

And so true it is. The citizens of Mumbai have faced more terror attacks than any major city in India. And yet, the very next day, they go back to their offices, and their jobs, knowing that the life of a city depends upon them. So much so, in fact, that it has driven some commentators to wonder whether Mumbai has a heart at all.

But today, to me, Mumbai feels different. No one could walk into a cafe in my city and shoot with an automatic rifle. No one could walk into the busiest, most beloved railway station in the city and shoot people at will. No one could put two world-famous hotels under siege for more than a day. And no coul'ved thought of disrupting Mumbai's life armed with enough ammunition to kill thousands, and not expected to be stopped.

But all that has happened. Clearly, there has been an intelligence failure.Some people have not done their jobs at protecting their country. And yet, even while fighting with terrorists armed with automatic rifles, our city's policemen have managed to save Mumbai. Our commandos have managed to rescue most of the people still alive after the first hour. They did not shy away from their jobs.

I was at TIFR that night, which is pretty close to Colaba, and pretty close to the sea. I was too scared to sleep alone in my usual lair at TIFR that night. I could not take my eyes off the news. Just that day, I had been to Colaba market. The next morning, I barely controlled puking when I saw photos of the carnage at VT. How am I ever supposed to feel safe again?

I know that the intelligence must have woken up by now. They need to learn, that is for sure. I do not know the answers, I do not know the questions. But I know what my mind tells me: If India is to feel safe again, we need to do something. Something about terror in India, something about it's home in Pakistan, and something about it's heart in the misguided preachings of mullahs. And if that is not done, everyone of us is to blame. For not doing enough, for not knowing enough, and for not speaking aloud enough.

What is the solution? I do not know. But I do know that India is a different country from this weekend. We are not going to be attacked like this. We will not go down without a fight. We will get you if you attack us. We will not shed innocents' blood, but we will not let the guilty go. I cherish my right to live. And so does India.

Endnote: I am sorry for the really rant-y post, but it just came out. It is my genuine emotion. If you want insight, you can go to Vir Sanghvi, Amit Varma, or my friend Amar . I am just an ordinary citizen, and all I know is: my feelings must be heard. And I must be informed, prepared, and yes, safe.

Oh, the frustration

2008-10-20T18:48:00.003+05:30

I usually don't post personal... so take this as pseudo-personal. In other words, a story. It's fictionality may be disputed, but anyway...

----------------------------

Imagine a typical classroom at school. It is filled with all kinds of kids: some naughty, some prudish, some studious, some jocks, some nerds. Now pick up the nerdiest children. They will typically be average scorers, introverted, won't know much about sex, and will usually be picked upon by the others. Now collect these guys together after their Bachelors, give them free housing (which, although a bit far, is probably ok), give them more than any decent graduate earns, and make them study stuff they love. That is, approximately, the Institute.

I say approximately because I dont know about Biology. Maybe the bio guys were just nerds like us wannabe physicists, maybe they weren't. One thing is for sure though: they came onto the earth with girls written into their fate. Girls who won't talk to boys of any other disci... oh, more on that later.

Neglecting bio for a moment (won't do much good neglecting them altogether, because then, nothing would happen in our lives, and, by extension, in this story), life at the Institute is pretty ok. You get to study what you want, and maybe dream of researching it further, in return for submitting to the whims of the crazy profs, their assignments, and their (gulp) exams. Ok, maybe life sucks. But, well, we're neglecting biology.

Why the obsession with biology, you might ask. It's a fair question. But the answer is obvious to the statistician. You're not one, I know, but I'll phrase this as lightly as I can: there are more girls per guy in bio than there are per ten guys in physics. And it's not like physics guys are not guys. Do you think we like such a skewed ratio? That we snicker at all the girls we see, behind their backs, because they're not smart enough to get into physics? No. We have been snickered at in school. We do not snicker at girls. We drool.

I think this... essay... story... whatever, is getting a bit sexist, or, if I may invent a new word for once, ~~objectificationist~~ objectifist. But it's a real problem we are facing here. Even physicists need girlfriends. It'd be fine if bio girls weren't so prudi... more on that later.

I hear ya. When is this 'later' that I speak so highly of, going to come? Is it like this essay, story, whatever, will suddenly be elevated to a new level of creativity? (Heh, you think this essay will become better? Snicker ).

Ok, let me cut to the chase, literally, but not too literally. You see, it's natural for a physics guy like me, to like a biology girl. Not a generic biology girl. But there's this particular girl, you see. Hmm, I need a name for her. (Fake name of course. You think I wouldn't have known her name by now?) We'll call her Crush.

Now, these bio girls, sometimes with bio guys, sit together at a single table at lunch and dinner and everything in between, so that it's virtually impossible to sit on the same table as Crush and try to talk to her. And then, one day....

(The writer apologises for the last ten minutes in which he did nothing but daydreamed about that day.)

Oh yeah, one day, at night... Ok. I get it. Restart.

Oh yeah, one night (purists... sigh), I stood in the usual queue, put my usual food on the plate, and as usual, looked around for an... well, there exists something, which I call a table scanning algorithm, for everyone. What you do is, you scan the canteen looking for tables which satisfy some criteria you've prioritised. My priorities are: biology girls, good friends, empty tables. Coming back to the 'story', I looked around. I saw Gaurab sitting alone on a table. I joined him, and chatted with him about the crappy coursework (this was before the midsems. Now we don't even talk about it.).

Then inexplicably, two bio girls (Crush one of them!) put their dishes on the table! I thought it was temporary, that they didn't want to hold their dishes while they searched for another table. But, nope. They sat down, and began to talk. I admit I do not know what they were talking about. I was even afraid to attempt eavesdropping, you see. I did not look in their direction, but continues chatting with Gaurab about (this is true) Himesh songs.

Then Ravi joined us at the table. At that stage in my crushed crush-on-Crush life (you knew I was going make this pun, right?) only Ravi and Achal really knew that I liked Crush. Gaurab, having finished his dinner, soon left. (I am not implying that Gaurab left because Ravi came. They are the best of friends.) A third friend of Crush, whom I shall call Fair (it's only fair to give her a name, because she's kinda important here), soon joined. (I am not implying that Gaurab came back disguised as Fair. I have seen them at the same place at the same time. I think.)

In the meantime, I'd started talking to Ravi about... something. I don't remember now, because I was all hazy. I knew Ravi would think I'm gutless if I failed to talk to Crush the one time we shared a dinner table. I remember just one thing: I said “I am useless, seriously”, in part as a pun, and in part because I really wasn't able to talk to her.

“Initiate, dude, initiate!”, I said to myself. I tried thinking about topics to say on. I decided the safest bet was to ask them...

“Which department are you from?”

This deserves an explanation, I know. Well, as you correctly point out, I KNEW which department they were from. But, I couldn't start by asking them an obsure question about biology, right? Maybe I could, but that would require me to KNOW biology. The safest thing to start a conversation, I thought, and still think, is to place each other in the Institute heierarchy.

I looked at the three of them for an answer, and out came (an almost reluctant) “Bio.” And this was from Fair. The other two didn't even look up, I think.

As you'd expect, here comes the part in the conversation where I wait for THEM to ask US something. Anything. They probably know we are physics guys, but they could ask a confirmatory question. They could ask how the canteen food was. They could ask us out to coffee the next morning. They could ask anything at all.

But, they did not. I sat there trying to resume the conversation with Ravi while they resumed theirs, but inside I was just frustrated at how uncommunicative girls could be. I was frustrated after the dinner too, when, while waiting for the bus to take us back, I vented out my frustration in long meaningful strings of words (I have Ravi and Nikhil as witnesses). They (the strings, not Ravi and Nikhil) went something like this:

“When I initiate a conversation, all you have to do is... you know, continue it! When I have broken the ice, can't you enjoy the icecream? (That came out a bit perv) When I have broken the ice, you must carry on the conversation!” (Gasp. And I fainted. When I came to, Crush and Fair were standing beside me and apologising for their snobbishness.)

Rrrrright. I did not faint. I fumed and fumed till I fumed no more. But the sentiments of the listeners generally ranged from “What a stupid way to break the ice!” to “You asked the three of them dude, when you wanted to talk to Crush! And she didn't even respond.” Did I say we don't snicker? I take that back.

The next day, I was impatient to tell Achal about the incident. Why? Because he was the only one person who would've agreed with me. I did doubt this somewhat, but if there was anyone who'd have felt that I was right and it was the girls' fault, I knew it was Achal. So, we were sitting in the DTP students room, and I told him what had happened. The important point in the conversation was this:

Me: “And, then they replied, 'Bio'. And now, they should...”
Achal: “They should respond, right?”
Me: “Exactly! No one agrees with me!”
Achal's further sentiments on the issue are also supportive :
“It was the fucking girls' fault.”
“It's not important how you break the ice! You break the ice, that's important!”

(This is probably the point in “Brokeback Institute” where Achal and I find each other so lonely and make out. But, ehrm.)

Well, the finals words from us on the issue are:

Why should Bio guys have all the girls?
You see, I wanna crush them. The bio guys, not the crushes... I mean, girls. Ehrm.

But then you can say: Why should Physics guys have al the pun?

A Webcomic, by me!

2008-10-10T19:45:00.000+05:30

Well, just go here: http://ipgs-comics.blogspot.com .

It's heavily xkcd-inspired. :) More in the first post there... (well, second post, actually, because it had to be on top, so I posted the intro after posting my first comic ;) ).

I want to get back to limericks too. :) Lets see...

IndiaTV tries to do LHC

2008-09-08T11:42:00.005+05:30

Note: The LHC is the "Large Hadron Collider", which is the biggest particle accelerator built yet, and it's going to switch on on Sep 10. It's made to discover new physics. Not create Black Holes that devour the earth.

Ooh, and one earlier post of mine, about IndiaTV craziness.

Ok, it's three days before the biggest experiment ever designed begins, and IndiaTV has got a late brainwave about it's dangers. It's apparently going to blow up the Earth, and IndiaTV doesn't want us to have more than 3 days notice. We are Fucked! (Apparently.)

I don't know how IndiaTV gets their hands on all kinds of conspiracy/doomsday theories, but man, they do. I wonder how they sleep at night. My friend here had to spend half an hour explaining to his grandparents that the Earth was not going to blow up because of a black hole created in a particle accelerator. There isn't a physics student in every home in India, sadly, so IndiaTV surely misled many, many Indians, who'll spend the next three days either in terror, or in fearful wait (or in orgies... hey, last three days!)

Well, I've always called IndiaTV the worst hindi news channel EVER (and that's saying a lot). When they're not spouting nonsense about aliens or skeletons of Gatotkachh being found (with a Hindu Scholar on air to explain how he could've gotten so big... apparently the Bio department comes under School of Hinduism these days... wait, does that mean all those Bio chicks will refuse to have premarital sex?... man, Bio chicks... oh, back to topic...) they're spouting nonsense about every doomsday theory that ever walked the idiots of Earth. So, here's an account of their opinion of the LHC, and why it's so stupid that rats will refuse to eat it...

(And thanks to my friend Achal for giving me an account of the show, and having spared me the pain of having to shout "fuck" 30 times in 10 minutes...)

"The Doomsday Device"

(Mwa)Hahahahahah! Physicists are either idiots or nihilists, according to IndiaTV. LHC, the "Great Machine" is going to start in 3 days, and who knows what will happen?! It is a machine, and machines are not to be trusted.

With a suitable "horror" tune playing in the background, the voice on TV comments as we are shown clips from various movies with floods, huge explosions, and other clips from various Hollywood movies (I think they have a special copy of "Independence Day", oh yeah, and of "The Day After Tomorrow", which they never have occasion to keep back on the shelf... "Oh, done with that ID4 copy for your Aliens show? Could I have it for my ' The Sex Ed Conspiracy' show."). To be fair, they took opinions of some scientists (special material, those scientists, to be ready to talk to IndiaTV...) , but they emphasised the Doom part more than anything else.

And what IndiaTV programme is complete without a contribution to the "stupidest lines ever said on TV" list? Here are two Achal remembers from the show:

"Yeh Mahamachine hain ya Mahadaanav?"
AKA "Is this a Great Machine or a Great Demon?"

The first confirmation of what I've always suspected! Scriptwriters of Ekta Kapoor also write for IndiaTV! In this case, those who wrote "Kahaani Humaare Mahabharat kii", surely produced this gem. Come on, the two sets are one... There cannot be so many awesomely stupid people in the same country. Those who work for Ekta Kapoor work for IndiaTV. QED.

"Agar Machine ka dimaag fir gaya toh?"
"What if the machine loses it's mind?"

And join your club?

I think the IndiaTV people have a special "Dr. Strangelove"-like prepared for them, just in case one of the hundred disasters they predict actually happens. Only this time, it won't be taking specimens of the best men and women on earth...

Ok, Enough Sarcasm for today. (No, right? You're enjoying this, eh? Well, there's always a post in the future about IndiaTV...)

The Straight Dope about the LHC then...

Ok, not THE Straight Dope. But as straight as you can get it: It's not going to create black holes. It isn't going to blow up the earth for Chris-sakes. Those physicists are not as dumb as you ~~think~~, they know how to design an experiment, and they are much, much smarter than you. LHC has been safety-tested, simulated, debated a hundred times over by people who actually know it inside out. And they have come to one conclusion: it's safe.

And, let's face it: the LHC is beautiful. It's humanity's biggest experiment ever, and hopefully we'll get answers to atleast some of our Big Questions after it's done. Here's stuff about the LHC. Cool explanation. And what chances does it have? Here is a rough and fun estimate (by Sean Carroll).

And yes, here and here are links explaining all that about doomsday. I'm not qualified enough, am I? But Phil Plait is. And he's cool. And he gives more links.

PostScript

BTW, I do KNOW that IndiaTV people are not really stupid, and they do this just to get more viewers and TRPs, and they're just taking advantage of the gullibility of those viewers. But I really, really would like to believe they're stupid and not cruel. Really, it's cruel, mean, and sad to take advantage of people like that. Just thinking about it makes me very, very angry, so I'd just think that they're idiots, not rogues.

BTW, This LHC doomsday thing is actually quite old. That's why I said "brainwave" at the start of the post. Not only do they spout incredibly blackheaded stuff, they do it really, really late.

Oh, you've probably heard this by now, and it's 30 years old in Internet years I guess, but here it is: LHC Rap.

PostScript 2

Amit Varma over at IndiaUncut has posted about this (and included a link to this post: yay!). There he links to a news piece about a girl commiting suicide citing the End of The World as the reason. I agree with him that there were probably (I hope) other reasons, although I can see why this media hype would push such people over the edge. It's just sad. I stand by what I said above about these channels exploiting the public mindset. News is there not to entertain, or mislead... but to educate. I hope these channels learn this soon.

Physics limericks!!

2008-08-25T18:46:00.004+05:30

I'm kinda busy at TIFR, but once, when bored during a lecture, I actually found to inspiration to write some limericks. ;) They're a little physicsy (ok, VERY physicsy), but heck...

Note: The first inspired the second. I think the second is the best, but the others are not bad either...(Ok, the third is very silly and weird... conceded).

There is an operator, nicknamed curl
He was once, desperate for a girl,
He approached a vector,
(But he hadn't checked her)
She rejected, being very irrotational!

Woe all marriages that end in divorce
Like additive inverses (the stuff of lores)
The electron and proton,
Beta and, nucleus forlorn,
The curl and the conservative force!

Hedgehogs won't change to bullets, from pricks,
Analog guys hate changing their electronics,
Romans did change the bust
From Julius to August,
Mathematicians don't prefer British units to 'Metrics'!

Do Comment!

What I-Day means to me

2008-08-15T14:34:00.003+05:30

Sure, another Independence Day post. There are probably thousands on the net today. Those who know me well will know that I am not a particularly patriotic person, in the sense that I won't go beyond a certain length "for the country", atleast not without reasoning on it and trying to think of the bigger picture.

But heck, I do feel for India, instinctively. India is important to me. When bombs kill people in Bangalore and Gujarat, it affects me more than bombings in London. When Bindra became the first Indian in 108 years to win an individual gold at the Olympics, I celebrated, even though I know that, say, Russia's medal tally in one Olympics is more than India's since 1900. When people all around me are joyous about today being I-Day, I too feel a bit of pride when a volunteer (at a railway station) pins a miniature Indian Flag to my shirt.

So, now, I'll try to reason about it.

OK, why am I not 'patriotic' as most people mean it? Let me see... Firstly, because I don't like to go with the "mob" feeling. (Ever since I read about the mob mentality in a school essay.) Not a very good reason, you say, but remember that nations can make war sorely because they can stir up this feeling of patriotism in their citizens to get them to approve it. Secondly, sure, I am born in India, but does that mean I should claim that India is the greatest nation on Earth, without ever having been to the other nations? Thirdly, sure, India has a great culture, and has been fortunate enough to be the land where many great men have walked. But what part do I have in that? Why should I feel proud of my country rather than just fortunate to be born here? Why should I not feel as strongly about Russell as about Gandhi?

So much for libertarianism. I know what you're thinking. I just don't get the point. But that's a response I always get, and believe me, since I do not get the point, I won't get it even if you point out to me how naive I am in not getting it, unless you point the point out to me. (Weird, but grammatically correct, sentence. I'm proud of it. :D)

Well, why should I feel patriotic? Patriotism is defined as "love for one's country". If a country has to be stable, it's people should feel united, and love it. Even if it's irrational, and wrong to do so. But I believe there are better reasons to love your country that it's history, it's religion, or it's supposed greatness. One of the reasons is simply that you live there. You know it and it's people. It is our window to the world, to knowledge, to our species. It's your chance to do something right, to stand up for truth, to improve the world, and to serve humanity. Every good nation is a platform for us to improve each other. It's possible to love the world even if your express it locally.

So, in conclusion, I love India. It allows me to learn, to critisice, to discuss, and to grow. I celebrate today because I love the world.

Tidbits

2008-07-22T06:55:00.001+05:30

Well, people, I'm back after two weeks, as my vacation comes to an end, and I prepare to join TIFR's department of Theoretical Physics. Been a golden year for me, this has... and now the grinding of studies starts again.

--------------------------------------------------------

I'm back with limericks! (After almost an year of no-lims). Why? Well, no inspiration, no time, etc. But:

I'm willing to confess I'm not poet at core
So sometimes my brain gets dried up, sore
But when I'm in form
In meter, rhyme, form
Just gimme a subject, I can make one more!

Heh. Two more in this post, later.

---------------------------------------------------------

If gibberish is not an indicator of profundity, why is The Speaking Tree so famous?

Homage to the Speaking Tree:

The Ultimate goal of man is woman. He is insignificant, and in this multidimentional universe, he cannot stand on his own two legs. It is absolutely essential that, for the well-being of his soul, man should sarcrifice himself. Only then can he become one with God, the Universe, and everything. 42.

From Physics to meta-physics, the ultimate aim of the sciences is becoming one with the absoluteness of the universe. Cherish your dreams. May your attain the supreme knowledge that resides in Brahma. May the force be with you.

Ok, I cannot write more gibbersh and pseudo-profundity. Maybe later, when I'm in a suitable mood, I'll update the above. ;)

------------------------------------------------

On another note, I've been reading Philosophy. Yes. Sigh. Almost finished that book.

Just thinking about it makes white matter grey
Because such lims just don't come on a tray
But to write a lim on such
Philos is a bit much
To add Russel, Plato, Hume, and, Nietzsche*?!

* Just mispronounce as Neat-zhey for once. For me.

Having finished with broad outlines of Philosophy, I'vee moved on to, yes, History.

Wars, Famines, Graves and Kings
Why doth he, of sad history sings?
But learn from it,
Of wisdom and wit,
Of hardened hearts and lovely beings.

Almost Victorian, that poem. It was supposed to end like a limerick, yes. Try again:

History teaches us, of lives and deaths,
Of Dates and Times, of nations' wreaths
But our time it sheilds
From swords and sheilds
Of lovely musings and stinking breaths.

Damn, just can't get the irony out of it. In fact, I do love history for it's irony.

---------------------------------------------------------

What are tit-men? (From the Straight Dope.) Love the joke at the end.

--------------------------------------------------------

I leave you, on a seriouser note, with Mill's Principle of Liberty. Not a witty end to the post, but heck, important. I also brought Mill's "On Liberty" yesterday.

That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil, in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him must be calculated to produce evil to some one else.

I'm almost a libertarian by now. :)

Review: Khuda ke liye

2008-07-02T11:21:00.000+05:30

Rating: 3.5 out of 4

We know that there are terrorists who kill in the name of Islam, and Jehad. We know that there are people, even outside the Middle East, who force their daughters to marry against their will, to keep their family 'honour'. We know that boys are indoctrinated into terrorism in the name of Jehad. We know that racial profiling exists, and that those captured in the US in the name of terrorism are presumed guilty, and tortured.

But it's one thing to know, and another to feel. Even to those who know, "Khuda Ke Liye" is an excelent movie because it makes us feel this injustice. It takes no prisoners.Although it has it's faults, Khuda Kay Liye is an important, well-written, and well-executed movie, which does not shy away from the truth.

The movie is a bit slow on the take-off, but gains steadily along the flight, and lands perfectly. There are three main characters: two borthers and their cousin sister. At the start of the movie, the brothers, names Mansoor and Sharmad are pop singers famous in Pakistan, while the girl, named Mary, is the daughter of a Pakistani man settled in England. But Sharmad gets involved with a Jehadi mullah, while Mansoor goes abroad with the money he has saved, to learn music. Mary's love affair with an English boy is dissaproved by her father, and she is tricked to Pakistan to marry Sharmad, who has to keep her imprisoned in a house on the Pak-Afghan border while he is trained to become a Jehadi. Mansoor is later arrested, after 9/11 on the false suspicion of being a terrorist.

This movie tries to tackle a lot of issues, but fortunately, and due to writer-director-producer Shoiab Mansoor Khan's skill, none of them fade into the background, or seem too incomplete. The various plotlines are merged and edited nicely, and the pace never slacks after the slow start. The cinematography is excellent, from the deserts on the Pak-Afghan border to the depressing prisons in the USA. The background music is excellent, especially the "Allah ho" theme.

The movie is imperfect precisely because it tries too much in too short a time. More time could've been given to the Jehad battles, or to the efforts to Mansoor's wife to free him. And for a movie with music as one of it's key themes, not all the songs are good. The three lead actors is uniformly good, but they rarely shine. Only Naseeruddin Shah as the progressive maulana and Rasheed Naaz as the Jehadi mullah are extra-ordinary.

Make no mistake: this is an important film, and it is a good film. For those who complain moderate Islam does not speak out against the exteremists, here is an example to the contrary. Naseeruddin Shah's speech at the end may be a bit preachy, but it is right, and we feel it. It is not showy, or deliberate, as many movie 'speeches'. The movie leaves a bittersweet taste at the end, and that is most certainly deliberate.

A must-watch.

The plan...

2008-06-23T11:31:00.004+05:30

I snuck in a quote from 'Scary Movie 3' in my post about Alien videos. Maybe I should snuck in this. LOL.

A Probability Problem

2008-06-18T23:59:00.008+05:30

A little problem in probability for all (four) readers of this blog. It's just something I'd wondered about long ago, and I think I have the solution. Probability is often a very confusing subject, as you can see in the Monty Hall Problem.

Well, let's say I have a ~~die~~ one coin, which I decide to toss again and again, 100 times, and count the number of heads each time. I'd say I'll get 50 heads and 50 tails on the whole.

Suppose I have already tossed 99 times, and I got heads EVERY time. (Hey, it's possible.) Now if you were to bet on what I'd get the hundredth time, what'd you say? There are three possible answers:

a) I won't get heads again, because, well, luck has favoured me this far, but it may not favour me again.
b) I will get heads again, because, hey, I'm on a roll.
c) You refuse to bet, because the new toss is independent of the others. Or maybe just because both a) and b) seem equally convincing.

Well, we know c) is right. Problem is, why is it right? I mean, sure, independent toss and all, but isn't it even MORE improbable that I get 100 heads one after the other? Also, please don't accuse my rupee coin of being biased. It's a little sensitive these days.

So, my question to you is: give me a concrete reasoning WHY the probability on the 100th toss too is 50-50. (Maybe you don't agree it's c). Do say so. ) Double points if you can give some calculations. Triple if you can drag in Gauss. (More accurately Poisson. Actually, their curves. I mean 'distributions', dude.)

P.S. Of course you're to answer in Comments. You can also comment in comments. Also, if you have given an answer, I'll only approve the comment after I feel everyone's done the best they can. If you do find something in the comments section, it may be a spoiler.

Hint: Read my first comment below (beneath the ones by Saskia, Anne and Jayanth).

Of Alien videos and news channels

2008-06-09T13:07:00.009+05:30

Warning: This post combines the gobbledygook and corniness of Hindi news channels with stuff about UFOs and whatnot. Not safe if you have an allergy to nonsense.

In the past few years, there has been a virtual explosion of news channels on the Indian TV. While the new English channels that have surfaced have been by-and-large respectable (eg. CNN-IBN and NDTV), the Hindi news channels have been largely sensationalist and devoted only to ratings and not to journalism. I suppose this may be because hindi viewers are generally less sophisticated than their english counterparts, or maybe because the channels believe it to be so.

Over the past few days, lethargic and bored (holidays are on), I had no other options except the TV and the PC. So, surfing through the channels, and, unavoidably, the aforementioned sense-offenders, I have had occasion to witness some truly earth-shaking, but very shaky, 'breaking news'.

One of those is the "Denver Alien" news story, which the channel (IndiaTV in this case) devoted half an hour to. I'm going to only mention the other act of mis-journalism which I paid attention to: the Saibaba animation. First IndiaTV claimed it was really Saibaba speaking, then Star News got an animator to admit he made it, other channels (including IndiaTV), picked it up and devoted the entire day to a non-story.

Here's the former story, which I'll cover in detail: (first, the real story, and then what IndiaTV's show said)

The Denver alien video

Come on, google it.

Ok, Ok, I'll give some history. Rather, I'll quote. From Denver Post.

the video was taken on July 17, 2003, in Nebraska by Stan Tiger Romanek, who set up the camera because he thought peeping Toms had been looking into his house at his two teenage daughters. Romanek did not appear at the news conference.

The creature would slowly pop its head up and peer through the window then drop suddenly down, apparently trying to avoid detection. It raised its head up about a half dozen times. The alien's other body parts were not visible.

"Experts" and others went gaga over the tape because, they said, it would have cost a lot to fake it. Sure, Sure. Only one photo capture of the video was released, and it's here. The video wasn't allowed to be filmed by the reporters who were allowed to see it, and the guy who filmed it, Stan Romanek, is reserving it for some documentary. Many who've seen the video have been converted, if news reports are to be believed. Doesn't look like much, but, heck, who could fake that?

Well, some people from the Rocky Mountain Paranormal society did just that. They sound credulous, to us non-paranormal believers, but from what I gather, the people there have much common sense and know what comprises scientific evidence. Well, these people went ahead and made a very realistic-looking (and grainy enough too) video of an alien for just 90$. Look at that product here and tell me if that doesn't convert you.

The RMPS page here about their video is very informative. Scroll down and you see screen captures of the various news reports of the issue in the media. The RMPS guys have seen the original video. It did not impress them (these people are experts in ghost and paranormal photography). They point out clearly that such a video does not comprise a proof, because it can be easily faked. Nothing was added in post-production, but the alien itself may have been bogus.

And, my common sense revolts against the idea of the alien shown in the photo capture: It's too humanoid. Two eyes, a round head, a nose? Come ON. If alien life exists, it's probably weirder than us, even assuming that life on that other planet also underwent evolution. And why peek through a window? To quote Charlie Sheen from Scary Movie 3, "they traveled hundreds of light years but can't get through a ~~window~~ door?"

Personal Belief note: I know that the faking of the video does not prove that the original video was a sham. Personally, I believe aliens are like fairies: cool if they exist, but heck, no evidence. Similarly for ghosts. Except the 'cool' part.

The IndiaTV take

Similar to many other takes on the Denver video, I believe (the US has a lot more crackpot news sources than India), but stunningly stupid.

Firstly (like many other sources), they showed that faked video, and not the real one. Well, no real one is available, but heck, showing a faked video claiming it is the real one? They could've googled a bit. Personally, I think they did, and they knew it was the fake one, but ran it anyway. Maybe you'll disagree, and following Occam, go for the simplest explanation: They were Idiots.

Secondly, there was also a mishmash of nonsense:
Staccato music. Sensational tone of voice. Single-phrased sentences. All playing over the same 20-second video shown again and again and again. The (translated) sentences, with my comments:

"This is the real video of an alien. This is not a forgery."
IndiaTV had goofed up the previous day with the Saibaba animation fiasco. So, they either goofed up again, or, if they knew it was a fake, lied again.

"It is 4 foot tall."
How do you get the height of an alien from a video which only shows it's head?

"It has a big head. It has a nose."
Um, the people watching the programme are not blind, dude, only stupid!

"If it is peeping through your window, be wary."
Show me one person who'd go, hey, there's an alien peeping through my window, I should invite it for beer.

"They come from far away to kidnap you. One abduction has already happened."
ONE? You're making all this fuss about ONE instance of alien kidnapping? (Also, Idiots, if you'd googled enough, you'd have come up with, say, 10000 more.)

"It first comes to your window, then at 2 in the night, it knocks on your door to kidnap you."
The 2 o'clock at night reminded me of a rumour going around when I was little. It was that a witch was in the neighbourhood, and she would knock on a person's door thrice, at 2 in the night, and then kill them. I was, um, 6 at that time, and didn't sleep the whole night, wary of knocks on the door. The next day, I was wondering if anyone was missing/dead in the neighbourhood. (Also, Note the 'you's here. Standard way to get the viewer involved.)

So, in the end, IndiaTV showed a story with no credible evidence at the back of it. It sensationalised the available video, said things which had no backing and made no sense. It devoted half an hour to a video which was fake. Moreover, it was faked to debunk the original video. And then, IndiaTV shamelessly moved on to it's next half hour special on Sunil Shetty's use of profanity.

What is happening to journalism? Why are our standards falling? It's currently visible only in the Hindi media, but it may not be long before this sickness spreads to the English channels.

Note: I have been saying, 'bad journalism', etc. Who am I to say what is bad and good in journalism? Well, one rule I know is that you must validate your sources/evidence. In other words, if you don't have credible sources for the bullshit you spew, it certainly is bullshit you spew.

P.S. I didn't even mention the Aarushi Talwar case (here, right of page). It's a case of this sloppy journalism spreading to something that really matters: a murder case. Views on the media's role here. In general, everyone (media and police) has been sloppy about this case, making unfounded remarks about the victims character, the murderer's motives, and even his identity.

Why sex education is necessary

2008-05-06T11:59:00.002+05:30

Recently, the whole saga of the government proposing to introduce sex education in schools, and the opposition protesting, and the idea put on hold, happened again in Maharashtra, after last year. All in the name of preserving our culture. Never mind that children are exposed to the ideas of sex, love and obscenity daily in movies, the news, and by false beliefs among classmates.

A committee has been set up, which will no doubt submit it's report in an year, and it will be implemented when the current students in the 9th and 11th classes become grandparents. It's all done in the name of preserving Indian culture, against 'western' values. It is impossible not to laugh at the people who make these decisions. Here are some tidbits, with some sarcasm of my own:

(Last year) the government banned sex education in schools after parents, teachers and political parties protested saying that the content was sexually graphic.

Oh my, they're teaching sex with pictures! In 9th and 11th classes, where the students are oh so innocent! This will corrupt them, no doubt.

Ramdas Kadam, Shiv Sena Leader: ''This is wrong. It goes against all the tradition of Hindus in Maharashtra.''

Wow. I guess Hindus in Maharashtra don't have sex either, because it's against their culture.

Nawab Mallik, MLA, NCP: ''Students are constantly complaining about sexual exploitation or harassment by teachers. If these sex gurus are appointed, then more girls will be exploited.''

"Sex gurus"? Excuse me? I thought sex education would make the students more knowledgeable about sex, and hence, more able to know when exploitation is happening, and thus safer.

Vinod Tawde, MLC, BJP: ''Instead of calling it sex education, it would be better if we referred to it as Adolescent.''

Hahahahaha... wait... *inhale*... hahahahaha!

Bashir Patil, MLA, NCP: ''We are proud of the fact that our women can walk alone on the roads. If sex education is implemented, it will increase the evils in the society and like colleges, schools will also fall prey to such evils.''

The same old argument, sex --> evils.

Why we need sex education

Frankly speaking, though, our kids need sex education. And 9th graders (well, even 6th graders) aren't wholly innocent about sex, and talk about "balls" (ie, breasts), "rods", and a whole barrage of such terminology; and most of the boys have easy access to porn. It's rather easy for kids to hide their "forbidden" activities from their parents.

There are many reasons why a child (well, a teenager) needs sex education. Two of the most important are awareness of STDs, and the recognition of and safety from abuse.

There are more reasons, one of which is that sex is elevated to a higher status than necessary by the taboo status it has, and thus teens think of it as more important than it is. There's reluctance to talk about sex in our society. Where can the kid talk about those sexual things which are bothering him? His peers are about as knowledgeable as him. Sex is a part of human life, and hence it must be a part of a complete curriculum. Sex education is education in the strictest sense: it is essential knowledge about life.

Finally, for those who think the students will become corrupt after sex ed, it's rather that they'll become well disciplined. Sex education makes us more aware of the need to respect our fellow students, be they boys or girls. It teaches us respect for women, and respect for other sexual orientations.

I may be faulted for believing that education can do anything. Maybe it can't. But the school is one place where everyone can receive the education most parents are afraid to give at home.

Here is another list of why students need sex ed.

Here is a general page about sex ed. You can of course google to find out more.

Comments and suggestions appreciated. :)

Ayurveda

2008-04-02T19:32:00.007+05:30

I'll begin, as is my tradition, with a quote, from Christopher Wanjek, in his article on Ayurveda (see references) :

"Then along came Western allopathic medicine, the Rodney Dangerfield of the medical world. Its identification of viruses, bacteria and genetic disorders as the underlying cause of disease has nearly doubled human life expectancy in the past 100 years. Still, it gets no respect.

Largely divorced from the knowledge of diseases that plagued our ancestors, Americans are increasingly turning to ancient cures like those found in the ayurvedic system. "

Wisdom of the ages

I'll admit at the outset there are many claims I can't stand, one of which is this: "This has been practised for thousands of years, it is the wisdom of our ancestors. " (And the one sentence left unsaid is: How dare you challenge it?)

I really can't believe how people fall for that statement. Maybe they are more attached to the past and to their country than I am. My mind immediately harks back to Astrology, Ptolemy's Geocentrism, and Aristotles "things fall because it's in their nature to fall" when people talk about thousand-year old wisdom. We have much better facilities now, much better instruments, and a much better method of doing Science. It is a good bet that, as far as probing the natural world is concerned, we are eons ahead of the aged wisdom of our ancestors.

Where were the ayurvedic cures fr the thousands of years that diseases now regarded as curable or preventable: smallpox, T.B., leprosy were plaguing the Indian subcontinent. As Wanjek says, then came along allopathy.

My post on Ayurveda won't be as long or as detailed as my posts on astrology... I haven't researched the subject enough. But still, I venture to propound my humble view on Ayurveda in what follows. (And now I stop writing ayurveda with a capital A. The capitals are reserved, aside from English rules, for "I" (no egoism, just standard practice), and Science.)

Is EVERYTHING ayurvedic?

I look at the little details on the back of my Vicks Vaporub bottle: whoa, "Ayurvedic Medicine". There are ayurvedic soaps, ayurvedic toothpastes, and believe it or not, ayurvedic shampoos. I suspect that the Indian government taxes less if the thing you are marketing is ayurvedic.

There is a buckload of ayurvedic beauty creams, and ayurvedic medicine is a flourishing business in India. Ayurveda is pretty damn big for a medicine system which has little or no high-quality studies backing it.

Can ayurveda treat EVERYTHING?

From the common cold to cancer and even AIDS (huh? I doubt the sages of 1000 B.C. knew of AIDS), ayurveda claims to treat everything, and that too completely. Pretty mean for a medicine system whose theory has very little in common with modern scientific know-how of human diseases and the human body.

Of course, there are those who complain that, hey, it may be based on a flawed theory, but hey, it works. (Astrology deja vu ... )

I have two objections to that:

1) What evidence do you have that it works? Our modern scientific method doesn't admit anecdotal evidence. ("My father/uncle/late grandmother's second cousin's daughter had cancer/TB/cold that doctors had given up on, and he/she tried ayurvedic treatment and it was cured!") It needs clinical trials, double-blind tests, or such. These happen regularly in the case of conventional medicine, and that's how they doctors know which drug works where, when and how. If you uncritically listen to anecdotal tales, or read what is written in 2000 year-old books and take it as the truth, I think our present system would go haywire.

There are few high-quality studies that give a positive result for ayurveda, and this may or may not be because it doesn't work. The main factor is, I think, that the ayurvedic system simply doesn't call for testing.

2) If you have a flawed theory, how would you know how to make a new medicine for a new disease that crops up, say? Or a disease in some other part of the world that the ancient ayurvedic books don't mention? I think (and hope) you'd agree if I said that the flawed deduction leading to a new medicine based on a flawed theory are likely to be flawed themselves?

A few proponents, eager to do a one-up on modern science, try to mention the correspondence between the "chakras" of ayurveda and the endocrine glands of the human body. How can this be co-incidence, they ask.

The first question is, whether they actually do correspond. Answer: they don't, of course. The chakras of ayurveda are just uniformly distributed through the body, at positions people ignorant of most medical knowledge would put them if asked to do so: there's a knowledge chakra in the brain, the sexual and root chakras at the lower abdomen, the expressive chakra at the neck. COME ON! The knowledge chakra, "the focus of intuition, the perception of truth", corresponds to the pituitary glands? And the sexual chakra doesn't even correspond to the testicles. Apparantly, the one that does is the "root chakra", which "other centres of energy" rely upon. I thought the other glands depended upon the pituitary. The correspondence, when you look at it closely enough, vanishes.

And of course, where are the bacteria, the viruses, the hormones? They aren't there, of course, because our ancestors didn't know about them. They simply tried to make a theory to explain the human body, to find a cure for the diseases. A lot indicates that the ancient Indians craved for explanations. That doesn't mean they found the right ones.

Something harmful this way comes...

Well, what's the harm, though? Maybe it works on the placebo effect. What's the harm in some people falling prey to a little ignorance?

It isn't a little ignorance, it's a whole lot of ignorance. Ayurveda is tied in with astrology, both being integral aspects of the knowledge of ancient India. It's a whole system, and it's a whole flawed system. And it isn't a few people, it's millions of Indians who are falling prey to the greedy wiles of people like Baba Ramdev, who claim to cure everything with the help of yoga and ayurveda. It's millions of people giving up conventional, rigourously tested medicine for a two-thousand year-old, untested, flawed system. If this isn't harmful, I don't know what is.

And it's certainly bad for our future if we fall prey to such alternative systems of medicine... we don't want our health to be in risk because we had a good system but abandoned it for faulty alternatives. With conventional allopathy, we have hit upon the key to the human body and diseases. It would be ridiculous to now ignore it and try to hit the target with broken, old darts.

Two more things before we part

1) A common misconception I often find in India: are ayurveda and homeopathy closely related? The answer, from what I discern, is no. The two systems differ greatly in both the underlying theory and the method of preparing medicines. Ayurveda is mostly herbal-based, and had the chakra-theory. Here is an overview of homeopathy which describes the underlying theory and the method of medicine-preparation in brief.

2) I have asserted throughout this article that ayurveda is a flawed system, and it has few studies backing it. That doesn't mean some of it's cures won't work, and that herbal based medicines are bound to be silly. Even though the sages of yore didn't conduct clinical trials, they could have chanced upon some medicines that actually do work. I'm saying it's a better bet to stick with allopathy, because it's a growing system, where people are trying to find the root causes and cures for many ailments, and it's a peer-reviewed system. Researchers are trying herbs, chemical, everything for finding a cure for, cancer say, and they have an actual chance to find it, because they know the details of the diseases on the biochemical level.

Maybe it's time to acknowledge that our ancestors were ignorant, and we're in the middle of a revolution in human knowledge about nature.

Two Addendums

Some (private and public) responses to my post have spurred me to write a bit more on ayurveda and science, in general.

It is argued that though ayurveda may not have been scientifically tested, it's the product of trial-and-error of the ancient sages. However, the fact remains that ayurvedic have not been tested extensively by modern scientific methods (use of controls, randomisation, double-blinding). And unless so tested, it won't be a credible method of treatment. The modern methods of testing, and there's a whole branch of science dealing with research methodology, tries to cancel as many biases as possible, in a study. And since it's not possible to totally be unbiased, there are systematic reviews of earlier studies. But why should ayurveda even bother about the label "science"? That's because science is not just a name for what scientists do, but it's a method of doing things, the best method to discern what is true and what is false (when testing a system which claims to make repeatable, observable predictions... like General Relativity, or Astrology, or Homeopathy). It's currently the only possible method to get credible evidence to support claims like ayurveda's.

The second note is about side-effects. "Ayurveda has no side-effects" is widely claimed as the basis for the superiority of ayurveda over "western medicine". There are few studies to show that ayurveda even has effects, so I guess there are fewer which conclude that it has no side-effects (that said, it's only a guess, I haven't found this quoted anywhere). Why do side-effects occur in allopathy? They occur because in allopathy, the medicine is usually in chemical form, and often a certain chemical has various roles to play in the body. If the ancient sages had found some miracle cures that (well, at root, all plant medicines are chemicals) know where to go in the body and what to avoid, it's a cinch that modern medicine would have chanced upon it too. And considering the fact that the creators of ayurveda had a faulty theory of the body, it's not very probable that they did find side-effectless cures.

Disclaimer: People are, of course, free to choose whatever medical system they want to subscribe to. But they should know that if they are choosing Ayurveda or Homeopathy, they are choosing something with does not have scientific evidence backing it.

References:

Ayurveda, the Good, the Bad and the Expensive, by Christopher Wanjek, Livescience.

(Focussing on Swami Ramdev and a bit left-leaning) Ayurveda under the scanner, by Meera Nanda, Frontline. Read this article for the details of the practice and influence of Ayurveda in India.

(Focussing on Deepak Chopra) A Few Thoughts on Ayurvedic Mumbo-Jumbo, by Stephen Barrett, M.D., Quackwatch.

Why does my medication give me side-effects? , by Glenn Brynes, M.D.

Writing Styles in English

2008-03-28T09:07:00.009+05:30

If you are a lover of vocabulary, English is the best language for you. It has borrowed words from many other languages, and has a wide availability of resources to help you if you get stuck, and if you can't find a word fit for the situation, there are phrases, idioms and quotes to boot.

My friend Anne recently complained on her blog about my insistence on avoiding the use of "big words" while writing. While I don't claim to be (and am not) an expert on writing styles, I do have my own view on the subject. It is just personal opinion, mind you... it formed as a result of my comfort (or the lack of it) while reading essays written in various styles.

When I was in school, the elite of my classmates used to write essays that started like (suppose it's an essay on "A typical classroom") :

Every classroom is an eclectic mix of the serious, the impish and the in-betweens. Teachers are not without their quirks and idiosyncrasies either.

It seemed to be a bit, um, silly that an ordinary essay about an ordinary classroom demanded such a pompous (ehm, no offense) start. Unfortunately, this guaranteed marks from the impressed teacher, so the students stuck to it. My essay would've started like this (in the unusual situation that I had the exact same thoughts)

There are many kinds of students: the studious (teacher's pets, first bench), the uninterested (last bench, or outside the class), and the in-betweens. The teachers are of various breeds too.

Of course, the earlier two lines are much more poetic then these two, which are, if you have an unusually strong sense of humour, merely amusing. But I wonder, how poetic is it to run to the dictionary every two sentences?

Herein lies my main point. If you are writing chiefly to communicate your opinion to other people (which is what blogging comprises), the use of big words is unnecessary, and even contrary to the main purpose: to communicate you views and opinions in the clearest and nicest way possible. That does not mean using only monosyllabic words: it just means the reader shouldn't have to consult the dictionary every so often.

One more argument that can be made for using big words is that they make the writing seem much more important and official. However, avoiding them would make the writing more accessible, I think.

There are other types of writing, though, whose main purpose is not to communicate opinions, but to tell a story, or to just show off your literary prowess. In telling a story, what may be required is to illustrate the situation as closely as possibly. For that, the writer may employ some words which may not be in the common vocabulary, but describe the situation perfectly with the requisite beauty or grandeur (or flashiness). In poetry, of course, one not only has to transmit the beauty or irony, but also do it in the shortest and most elegant possible way. There is no way out but by using big words.

I'd like to show you an example of an essay (whose primary purpose is communication) written both ways:

A teacher is to a subject what a conductor is to scrolls of a Bach concerto. Teachers hold the reins that can metamorphose the dull into the fascinating or vice-versa. And when pupils are compelled to listen to less-appealing lectures, they are likely to get prejudiced against the subject itself. For example, I still get a cold, clammy fear when I hear ‘Differentiating with respect to’.

---

Ever been to a calculus class where the teacher talked on and on in monotones and half the students were busy drawing sketches of the teacher? A teacher has to be engaging. It's his/her duty to make the students understand, and love the subject. Otherwise the students (and I, personally) would rather be elsewhere. We have a right to, don't we?

I think the first is a very elegantly written paragraph, but the second gets the point across better. I must confess, if this weren't just an essay about classroom attendance, but something about, say, global warming, the former would be the way to go, because there we would have to convey an idea which is alien to the readers, and to illustrate it properly would require suitable words.

Note: The elegant-style lines are taken from Anne's essay on Classroom Attendance. I like her writing (it's smooth, and it flows well), but with qualifications. ;)

This is MY point of view, MY opinion. I'd like to hear yours too, and I have a fear you'll disagree with me. I'm ready to discuss it, debate it.

I'll conclude with a quote from Bertrand Russell's "How I write":

Take, say, such a sentence as the following, which might occur in a work on sociology: "Human beings are completely exempt from undesirable behaviour-patterns only when certain prerequisites, not satisfied except in a small percentage of actual cases, have, through some fortuitous concourse of favourable circumstances, whether congenital or environmental, chanced to combine in producing an individual in whom many factors deviate from the norm in a socially advantageous manner". Let us see if we can translate this sentence into English. I suggest the following: "All men are scoundrels, or at any rate almost all. The men who are not must have had unusual luck, both in their birth and in their upbringing." This is shorter and more intelligible, and says just the same thing. But I am afraid any professor who used the second sentence instead of the first would get the sack.

Q&A - II

2008-02-17T23:30:00.002+05:30

I forgot to do this... well, after I answered her first question about Bohr atoms, I asked her a question, which she answered on her blog. Here's the link, and I hope this Q&A series continues. :)

How do different cells function differently, if all have the same DNA?

Do see the rest of her blog... a damn nice one.

Ought to be

2008-02-12T14:17:00.000+05:30

Just a short note; I don't know if I should post this underdeveloped thought or not. I'm going along with posting it for now.Very sarcastic, but not all rhetorical.

If you don't get what you want, if you want to express the grievances of the people you (claim to) represent, is it right to go about that by vandalising, burning and breaking other people's and the state's property? And is it right for the state to be afraid to arrest you because your followers will become even more aggressive if you get arrested? You are breaking the law. But since you're doing it for a supposedly "right" reason, are you immune to arrest? Wonderful precedent indeed.

One last question: Can you claim to be trustworthy and unbiased in saying that the marathi manoos has really suffered because of the "outsiders", when a few months ago you shielded some marathi boys of a molestation charge by saying that marathi people cannot be molestors¹? (What, by definition?)

Is politics about what the people want or what they need?

¹ I cannot find a news source for this, but I had read this, and a couple of articles quote the same.

Agnosticism or Atheism?

2008-02-08T22:16:00.000+05:30

A question that sometimes bothers me is whether I am an Agnostic or an Atheist. I usually describe myself as an atheistic agnostic... which means an agnostic leaning towards atheism. Agnosticism is usually defined as being unsure of the existence of God, but I have always found myself doubting that existence. A better stance would be Atheism, but then, won't I be in the same believing-things-they-don't-know group as theists?

I confess I hadn't given much thought to the issue, and not let my oscillating stance bother me that much, so I am thankful that I found a Richard Dawkins piece about this ambiguity in Forbes Magazine. In it, Dawkins doubts that scientists (like Einstein) who frequently refer to God are doing so with the same God in mind that an ordinary person believes in. But their references get frequently misinterpreted by religious propagandists, who use the mileage of science to get more followers.

Other quotations from Einstein, like "my God is the same as that of Spinoza" are much less widely known. Einstein's God was nature itself, not the God people worship every day. Scientists usually mean "nature" or "laws of nature" (or even "initial conditions") when they say "God". My own stance is similar, except that I call "Nature" as "Nature", and not "God", having developed an aversion to the word (it leads to misunderstandings, especially when people who know I'm an atheist tell me not to take God's name in vain).

The main question Dawkins poses (which comes a little later in the article) is this: can religion and science 'converge'? Is it possible, on one hand, to believe in miracles, and, on the other, to 'believe' in science as the truth? It might be possible for some people but I think that's due to inconsistency on their part. Religion and science are mutually incompatible, atleast if you have a conventional definition of both ;). Praying isn't going to save you from that exam, and if you've studied the physics part of it properly, you should know that. ;)

So let me clarify my stand on God (well, his existence): Atheism. Religion is not equally believable as science. Just like Evolution is much more plausible than "creationism". Religion might step back when the rollcall for scientific theories takes place, but it intrudes into that very territory on most of it's ideas. Like Dawkins, I believe many things are unknown by science, but that doesn't mean they're unknowable.

Q&A Series: Bohr Orbits

2008-02-03T22:08:00.000+05:30

Hello, everyone. Anne and I have decided to start a new series: it's called Q&A (I think). What it comprises is this: One of us asks the other a question... it can be anything, from Science to Politics to Philosophy to, I guess, personal opinions. The credit for this great idea goes to Anne, and she went first with the asking of the questions. Her question and my response are posted on the following page (it being too big to incorporate on my blog)...

http://anonicker.googlepages.com/bohrorbitandqm

Hope you enjoy this series as it progresses. I have already given a question to Anne to answer (it's about Biology). Soon, we'll also move on to other non-specialist subjects. Great Idea, this. :)

Jabberwocky in Cartoon form!

2008-01-25T23:43:00.001+05:30

I know, I have disappeared lately... but let me assure you that I have disappeared behind a buckload of physics ;).

And, yes, I have also been rather parasitic about my blog's contents, feeding mostly on Charmaine's creations... this post is another such shameless non-efforts. But it IS with Charmaine's permission, and I promise that the next post with be limericks, and all original works.

Enjoy Charmaine's belated Bday present for me till then... her Jabberwocky interpretation :) . (And that's me as the boy in most of the frames, btw. :D)

A poem for a Birthday

2007-12-05T18:10:00.000+05:30

A birthday poem, that's new! I know. I sent it to Charmaine on her Birthday recently, when she turned 19. She liked it, and agreed to illustrate it for posting it on my blog. So, here it is, and she's done the drawing nicely (although I wish she would tone down the sarcasm a bit... but hey, where else do you find self-satirical cartoons? ;) )

This might take a while to load, so have patience. :)

We'd love your comments!

School Comics - 1

2007-10-29T12:14:00.000+05:30

Charmaine and I put together some comics recently. Charmaine did the drawing, I gave the inspiration for some of the ideas. I'll post three of the comics here... the First and Third are Charmaine's own work, the second is based on an idea by me. Tell us whether you like these. :)

Euphemism Eulogy

2007-10-22T13:11:00.000+05:30

Note: Don't be scared to run to the ol' Oxford. It'll enrich your knowledge of ~~your~~ my favourite language, really.

Note: Having gotten a number of complaints about the sheer incomprehensibility of this post, I have attempted to put together a glossary of the expressions used here.

There are some things which indisputably add colour to The English Language^TM. Two of them are euphemisms and idioms. The latter encompasses too broad a territory to be given justice in so short a piece. Euphemisms, however aplenty they appear to occur, are of limited scope but unlimited interest. So without further waffle, let us embark on the journey through the land of doublespeak- so to speak.

The euphemisms I'll talk about fall into three categories: 'sleeping with the devil', being 'put to sleep', and... well, sleeping, in the inappropriate sense of the word. With due respect to the departed, fraternizing usually takes the cake for the most number of euphemisms associated with a single act, and the neighbouring territories thereof. But I'll start with the least impressive act of the three... that of the Right, the Left and their being bull(ie)s on someone else's farmland, so to speak.

While most governments are under fire by their subjects for stuff like 'revenue enhancements', or their propensity to spread 'disinformation', their most disliked activities have to do with 'armed intervention'. To 'liberate' the 'freedom fighters' in the other country, the 'enemy' is 'pacified' and it's infrastructure is 'neutralised', resulting in widescale 'collateral damage'. 'Concentration camps', or 'relocation centres' arise. The attacked country is irreversibly put into a state of 'political unrest', while the 'liberator' puts the captured enemy 'terrorists' into 'correctional facilities', where they are subjected to 'enhanced interrogation techniques'. I admit I wasn't too humorous on this topic, but leave it to the experts, so to speak.

Lest you think I will continue to babble about things not entirely sunny, I'll come to a much brighter subject than politics, adroitly handled by the Pythons in their famous Dead Parrot Sketch. I'll admit going over to the other side isn't an exactly pleasant experience, but eternal rest ought to be richer than the previous topic. It is, after all, a debt we must all pay. Meeting your maker ought to be a delightful experience. We learnt these expressions (although maybe not their meaning) when we were still children, and visited the funeral director to look at grandpa soundly sleeping, with out parents assuring us that he had gone to the sweet hereafter, joined the angels, gone to a place "far far away". (Ok, then why is his body still here?) Well, we all are going to shed out mortal skin one day, and visit Davy Jones' locker. Here is a list of euphemisms for sleeping with the fishes. I, for one, am not that eager to kick the bucket so soon, and go to the big glass house in the sky, and earn my 6inch-by-8inch of fame, so to speak.

Finally, let us engage ourselves in a game of carnal knowledge, and let loose our basis instinct. The number of euphemistic phrases for getting intimate is practically unlimited, but I'll be a prick and indulge my senses in just the most colourful ones. Hanky-panky has been the subject of debate for centuries, although everyone longs to make whoopee with the well-endowed woman at the bar. Attempted self-fertilisation may be more common, since not everyone has a chance to get busy so often. In fact, many in my class haven't even attended the inaugural ball yet. I wont deny, though, that there are many playboys who sleep around often. In fact, a bit of the ol' in-and-out won't hurt anybody, eh? I'm all for consummating the relationship, people. I'm out of legitimate sentences in which to fit the list for making ends meet, if you get my drift, so I'll just give you a link for it. Now excuse me while I answer nature's call, so to speak.

Links: Idioms list
Euphemisms lists: 1 2

P.S. Also check out the Time article about the harms of saying it by not saying it, so to speak.

Blog Action Day!

2007-10-15T23:04:00.000+05:30

Usually, I dont succumb to mass media hype, but hey, this is important. Ask Sweden.

It's blog action day, and many participating blogs are going to post stuff on the environment. But I say, no publicity like Nobel publicity, eh? Still, I ought to put in my two cents worth.

Originally, I thought, lets redirect to Anne's blog, I'm too lazy. But then I saw her blog, and, well, her post is, shall we put it, under construction as yet. So, I shall have to write an original.

I'll concede... no, confess, first of all, that I'm not very environment conscious. It's customary with me to throw stuff all over the place, regardless of it's plasticity. Other than that, I am not really a big polluter. I'm a supporter of public transport, and cleaner fuel. (Electricity isnt going to do much good, though. We need to use renewable fuels, not just "other" sources of fuels. What electricity will do, is increase our dependence on nuclear (or coal) power, thus harming the environment, again.)

Coming back to throwing things anywhere, outside the dustbin even if there is one nearby, one of my friends has a great strategy: she picks up anything anyone in the group throws on the street (ignoring her warnings), and puts it in the dustbin. Even if the toffee wrapper lands in a pool of dirty water, she'll pick it up and put it in her bag even, until she gets to a proper waste disposal site (um, dustbin). Makes the guy (usually me) who threw the wrapper feel so embarrassed he wont do it again, atleast until he forgets the memory. Sort of Gandhism, and effective too. She isn't becoming a subject of ridicule for going against the tide. She's influencing us to join her.

I would speak about greenhouse gases, and global warming too. But why don't you rent "An Inconvenient Truth" instead? It's from possibly the first guy to win an Oscar and a Nobel. Beat me to it, he did. ;)

Common Science

2007-09-20T22:00:00.000+05:30

Note: I have been studying, and been so busy, I have had no time to update the blog. I'm very sorry for this, and I'll try my best not to forget this blog (and you all readers!). Please bear with me, and try to refrain from hateful comments ;).

Note 2: I'm experimenting with fonts. Do you like Trebuchet more than Georgia?

Update: This discussion has gone far beyond the original post... be sure to check the comments.

Most of the books on science in the market (besides textbooks of different levels) fall roughly into two types: Those dealing with life care and health, and those dealing with important but esoteric issues in science and it's philosophy. But if you search some non-science bookshelf, there are thousands of books on Astrology, Vaastu and whatnot: the stuff generally dubbed pseudoscience. But those books sell: and for a reason. They are well-written, easy to understand, and apply to the lives of common citizens.

Look into an astrology book, and you'll see many references to stars and planets. A glance at a Reiki, Feng-Shui, or any such book has numerous references to "energy flow". This misleads the reader into thinking that what she is reading is science, or related to it. Why? Haven't people learnt real science in schools? Why can't they tell the "energy" of physics and the "energy" of Feng-Shui apart?

The problem, most would contend, lies in the education system. Whatever science we learn at school from dull, drab textbooks is often forgotten by everyone except a few nerds who aren't good at anything else. We need to "rev" up the texts, and make the courses a lot more interesting, practical. That certainly is true: the education system (here) does need an overhaul. But that isn't the whole problem. If I were asked now about the biology I learnt in school, I wouldn't be able to answer even a few easy questions. It's not my fault: the textbooks may have been interesting; they weren't so to me. Then, how do you make people interested in science?

The first question, of course, is why people ought to be interested in science. Because science is much more closely related to their lives than the stars, planets, or their karma: science is not just about fundamentals: it is about technology and applications. Every appliance in the house has a technology behind it, and people can learn to use it better only if they know it. Science isn't just concerned with galaxies and atoms: it is concerned with how to make the next toaster better, how to make a buildings resistant to fires, and why you should wear rubber boots when dealing with electricity. The "effects of electricity on our lives" are much greater than those of Saturn: every modern device needs a power plug.

However, there aren't many "common science" books in the libraries. Shelves are filled with astrology, but finding one book on electricity for the common man (as opposed to the schoolkid or the professional) would be a tiresome endevour.

Biology, which is the science closest to us, fortunately does have a number of books for the common person: from health to plant care. Physics is less fortunate: gravity is known, but not it's law; energy is a much-used word, but it's presice meaning and limitations are not well-known. Chemistry is even worse-off, although it has applications from cleaning to cooking.

I am not talking about the fundamentals of science, or even the philosophy. For the curious, there are some books in why science works. For the very curious, there is a myriad of books on science: from DNA to Cosmology, from Quantum consciousness to Evolution. These are interesting in their own because they deal with real mysteries, stuff that can fascinate everyone who has wondered about our origins or asked "why?" But these give the impression that science is an esoteric endevour. Why do so many people choose to believe in ghosts, karma and "chi"? Because there is a lack of scientific temper, and awareness of real science. This is what I think books on "common science" can provide.

Cartoonicks, once again.

2007-08-13T18:49:00.000+05:30

Along with a couple of limericks by yours truly. ;)

One might wonder where squirrels got tails
Or the neighbouring farmer got his sharp rails
Where the pirates sail
Why the song is stale
Or why this dominatrix didn't cut her nails!

There was a girl called Elizabeth
(This is about the queen, you bet?)
But whatever is your fancy
Queen liz won't get as dancy
As the Bennet they named Elizabeth!

(Lame, but a popular book reference has got to count for something ;). )

Here are the promised cartoonicks. :D They're getting better with every post!

Celebrities, TRPs and attention hogs

2007-08-01T19:21:00.000+05:30

Note: Long post, but it needed to be said. Your opinions welcome. :)

Yesterday, a TADA (Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act) court finished it's sentencing of the accused in the 1993 Mumbai blasts case. It gave 12 death sentences and 20 life terms. On it's last day, it sentenced bollywood actor Sanjay Dutt to 6 years in prison for possessing firearms illegally. The court must be praised for being impartial and not letting Dutt off lightly just because he's a popular celebrity and a "good, honest person" according to his co-stars.
But the media aren't giving the issue the snubbing it deserves. Rather, news channels hold long debates over whether he should be sentenced, hold opinion polls (over SMS: they have a deal with the SMS companies so that the money goes to them), asking his co-stars their reactions, and even stating what he'll get to eat in jail (and that he'll be in the same barrack as ganster Abu Salem, not with his friend (who's also in jail, you see) Yusuf Nulwalla).

Sanjay Dutt is hogging space which should have been filled with debates about the death penalty, terrorism, and how the accused in the '93 riots should be tried too. But the media just wants TRPs (Television Rating Points), and ironically the same channels and papers Prez Kalam asked to aid in "nation building" during the Ramnath Goenka memorial debate. Who cares about what effects this trial has had on the other accused and the muslim community in general; people want to hear about Dutt, so we give them Dutt. One wonders when this rationale will die out. Even Kalam's advice is blatantly ignored.

One more thing irritated me tremendously recently was the coverage given to terror suspect Mohd. Haneef's return from Australia. I guess the people have already decided Haneef is innocent, because he's an Indian. I wonder what the case would've been if he was a Pakistani? Australia now says his chat records show his foreknowledge of the British terror plot. I saw an interview the other day where he said he had no knowledge of it: did he lie? Either way, I'm not so sure he's innocent. But his return was celebrated all right (garlands and all. They greet a terror suspect (ok, no longer so) with garlands. What next? Sigh.)

And news channels were so obsessed with him that night that they even broke into his home, trying to interview the clearly distressed Haneef. (Actually, only one channel did, and it bragged about having the only TV camera inside the house. So much for CNN IBN. Would NDTV have done the same?)

Lastly, I'm SICK of page 3 and celebrity news. A whole section of the paper is on these people who I guess deserved the print because, generally, they're actors, socialites (what the @#$! is that?), or porn stars (you know who I'm talking about)... and specifically because they got their divorce, went vacationing somewhere, or released a crappy movie or album. I wonder why Ingmar Bergman's death didn't get the same coverage as Britney's divorce? The real people who entertain and inform us are never covered. Bombay Times is covered with posers and attention hogs.

You can say I should just ignore it. Sure. But my ignoring it won't change it. The real damage is because media actually affects people's thinking about stuff. If it covered Bergman's death, more people would want to see his films. If they papers gave one page coverage to the riot accused and why they should be treated as harshly as the blast accused, people will discuss it. When I heard Kalam's advice, I thought it was a pretty obvious thing to say but difficult to carry out. But the last week has changed my opinion. The media can engage in "nation-building", as he said, but they lack the will to do so. Are they even aware of it?

Do comment. A little discussion never fails to enlighten.

Limericks and a cartoonick

2007-07-23T16:28:00.000+05:30

Well, I'm busy with physics and college right now, but I did take the time off to write a few limericks:

There are equations, and equations, and equations
Then there are derivations, questions, and patience
There's so much of homework
You are greeted with a smirk
But don't worry, physics has it's perks! (On occasion)

From the Point of view of a girl:

It's so very boring being a clerk
Just when yours boss is being a flirt
And charming you up
HIS boss shuts him up
And it's again back to paper work!

A little poem... I don't know what to call it....

He sees a skirt, "I'll show you I can flirt"
You like her a bit, but he's much more fit
"Stay back, and watch: As smooth as scotch"

He goes up to her, says,
I've been watching you for days...
You're first on the list,
Of this theoretical physicist...

Before you can say, "Boo, I'm one too!"
"I don't like nerds," she scoffs, "especially a prof!"

And finally, as promised in the title, the cartoonick (Which I'm sure was most awaited... Charmaine's work is great, brilliant, and creative... I must say that the limerick is mine though :D)

Comment, I like feedback (so does Charms). :)

School, results and cut-offs

2007-07-05T14:20:00.000+05:30

Warning: Another long post. Ok, I'll edit it some.

I don't remember my days from school very fondly. Aside from physics and algebra, I didn't like what was taught, so I didn't score in exams. I didn't have many friends, and was also bullied and teased. I had a crush which didn't work out. In short, I was a dork. School isn't exactly heaven for dorks. I enjoyed college a LOT more. No, this post is not about me... but if you find my views biased, untrue or even silly, I hope you'll accept this paragraph as an excuse.

Anyway, onto the topic...

Cut-outs

The school has ended, time for college
My skills will finally be acknowledged!
For I have those high marks,
Money, to feed the sharks
With all this, who cares for knowledge?

I scored a meagre 75% in the tenth standard. For the uninitiated, India has two "big exams" before college: 10th, and 12th. After 10th, you select a stream, out of Commerce, Arts (Humanities), Science, or various Diploma courses. You study that for two years, then finally give the 12th exams and associated entrance exams to engineering, medical, etc.

I say "meagre" for 75% because if you score below 80%, you don't get admission in even average colleges. I spent my 11th and 12th in a small newly opened junior college. I got better marks in 12th (82%), because I liked science. And with most students opting for engineering, my way to a good degree college was clear. ("Good" is relative... but lets not get into that now. Maybe I'll write a post later on the "state of physics" in degree colleges.)

That one has to opt for sub-standard colleges even if one gets 75% should be an alarm in itself. This year, the cut-offs after 12th are even higher: see this news article. (Cut-offs are the lowest marks for which one can get admission in a college, and this year it's 87% for the top science colleges.) For the reserved categories, the cut-offs are lower by some 10-15% in cases. That means, if you are from the lower classes, you can get admission into a good college even with lower marks. But you'll be bunking most of the lectures. No worry: you'll score enough to get into a good engineering college, whereas others in your class might have to struggle hard.

The high cut-offs are one thing; what worries me is how so many students get 90% or more. How do they study? Do they understand the subject? Are better students being left behind because they're unable to write the "prescribed answers", or "focus on the presentation"?

I don't have the answers. Maybe the high cut-offs dont matter. As someone recently said, "Some years ago, the 100 best students were getting into top colleges, this year too the 100 best students will get into it, no matter what the cutoffs". I disagree. I don't think the exam system gives us the best students. The high scorers are the ones who know everything in the text, but nothing outside. That's why parents marched in protest of out-of-the-syllabus questions in the paper this year, causing the board to award 30(!) grace marks to every student in maths. The plan backfired on the parents: now toppers can't get admission to the top colleges, because everyone has good marks in maths! Can't students handle a tough paper? Why so much pressure on them, their parents, and the authorities?

(So many students have high marks, I'm prompted to a physics joke: Cutoff, or saturation?)

The "system"

Are the 10th exams even important? Students spend their valuable time for the last 2-3 years of school learning the same material twice, in schools and coaching classes. They study "model answers", memorise maths (!!), and are motivated to nothing else: just score high, son! Other methods of evaluating students have regularly been brought down: Internal assesment? "No, how will she score high then? Just exams, please, where she can write the model answers well and get into a good college." For parents, there is no other purpose for a school than to launch their son/daughter into a good college. As a result, students have this attitude too: I want nothing but marks. No knowledge, no loving the subject, just marks will do.

All this fails: students have no interest in, and no knowledge of other subjects than the ones they've taken up after school. No matter how much they scored in them. I know I'm generalising: I know quite a few people who liked History, scored high, and continue to love it. But they are not in the majority. The majority just study for the exams, and will resort to anythign to get marks: from copying, to memorising geometry proofs, to getting "expected" questions from their coaching classes. And of course, everyone studies the same things twice, from two different teachers. Everyone can shell out 15000 for a coaching class because they'll get better marks. If they were any intelligent, they'd realise that would do nothing but push the average up. ;)

And the teachers?

I was coming to that... if they're already learning the same stuff at schools, why do they need coaching classes? Because school teachers are no good, apparently. They won't tell you what to expect in the exams, they wont tell you how to score well. They won't hold 5 prelims. Are they less qualified? Are they not interested in the students? Why? They themselves teach at coaching classes. They're just paid more there.

There are no projects at school, no real creative work. The teachers are reluctant to go outside the syllabus and teach something interesting. There are two reasons for that: They themselves know little of the subject outside the syllabus, and if they don't focus on the exams, the parents will kill them (metaphorically, of course). The syllabus (atleast the state board one) is itself the least interesting creature you'll find here, and the textbooks only worsen it. If one should wonder why English doesn't have real literature, stuff about poetry, and practical speaking leasons, or why Science isn't developed in a more creative and hand-on way, one wouldn't need to go beyond the low quality of the schoolteachers for the answer. Why no sex-ed? Why no extra stuff that is the norm in foreign countries? Well, who'd teach it?

Ok, I've finished complaining. As a postscript, I'd only like to say that the 10th exams don't mean anything. Even the 12th exams don't. Only the CET for engineering and medical does. And entrances are fortunately better designed. So I'd just like to see parents trying to mould their children into creative, intelligent beings, rather than RAM.

I realise I've written only one limerick. So here's one more:

"Can I take part in the school skit?"
"You're in 10th, my dear nit-wit,
The exams are in 6 mon
And you should study, son
So forget creativity and get on with it!"

Before Sunset/Before Sunrise (revised)

2007-06-19T19:14:00.000+05:30

Note: A long time ago, I wrote this review of Before Sunset and Before Sunrise. It was more an appreciation of my favourite movie rather than a review, but it was incomplete as such. Time and again I have been advised to revise it, rewrite it... so here is my attempt. I don't pretend that this is a review... it's rather an appreciation, a way of sharing my thoughts on why the movies are beautiful.

Meeting a stranger on a train, finding a connection, and spending a day with her in a foreign city: seems like a stuff of daydreams, doesn't it? But that's precisely the world into which Richard Linklater takes us in Before Sunrise: a movie filled with magic as two intelligent young people spend an intensely romantic and conversational day in Vienna. The movie is made magical as much by the brilliant dialogue and direction by Linklater, as by the chemistry between Ethan Hawke and Julie Delphy. There has rarely been a better screen couple.

She is intelligent (I believe, more than him), free-minded, and in her own words, "a strong independent (french)woman". He is an happy-go-lucky guy from the US who has tried to learn French, and ponders over life and what he wants to do in it. They discuss their past crushes, future plans, listen to beautiful poetry on a river bank, and contemplate over marraige and death in a church, and kiss in the sunset.

One of the most beautiful moments occurs in the listening booth of a audio store, as they glance at each other, only to look away when the other catches him/her, while they listen to Kath Bloom's beautiful "Come here". Later, they wander into an alley, where Jesse says that he'd rather die knowing he had done something, rather than knowing he'd cared for his family, and loved them. Celine tells of an old man she knew who regretted doing just that, and then says
"I believe if there's any kind of God it wouldn't be in any of us, not you or me but just this little space in between. If there's any kind of magic in this world it must be in the attempt of understanding someone sharing something."
That has got to be one of the most beautiful lines I've ever heard in any movie.

As the night draws closer, the tension builds, for Jesse has to catch a plane the next morning, and they both know they have just this one night. Are they comfortable with it? Are they going to not write or phone because it "fizzles out"?

A subtle tension develops in a movie which was only romantic, thoughtful (not to mention funny) until now. This undercurrent finally surfaces in the last scene, where they promise to meet each other in six months. But will they?

Aside from a little screen time in "Waking Life", we don't meet Jesse and Celine for ten years, until Before Sunset. By then, Jesse has a wife and a kid, and Celine is a long-term relationship. But he hasn't been able to forget their magical day, and has written a book about it. He comes to Paris for promoting the book, and Celine is there!

Turns out they didn't meet again in six months, and have spent the last ten years regretting it. But they are slow to admit it: At first, they casually ask each other about their lives, their families, as though they are just friends who have met after a long time. But inside, there is anguish, grief, and, still, love. It finally explodes in a car as Jesse is dropping Celine to her house, and he has to catch a plane soon. The car scene is intense, and what follows later is a movie conclusion which simultaneously thrills, surprises, and is fitting to the story. I wonder what they'll do when they make a third movie... only 7 more years .

What I liked most about Before Sunrise is how it is filled with the energy of youth, and filled with conversation that potrays accurately the thoughts of optimistic, soul-searching modern generation boys and girls. Before Sunset follows it up with the anguish of lost opportunities, the rarity of connection, and two protagonists who are even more interesting now that they have matured and their worldview has changed.

You won't find two better movies on life, love, youth and growing up. Even if you hate romances, these are two movies so different and good that you should seek them out. There is insight in the conversations, and real meaning to the things they discuss, feel, and face.

Movie Series: 5. The Life of Brian

2007-06-02T11:00:00.000+05:30

"Our Masterpiece"
- John Cleese on The Life of Brian

It took a lot of time, yes, for this, my final post in the Movie Series, to be written. I wanted to write it ever since I saw "The Life of Brian" in April. This is truly a fantastic movie: Very funny, very satirical, and very profound (Ok, that may be a strong word in this context). Before I saw Brian, I was wrestling with myself on which movie I should write about in the fifth post. But one I saw Life of Brian, there was no doubt in my mind. (Besides, this series has lacked a comedy.)

Before I start my usual plaudit-heaped post, here's a limerick:

The Life of Brian

Brian was an un-usually sensible chum
(Though he stuck out like a sore thumb)
Before he got involved
And his reason dissolved
When he shouted "~~Romanus~~ Romani ~~eunt~~ ite ~~domus~~ domum!"

A lot has been said about this movie (about all great movies, actually), so I wonder what I can add. Maybe not much, so, for the review part, I'll direct you to Roger Ebert's review of Life of Brian. The only thing I have to add is that the sets are great, the movie is funny, and unlike The Holy Grail (of which I am not a big fan), this one has less slapstick and more sarcasm.

For my part, all I have to do is convince you to watch the movie: because I feel this is not a movie to be missed. The best thing to do is quote some funny lines from the movie, and here they are:

[The audience members at the back of the crowd are having trouble hearing the Sermon on the Mount.]; Man: I think it was, "Blessed are the cheesemakers"!; Gregory's wife: What's so special about the cheesemakers?; Gregory: Well, obviously it's not meant to be taken literally. It refers to any manufacturers of dairy products.
: Mandy: Your father was a Roman.; Brian: You mean... you were RAPED?!; Mandy: Well... at first, yes.
: Blind Man; I'm healed! The master has healed me! I was blind, but now I see! [he falls headlong into a hole]
: Brian: I'm not the Messiah!; Arthur: I say you are, lord, and I should know... I've followed a few.; Followers: Hail Messiah!; Brian: I'm not the Messiah! Will you please listen? I am not the Messiah, do you understand? Honestly!; Girl: Only the true Messiah denies His divinity!; Brian: What?! Well, what sort of chance does that give me? All right... I AM THE MESSIAH!; Followers: HE IS! HE IS THE MESSIAH!; Brian: NOW, FUCK OFF!!!!; [there is a long awkward silence.]; Arthur: How shall we fuck off, oh Lord?; Brian: Oh, just go away! Leave me alone.
: Brian: You are all individuals!; Crowd: YES, YES, WE ARE ALL INDIVIDUALS!; Brian: You are all different!; Crowd: YES, WE ARE ALL DIFFERENT!; Lone Voice: I'm not.; Person next to him: SHH!

Hope you enjoyed them. More here. Do watch the movie, it's very good. :)

A very long comeback

2007-05-22T18:32:00.000+05:30

I haven't posted in such a long while
What I want to say might take a mile
But I am a bit bored
And whatever I may hoard
Long post, you know, just ain't my style!

Now you'll think, is he going to write
This whole damn post in limericks trite
You are fooling yourself
For I might need help
If I can keep yapping like this all night!

Besides, I just don't have the patience
To form rhymes and word-relations
So Instead of the poetic
I'll settle for the pathetic:
A prosiac description of my vacations...

Vacations

My memory is muddy...
Did I, or did I not, study?

Well, in 20 days, I enter the third year of college, which is the last year here in India. So, in one year, I'll be a bachelor of science, majoring in physics. Well, hopefully ;).

This vacations, I tried to study physics, and failed. Partly. I am on schedule with mathematical physics, and quantum mech can be covered too, but I am lagging behind in mechanics and electrodynamics. I also found out that I cant study at home. Maybe I'm just giving excuses.

In short, I need the vacations to end. Or maybe not. We finished shooting for our movie this week, absconding soul and me. Now we have to edit it, and we'll put it on youtube. This vacation is giving me a final chance to live life freely before I grind my brains in TY (that's third year).

But I shouldn't get used to this, otherwise I wont be able to study when college starts. I am addicted to the PC and to the TV somewhat, and to fun in general. I need to stop that. I should be making sacrifices, not posting on my blog. And not procrastinating.

Just goes to show that you can know what to do and still not do it. I think it's called Lethargy.

After that pathetically silly rant above
What crap am I gonna serve NOW?
It's just a movie review
A movie you should view
Instead of mentally cursing me.. ow!

Life in a... Metro

An ensemble story. A star cast that reads like the who's who of promising independent actors. An entertaining movie that also manages to be mature. And, most of all, a lean movie that clocks in at 2.2 hours. What more can I ask for?

Well, in more detail, Metro is 3 stories in parallel: That of Shilpa Shetty and Kay Kay's marriage, and their respective affairs with Shiney and Kangana; Sharman's love of Kangana; and of Konkana Sen's 20 yr old virgin who's meeting men for marriage, among them Irrfan Khan's silly, weird (mild) voyeur. The performances all range from Good to Great, the best being Shilpa Shetty, Irrfan Khan and Kay Kay. Kay Kay shows is one of the best actors in bollywood by following an enjoyable turn in Honeymoon Travels with this portrayal of an unfaithful husband. Watch him in the scene where he confesses his affair to his wife, and learns of her affair too. Shilpa Shetty gives her best performance ever as his wife, and the distressing sacrifices she makes.

The cinematography is beautiful, capturing the city as well as the individuals. Anurag Basu's direction is top-notch. He handles highly emotional scenes effectively. The editing is simply superb: it never bores, and the transitions from one story to another are smooth.

The few problems I had were: The Dharmendra-Nafisa Ali story is simply too over-the-top. It should've been edited out, perhaps giving more screen time to Shiney and Kangana. And the ending is not at all satisfactory. I wonder why, after writing such a mature and realistic movie, the director chose such a "bollywood ending". And the Metro band which surfaces in every song, sometimes takes essential screen space away from the actors.

But Metro is still a great deal better
Than the usual masala in the theatre
I recommend it highly
While noting wryly
That it could have been a lot better!

Freedom, where art thou?

Freedom of speech. Case in point: Vandalising by Bajrag Dal of certain " religiously hurtful" painting in M S University. What happened was that an student at an arts college painted stuff that was “derogatory” to Vishnu, Durga and Jesus Christ, for an internal evaluation. A Bajrang Dal (a conservative Hindu group) broke into the college, beat him up, vandalised his paintings, and had the police arrest him.

Unless it's escaped you, note the irony: His paintings, which were not public, were exposed to the media by a person who broke into an educational institution, damages private property, beat a student. The paintings, in private, could just not hurt anyone, because they were, er, not public. And who was arrested? Not person who vandalised his paintings, but the artist!

MSU's vice-chancellor refused to help the poor artist, who was stuck in jail for 4 days. The Dean of the Arts faculty protested, refused to apologise to the religious zealots. As a result, he was suspended. The political angle is apparent here. Bajrang Dal has support of the BJP, which is the ruling party in Gujarat. It is sad when educational institutions are made subject to such religious politics.

The main issue here, however, is of freedom of speech. Does an artist have a right to draw paintings which could go against religious sentiment? In most European countries, the answer would be an unambiguous "yes". In India, however, one cannot go too far with work that hurts religious sentiments intentionally. And that is essential, because India is a multi-cultural country if there ever was one, and it is necessary for communal harmony. But sometimes people go overboard with the application of this law, mainly backed by extremists and political parties. Where is the essential human right, freedom of speech, in all this? Well, it is certainly there, but the law protects it against it's tremendous potential for misuse, in a society like India's.

I won't say much, more, will let other, more knowledgeable people do the talking. (The first two for the law, the last for the art).

Art, free-minded, pleads to thee,
"Religion, please don't hurt me!"

Odds and Ends

Don't be bored too early, mates
This has just begun, Avast!
You are now entering the gates
I save the best, for last!

But, you should note, I make no such claim. The Odds and Ends in this section's title simply means that I am tired of creating more sections. Too long an article, this has been.

Well, absconding soul and I finished shooting for the trains movie. The editing is all that remains, but it'll be hard to create a coherent movie out of the tens of clips we have. (Yes, tens was once a big number.) And we have to search for music. But, I assure you, we have some fantastic footage. We will put the video up on Youtube once we finish editing.

Keep an eye on French Fries and Videotape, it'll have a post on Superhero movies soon.
Absconding soul posted an article recently on intolerance in Indian society.
Anne has a post on the experience of reading a book.
Laevanesce posted a very weird poem some days ago.

A final limerick to relieve you, at last
The final draft has now been cast
Lets raise a toast
To a very long post
Which began sometime in the distant past!

Cartoonicks!

2007-05-11T08:11:00.000+05:30

Yes! I told you in the previous post about a "creative collaboration with Charmaine". Well, Charmaine draws really cute cartoons, so we got together to make two "cartoonicks", which are essentially limericks with cartoon for each line.

Oh, and may I put a thought about Charmaine's cartoons: awesome!

Do tell us if you like them, mates. And suggestions always welcome.

Deep Thoughts

2007-05-03T19:07:00.000+05:30

Firstly, some apologies for not posting frequently. This vacation has been so boring, and that had an effect on the blog too. I'll try to post more often now.

Btw, have a look at French Fries and Videotape, a newly started blog on films (it currently has one post), of which I am co-author. :)

Next post is a creative collaboration with Charmaine, and I'm sure you'll like it. :D

Here's this post's main subject, inspired by Deep Thoughts by Jack Handy. I like those: witty, silly, and sometimes of the laugh-out-loud variety. So I thought, lets try making some up myself.

Life would be so much more interesting if my surname were Mind. Then my school teachers would call me "Master Mind". It would be good for my resume. Maybe I'd go on billboards. Of course, after I marry, I'll become "Mister Mind", which... doesn't really make sense.
I want to practise Hara Kiri, even if it's the last thing I do.
Yeah, maybe life is like football. I just wish I didn't have to spend so much time dribbling.
A musing is not always amusing.
Sometimes, I think, what's that gotta do with anything. But then it turns out that that that is the cause of this that, in fact, that's whole root of this, and that really stuns me.
I'd want to spend the last 5 minutes of my life in a physics lecture, coz then it'd last forever!
If I chance upon a man in the street, and he starts running after me, it's not my wallet. It's just me. Either people wanna kidnap me real fast, or they think I'm a terrorist. Or it's that Chocolate bar hanging out of my pocket.
There are some people who just won't believe I'm God. When I chance upon one of them, I instruct my legion of followers to beat him up, and then I rescue him, and he says "Savior!". And if it's a woman, we make love.
Absence makes the heart go yonder. Presence makes the heart go blip. But Abstinence is the worst of all.
I saw a girl staring at me today, and I was like, "Yo, handsome!". Then another girl stared at me, and I thought... maybe there's a spider on my face.

Tell me what you think. ;)

Haiku

2007-04-17T06:34:00.000+05:30

I did post one haiku a few months ago, but it was bad, no use linking... I read a little about haiku yesterday, and I thought, lets try writing some. I had to have inspiration moments, the so-called "haiku moments", and i didn't have many... :) Anyway, here's one:

bulb falling to blip
is easy falling in love
with falling darkness

Some Physics Haiku...

(a quantum mech haiku: first of it's kind! ;) )

particle approach
measuring apparatus
wavefunction collapse

lens system: solve it
f 1 19, f2 10
distance between: 12

no F then no a
(inertial frame) F equals ma
action equals reaction

Finally, if you have read my limericks, you must have noticed that i dont pay attention to syllables. But Haiku (actually, Charmaine) forced me to pay attention to syllables... but here are two haikus (well, not haikus) I wrote in frustration:

haiku is difficult
limericks are a piece of cake
anonick not care for the damn syllables

there was a man from japan
who found haiku too hard
but his lims didn;t rhyme
and were incorrect
so he called it five-ku

Finally:

nothing is working
life, haiku, clock, poetry
without a battery

I hope I improve! ;-) Feedback appreciated. :) Dont be too rough, it's my first time...

I'm back! With a limerick-poem

2007-04-11T20:28:00.001+05:30

Well, this is my first post from Scribefire... and let's see how it works... I have been busy, very busy, but I haven't forgotten this blog (so dont accuse me ;-) ). I will write a post with some actual content soon, but for now, here are some limericks (in case you thought my creativity was dead or something :P) :

(The last stanza is a double-limerick: 9 lines, aabbaabba ... lol.)

Our Hero the Pianist

There was a pianist from near Rome
(From near-about where they all come)
But challenged to a duel
By Publius (no fool)
All our hero could manage was "Um..."

He prided his abilities, the near-Roman
But Publius's dare was no good omen
Though, the "No" was undone
Because whoever won
Could get a bossomy, voluptuous woman.

Our hero, you know, an artist in penury
Considered the offer with the air of a jury
Reasoned, but sexual affinity,
Unappeased since loss of virginity,
Mouthed a "yes", and began pianing with fury...

A distracted artist has the skill of a whale
With one eye on the 'ano, one on the female
Our hero, driven by lust
Lost the contest, his first
Vowed strongly: never again will he fail...
"All contests from now," he stated in detail
"Will not have diversions
While I play with urgence!
All duels, henceforth, will be done on email!"

Do comment. :)

"You're Beautiful" parody: "Parole"

2007-03-31T08:48:00.000+05:30

Well, I really love the song, so I thought, let's write a parody. Temme if you like it. Unfortunately (or fortunately, the way you look at it), I won't be able to sing it, so I'll just write it. Imagine it being sung, and if you haven't heard the original, click on the link. It's nice, and you'll be able to appreciate the parody better. :)

Parole

My plan was brilliant.

My plan was brilliant,
The cash was hard.
We saw a bank,
With a lone guard.
We talked about it on the subway
The guard with another man.
But we won't lose no sleep on that
'Cause we had a plan.

(Now) You're out on parole. You're out on parole.
You're out on parole, I'm in.
They saw my face, on a "wanted" page,
And I didn't know what to do,
When they caught me in the loo.

Yeah, it caught our eye,
As we whizzed on by,
I could see from your face, that you'd
Fucking try,
And I didn't think that they'd see us again
As we shared the loot that'd last till the end.

(But) you're out on parole, you're out on parole,
You're out on parole, I'm in.
They saw my face, on a wanted page,
And I dunno what to do,
I'll never be with you.

You're out on parole, you're out on parole,
You're out on parole, I'm in.
There must be a policeman with a smile on his face,
When he caught up with me in the loo.

But it's time to face the truth,
All the cash was taken by you.

Physics Poem

2007-03-22T19:53:00.000+05:30

I've been indulging in physics a lot lately, so this is another physics-poems post. It's about the history of physics, not physics itself, so it may be more enjoyable, i hope. For the largest collection of physics poems on the net I've seen... go here. Enjoy.

A lot of internal rhyme, and I hope it's entertaining enough. It isn't intended to be funny, just entertaining. :)

The incomparable parable of Natural Philosophy
To be discussed over equations, motions (and coffee)
Is subtle, sound and profound,
Though, as yet, incomplete.
It is, after all, no feat mean,
It's been on since century sixteen.

When nature subject, to laws abject,
Was freed from them by scientists keyed
To observe, calculate, and discover the trait
Of every object and every ball
As they fall and follow their fate.

Of mechanics and fluid dynamics, the Great Surge
With Scientists believing them being on the verge
Of unravelling the baffling, was thus impelled.
But what began with Newton was now Maxwelled.

The laws governing the turning and churning
Of magnesite, light and the core's burning,
The Maxwellian tech and Newtonian mech
Being incompatible, generated quibble,
Manics modified electrodynamics by tricks
They could not but help spreading the panic.

But space, time, and all rhyme, was fine
Until the entry of patent clerk Einstein.
The codified Newton modified, in favour of ED
And then ten years later, altered gravity!
He was half-believed, but few conceived
How lovely and true was the physics renewed.

But we've been hacked, sidetracked by the histories
Of relativity and gravity, forgetting greater mysteries
Decipered by the think-tank of Plank, with blackbodies
Galvanised and incised by, Herr Einstein's oddities.
Applied by Bohr to the datum of atoms fiery
Soon to be known as the Ol' Quantum Theory.

But the cold, old theory just the tip of the iceberg
Uncovered whole by Schroedinger and Heisenberg
Was a revolution, for the momentum and position
No longer was simultaneous, contemporaneous information.
And determinism, schismed by h's uncertainty
Could no longer be predicted by a omniscient deity.

But it was much more, than gathered from lore
For it explained, to the trained, opened the door
To the nucleus, superconductors, being the Prometheus
Using the universal laws, to human cause,
The cornerstone of 20th century cataclysm
It's now at computers, what began at prisms.

Let's see soon what the new moon brings
Will it be loops, hoops or strings?
Is the universe a discrete treat?
Let's wait for physicists to admit it
It's just an impossible feat.

Physics limericks, and post-exam musings

2007-03-13T17:59:00.000+05:30

Well, yep, the exams are, like, totally over. And I'm, like, totally happy. Kinda.

Anyway, I actually wanted to say something here...

The exams ended today, and I am happy to say that they went well. How well, though, remains to be seen... results are in a month. This summer, I plan to do some theoretical physics, and I hope my overbearing laziness won't take over me.

About the blog, I plan to get writing again... I'll be featuring a parody, a story, more limericks, and a rant about faith soon. Currently, I dunno, I'm not in the mood for ranting. :-)

Physics Humour

Ok, most of you won't understand this... but I want to try and write some physics limericks, inspired and uninspired. Have a look at this article here. So, here goes nothing... (only limericks, I'm incapable of making real jokes.)

There was once an electron in a p-n junction
Who couldn't help the others in conduction
Some said he wasn't (w)hole
That he was the opposite pole
But he just had an abnormal wavefunction!

Friends of a light wave, circularly polarised
Complained of it's being improperly oversized
Grabbed it's right hand
Passed it through quartz, and
Now it's linear, and effectively pint-sized!

A thieving wave stole without reservations
Curie-us physicists noted non-conservations
But finally it struck a plate
And it faced it's fate
As it died instantly on observation!

Lol, I knew you wouldn't get them. But I'm just experimenting ;-). Do comment. :-)

Conservapedia

2007-03-11T07:37:00.000+05:30

OK, I didn't want to post before the exams got over. But this is such a find that I thought i had to blog on it. People have done it before, but, come on, this is a special find...

Site in focus: Conservapedia. Why? It's supposed to be:

1) A conservative encyclopedia you can trust.
We'll see indeed how much one should trust it.
2) much-needed alternative to Wikipedia, which is increasingly anti-Christian and anti-American.
Right. They have a page devoted to examples of bias in Wikipedia, but it sounds more like nitpicking than criticism. Not that there's nothing wrong with Wikipedia... but Wikipedia is God, compared to this pile of crap. (Pardon the pun.)

Ok, now some justification for the above statement. Here are some extracts from Conservapedia and my criticism:

Article: Moon

Brilliant piece of work, if only it were satire. Sadly, it's not. Here are two points from the article:

4. The Moon is currently receding from the Earth at less than 6 inches per year. The Moon could never have been closer than about 150,000 miles or it would have been broken up by tidal forces. If the rate of recession is assumed to have averaged about 6 inches per year, the Moon's present distance of about 250,000 miles implies a young age for the Moon of no more than one billion years. Under the non-creationist claim that the Moon somehow broke away from the Earth, the Moon's rate of recession must have been faster in the past, and thus the Moon would have been only 150,000 miles from the Earth far more recently than one billion years ago. This contradicts the claim of non-creationists that the Moon and Earth are somehow several billions of years old.
5. Our solar system is one of the few that has only one sun. Only one sun and only one moon: this uniqueness may reflect the existence of only one God.

The last point is laughable. Ok, let's follow religion, but not fly in the face of accepted science, please. The wikipedia article on the same is rather encyclopediac, the discusses controversy and, of course, emphasises science, not religion.

Article: Theory of Relativity

This was just a sad, sad example of where fanaticism can take people. Currently, it's been modified, and the modified version, while it still doesn't discuss much science, is much better than the previous version (which you can find here.)

Article: Plesiosaur

Well, besides emphasising creationism, this has a gem of a quote (which might be vandalism, but it hasn't been corrected) ... which shows the how much respect creationists should get:
According to evolutionary scientists, who use relative dating methods .... According to creation scientists, who use the Bible, ...

And why do these creation scientists deserve respect in the scientific community again?
---

I really hope children don't get this kind of homeschooling. Not only is it too baised in favour of a particular religion (this page, the intro), a particular country (like the equator page), but it also used unaccepted science, and emphasises religious claims over scientific ones. Examples: creatoinism, God, the Bible (and look at the references below many articles. They will be from "bible" sites.)

We need unbiased education. Religion has it's place, science has it's place. I thought there was no controversy over non-interference. I didn't know such fanatics even existed.

Note: And I'm willing to forgive the fact that most aticles are stubs... this is a new site.

Chattericks-2

2007-02-28T18:49:00.000+05:30

Well, exams are on now, so no "important" posts. But, entertaining ones, yep. :D

As I recently discovered, chatting is more inspirational than anything in generating limericks... and, as with the previous post, this contains chattericks too. Charmaine wrote many this time, and hers are better than mine, seriously. :)

So, here they are...

(Rahul)

There was a girl who was homely
And she's not be bored, if only
Her entertainer would
entertain her brood-
ing cries of "I'm so lonely!"

(Charmaine )

My friend Rahul hates to be outdone,
But for some reason thinks physics is fun.
Forget bio and chem,
He'll have none of them.
Yes, he loves the subject most shun!

(Rahul)

There was a man who loved physics
And he also liked Hindi musics
And, of course, lims
But his whims
gave way when nothing rhymed with physics!

To which she replied: "I was just clever enough to know nothing rhymed with physics"

I had an ice-cream once at a small,
Little, funny, cute ice-cream stall
It was very purple
I was all "slurple"
I almost spilled half of it all!

(Charmaine)

Orange? Purple? I prefer green!
A prettier colour has yet to be seen!
Though it's true,
I'm rather partial to blue,
magenta and even tangerine

(Rahul)

There was a girl who just hated math
She'd have rejoiced if the school hath
just banned the calculus
There would just be less fuss
And she'd express less rage and wrath!

I hope I study real hard and well
Otherwise my resume just wont sell
And when I want a job
I'll be shown the doorknob...
Life will just be as hard as hell!

(Charmaine)

What's your utterly silly fascination
With division, integration, differentiation?
All types of math, for that matter?
Multiplication is filling our chatter!
Though your lims are exceeding expectation!

(Rahul) Two two liners:

Muses
All I said was fine
Now I have
to come up with a line!

Calculus
Differentiation is tittilation
Integration is asphyxiation!

Liked them? Hope you liked mine too ;-). Do comment. :-)

Chattericks!

2007-02-25T21:50:00.000+05:30

I was chatting with Charmaine the other day, and made some on-the-spot limericks... :D Limericks develop nicely in chat (especially with girls... lol).

So are the "chattericks"...

There was a man from Indonesia
Who wanted to tour the rest of Asia
He started from India
Where he met Lyndia
He's never going back to Indonesia!

This she wrote:

But Rahul, I can't write!
I'm simply not that bright.
I can draw, I can read
admittedly at speed.
But FOR A LIM YOU'LL WAIT ALL NIGHT!

The following are more I wrote during the conversation:

(Her status message was "procrastinating, yet again", and she was also complaining it was hot down there in Australia...)

The girl said "There's rain!"
It doesn't help my brain
Now, "it's too hot"
When she's caught
Procrastinating, yet again!

Exams are near, but chat paramount
Said the boy, atop his plastic mount
And delayed study
His brain was muddy
So now he can't even count!

(She said, "entertain me!")

The look, so sweet, in her eyez
Even though she may be telling liez
When she sayns
"please entertains"
How can i do anything but obliz!

(Finally, she typoed a lot, so..)

Typoe, typol, buty me must sa
Its annoyingf to receive, but heey
As longh asd you
undersand to
I hav no problems withg stypoing away!

Hehe, well, do comment! :D

Guest Post: Science and God

2007-02-19T12:17:00.000+05:30

Note: A guest post by Charmaine. Hope you like it... she'd like to have feedback for sure. :-)

Picture this: a world where most beliefs, even fundamental ones, are transient, uncertain, might be disproved in a matter of days. That’s what a pure science world would be like for me. That’s why I believe in blind faith in God – it’s something to believe in without question. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not some kind of fanatic. I don’t believe in ID, I haven’t read the bible since I left my Catholic Primary School and I’m not in the habit of praying for God to give me what I want (I do pray – I just pray for the strength to get it myself). I don’t even think he/she/it could, or would, give me what I asked for even if I did pray for divine intervention.

But don’t take my blind faith that there is a God as some sort of affirmation that I have such strong faith in the Catholic Church (to which I frankly just pay ‘lip service’), half the stuff I ‘should’ do I just… don’t. The rules I live by daily have nothing to do with my belief in science (which I adore) or religion. In daily life I believe in being nice to people regardless of what they themselves believe (what they do, however, is a different matter. Even I can’t abide intolerance, prejudice, discrimination (the bad kind) and just plain meanness). I believe in being nice because being nice makes the world just that little bit nicer.

By “nice” I don’t mean some ridiculously extravagant gesture. I mean smile, be pleasant, helpful, don’t say anything overly mean (unless provoked, of course), give to charity if you can, show your friends and family you love them just coz you can. It’s sort of intuitive and people should be doing it anyway. I mean if it’s likely to be hurtful or destructive don’t do it and if it’s likely to be helpful and constructive do it. Even a little gesture can cheer someone up immensely J (That’s not to say things won’t get tricky, of course they will. And I’m not a saint; I have been known to be quite a bitch if I’m stressed. All I’m saying is you should at least try to be as nice as humanly possible and do what’s right as often as humanly possible)

Anyway, back to science – believe I mentioned I adore it – you may be curious as to how someone, who supposedly loves science, could be so blatantly unscientific as to blindly believe in God without tangible proof of his/her/its existence. The answer is simple – and no, it’s not ID, the beauty of nature or the miracle of birth – it’s just that I keep both beliefs completely separate. I don’t apply science to God and I don’t apply God to science. To do so I’d have to, for lack of a better analogy, mix proverbial oil and water (without a surfactant and we all know that just doesn’t work… God! I’m such a nerd!). Because if you did mix God and science you’d have to make certain concessions, and that’s, like, a totally unfair betrayal of both beliefs. Both science and God should be believed wholeheartedly, without question (well, you should ask questions if you’re a scientist. I mean the scientific method when I say “science”). You can’t say “I believe in God if science says it’s ok” or “I believe in science given that it’s supporting a ‘reasonable’ God related theory” because if you really think about it you really don’t believe at all if you do. A fundamental part of believing in any deity is complete faith that he/she/it exists even when there is an apparent lack of evidence and even the most slack 7^th grade science student knows that things have to be proved with repeatable, controlled tests (i.e. Evidence).

But I’m not saying all this to sell God, science, or any kind of belief system (no moral code, no meaning of life – sorry, I may be 18 but I don’t know everythingJ). I’m saying this because ultimately it doesn’t matter what I or what anyone else believes (although I do think people should have something to believe in.). What matters is what people actually do. So frankly I don’t care if you think I’m a bit of a ditz after reading that. But please don’t say it. All I want is for you to just be… nice.

Ps. if it’s further incentive to be nice, let me just say that being nice to mean people makes them feel childish and small. It’s actually quite fun to annoy people with your positive attitude J

Limericks + A Poem

2007-02-18T14:55:00.000+05:30

Sorry for the plus sign, it's the product of too much math. I'm studying hard for my exams, which begin on March 1. I may not be able to post frequently till March 12, so forgive me. I may post some limericks, poems, but no posts of consequence. Another short story and the first "conversation" might have to wait till mid-March.

BTW, Do check out a guest essay by Charmaine about her thoughts on Science and God, in the previous post (scroll down).

Anyway, so here I begin:
One day in a house too smallThere moved in parents, kids, all
Their grandparents
And relatives, in torrents
The poor house won't survive this fall!

I hope you "get" this one (don't worry if you don't, it's my mistake then, can't do everything in 5 lines ;-) ):

Wife:
"My love, I've brought, something thorny,
To wear in bed, and make you horny"
Husband:
"But my flower, honey,
It's not the money,
On a rose like you, thorns look corny!"

Symbols
A foresightless man in Damascus*
Created a terrible future fuss
By inventing writing
(Tho not lighting)
I wish he'd know how he's affecting us!

We study all day, from books very thick
Which, in turn, makes us very very sick
Why didn't he die
Or just speak, lie
And if he did write, why make it stick?

*actually, writing was invented in Mesopotamia, but Damascus is pretty ancient too ;-)

Rhyme on time

I tried to do an Odgen Nash here, kind of. :-)

The discovery of rhyming,
Made me overjoyed!
I had skill and timing,
That made others annoyed.

I started with dental
Came up with rental
Transcontinental, Oriental
Gentle, Mental,
It was detrimental.

I couldn't concentrate, concatenate,
I'd always be late at the gate
At this chiming rate.

No substance, no content,
There's no instance of intent.
Just rhyme, no intelligence.
Too much time, little elegance.

As far as I can remember
I've always had rimes
Since 28th of December
Or before that time.

I guess it's prenatal
But it'll be fatal.

Lol, well, that was silly, but, do comment! :D

The Einstein and The Eddington

2007-02-16T18:57:00.000+05:30

A parody of The Walrus and the Carpenter, this poem was written by Prof. W. H. Williams, following a round of golf with Eddington. Those a little falimilar with General Relativity will see the humour. :-)

The Einstein and the Eddington
by Dr. W. H. Williams

The sun was setting on the links,
The moon looked down serene,
The caddies all had gone to bed,
But still there could be seen
Two players lingering by the trap
That guards the thirteenth green.

The Einstein and the Eddington
Were counting up their score;
The Einstein's card showed ninety-eight
And Eddington's was more.
And both lay bunkered in the trap
And both stood there and swore.

I hate to see, the Einstein said;
Such quantities of sand;
Just why they placed a bunker here
I cannot understand.
If one could smooth this landscape out,
I think it would be grand.

If seven maids with seven mops
Would sweep the fairway clean
I'm sure that I could make this hole
In less than seventeen.
I doubt it, said the Eddington,
Your slice is pretty mean.

Then all the little golf balls came
To see what they were at,
And some of them were tall and thin
And some were short and fat,
A few of them were round and smooth,
But most of them were flat.

The time has come, said Eddington,
To talk of many things:
Of cubes and clocks and meter-sticks
And why a pendulum swings.
And how far space is out of plumb,
And whether time has wings.

I learned at school the apple's fall
To gravity was due,
But now you tell me that the cause
Is merely G_mu-nu,
I cannot bring myself to think
That this is really true.

You say that gravitation's force
Is clearly not a pull.
That space is mostly emptiness,
While time is nearly full;
And though I hate to doubt your word,
It sounds like a bit of bull.

And space, it has dimensions four,
Instead of only three.
The square of the hypotenuse
Ain't what it used to be.
It grieves me sore, the things you've done
To plane geometry.

You hold that time is badly warped,
That even light is bent:
I think I get the idea there,
If this is what you meant:
The mail the postman brings today,
Tomorrow will be sent.

If I should go Timbuctoo
With twice the speed of light,
And leave this afternoon at four,
I'd get back home last night.
You've got it now, the Einstein said,
That is precisely right.

But if the planet Mercury
In going round the sun,
Never returns to where it was
Until its course is run,
The things we started out to do
Were better not begun.

And if before the past is through,
The future intervenes;
Then what's the use of anything;
Of cabbages or queens?
Pray tell me what's the bally use
Of Presidents and Deans.

The shortest line, Einstein replied,
Is not the one that's straight;
It curves around upon itself,
Much like a figure eight,
And if you go too rapidly
You will arrive too late.

But Easter day is Christmas time
And far away is near,
And two and two is more than four
And over there is here.
You may be right, said Eddington,
It seems a trifle queer.

But thank you very, very much,
For troubling to explain;
I hope you will forgive my tears,
My head begins to pain;
I feel the symptoms coming on
Of softening of the brain.

Hundred

2007-02-04T10:19:00.000+05:30

Need I say more? This is the hundredth post (counting two unposted drafts...) on this blog. So, time to celebrate, remember the past, etc.. ;-).

The first limerick here was posted on 4th may 2006, and then this blog was only limericks. But afterwards, I started to expand, began writing some personal posts, some about pseudoscience. It was in August that this blog became Bestest Blog of the day, and that cheered me up to no end. The limericks were absent during December-January, where I felt that i was at the nadir of my creativity. But the tide is rising again, or so I hope.

I have made quite some friends due to this blog, most notable Anne and Laevanesce. And I've found that I can write good poems, nice stories, and can actually keep a blog up for more than a month. Anyway... to rejoice this occasion, here are a few limericks and two liners:

A hundred posts, it saith unto me!
And I was, like, filled with glee
But then I realised
That the thing I prized
Was not the blog, but the money!

*Er, kidding. Seriously, I don't get a cent from the google ads here. lol.

Blogs

A blog too personal
Won't outlast it's arsenal
A blog made for readers
Will only get rss feeders

A blog patriotic
Will be visited like the arctic
A blog of conceit
In contests will compete

A blog modest, honest
Will never pass the test
A blog full of rant
Will be treated like Kant

A blog of poetry
Might survive into History.
A blog meant for none
Will be, in thousands, one.

Thunderfear

There was a man from down under
Who was afraid, terribly, of thunder
When a storm struck
He'd curse his luck
And throw everything around, asunder.

His friends would very often wonder
What caused him to fear thunder?
"Is it the sudden noise?
That scares little boys?
He's afraid that he'll lose his toys!"

Tired of all the teasing, he went under
A clouded sky, to face the thunder
His friends were amazed
And he was praised
Now they call him the "boy wonder"!

Well, that's all for this post... hope everything goes well, and I find myself writing the 200th, 300th post of a very popular blog ;-) (Mine is the "Gets only rss feeders kind lol.)

Movie Series: 4. Quiz Show

2007-02-01T07:43:00.000+05:30

A personal favourite of mine, this is a 1994 drama-satire based on the scandal on the "21" quiz show.

Quiz Show
Outside it was quiz
Inside, all fizz.
Today there are a hundred twenty-ones
Television has finally gotten us.

The story starts with Herbert Stempel, a jew from Queens, gathering 21 more points on the show. However, the sponsors are unhappy with the crude Jew, and a slick, well-educated WASP from one of the most famous literary families, Charles Van Doren in the US us wooed by the promise of fame. He is given the questions (which are supposedly "sealed" in a bank locker) and he keeps winning easily. Meanwhile, Dick Goodwin, and investgator with a congressional sub-committee, senes that all is not well. There are surprises as Dick digs into the show. He is repelled by the crude Stempel, and finds himself sympathising with the cheating Charles Van Doren.

It is rare that a movie is written as brilliantly as it is acted and directed, but that is Quiz Show. I'll quote some quotes from this movie here, but of course, they are but more beautiful when uttered by Paul Scofield. There are lots of good lines in the movie, including three beautifully written conversations between Charles Van Doren and his father. I couldn't find much on IMDB, so be content with just three.

Mark Van Doren: Cheating on a quiz show? That's sort of like plagiarizing a comic strip.

Mark Van Doren: (About playing poker) If you look around the table and you can't tell who the sucker is, it's you.

Mark Van Doren: Sixty-four thousand dollars for a question, I hope they are asking you the meaning of life.

Mark Van Doren is played by Paul Scofield, who has the best lines in the movie, and plays Charles Van Doren's (Fiennes) father with poignance and elegance. Fiennes, as the man caught between fame and morality, turns in a wonderfully sensitive performance. John Turturro is intense as the tricked and ousted twenty-one champion. Rob Morrow is the investigator, and plays him well, but falls under the shadow of the these three.

The direction is very good, with skillfully handled sequences between Charles and Mark Van Doren, as well as the quiz show. The cinematography is full of close-ups, and nicely shot conversations.

This is a rare movie, as it is moving, profound as well as entertaining. There is no morality dilemma in here, but there is the impending fear that the bad ones will get away. It's not hard to see how tough the questions were, and how there has been a dumbing down since then. There is a father-son relationship, an investigator too full sympathy for the guilty, a WASP wanting to get out of his father's shadow, a Jew who accuses jews of rasicm and cheating, while his own morality is debatable, and TV producers who don't think twice before cheating.

There is a lot more to this movie than is evident at first sight, and watch it carefully, enjoy the brilliance, and think.

Next Post: The 100th post. I plan to do something special... lets see...

Plans

2007-01-26T15:48:00.000+05:30

Note: If you're here for limericks, scroll down. This is a post where I have outlined my plans for the blog.

I never expected it, but such is fate
My Blog got love, and not much hate
You can, at this rate
Continue to await
More surpises, good post, after post 98!

This is the 98th post (including 3 drafts) on my blog. It's been here since may 2006, and I'd never dreamt I'd continue it for this long. My earlier blogs would be abandoned after a short while. I can't believe that I'll have posted 100 posts here soon! :D

Along the way, what kept me going were the limericks. True, I haven't posted many in the past month, but I sense a return to form soon (I hope ;-) ). And, of course, the readers have too. People liked this blog (It was selected as Bestest Blog of the Day), and I hope you'll like it in the future too.

Now for some plans. I've tried writing serious poetry, but I cannot write good poems. I wanna keep writing funny ones, if that's all I can do in poetry, I'm pretty comfortable. Maybe I'll try writing serious ones again some day. Currently, though, I'm concentrating on writing short stories... I posted one on my blog a few days ago. I'm trying to write one each month. I've also planned a novel, but that'll take a looong time. Then there are my rants, about religion, pseudo-science, and whatnot. And some personal posts, to keep you updated.

There'll be the movie series, of which two posts remain. I also want to write a review of "Amores Perros", and see how that goes. Also, I have a new idea for a possibly monthly feature: conversations. That's right. Some interesting chats I plan to have with friends, talking about important and not-so-important stuff. But that's still preliminary.

Did I leave something out? Yes! Limericks! Lots of them :-)

One change I have to make to my blog to make it more user-friendly: I have to label all my posts, and then link to the labels in the sidebar, or like Hoctro has done.

Hope you like my plans. If you like my blog, do recommend it, add a link in your sidebar (I'll add one to yours too) , and of course, comment. :D I really like to receive feedback, be it praise or criticism. Thanks... Keep reading...

Update: The "Labels" have been added to the sidebar, what I've wanted to do for long. So, welcome to the new organised Limericker... if you're new here, browse by the labels. :-)

Demands (limerick-poem)

2007-01-26T06:56:00.000+05:30

My angry girlfriend became haterer
So I made some food to cater her...
But my cooking was bland
The bhaji sour, and
the Paper dosas were just paperer!

I tried to console her with tea
That wasn't, at all, made by me...
But it turned out,
(After a small bout)
That she actually liked coffee!

Then I went to fetch some of that
But high calorie "might make her fat"
More frustrated than ever
She threw some into the sewer
And the rest was thrown to the cat!

That was it, I said, break-up's due
More picky then you, I've seen few
And I said "Get out"
She said "Don't shout,
You go, This is where I live!"

Guest Poem - Oxymorons

2007-01-22T20:07:00.000+05:30

This is a masterpiece by my friend Gaurav...

Bottomless pit

Overfilled with emptiness, my psyche,
keeps me busy being an idle tyke
and fortunately for this misfortune
you're the sinless culprit, ever since June.

Lost in your thoughts, unthoughtful,
I am worthy of being a worthless fool.
Your innocent look played a guilty part,
in sneaking away my heartless heart.

Your vision unseen, is all I dream, deep,
every night in my insomniac sleep.
Find I, yet, this melancholy much pleasant,
I enjoy fantasising such realism incessant.

My timid audacity makes bit hope spring,
so I approach you, like a vaguely clear thing.
Our eyes serve well for the unspoken speech,
During the rarely surplus moment, each.

And to my obvious un-anticipation hence,
I sensibly end up talking nonsense.
Unknowlingly, I get carried away I know,
when I am remotely close to you, my love.

My patience impatient, in front of you dies,
When my blindfolded glance falls on your lovely eyes.
A brilliant fool of myself I make,
Like some ridiculously complex, piece of cake.

For such guiltless sin, don't blame me for it.
This loathsome love, is but a bottomless pit.

- Gaurav

Slightly Random Thoughts

2007-01-18T18:37:00.000+05:30

Note: I don't feel up to writing limericks today... I'm too uninspired. I'm at the nadir of limerick-ness. Sorry, readers, I'll write some soon. Tomorrow, maybe. :)

I know I have been ignoring this blog, dunno why. Anne and Absconding haven't posted in a while too... The blogs appear to be stasis, and it's hard to gain lost momentum. But let me make an effort.

Movies and Stories

I have tried to post intermittently on my favourite movies... and there have been three posts so far: Before Sunrise/Before Sunset, The Godfather and Anand. Two are still to come, and there will be a final post on other good movies. Hope you like my recommendations. I'm also going to review a film sometime in the future: just a test review, some film which I haven't heard a good or bad word about.

I posted a story a few back on the blog... and I got good feedback. I am working on a few more ideas, and an unfinished story. I may not be able to write serious poems, but I hope I can write stories well, and creatively. I'm not going to stop writing poems; atleast don't plan to. Besides, I don't get much time, storywriting or poem-writing is a time-consuming process. I also have to make up for my poor knowledge of fiction if I want to write some.

Atheism

Recently I saw a very interesting article on Anne's blog about agnostism and the "new atheism". For starters, "agnostics"are people who don't accept or deny the existence of God, and won't until there is evidence for or against. Basically they are in favour of an empirical answer, not an argumentative one.

I used to call myself an Atheist, now I prefer agnostic. The difference is not just in the noncommittance, it's in the way one views the world. For an agnostic, atheists fall in the same group as believers: after, their beliefs aren't based on reason either. Both sides are equally dogmatic, for me.

When you read some atheists, like Russell, it becomes apparent their problem is not with God: it has to do with religion. Many see religion as harmful, a vice. Arguments that it helps people are shoven to the side. We are shown evidence of religion breeding dogmatism, cruelty, and hampering right actions and new discoveries.

It not evident which side to take. This is different from the problem of God: it isn't just scientific evidence. It's the problem of determining whether a world can live without religion. I personally believe it can be done: but I don't think it can be done quickly, or with a call to atheism. It can be done with the gradual awakening of a scientific and moral sense in us.

But all of us need faith and the ability to distinguish between good and bad. It is feared that in a world of atheists, there will be no moral boundaries. But every thinking atheist or agnostic will tell you that he or she has aview of good and bad, right and wrong. It may not be based on a holy book, but it will be subject to change and argument. Even holy books have different interpretations.

I'm done with my rant. To those who survived: think about religion, God, and it's importance in the modern world, and discuss it with others. It's not an unimportant issue, I feel. Religion dictates how (and where!) millions live, and loathe. It should not escape scrutiny.

Article in focus

This is just... sad. Banning the letter x.

Limericks

2007-01-08T16:00:00.000+05:30

Well, couldn't think of a better title. I'm writing lims after a long time... hope you like em.

In a small suburb of Mumbai
There lived a poor private eye
Who looked at every face
Promptly solved the case
And left his clients wondering "why?"

They chased after him, Mr Miller
And queried about the filler
He just said he knew
But it was known by few
That he was always hired by the killer!

There was a purist guy from Venice
Who heard an Indian pronounce "Penis"
"Why don't you say 'dick',
Or just call it a 'prick' "
The Indian replied, "I'd rather go for anus!"

There was a noble knight from Britian
Who fought a duel with a kitten
His duelling was lous
So he yelled "mouse"
And cut the head off the kitten.

That's all for today... :-) The last one was deliberately shocking... (er, or intended to be).

Nobel ... a story by me

2007-01-03T16:59:00.000+05:30

It'd been 4 years since I wrote a story, and I often get the urge to write one... so I thought, why not? I got good feedback from friend of mine, so I'm posting the link here.

Nobel

Do comment. I need feedback, as always :-).

Borthday

2006-12-28T18:05:00.000+05:30

Yes, it's my birthday today. Nice, eh? Well, yeah, kinda. But...

1) Hey, it's not like I became 19 in one moment. It was a gradual, slow, sometimes dejecting process. I liked it though. I because a bit more studious, a bit more outgoing, a bit less narrow-minded.

2) Well, all that's happened is: the earth made 19 revolutions (approx.) since I came into this world. But, did I become conscious then? Should we count it from the date of conception? Is birth as important as the two aforementioned events? Shouldn't the day I picked up my first copy of Childcraft be more important (I read science, stories and limericks there, when I was a kid).

3) My future is still uncertain (even not thinking of physics for a while, which is kinda hard for me).

4) My present is confusing.

5) Life, and the world, sucks. Kinda.

Ok, I never really rant about my personal life on the blog, and I don't want to break that tradition (I like being "British" sometimes ;-) ). But, just to let you know. Anonick is now 19, and he celebrates with some limericks:

The first one is benign:

The month of December brings
Among a lot of nice other things
Like Christmas,
(A lot of fuss,)
And, when "Happy Birthday" they sing. :D

A bit sexual, this second one:

There was a man born in December
Who's out of boyhood, into ember
And whose progress
Would NOT be less
If he'd just stop abusing his member!

Well, Happy Borthday to me, have fun everyone! :D

Letter to Santa

2006-12-26T08:42:00.000+05:30

Well, here is an attempt at humour... yesterday, I was in a funny mood, so I wrote this. Hope you like it. It was just for laughs, nothing serious intended. Don't take offence. ;-)

Here's the link: An open letter to Santa.

Do comment. :)

Movie Series: 3. Anand (Joy)

2006-12-21T19:56:00.000+05:30

The essence of life: unadulterated joy
Like playing with a pleasing child's toy
And when you get in trouble
When life bursts the bubble
Just go with the flow, shouting "Ahoy!"

While I can't say that's what the Bollywood movie "Anand" says, because it says a lot more, "the joy of living" is at the heart of the movie, as epitomised by it's lead character, a terminally-ill simple guy named Anand. The narrator is the doctor who's in charge of him, Bhaskar Banerjee, who's a shy, sober person.

But it's not your usual terminally-ill movie. Anand has spunk, wit and a stunningly positive attitude about himself. The movie is about living every moment of life, and having fun, but the message isn't drilled into viewers' minds. This isn't a message movie; it's about Anand and Bhaskar, their friendship, worries and Anand's condition. And humour comes at the right moments. The movie cannot be said to be manipulative by any strech of the imagination, except for crafting such an impossibly likable lead. But the character is reportedly based on the director's friend and actor Raj Kapoor.

Director Hrishikesh Mukherjee, who died in 2006, has crafted many light-at-heart but meaningful movies over the years, which can be considered some of the finest Bollywood has ever produced. "Anand" is his best creation, and it ushered in the golden age of Bollywood (the 1970's), and the age of Amitabh Bachchan. Bachchan potrays Bhaskar as an introvert who cares for Anand and is afraid of losing him, although he plays second fiddle to Rajesh Khanna's masterful potrayal of Anand. Khanna brings to Anand an energy and sympathy that make this his best work ever. This is a character movie, and the leads do brilliant jobs.

In Hrishikesh Mukherjee tradition, we have a whole cast of secondary characters, who are given life by perfect casting. No character can be said to be a caricature, which says quite a lot for a hindi movie (Yeah, if you don't speak hindi, do endure subtitles for this one ;) ).

A word about the score and songs: fantastic, and perfectly suited to the movie. Fresh but melancholy, inspiring and lonely.

As usual, my "review" is laden with superlatives. But such a simple, fresh and un-manipulative movie is so rare that I will forgive it's flaws, if there are any.

The direction is perfect, the story is perfect, the casting and acting is perfect. It's the best Bollywood movie I've seen. Go rent it, if you haven't seen it. If you have, you will, no doubt, not mind watching it again.

Claustrophobia

2006-12-14T17:58:00.000+05:30

I miss writing poems... that''s why, being back in a sort of poetic mood, I'm trying to write new ones. Hope you like this one...

Opened eyes see only darkness...
Just-awake mind in shock.
Hands try to find a wall
But legs are in a lock.

Falling down on a strange floor,
The bare body begins to sweat.
Heart is burning at the core
The ground is cold and wet.

The mind screams,
But the throat is parched and dry.
Tears flow out of the eye.

I stagger to my feet, they crumble again
I give up, bowing in to the pain.
Just yesterday, I was walking in the sun
Now, I feel only a rain
of tears.

My hands dragging me, I crawl.
I will be dead if I give up,
So I must continue the haul.
I will find a door, I will find a wall.

Is this what blindness feels?
Is this what death seals?
I try to shake the thought
But fail to find what I sought...

I am lost, in a dark universe,
Without wall, sky, door or life,
It is but a behemoth hearse.

The water beneath me is still,
My heart has stopped flowing.
The sky above is starless,
And so is the world,
To my unseeing eyes.

Ghosts

2006-12-10T17:10:00.000+05:30

Many Poems have been written about ghosts... this is rather a cliched topic. But here is my take:

Night, Fright, Dark, Un-bright
Amid silence, a knock on my door
Knock, Knock, Knock.
I see my clock, it's eleventy twenty
The doorknob's as cold as the floor.

The door is shaking, Neighbours not waking
My hand shivers, I turn the knob
My leg quivers, Eyes say "Fright!!
It's a ghost in white!"

With trembling voice I say
"I don't fear ghosts! Nay!"
But white senses my lack
Of conviction, as I step back.

"You may be a ghost, I don't care!
I'll roast you such, you won't bear!"
I step towards it.

With sweaty palms, i grab it's coat
Can't just stand and let it float...
I know I'm dead meat, as I pull the sheet.

The sheet in my hands, I look around
Nothing in sound, or sight
Again, up my spine, is a light touch,
Moving fast, moving slow, it's FRIGHT!

Somehow I try to run, but
I have gone weak in the knees.
I fall down, but still can't see it
It's up my spine, like a swarm of bees
It's into my head, then down my knees.

The floor breaks, my head quakes
As my soul wakes...

As I was lifted out of my lifeless body
The invisible poltergeist looked warier
Apparently, my own ghost is scarier!

Morality and Freedom

2006-12-04T21:00:00.000+05:30

Note: I am sorry, this too is a limerickless post. I am facing a kind og "poet's block", which I hope will go away soon. :-) I promise a limericks-only post in the next two posts.

Today, I am in a "moral" mood again... ;-) ... so I'll talk a little about, well, morality.

Lately, I've learnt that definitions are extremely important. So, I begin by defining morality:

mo·ral·i·ty (mə-răl'ĭ-tē, mô-)
n., pl. -ties.

1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality.
3. Virtuous conduct.
4. A rule or lesson in moral conduct.

I'll be concerned with no. 1 here. It is related with conduct, and with the issue or right and wrong. Now, lately, there's been a lot of talk about "moral policing" (forcing down practices deemed as morally wrong)... some perceive it as necessary. BUT, moral standards differ from individual to individual. I'll be talking only about the common perception of morality here, preferring to shove aside ethics and religion.

The common perception of immoral acts is closely related to what we find as obscene, shocking, different from common reason, or simply, new. Some people regard kissing in public as immoral, while others (or the same) may have no problems with sex in movies. A person's sense of morality may not be consistent. He may have no problem stealing cookies from shops, but may decry someone stealing a paper from his drawer. (A "mature person", however, is expected to be consistent).

Sometimes, morality becomes closely tied with freedoms. The freedom of consensual sex may conflict with the society's moral taboos. The freedom of press may conflict with immoral invasion of privacy. Where do we draw the line? Why do we draw a line? Isn't it possible that, social taboos are just a result of narrow-mindedness, and aren't harmful? Shouldn't freedom of press, as a fundamental right in a free society, should lie above individual things like privacy?

There are no definite answers to these questions. But we need to understand some terms. For one, a Freedom is an essential part of a modern democratic society. This is because a modern society gives as much importance to the individual as to the whole. But such freedom come with restrictions, which are just as important. For example, one must not hurt the sentiments of any group or individual when excercising one's freedom, atleast to as minimum a degree as possible. But how does one decide where to stop?

That's what laws are for. But laws will only take us so far, for the judiciary is often biased under social taboos and implicit moral codes in the law. Sometimes, the solution is negotiation between the parties, under an impartial party. When freedoms, or taboos, or both, clash, it gives rises to an interesting moral debates. Such issues depict the changing fabric of society. (On an aside, they also form the subject matter of some very good movies, like Munich.)

This whole discussion might seem a bit too philosophical, with words like "society", "moral fabric" and "freedom". But I would like to point out that I am only describing some recent events, from the danish cartoon controversy, to the banning of orkut communities like "I hate India", to the protests over obscenity in movies and TV. Their solutions are not easy, but it's good to think and comprehend the complexity of the issues.

Faith

2006-11-26T08:03:00.000+05:30

Note: I'll insert some limericks later. Seriously, I'll do it. :-)

Today, the Times of India carried the results of a national survey about faith, and the belief in God. The results are multi-faceted: here's a link to the article(s). In this post, I'm not going to talk about them... they're just an inspiration for writing, and chronicling (since they may change in a few months or years) my own thoughts about faith, religion, and God.

Formerly, my thoughts on religion were those of Bertrand Russell (less extremist, though) : I viewed it as a plague to mankind. But I was young, and young minds are easily misled. Today, I have a more open-minded attitude towards religion. I don't call myself an atheist anymore, and prefer the less used but more accurate "agnostic".

About God, I believe scientific evidence doesn't point to one, and so we're free to choose either belief. For me personally, the idea of God seems unnecessary: Science has the ability to explain everything. The things some feel science cannot explain, like love, consciousness, or even life, I view as a kind of magic: it is explicable, but it is we who are in awe of these experiences. Even scientists tell us to "forget the optics and enjoy the rainbow". Most people like the idea of a higher power, a creator, a superior consciousness. I don't feel it is necessary, nature already has enough wonder. But you, and I, should be free to choose.

Sometimes the need for a higher power is felt in order to punish evil and diminish sufering. Most of us believe that evil is punished in this life or after it. But, I feel God has failed here, if there is one. It is humans who need to help other humans, because there isn't much evidence of God in this regard. We can be angels ourselves.

Another need for "God" is felt during times of personal sufferings. I haven't felt the need yet, but I cannot say I have been through terrible suffering. But I observe countless suffering in the many lives I see everyday, and (maybe pessimistically) I believe a God won't allow that. Maybe everything is just (un-pre-determined) fate. It just happens. Maybe if an idea of a higher consciousness makes you feeling awed, if you feel the need for a guide during suffering, or if the concept of a "lonely world in space" makes you afraid, go ahead, believe in God. Even if you believe in science. It's not necessary to be internally consistent. Humans can live with that.

But religion causes two things which are definitely harmful: one, that it breeds dogma, the firm belief that this religion, and this book, are true, and every other religion and sect, is false (and a bane to the earth). This is something which is noxious to the ideals of free speech and secularism. Secondly, religion makes us gullible to all sorts of beliefs in useless rituals like exorcism and pseudo-science. Most rituals are beneficial, though... they are, indeed, comforting, even joyful. But let me just say that what science says is impossible, is impossible. Science is the least error-prone way we have to get at truth, and if religious truths conflict with scientific ones, let science win.

That is all for my current thoughts on religion... but, let me add some points on the fruitlessness of such an exercise. Whatever we believe, if it doesn't harm other humans, if it gives us comfort and happiness, is good. We, as, humans, can be self-contradictory. It helps sometimes. So, without thinking too much about God, let's think about Good.

Random Thoughts - 20/11/2006

2006-11-20T19:30:00.000+05:30

OK, I haven't posted here in a week. That's entirely my fault... I didn't get any inspiration to post. Sometimes your thought processes just run dry. But today, I'll try :-). I love my blog, and I love you who are reading it.

So, I'll start with Films and Books

Now, as you know, I love films. But before I got addicted to movies, I liked books: not the fiction ones much (except some Perry Mason copies from the library), but the non-fiction. In school, I just devoured every book on science I could buy. Somehow, that love disintegrated in the college years. And I began to appreciate film-making: Copolla, Scorcese, Speilberg. And I became a "movie-connosieur"... I am addicted to films.

Now, I am back to books again, after watching some truly great movies this Diwali vacation. Anne Blythe suggested books, like Shantaram, and supplied me with two by Bertrand Russell. So, the bibliophile in me has a chance to leap out again. And I am happy for it. :D

There were two guys from Mumbai
Who believed they had the eye
And the brain
To film a train
But they had no resources to buy!

About films, our college, this year, has a film festival called Montage (details at this blog). Me and Absconding Soul have made plans for a short film on Mumbai Trains (oh how we love them), and even shot some scenes (which have turned out great :D). But there is a problem: the resolution of out camera. It is inadequate for a film which is to be presented on a screen. I wish we had more resources... Well, even if we don't get to project our movie, we'll make a heel of a movie and post it on Youtube. We're hoping to learn something from this experience, because we are both avid movie-lovers.

Blog thoughts

Where has my blog been going lately?
I confess it isn't very stately
And few read
Or pay heed
But I hope you won't find it hate-ly.

Why haven't I written here for days? Why has my blog posting been infrequent? Well, many reasons... firstly, time scheduling. When I sit on the net, I start surfing and chatting immediately. There's no time to write something on the blog (that requires some thoughts). Most of the day is spent idling. I am a lazy guy... But, as I said, I love my blog. I'll try to post more often, like the frequency I had during my blog's peak days (August). Don't worry, I won't abandon this.

Secondly, I don't know why, I don't get inspired. I write to be read. Maybe I am discouraged by the fact that many people don't read this blog. Maybe I can't write because I think people won't like it. The solution to this is simple... I will not think of what people will judge, just keep writing about what I wish to. I wn't let you down, either. If I do so, complain.

Finally... since you've made it so far ;-) , a few thoughts on spirituality:

Speaking ... and Doing

I thought I had all the methods,
I had read much advice
To get great marks I would follow:
The ways they had, those mice.

I felt those guys had given me heaven
And gave my exams without fear
But following the books cost me dear
My marks were all of percent 47!

Every day, the Time of India carries, on it Editorial page, a little bullshit. I'm talking about "Speaking Tree". On a page filled with sensible articles and letters, this thing stands out. Not that everyone thinks of it as crap... I'm sure millions read it every day. After all, India is a very spiritual nation, a country of true spirituality which millions believe fully with their heart. It's sacrilege to even point out some so-called "rationality"...

Firstly, such "Value Education" benefits no one. There's a thick line between believing and doing. In practice, even a simple thought may be too complicated: "Love everyone". Why do I love a child molester, or a national enemy? It's easy for us to believe in Love, but hard to practise it when the issue of capital punishment for a terrorist comes up. Being a hypocrite is so very easy.

Secondly, I hold that (most of) spirituality is useless. Like an article the other day trying to find analogies between stability in Physics and stability in life. (There's something known as "carrying analogies too far".) I found it hard to believe the article found place in the most popular paper in India. There was nothing there that would help anyone. Speaking tree is just a tree: shade for a while before you travel again on the road of life. I'd rather goto a roadside dhaba. Many of them these days.

2006-11-13T19:14:00.000+05:30

This is just a test post... I am posting to the blog from Google Docs .

I think the links should work correctly, and the font size should be proper... I may prefer Docs over the standard blogger WYSIWYG...

Limericks, again!

2006-11-13T19:03:00.000+05:30

Life is a knife

For a man to be survive as human
He doesn't have to be Paul Newman
And drive cars like hell
And act so very well
He should just know to use a handgun.

He must, to find love on earth
Not be worried about giving birth
Just find a female
Who won't fail
In recognising his character, and girth.

And of course, he needs a job
So that, he can be a total snob
And rise to power
Over the ones lower
On his death, no one will sob.

That was't intended to be funny, just... real.

However, here are a few traditional limericks :D.

There was an old man of Rhude
Who decided to be more than rude
But he found thievery noble
And murder was global
And raping he thought too crude.

There was a young bard of Bard
Whose wife was very much jarred
When on the first night
In spite of pills right
The bard couldn't get it very hard!

There was a guy from Wonderland
Who could do everything with one hand
If you think this limerando
Will contain some innuendo
Hey, everybody does it with one hand!

Movie Series: 2. The Godfather

2006-11-04T19:32:00.000+05:30

It's high time I continue my movie series... With what I believe is the best movie of all time.

I don't quote the Godfather by three's and two's
It's only on opportunities I can't refuse.

There was a man from Sicily
Who wanted to avoid being silly
So when he was teased
For having a voice greased
He just cut off the man's neck (and willy)!

First, a bit of history... I wasn't mush impressed with The Godfather the first time I saw it... well, I only saw the first half hour, and nothing much happened there. The next time, I employed that rare quality known as patience, and was rewarded. (After movies like this, I go "What. A. Movie.) I have seen the movie twice since, and my opinion of it has risen with each viewing.

The plot is complex, and populated with characters. Don Corleone (Marlon Brando) is the head of an affluent New York mob "family". But his rejection to the call for help by a drug dealer (drugs are against his principles) results in an assassination attempt on him, and the resulting gang war leads to the death of his elder son (James Caan), while sending his disinterested "civilian" younger son (Al Pacino) into a whirl that will eventually result in his becoming the head of the family.

It is quite an accomplishment that most of the the characters are well realised. Roger Ebert's review gives an idea as to why that is: Perfect casting. The actors understand their parts, and the screenplay doesn't have to go to extra lengths to give character backgrounds. And all the lead actors: Al Pacino, Marlon Brando, James Caan excel in their roles. Al Pacino in particular, handles his character extremely well, giving one of the best acting performances of all time.

Based on the book by Mario Puzo, Francis Ford Copolla creates a rich and tight movie, bringing the essentials of the book onto the screen in a way that make it (arguably) the best book adaptation in the history of cinema. Copolla chose to concentrate on Micheal Corleone and his transformation, while the book revolves around Don Corleone. This is a good decision, making the movie a greek tragedy at heart. The ending is laced with irony and is exceedingly well-paced.

The cinematography and music of the movie also deserve superlatives, as Gordon Willis's camera captures the actors in 40's New York settings with poignance and grace, effectively but subtly using colour and motion, while Nino Rota's score resonates with the tragic atmosphere.

I realise my review has been saturated with superlatives, but that is just what this movie deserves. Don't think this is a sad, dark, boring movie, though... But this is a commercial movie that goes far beyond just entertaining, creating multi-faceted characters, a complex plot, and a rich atmosphere. It has something for everyone. The Godfather is, in one word, a masterpiece.

Limericks - 30/10/2006

2006-10-30T17:17:00.000+05:30

Well, I'm sorry I did not post for the past few days. :-) My next post will continue my movie series with a review-cum-appreciation of "The Godfather".

Well, so here are a few limericks to (I hope) lighten your day :-) :

Cant a guy be allowed to relaxi?
Just as I was catching a taxi
My friend observed to me
"Grow thin, if want a beauty"
But, Tell me, can't fat girls be sexy?

Holidays:

Work, work, is not what I want
I don't even want to read Kant
I just wanna sleep,
Say words like... *bleep*
And no studies around to haunt! :D

And, finally, a surreal tri-limerick:

Beneath the bottomless

As my PC pulled a clever trick
And my chair did stunts aerobic
I fell through my carpit
Into a bottomless pit
I began to get claustrophobic...

Finally, when, I fell to the ground
I discovered a toxin-scented mound
Now's need to scream
To get out of my dream
But I was not at all asleep, I found!

Although it hurts, the constant pinching
I'll try and get out of here, inching
My climb of four feet
Of the endless peet
As I come out, I die in a mob lynching!

Hope you liked them... I'll try to make a more meaningful one next time ;-).
Do comment.

Limericks - 23/10/06

2006-10-23T12:52:00.000+05:30

The process

Line one sets the music, chime
Line two just has to rhyme
Lines three and four
Are the heart and core
Of line five's near-perfect time!

I rather think that my limericks may have witnessed a decline in quality lately... I think there are two reasons for this:
1) I dont think about limericks that often nowadays. I think about movies, studies and such stuff. The number of limerick posts on my blog has decreased too.
2) A little technical: I used to "begin" a limerick with the last line. Now I begin with the first line. The last line has the fun, and a good first line may not develop into a good last line. Maybe that is why quality has declined. I am not satisfied with myself, and I am going to try and improve. :-) Thanks for the patience.

Infomercial

Look what, today, we have to sell
It's a perfume that'll refresh your smell
It's imported, genuine
It's fresh and fine
~~If you dont buy it, go to hell!~~
Buy it, dear, turn into an angel!

Morality

The rabbit was caught eating a rat
Two more mice were found in his hat
Finally, he confessed
With gloomy chest
That he had been bribed by a cat!

OK, Now two two-liners...

English Class
You have to be mighty thickins
To think of Chaplin when reading Dickens

Reflection on Cricket
How it is possible, I do not know
To hit the stumps, but not throw.

That's all for now... do comment. Nest post will continue with my movie series. :-)

Movie Series: 1. Before Sunrise/ Before Sunset

2006-10-21T10:46:00.000+05:30

Here, a limerick feels strangely out-of-place. So, instead, I'll insert a wonderful poem from the movie itself. :-)

Delusion Angel
- David Jewell

Daydream, delusion, limousine, eyelash.
Oh baby with your pretty face.
Drop a tear in my wineglass.
Look at those big eyes.
See what you mean to me.
Sweet-cakes and milkshakes.
I'm delusion angel, I'm fantasy parade,
I want you to know what I think.
Don't want you to guess anymore.
You have no idea where I came from.
We have no idea where we're going.
Latched in life, Like branches in a river,
Flowing downstream, Caught in the current,
I'll carry you, You'll carry me.
That's how it could be, Don't you know me?
Don't you know me by now?

As I mentioned in the previous post, This post starts a new series: My Favourite Movies. Here I'll be part-reviewing, part-appreciating some of my favourite movies. I recommend them. I am not a movie-reviewer, and am not saying I have a very good taste in movies. I am just putting forward my recommendations, as everyone else does. :-) I begin with my personal favourite:

Before Sunrise

I saw half an hour of this movie on HBO one day, and was enchanted. I did not know what more lay in store, and no site could inform me. Once I saw the whole movie, I discovered why. This movie has almost no plot, and the substance is essentially incompressible.

The plot goes like this: A young man meets a woman on a train, talks to her for a while. He has to get off at Vienna, but they both enjoy each other's company so much that she decides to spend a day with him in Vienna, and catch the next morning's train. The movie is about the magical day, and how they fall in love.

The movie follows them travelling around Vienna, talking about love, the sexes, God, and philosophy. Their conversation feels real, except for the fact that it is difficult to find such intelligent persons to chat with. The movie is simple, profound, and heartbreaking. It is also something I've never seen before. Forget the cheesy romances of Bollywood and the romantic comedies of Hollywood, this is the true romantic movie.

I've rarly seen better acting than what Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy accomplish here, and there's real chemistry between them. Richard Linklater, who also co-wrote the movie, directs it in such a way that we can feel what the characters are experiencing, and that allows the movie to reach us.

The movie contains many wonderful scenes, like a scene where Celine and Jesse (the names of the characters) listen to a song in a listening booth. The movie may be a dream, but it is very romantic and touching, and the script and acting very real. Go watch this, for the magic.

Before Sunset

A sequel to Before Sunrise came 9 years later, not because of greed (Before Sunrise didn't do very well), but because the actors and director felt the need for developing the characters. The ending of the first movie was incomplete (deliberately), and some felt that the sequel will not do justice to the "what will happen" feeling of Before Sunrise. But Before Sunset doesn't dissapoint.

You have to be a little mature in the ways of love to understand Before Sunset, which I am not. But I did enjoy it. This movie is even more restricted than the former: there is less plot, more talk, and it takes place in real time. But Hawke and Delpy, who co-wrote the screenplay, again enchant with their chemistry and acting. This movie isn't a dream like the previous one, but it is about the reality of love, and how rarely we find a true connection. And the ending again poses a "what will happen" question, except this time we know what.

What I gather from IMDB is, viewers (who like this kind of movie) will enjoy both, but those below 30 will like Sunrise more, and those above will like Sunset. I am in the former category. I also feel Sunrise has a richer tale. But watch both. :-)

Movies and me

2006-10-18T07:18:00.000+05:30

Movies

A man dreamt he couldn't unlock
his door, and turned, with shock
To find a knife in his back
You'll have to face such attack
If you sleep after watching Hitchcock!

OK, A bit of a clumsy limerick to start with. Anyway...

Well, I admit, I don't like reading fiction much. But I like movies. In fact, I love movies. Movies demand a lot less patience than books, but the good ones pay off in less time. I wasn't much of a movie fan 5 years ago, but my appreciation for movies has grown since. I used to like reading, and I still like reading nonfiction.

For most movies, the time limit for movies doesn't allow for as much depth as a book would. But I can name a movie to contradict that: The Godfather. Through the sheer power of acting, direction and structuring, the movie could compress the essense of Mario Puzo's book into 200 minutes. Aside from the plots which have been omitted (the Johnny Fontane story), you can get the essense of everything in the book, and more, in 3 and a half hours.

But personal tastes cannot be avoided when you name your favourite movies. I will admit, any day, that the Godfather is the best movie I've seen, but my favourite is Before Sunrise. Why is my favourite different from the best? Because "Before Sunrise" clicks with me. It may not possess the plot depth of the Godfather, or the technical skill of Schindler's List, but this movie is just the type I like.

Different Tastes

I loved Arnold action movies said she
And I glanced at her shockingly
For I was expecting
A bit of maturing
From my dear wife-to-be!

And, tastes differ. I wont recommend The Godfather to my Bollywood-liking friends, or Before Sunrise to my action-oriented friends. And no one has the "better" taste. It's just too personal. Like comparing (to use a cliche) apples and oranges.

This taste issue is very complicated, I'd just shove it aside if it weren't so important. But it is. Who has the better taste: someone who likes Adam Sandler comedies or someone who likes serious satire? (I'm pretty sure one can't like both, unless he/she is very open-minded.) The people who like the latter have some intelligent thing to ponder about, and can enjoy great acting, get a glimpse of reality, and be patient. These are things useful in the life... but who's to argue if I spend two hours laughing at dumb jokes, but enjoying myself?

Maybe we just shouldn't compare.

The plans for a series on movies

I admit that I don't know much about film-making. I don't think I have the ability to recognise truly great movies. And, as I've said above, calling some film "the best" is useless anyway, because people have different tastes.

Anyway, I do wish to talk about the movies I like: so, for a few days, every alternate post will be about one of my favourite movies. Note that it'll not be strictly criticism... it'll be more about what I like in that movie. There's nothing more that I can do. Of course, my taste will change as I see more movies, and also as I grow. But, for the present:

A bit of personal, a bit of technical, I'll start my "Favourite movies" series from the post after the next with, of course, Before Sunrise.

Random Thoughts - 14/10/06

2006-10-14T16:38:00.000+05:30

*Warning: This post is sloppily written. No different from others here, you say?

Well, it's time for some Random Thoughts again. My net access at home is down, and my exams just ended, so I have had no time to organise my thoughts. Randomness rules k? , o

Exam Time

The day the exams are over
It feels like you're on auto-hover
Like you've found a charm
There's no cause for alarm
Like you've found a four-leaf clover!

Well, my exams ended today. Not very stressful, but they were somewhat deteriorating to my conscience. I mean, next year is my final year of undergraduation, and what I need the kind of progress that will help me pass with, to use a cliche, "flying colours". So, what exams tell me is, I need to study more.

Anyway, that's all about the exams. I'll have to wait till the results. Till then, I don't wanna think. Not thinking about something is the best form of facing a fear. Or so say cowards.

Life without the internet

Well, how do you suppose is life without the internet? It's like life without a life support system. Only when my net connection at home goes down, do I realise how much the the net means to me. I spend hours on the PC daily, surfing the net: uncyclopedia, forums, google groups, and... er... "whatnot". But when I have no net access, I am at a loss. I get bored, don't know what I should do. A geek, I am.

Difference of Opinions

There lived a wife with her husban
Who got divorced in six mon
Because when the wife
Asked for a kitchen knife
He brought a brand new shotgun!
("You know I kill rabbits for fun
I thought you wanted the same, hon! ")

OK, that was a 7-line limerick, er, poem.

Most of the times, the only thing that starts tiffs, and prevents effective dialogue, is a failure to understand a difference of opinion. What I've seen so far in my life is that people can be different as night and day, yet still live without fights. This may not be the case with spouses, but atleast with neighbours, classmates, and even countries, understanding and adjusting can prevent a lot of fights.

As Celine (Julie Delphy) says in "Before Sunrise": "If there is any magic in the world, it must be in the understanding of another person...". Once you get past the barrier of a difference of opinions, you'll find yourself understanding others, and adjusting yourself to the world. A win-win situation.

OK, enough preaching. I hate being preached to, and I'll hate myself if I preach to you. It's one thing to say something, and another to actually do it. I can very well say that understanding others is the greatest good, but if I go and quarrel with my mother because she wants to watch a daily soap, but my favourite movie is on, I'll have done nothing.

A leader leads by example. And of course, he has to be right too.

Sexual Limericks II

2006-10-11T16:48:00.000+05:30

I posted a sexual limericks post some weeks back, here's one again ;-).

NOT safe for work... lol!

No one would have sex, only grunt
On seeing the woman's huge cunt
She explained, when a child
She was a teen, very wild
And she had sex with an elephant!

OK, that was sick... lol. Here's another one

I do not ask for a pretty mermaid
I just want a strong and firm aid
With nice conversation
In my love relation
And, yeah, a passage for my spermade

And the last one:

A sight of cleavage, or even a bra
Or even animal sex, lion, zebra
Will turn on a man
Who's a huge fan
Of the cute little pill called Viagra!

Hope you liked, and didn't mind the obscenity. The last time I posted, there were calls to go "all the way"... have I crossed a line? Naah... er... I guess ;-).

Against Astrology -Part II - Experiments

2006-10-06T17:21:00.000+05:30

*Warning* A VERY long post below. But important. Please read. And patiently... bad language in commented is NOT appreciated. And only two limericks ... am in a hurry, with exams coming up and all. :-)

Today's Bombay Times is fat (sigh)
They have a special on "Gemini"
Their 12th anniversary
But they're still in nursery
They can't separate fact from crap, that's why!

In the previous post, we dealt with the theoritical refutation of astrology. It's good enough on it's own (for all theory is of course experimentally confirmed), but here, I plan to deal with more serious and convincing issues: Hidden Persuaders, Tests of astrology, and whether astrology has any importance today. A very useful reference is Skepdic's article on astrology, and the links below it. Others will be cited below.

Hidden Persuaders

Why do scientists reject astrology even though we can see that it works? I mean, anyone would agree with their descriptions they read in their horoscopes, sun-sign charts, etc. So, why do these "skeptics" refuse to believe?

That's because they know of the existence of "Hidden Persuaders". An example is the Forer effect: Psychologist Bertram Forer made his students take a personality test, and gave each of them a result, and asked them to rate the evaluation's accuracy. The average was 85%... everyone thought the description was accurate for themselves. But, he had given each student the same evaluation! This is what's called a hidden persuader : we ignore the inaccurate aspects and concentrate only on the ones which apply to us.

A list of hidden persuaders:
Confirmation Bias, Self Deception, Subjective Validation, Barnum Effect, Communal Reinforcement , Testimonials etc. Do read the linked articles, they're readable and informative.

In short, hidden persuaders are things which lead us to wrong conclusions because we are biased. When we read a horscope, or a personality description, we are biased, and think it is accurate and describes us. This isn't harmful in itself, but when we are led into spending money and time upon it, it becomes so.

Tests of Astrology

My principal reference for this section is a paper by Dean and Kelly : "Is astrology relevant to consciousness and psi?" (a pdf link). The paper contains much more information than just the tests, including some information on astrologers' views, hidden persuaders, etc.

The most trusted tests conducted are known as "Control group double-blind tests". In these tests, control groups are used, and neither experimenter nor subjects know who the controls are. This is essentially to remove the effects of the hidden persuaders.

Now we come to the tests of astrology. Tests which study the rlation between astrology and consciousness, psi are important because without scientific explanation, astrologers resort to psychic explanations, or to unknown forces. These can only be measured by experiment. A note about effect sizes: an effect of 0.4 means 70% accuracy where 50% would be that expected by chance. This is how the accuracy of the tests is measured. If astrology is right, effect sizes should be atleast 0.5.

Astrology asserts that one's life depends on the positions of stars at one's birth... in effect, on thebirth time. Time twins are a perfect test of astrology. "Time twins" refers to people who are born very close to each other in time. A study (unconnected with astrology) consisted of 2101 persons born in London from 3-9 March 1958, born on average 4.8 minutes apart. 110 relevant variables like IQ, rating for behaviour, etc, were measured at ages 11, 16 and 23, with16 variables as controls. Many of the 110 are supposed to be included in the birth chart. But the effect sizes due to astrology are calculated to be 0.00+- 0.03 . Time twins do not show any similarities which astrology says must be there.

Astrologers are however convinced that the birth chart is so complex that a single factor cannot be tested. If birth charts are so complex, how do astrologers themselves read them? Tests of astrologer accuracy have been conducted, and a meta-analysis of these gives a mean effect size of 0.051. Tests of astrologer agreement (meta-analysis) give an effect size of 0.101. Astrologers are not accurate in matching birth charts to profiles, and they don't even agree with each other.

We can, thus, say that even when tested, astrology does not work.

Why no Astrology?

I'd give a simple enough reason: It doesn't work.

But, astrology is still practised and believed in many parts of the world. It is harmful, because millions of dollars are spent on something that doesn't work. Some people seem to think that clients get comfort from the advice given, and thus astrology serves it's purpose. That is, simply and plainly, wrong. Two reasons:

Critical Thinking. The Bad Astronomer mentions this on his blog, and it is as important a reason as anything: Critical thinking is essential to humanity's survival. Scientific, organised thinking is what has caused humanity to come so far. Unless we recognise our biases and seek the truth in a controlled way, we'll not progress. Astrology destroys this essential skill.

Secondly, astrologers do not advice people, they just suggest them to change their names, hold rituals, or something like that. That will not help, except misleading people into thinking they're on the right path. It'll lead to harm. Astrology can be used in counselling: www.astrology-and-science.com has two articles advising astrologers in counselling, but they mostly ask them to use astrology only as a device to connect with the subject, and concentrate on counselling, not astrology.

So, here is The Grand Conclusion:

The conclusion grande, in a song
Holding my tongue in a tong
(I don't want to pout)
But can't stop the shout:
Astrology is (really, really) wrong!!!!

Having supported the statement with theoritical as well as experimental evidence, I hope you'll keep away from astrology. And spread the message.

Thanks. Do comment.