Generally, new funds are not recommended. However, it is not to say that these funds are bad, but that one should wait for these funds to prove their worth over a period of time.
NFO end up being more expensive. They may not charge any entry load but they charge initial issue expenses which can be up to six per cent of the amount that they collect during the new fund offer period. But investors do not come to know about it as it is amortised over a period of five years, rather than being charged up-front.
Moreover, nothing is known about the new funds, and they only have promises to back their claims. One might argue that past performance does not guarantee future performance, and therefore, nothing can be said with certainty even for the well established funds. This is true. But the fact is that this uncertainty is at its height in case of new funds. For an established fund, at least you know where it invests, and that the fund manager has shown the ability to manage the fund well in turbulent times.
Investing in a mutual fund involves making a choice from the various options available. And in the absence of any distinct advantage that a new fund can provide, a wise decision will be to choose an established fund about which you know at least something.
Monday, April 17, 2006
Footprints in Time
Another one of those spams...
Original Version
One day a man was having a conversation with god when his whole life flashed before his eyes as a series of footsteps on the sands of time. Hesaw that there were two pairs of footprints, but during the most difficultperiods of his life there were only one set of footprints. He asked god "You said you will be with me throughout this journey, but why have youdeserted me during the most critical times of my life??" to which godanswered "Son, I did not desert you, I was always with you...you see only one set of footprints because during those difficult times in your life, Iwas carrying you"
IT Version
Another day I was having a similar conversation with my Project Manager(PM) when my whole project flashed before my eyes as a series of footsteps on the sands of time. I saw that there were two pairs of footprints, butduring the most difficult times in the project there were only one set offootprints. I asked my PM "You said you will be with me throughout the project, but why have you deserted me during the most critical times of theproject??" to which the PM answered "Son, I did not desert you, I wasalways with you...you see only one set of footprints because during those difficult times, I was sitting on your head!!"
Original Version
One day a man was having a conversation with god when his whole life flashed before his eyes as a series of footsteps on the sands of time. Hesaw that there were two pairs of footprints, but during the most difficultperiods of his life there were only one set of footprints. He asked god "You said you will be with me throughout this journey, but why have youdeserted me during the most critical times of my life??" to which godanswered "Son, I did not desert you, I was always with you...you see only one set of footprints because during those difficult times in your life, Iwas carrying you"
IT Version
Another day I was having a similar conversation with my Project Manager(PM) when my whole project flashed before my eyes as a series of footsteps on the sands of time. I saw that there were two pairs of footprints, butduring the most difficult times in the project there were only one set offootprints. I asked my PM "You said you will be with me throughout the project, but why have you deserted me during the most critical times of theproject??" to which the PM answered "Son, I did not desert you, I wasalways with you...you see only one set of footprints because during those difficult times, I was sitting on your head!!"
Stock Valuation - PEG
In my last post, I discussed about P/E ratio. It is common practice for investors to use the price-to-earnings ratio (P/E ratio) to determine if a company is over or undervalued. There are, however, many extreme cases of stocks trading at 10,000 or more times their earnings - these kinds of situations affect the ratio's accuracy for assessing a company. The companies with a high P/E ratio are typically startup companies with little or no revenues; however, a high P/E does not necessarily mean the stock isn't a good buy for the long term.
Let's take a closer look at what the P/E ratio tells us:
P/E Ratio = Market Value per Share / Earnings per Share (EPS)
There are two primary components here, the market value (price) of the stock and the earnings of the company.
Earnings are very important to consider. After all, earnings represent profits, for what every business strives. Earnings are calculated by taking the hard figures into account: revenue, cost of goods sold (COGS), salaries, rent, etc. These are all important to the livelihood of a company. If the company isn't using its resources effectively it will not have positive earnings, and problems will eventually arise.
Besides earnings, there are other factors that affect the value of a stock. For example:
Brand - The name of a product or company has value. Brands such as McDonald's, Microsoft and General Motors are worth billions.
Human Capital - Now more than ever, a company's employees and their expertise are thought to add value to the company. It's about time!
Expectations - The stock market is forward looking. You buy a stock because of high expectations for strong profits, not because of past achievements.
Barriers To Entry - For a company to be successful in the long run, it must have strategies to keep competitors from entering the industry. Coca-Cola, for example, has built a very extensive distribution channel--anybody can make pop, but getting that product to the market like Coke does, is very costly.
All these factors will affect a company's growth rate. The P/E ratio does not reflect any of these, and only looks at the past.
The relationship between the price/earnings ratio and earnings growth tells a much more complete story than the P/E on its own. This is called the PEG Ratio and is formulated as:
PEG Ratio = (P/E) / (Annual EPS Growth)
Annual EPS growth number used for annual growth rate can vary. It can be forward (predicted growth) or trailing, and either a one- to five-year time span. Check with the source providing the PEG ratio to see what kind of number they use.
Looking at the value of PEG of companies is just like looking at the P/E ratio: a lower PEG means that the stock is more undervalued.
Let's demonstrate the PEG ratio with an example. Say you are interested in buying stock in one of two companies. The first is a networking company with 50% annual growth in net income and a P/E ratio of 100. The second company is in the beer business. It has lower earnings growth at 24% and its P/E ratio is also relatively low at 12.
Many justify the stock valuations of tech companies by relying on the assumption that these companies have enormous growth potential.
Can we do the same in our example?
Networking Company:
P/E ratio (100) divided by the annual earnings growth rate (50) = PEG ratio of 2
Beer Company:
P/E ratio (12) divided by the annual earnings growth rate (24) = PEG ratio of .5
The PEG ratio shows us the sexier high-tech company, compared to the beer company, doesn't have the growth rate to justify its higher P/E.
Investors are getting more picky. Many have abandoned the P/E ratio, not because it is worthless, but because they desire more information about a stock's potential. We've realized that the P/E doesn't tell us everything we need to know. Using the P/E along with current growth rates produces the more informative PEG ratio, a great indicator of a stock's potential value.
Let's take a closer look at what the P/E ratio tells us:
P/E Ratio = Market Value per Share / Earnings per Share (EPS)
There are two primary components here, the market value (price) of the stock and the earnings of the company.
Earnings are very important to consider. After all, earnings represent profits, for what every business strives. Earnings are calculated by taking the hard figures into account: revenue, cost of goods sold (COGS), salaries, rent, etc. These are all important to the livelihood of a company. If the company isn't using its resources effectively it will not have positive earnings, and problems will eventually arise.
Besides earnings, there are other factors that affect the value of a stock. For example:
Brand - The name of a product or company has value. Brands such as McDonald's, Microsoft and General Motors are worth billions.
Human Capital - Now more than ever, a company's employees and their expertise are thought to add value to the company. It's about time!
Expectations - The stock market is forward looking. You buy a stock because of high expectations for strong profits, not because of past achievements.
Barriers To Entry - For a company to be successful in the long run, it must have strategies to keep competitors from entering the industry. Coca-Cola, for example, has built a very extensive distribution channel--anybody can make pop, but getting that product to the market like Coke does, is very costly.
All these factors will affect a company's growth rate. The P/E ratio does not reflect any of these, and only looks at the past.
The relationship between the price/earnings ratio and earnings growth tells a much more complete story than the P/E on its own. This is called the PEG Ratio and is formulated as:
PEG Ratio = (P/E) / (Annual EPS Growth)
Annual EPS growth number used for annual growth rate can vary. It can be forward (predicted growth) or trailing, and either a one- to five-year time span. Check with the source providing the PEG ratio to see what kind of number they use.
Looking at the value of PEG of companies is just like looking at the P/E ratio: a lower PEG means that the stock is more undervalued.
Let's demonstrate the PEG ratio with an example. Say you are interested in buying stock in one of two companies. The first is a networking company with 50% annual growth in net income and a P/E ratio of 100. The second company is in the beer business. It has lower earnings growth at 24% and its P/E ratio is also relatively low at 12.
Many justify the stock valuations of tech companies by relying on the assumption that these companies have enormous growth potential.
Can we do the same in our example?
Networking Company:
P/E ratio (100) divided by the annual earnings growth rate (50) = PEG ratio of 2
Beer Company:
P/E ratio (12) divided by the annual earnings growth rate (24) = PEG ratio of .5
The PEG ratio shows us the sexier high-tech company, compared to the beer company, doesn't have the growth rate to justify its higher P/E.
Investors are getting more picky. Many have abandoned the P/E ratio, not because it is worthless, but because they desire more information about a stock's potential. We've realized that the P/E doesn't tell us everything we need to know. Using the P/E along with current growth rates produces the more informative PEG ratio, a great indicator of a stock's potential value.
Life has a Noble Purpose!
1st mail from dad to one of my friends.
Every time we wish to establish communications with someone unknown or having scanty acquaintances,we get into a dillmma i.e.How,where,when n what to start conversation with? It happens with everyone.U were therefore, no exception.My advice is to start the way life begins.Funny? Isn't it?And how does it begin?
Would u like to have a guess? No,No!don't give me that crap about DNA OR indulge in explaining Darwin's Theory.No, no; not that crap on 'Big-Bang' n 'Intelligent Design',please. Also, I don't want u to get involved with illustrating biological processes.
By the way, tell me,why do u computer guys make simple things so complex n then brag about having developed a "Software" to make that "Hardware" do something.U guys first create confusion n then get to engage people to compound the confusion,who further add to it.And I suppose IT industry thrives on the computer generated confusion in the world.Do u know all these computers will become ineffective if there is a release of EMP? What happens to ur so called 'Softwares'? (Develop a software which can make a computer work even during the passage/attack by EMP.Else develop a 'Hardware' which is immune to EMP.It is a food for thought alongwith the intended pun.) Learn from 'The Almighty' as to how to make a simple 'software' for as compex a 'Hardware' as a human being.And it functions under all conditions.
This is the Key: A 'Simple Software' driving a 'Complex-Hardware'!
To come back to my question again in a different manner,to say, "What is the software that makes a new-born(A 'Flesh-n-Bone-Hardware' rather than ur 'Wires-n-Steel-Hardware'!) commence its human functions?" And there r softwares for every passing moment of each new product(Human being).That's why they differ in their functions under similiar conditions.Emotions, reactions, expressions, conduct, perceptions, views, responses n attitudinal-displays vary for each one.There r no two similarities.U know 'HomoSapiens' r not 'Homogeneous'.Therefore, there can not be any 'Uniformity'.The very act of imposing 'Uniformity' leads to human 'Chaos,Conflict n Confrontation'.This is the problem but this is also life.And the moot question remains: How does it begin?
U c there is nothing mysterious about this question. No, no it does not need a Michael Belligent's effort to unravel the mystery of the truth about the 'Crucification of Christ'.If u read his book, 'THE JESUS PAPERS',u would know that he was never crucfied.
He was let off alive by the executioner because he had finally exhorted his followers n the JEWS to pay the taxes. I suppose he got maarried n lived with his children secretly.And 'The VINCCI CODE', is all about protecting the identity of his descendants by a secret society of eminent persons.Well, no one may believe him but there r certain mysterious facts which points towards this. Like there is a claim by an Indian archeologist Rajesh Kochhar, in his book, 'VEDIC HISTORY OF INDIA' that Ramayana was enacted in Afghanistan.And mysterious n mythological River SARASWATI is actually River Hemland' in Afghanistan.
He gives convincing arguements to prove this.And I do believe him. I similarly feel Michael Belligent may be right.But why am I talking about all this? I should just tell u as to how does life begin! Why is this web around such a simple issue? Am I weaving a web around it or u can not read between the lines?
Look Adi, do not lose patience. Bear with me for a while. I will tell u how does it begin? But, then, we must be prepared to know this. For the time being relax n enjoy urself. I shall be back on the air shortly with an answer to ur curiosity. Till i come back keep thinking about it.
Every time we wish to establish communications with someone unknown or having scanty acquaintances,we get into a dillmma i.e.How,where,when n what to start conversation with? It happens with everyone.U were therefore, no exception.My advice is to start the way life begins.Funny? Isn't it?And how does it begin?
Would u like to have a guess? No,No!don't give me that crap about DNA OR indulge in explaining Darwin's Theory.No, no; not that crap on 'Big-Bang' n 'Intelligent Design',please. Also, I don't want u to get involved with illustrating biological processes.
By the way, tell me,why do u computer guys make simple things so complex n then brag about having developed a "Software" to make that "Hardware" do something.U guys first create confusion n then get to engage people to compound the confusion,who further add to it.And I suppose IT industry thrives on the computer generated confusion in the world.Do u know all these computers will become ineffective if there is a release of EMP? What happens to ur so called 'Softwares'? (Develop a software which can make a computer work even during the passage/attack by EMP.Else develop a 'Hardware' which is immune to EMP.It is a food for thought alongwith the intended pun.) Learn from 'The Almighty' as to how to make a simple 'software' for as compex a 'Hardware' as a human being.And it functions under all conditions.
This is the Key: A 'Simple Software' driving a 'Complex-Hardware'!
To come back to my question again in a different manner,to say, "What is the software that makes a new-born(A 'Flesh-n-Bone-Hardware' rather than ur 'Wires-n-Steel-Hardware'!) commence its human functions?" And there r softwares for every passing moment of each new product(Human being).That's why they differ in their functions under similiar conditions.Emotions, reactions, expressions, conduct, perceptions, views, responses n attitudinal-displays vary for each one.There r no two similarities.U know 'HomoSapiens' r not 'Homogeneous'.Therefore, there can not be any 'Uniformity'.The very act of imposing 'Uniformity' leads to human 'Chaos,Conflict n Confrontation'.This is the problem but this is also life.And the moot question remains: How does it begin?
U c there is nothing mysterious about this question. No, no it does not need a Michael Belligent's effort to unravel the mystery of the truth about the 'Crucification of Christ'.If u read his book, 'THE JESUS PAPERS',u would know that he was never crucfied.
He was let off alive by the executioner because he had finally exhorted his followers n the JEWS to pay the taxes. I suppose he got maarried n lived with his children secretly.And 'The VINCCI CODE', is all about protecting the identity of his descendants by a secret society of eminent persons.Well, no one may believe him but there r certain mysterious facts which points towards this. Like there is a claim by an Indian archeologist Rajesh Kochhar, in his book, 'VEDIC HISTORY OF INDIA' that Ramayana was enacted in Afghanistan.And mysterious n mythological River SARASWATI is actually River Hemland' in Afghanistan.
He gives convincing arguements to prove this.And I do believe him. I similarly feel Michael Belligent may be right.But why am I talking about all this? I should just tell u as to how does life begin! Why is this web around such a simple issue? Am I weaving a web around it or u can not read between the lines?
Look Adi, do not lose patience. Bear with me for a while. I will tell u how does it begin? But, then, we must be prepared to know this. For the time being relax n enjoy urself. I shall be back on the air shortly with an answer to ur curiosity. Till i come back keep thinking about it.
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
Cigarettes as Money
In WW II camps, supply of various goods was fixed by external conditions: rations, etc. But after receiving the rations, the prisoners began exchanging what they didn’t want for what they particularly needed. Soon there was an elaborate price system for every product in terms of cigarettes (which evolved as the money commodity). Prices in terms of cigarettes fluctuated in accordance with changing supply and demand.
As mentioned in Quality of Money cigarettes were the most “moneylike” products available in the camps. They were in high demand for their own sake, they were divisible, portable, and in high value per unit weight. They were not very durable but they could make do in the few years of the camps’ existence.
As mentioned in Quality of Money cigarettes were the most “moneylike” products available in the camps. They were in high demand for their own sake, they were divisible, portable, and in high value per unit weight. They were not very durable but they could make do in the few years of the camps’ existence.
Quality of Money
Continuing from Origin of Money we will examine what are the qualities that a commodity should have so as to be picked as money.
Let us analyze the qualities which led the market to choose that particular commodity as money. Individuals do not pick the medium of exchange out of thin air. They will pick a commodity in heavy demand. Second, they will pick a commodity which is highly divisible, so that small chunks of other goods can be bought, and size of purchases can be flexible. For this they need a commodity which technologically does not lose its quotal value when divided into small pieces. For that reason a house or a tractor, being highly indivisible, is not likely to be chosen as money, whereas butter, for example, is highly divisible and at least scores heavily as a money for this particular quality.
Demand and divisibility are not the only criteria. It is also important for people to be able to carry the money commodity around in order to facilitate purchases. To be easily portable, then, a commodity must have high value per unit weight. To have high value per unit weight, however, requires a good which is not only in great demand but also relatively scarce, since an intense demand combined with a relatively scarce supply will yield a high price, or high value per unit weight.
Finally, the money commodity should be highly durable, so that it can serve as a store of value for a long time. The holder of money should not only be assured of being able to purchase other products right now, but also indefinitely into the future. Therefore, butter, fish, eggs, and so on fail on the question of durability.
In all countries and all civilizations, two commodities have been dominant whenever they were
available to compete as moneys with other commodities: gold and silver.
At first, gold and silver were highly prized for their luster and ornamental value. They were always in great demand. Second, they were always relatively scarce, and hence valuable per unit of weight. They were portable as well. They were also divisible, and could be sliced into thin segments without losing their pro rata value. Finally, silver or gold were blended with small amounts of alloy to harden them, and since they did not corrode, they would last almost forever.
Generally, gold and silver have both been moneys, side-by-side. Since gold has always been far
scarcer and also in greater demand than silver, it has always commanded a higher price, and tends to be money in larger transactions, while silver has been used in smaller exchanges. The difficulties of mining gold, which makes its production limited, make its long-term value relatively more stable than silver.
Let us analyze the qualities which led the market to choose that particular commodity as money. Individuals do not pick the medium of exchange out of thin air. They will pick a commodity in heavy demand. Second, they will pick a commodity which is highly divisible, so that small chunks of other goods can be bought, and size of purchases can be flexible. For this they need a commodity which technologically does not lose its quotal value when divided into small pieces. For that reason a house or a tractor, being highly indivisible, is not likely to be chosen as money, whereas butter, for example, is highly divisible and at least scores heavily as a money for this particular quality.
Demand and divisibility are not the only criteria. It is also important for people to be able to carry the money commodity around in order to facilitate purchases. To be easily portable, then, a commodity must have high value per unit weight. To have high value per unit weight, however, requires a good which is not only in great demand but also relatively scarce, since an intense demand combined with a relatively scarce supply will yield a high price, or high value per unit weight.
Finally, the money commodity should be highly durable, so that it can serve as a store of value for a long time. The holder of money should not only be assured of being able to purchase other products right now, but also indefinitely into the future. Therefore, butter, fish, eggs, and so on fail on the question of durability.
In all countries and all civilizations, two commodities have been dominant whenever they were
available to compete as moneys with other commodities: gold and silver.
At first, gold and silver were highly prized for their luster and ornamental value. They were always in great demand. Second, they were always relatively scarce, and hence valuable per unit of weight. They were portable as well. They were also divisible, and could be sliced into thin segments without losing their pro rata value. Finally, silver or gold were blended with small amounts of alloy to harden them, and since they did not corrode, they would last almost forever.
Generally, gold and silver have both been moneys, side-by-side. Since gold has always been far
scarcer and also in greater demand than silver, it has always commanded a higher price, and tends to be money in larger transactions, while silver has been used in smaller exchanges. The difficulties of mining gold, which makes its production limited, make its long-term value relatively more stable than silver.
Stock Valuation - P/E
Recent years have seen tremendous growth in the stock market. Virtually everyone is trying to jump into stocks to make a quick buck. Generally stocks are being picked based on rumours or some hot tip. It is all right to pick stocks in this fashion provided you trust the source. If you don't then a preliminary analysis with P/E ratio will tell you how the company is faring and whether or not you should buy the stock. P/E ratio compares a company's stock price to its earnings.
i.e. P/E = (Stock Price) / (Earnings per Share)
Earnings per Share is generally available with the company's financial information. Simply stating EPS is calculated by dividing the earnings (net profit) by the total number of equity shares. Thus, if XYZ has 2 crore shares and has earned Rs 4 crore in the past 12 months, it has an EPS of Rs 2.
Now to calculate earnings per share you can use last years earnings or next years estimated earnings. Using these you get 2 ratios backward P/E ratio (using last years earnings) forward P/E ratio (using estimated earnings). People generally prefer forward P/E ratio.
The P/E ratio takes the stock price and divides it by the last years earnings. If XYZ is currently trading at Rs. 20 a share with Rs. 4 of earnings per share (EPS), it would have a P/E of 5. Big increase in earnings is an important factor for share value appreciation. When a stock's P-E ratio is high, the majority of investors consider it as pricey or overvalued. Stocks with low P-E's are typically considered a good value. However, studies done and past market experience have proved that the higher the P/E, the better the stock.
A Company that currently earns Re 1 per share and expects its earnings to grow at 20% p.a will sell at some multiple of its future earnings. Assuming that earnings will be Rs 2.50 (i.e Re 1 compounded at 20% p.a for 5 years). Also assume that the normal P/E ratio is 15. Then the stock selling at a normal P/E ratio of 15 times of the expected earnings of Rs 2.50 could sell for Rs 37.50 (i.e rs 2.5*15) or 37.5 times of this years earnings.
Thus if a company expects its earnings to grow by 20% per year in the future, investors will be willing to pay now for those shares an amount based on those future earnings.
In this buying frenzy, the investors would bid the price up until a share sells at a very high P/E ratio relative to its present earnings. First, one can obtain some idea of a reasonable price to pay for the stock by comparing its present P/E to its past levels of P/E ratio. One can learn what is a high and what is a low P/E for the individual company. One can compare the P/E ratio of the company with that of the market giving a relative measure. One can also use the average P/E ratio over time to help judge the reasonableness of the present levels of prices. All this suggests that as an investor one has to attempt to purchase a stock close to what is judged as a reasonable P/E ratio based on the comparisons made. One must also realize that we must pay a higher price for a quality company with quality management and attractive earnings potential.
The above point will be discussed in detail when we discuss PEG ratio.
Another important factor to keep in mind is that P/E by itself would only tell you half the story. You need to compare the P/E of a stock with its competitors to get a fair idea how that sector is being rated.
i.e. P/E = (Stock Price) / (Earnings per Share)
Earnings per Share is generally available with the company's financial information. Simply stating EPS is calculated by dividing the earnings (net profit) by the total number of equity shares. Thus, if XYZ has 2 crore shares and has earned Rs 4 crore in the past 12 months, it has an EPS of Rs 2.
Now to calculate earnings per share you can use last years earnings or next years estimated earnings. Using these you get 2 ratios backward P/E ratio (using last years earnings) forward P/E ratio (using estimated earnings). People generally prefer forward P/E ratio.
The P/E ratio takes the stock price and divides it by the last years earnings. If XYZ is currently trading at Rs. 20 a share with Rs. 4 of earnings per share (EPS), it would have a P/E of 5. Big increase in earnings is an important factor for share value appreciation. When a stock's P-E ratio is high, the majority of investors consider it as pricey or overvalued. Stocks with low P-E's are typically considered a good value. However, studies done and past market experience have proved that the higher the P/E, the better the stock.
A Company that currently earns Re 1 per share and expects its earnings to grow at 20% p.a will sell at some multiple of its future earnings. Assuming that earnings will be Rs 2.50 (i.e Re 1 compounded at 20% p.a for 5 years). Also assume that the normal P/E ratio is 15. Then the stock selling at a normal P/E ratio of 15 times of the expected earnings of Rs 2.50 could sell for Rs 37.50 (i.e rs 2.5*15) or 37.5 times of this years earnings.
Thus if a company expects its earnings to grow by 20% per year in the future, investors will be willing to pay now for those shares an amount based on those future earnings.
In this buying frenzy, the investors would bid the price up until a share sells at a very high P/E ratio relative to its present earnings. First, one can obtain some idea of a reasonable price to pay for the stock by comparing its present P/E to its past levels of P/E ratio. One can learn what is a high and what is a low P/E for the individual company. One can compare the P/E ratio of the company with that of the market giving a relative measure. One can also use the average P/E ratio over time to help judge the reasonableness of the present levels of prices. All this suggests that as an investor one has to attempt to purchase a stock close to what is judged as a reasonable P/E ratio based on the comparisons made. One must also realize that we must pay a higher price for a quality company with quality management and attractive earnings potential.
The above point will be discussed in detail when we discuss PEG ratio.
Another important factor to keep in mind is that P/E by itself would only tell you half the story. You need to compare the P/E of a stock with its competitors to get a fair idea how that sector is being rated.
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
Internet on Laptop
This can be revolutionary. Imagine surfing the internet without ever being online. Webaroo software, which is available as a free download, is designed to allow users to access the Web via laptop or mobile device, when they are offline or can't get on the Internet.
"It would be impossible to put the whole web – roughly 10 billion pages of data – on your hard drive or phone, so we're condensing it," said Bradley Husick, president of Webaroo. "Webaroo allows you to take a cross section of the Web with you."
Since the service can't archive search engines like Google, Webaroo acts as its own search engine. When the consumer opens up their browser, the Webaroo search box comes up. Instead of replacing ads that already exist on the Web, the company will sell the "offline Internet" as an additional form of revenue for customers.
"So, if an ad was there at the time [the site] was cached, it will still be there when you look at it [offline]," said Husick. "The difference is that most of those ads won't have the click-through, or the result page that you would go to, to view the ad."
The software will compress the data on the website with a compression ratio of 25,000:1
Webaroo offers pre-loaded "web packs" with pages on different subject areas, like big cities around the world – including New York City, Taipei, etc. Users can also create searchable libraries, where they can add the Web sites that they frequent most often. When a user connects to the Internet, the Webaroo software updates the offline content.
"We have a world news pack, which is like taking the daily papers with you and having them fully searchable," said Husick. "We have also put the entire Wikipedia in a pack that's coming out in a couple of weeks."
"It would be impossible to put the whole web – roughly 10 billion pages of data – on your hard drive or phone, so we're condensing it," said Bradley Husick, president of Webaroo. "Webaroo allows you to take a cross section of the Web with you."
Since the service can't archive search engines like Google, Webaroo acts as its own search engine. When the consumer opens up their browser, the Webaroo search box comes up. Instead of replacing ads that already exist on the Web, the company will sell the "offline Internet" as an additional form of revenue for customers.
"So, if an ad was there at the time [the site] was cached, it will still be there when you look at it [offline]," said Husick. "The difference is that most of those ads won't have the click-through, or the result page that you would go to, to view the ad."
The software will compress the data on the website with a compression ratio of 25,000:1
Webaroo offers pre-loaded "web packs" with pages on different subject areas, like big cities around the world – including New York City, Taipei, etc. Users can also create searchable libraries, where they can add the Web sites that they frequent most often. When a user connects to the Internet, the Webaroo software updates the offline content.
"We have a world news pack, which is like taking the daily papers with you and having them fully searchable," said Husick. "We have also put the entire Wikipedia in a pack that's coming out in a couple of weeks."
Monday, April 10, 2006
Winners write history
I watched Gospel of Judas as mentioned in my previous post. This was an informative program and actually goes on to prove history may or may not be true. Its just a reflection of one segment of population. Segment which was able to dominate all others and preserve its way of life.
History is not a book with everything written down. Its a collection of reflection by various people living in a particular period. Like this blog.
Now reading all this literature gives us a sense of what life was during that time. Based on the reading I might decide to write a book on the people at that time. This can be considered a History book. But remember I am reading today what happened yesterday. I am influenced by today's views and as such may have an inherent bias while reading the works of yesterday. Say I don't like (my society) cannibalism I would brand all the society where it was practiced as uncivilized. Now if my society comes to dominate the planet its views are carried forward and all the "uncivilized" societies come to bore the wrath of "civilized" societies.
This is how history is made - by winners who tomorrow will read what was written and judged today about what it was yesterday.
History is not a book with everything written down. Its a collection of reflection by various people living in a particular period. Like this blog.
Now reading all this literature gives us a sense of what life was during that time. Based on the reading I might decide to write a book on the people at that time. This can be considered a History book. But remember I am reading today what happened yesterday. I am influenced by today's views and as such may have an inherent bias while reading the works of yesterday. Say I don't like (my society) cannibalism I would brand all the society where it was practiced as uncivilized. Now if my society comes to dominate the planet its views are carried forward and all the "uncivilized" societies come to bore the wrath of "civilized" societies.
This is how history is made - by winners who tomorrow will read what was written and judged today about what it was yesterday.
Eugenics
I must confess reading Michael Crichton's State of Fear has been rewarding in terms of number of new ideas I was exposed to. One of the ideas that was discussed was Eugenics. This topic was not part of the plot but was a part if apendix where Author discusses why science should not be politicized.
Reading this I realized how ingrained Racisim was just a century back. Everyone was embracing it with open hands. I would say it was the fashion statement of the time just like Global Warming now and Cold War before. Eveybody talked about it in such a manner that the point is so obvious that you must be dumb with an IQ just below that of retarted algae to not realize the point.
Its just after the act that we realize how incredibly cruel or biased or foolish our views are. Be it colloseum's during Roman times or Eugenics or Cold War.
Reading this I realized how ingrained Racisim was just a century back. Everyone was embracing it with open hands. I would say it was the fashion statement of the time just like Global Warming now and Cold War before. Eveybody talked about it in such a manner that the point is so obvious that you must be dumb with an IQ just below that of retarted algae to not realize the point.
Its just after the act that we realize how incredibly cruel or biased or foolish our views are. Be it colloseum's during Roman times or Eugenics or Cold War.
Why Politicized Science Is Dangerous
Michael Crichton in an Appendix to State of Fear discusses this topic. I am reproducing the chapter.
Why Politicized Science Is Dangerous
Imagine that there is a new scientific theory that warns of an impending crisis, and points to a way out.
This theory quickly draws support from leading scientists, politicians, and celebrities around the world. Research is funded by distinguished philanthropies, and carried out at prestigious universities. The crisis is reported frequently in the media. The science is taught in college and high school classrooms.
I don’t mean global warming. I’m talking about another theory, which rose to prominence a century ago.
Its supporters included Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Winston Churchill. It was approved by Supreme Court justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis Brandeis, who ruled in its favor. The famous names who supported it included Alexander Graham Bell, inventor of the telephone; activist Margaret Sanger; botanist Luther Burbank; Leland Stanford, founder of Stanford University; the novelist H. G. Wells; the playwright George Bernard Shaw; and hundreds of others. Nobel Prize winners gave support. Research was backed by the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations. The Cold Springs Harbor Institute was built to carry out this research, but important work was also done at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, and Johns Hopkins. Legislation to address the crisis was passed in states from New York to California.
These efforts had the support of the National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association, and the National Research Council. It was said that if Jesus were alive, he would have supported this effort.
All in all, the research, legislation, and molding of public opinion surrounding the theory went on for almost half a century. Those who opposed the theory were shouted down and called reactionary, blind to reality, or just plain ignorant. But in hindsight, what is surprising is that so few people objected.
Today, we know that this famous theory that gained so much support was actually pseudoscience. The crisis it claimed was nonexistent. And the actions taken in the name of this theory were morally and criminally wrong. Ultimately, they led to the deaths of millions of people.
The theory was eugenics, and its history is so dreadful—and, to those who were caught up in it, so embarrassing—that it is now rarely discussed. But it is a story that should be well known to every citizen, so that its horrors are not repeated.
The theory of eugenics postulated a crisis of the gene pool leading to the deterioration of the human race. The best human beings were not breeding as rapidly as the inferior ones—the foreigners, immigrants, Jews, degenerates, the unfit, and the “feeble minded.” Francis Galton, a respected British scientist, first speculated about this area, but his ideas were taken far beyond anything he intended. They were adopted by science-minded Americans, as well as those who had no interest in science but who were worried about the immigration of inferior races early in the twentieth century—“dangerous human pests” who represented “the rising tide of imbeciles” and who were polluting the best of the human race.
The eugenicists and the immigrationists joined forces to put a stop to this. The plan was to identify individuals who were feeble-minded—Jews were agreed to be largely feeble-minded, but so were many foreigners, as well as blacks—and stop them from breeding by isolation in institutions or by sterilization.
As Margaret Sanger said, “Fostering the good-for-nothing at the expense of the good is an extreme cruelty…there is no greater curse to posterity than that of bequeathing them an increasing population of imbeciles.” She spoke of the burden of caring for “this dead weight of human waste.”
Such views were widely shared. H. G. Wells spoke against “ill-trained swarms of inferior citizens.” Theodore Roosevelt said that “Society has no business to permit degenerates to reproduce their kind.” Luther Burbank: “Stop permitting criminals and weaklings to reproduce.” George Bernard Shaw said that only eugenics could save mankind.
There was overt racism in this movement, exemplified by texts such asThe Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy, by American author Lothrop Stoddard. But, at the time, racism was considered an unremarkable aspect of the effort to attain a marvelous goal—the improvement of humankind in the future. It was this avant-garde notion that attracted the most liberal and progressive minds of a generation. California was one of twenty-nine American states to pass laws allowing sterilization, but it proved the most forward-looking and enthusiastic—more sterilizations were carried out in California than anywhere else in America.
Eugenics research was funded by the Carnegie Foundation, and later by the Rockefeller Foundation. The latter was so enthusiastic that even after the center of the eugenics effort moved to Germany, and involved the gassing of individuals from mental institutions, the Rockefeller Foundation continued to finance German researchers at a very high level. (The foundation was quiet about it, but they were still funding research in 1939, only months before the onset of World War II.)
Since the 1920s, American eugenicists had been jealous because the Germans had taken leadership of the movement away from them. The Germans were admirably progressive. They set up ordinary-looking houses where “mental defectives” were brought and interviewed one at a time, before being led into a back room, which was, in fact, a gas chamber. There, they were gassed with carbon monoxide, and their bodies disposed of in a crematorium located on the property.
Eventually, this program was expanded into a vast network of concentration camps located near railroad lines, enabling the efficient transport and killing of ten million undesirables.
After World War II, nobody was a eugenicist, and nobody had ever been a eugenicist. Biographers of the celebrated and the powerful did not dwell on the attractions of this philosphy to their subjects, and sometimes did not mention it at all. Eugenics ceased to be a subject for college classrooms, although some argue that its ideas continue to have currency in disguised form.
But in retrospect, three points stand out. First, despite the construction of Cold Springs Harbor Laboratory, despite the efforts at universities and the pleadings of lawyers, there was no scientific basis for eugenics. In fact, nobody at that time knew what a gene really was. The movement was able to proceed because it employed vague terms never rigorously defined. “Feeble-mindedness” could mean anything from poverty and illiteracy to epilepsy. Similarly, there was no clear definition of “degenerate” or “unfit.” Second, the eugenics movement was really a social program masquerading as a scientific one. What drove it was concern about immigration and racism and undesirable people moving into one’s neighborhood or country. Once again, vague terminology helped conceal what was really going on.
Third, and most distressing, the scientific establishment in both the United States and Germany did not mount any sustained protest. Quite the contrary. In Germany scientists quickly fell into line with the program. Modern German researchers have gone back to review Nazi documents from the 1930s. They expected to find directives telling scientists what research should be done. But none were necessary. In the words of Ute Deichman, “Scientists, including those who were not members of the [Nazi] party, helped to get funding for their work through their modified behavior and direct cooperation with the state.” Deichman speaks of the “active role of scientists themselves in regard to Nazi race policy…where [research] was aimed at confirming the racial doctrine…no external pressure can be documented.” German scientists adjusted their research interests to the new policies. And those few who did not adjust disappeared.
A second example of politicized science is quite different in character, but it exemplifies the hazards of government ideology controlling the work of science, and of uncritical media promoting false concepts. Trofim Denisovich Lysenko was a self-promoting peasant who, it was said, “solved the problem of fertilizing the fields without fertilizers and minerals.” In 1928 he claimed to have invented a procedure called vernalization, by which seeds were moistened and chilled to enhance the later growth of crops.
Lysenko’s methods never faced a rigorous test, but his claim that his treated seeds passed on their characteristics to the next generation represented a revival of Lamarckian ideas at a time when the rest of the world was embracing Mendelian genetics. Josef Stalin was drawn to Lamarckian ideas, which implied a future unbounded by hereditary constraints; he also wanted improved agricultural production. Lysenko promised both, and became the darling of a Soviet media that was on the lookout for stories about clever peasants who had developed revolutionary procedures.
Lysenko was portrayed as a genius, and he milked his celebrity for all it was worth. He was especially skillful at denouncing his opponents. He used questionnaires from farmers to prove that vernalization increased crop yields, and thus avoided any direct tests. Carried on a wave of state-sponsored enthusiasm, his rise was rapid. By 1937, he was a member of the Supreme Soviet.
By then, Lysenko and his theories dominated Russian biology. The result was famines that killed millions, and purges that sent hundreds of dissenting Soviet scientists to the gulags or the firing squads. Lysenko was aggressive in attacking genetics, which was finally banned as “bourgeois pseudo-science” in 1948. There was never any basis for Lysenko’s ideas, yet he controlled Soviet research for thirty years. Lysenkoism ended in the 1960s, but Russian biology still has not entirely recovered from that era.
Now we are engaged in a great new theory, that once again has drawn the support of politicians, scientists, and celebrities around the world. Once again, the theory is promoted by major foundations. Once again, the research is carried out at prestigious universities. Once again, legislation is passed and social programs are urged in its name. Once again, critics are few and harshly dealt with.
Once again, the measures being urged have little basis in fact or science. Once again, groups with other agendas are hiding behind a movement that appears high-minded. Once again, claims of moral superiority are used to justify extreme actions. Once again, the fact that some people are hurt is shrugged off because an abstract cause is said to be greater than any human consequences. Once again, vague terms likesustainability andgenerational justice —terms that have no agreed definition—are employed in the service of a new crisis.
I am not arguing that global warming is the same as eugenics. But the similarities are not superficial. And I do claim that open and frank discussion of the data, and of the issues, is being suppressed. Leading scientific journals have taken strong editorial positions on the side of global warming, which, I argue, they have no business doing. Under the circumstances, any scientist who has doubts understands clearly that they will be wise to mute their expression.
One proof of this suppression is the fact that so many of the outspoken critics of global warming are retired professors. These individuals are no longer seeking grants, and no longer have to face colleagues whose grant applications and career advancement may be jeopardized by their criticisms. In science, the old men are usually wrong. But in politics, the old men are wise, counsel caution, and in the end are often right.
The past history of human belief is a cautionary tale. We have killed thousands of our fellow human beings because we believed they had signed a contract with the devil, and had become witches. We still kill more than a thousand people each year for witchcraft. In my view, there is only one hope for humankind to emerge from what Carl Sagan called “the demon-haunted world” of our past. That hope is science.
But as Alston Chase put it, “when the search for truth is confused with political advocacy, the pursuit of knowledge is reduced to the quest for power.”
That is the danger we now face. And that is why the intermixing of science and politics is a bad combination, with a bad history. We must remember the history, and be certain that what we present to the world as knowledge is disinterested and honest.
Why Politicized Science Is Dangerous
Imagine that there is a new scientific theory that warns of an impending crisis, and points to a way out.
This theory quickly draws support from leading scientists, politicians, and celebrities around the world. Research is funded by distinguished philanthropies, and carried out at prestigious universities. The crisis is reported frequently in the media. The science is taught in college and high school classrooms.
I don’t mean global warming. I’m talking about another theory, which rose to prominence a century ago.
Its supporters included Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Winston Churchill. It was approved by Supreme Court justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis Brandeis, who ruled in its favor. The famous names who supported it included Alexander Graham Bell, inventor of the telephone; activist Margaret Sanger; botanist Luther Burbank; Leland Stanford, founder of Stanford University; the novelist H. G. Wells; the playwright George Bernard Shaw; and hundreds of others. Nobel Prize winners gave support. Research was backed by the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations. The Cold Springs Harbor Institute was built to carry out this research, but important work was also done at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, and Johns Hopkins. Legislation to address the crisis was passed in states from New York to California.
These efforts had the support of the National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association, and the National Research Council. It was said that if Jesus were alive, he would have supported this effort.
All in all, the research, legislation, and molding of public opinion surrounding the theory went on for almost half a century. Those who opposed the theory were shouted down and called reactionary, blind to reality, or just plain ignorant. But in hindsight, what is surprising is that so few people objected.
Today, we know that this famous theory that gained so much support was actually pseudoscience. The crisis it claimed was nonexistent. And the actions taken in the name of this theory were morally and criminally wrong. Ultimately, they led to the deaths of millions of people.
The theory was eugenics, and its history is so dreadful—and, to those who were caught up in it, so embarrassing—that it is now rarely discussed. But it is a story that should be well known to every citizen, so that its horrors are not repeated.
The theory of eugenics postulated a crisis of the gene pool leading to the deterioration of the human race. The best human beings were not breeding as rapidly as the inferior ones—the foreigners, immigrants, Jews, degenerates, the unfit, and the “feeble minded.” Francis Galton, a respected British scientist, first speculated about this area, but his ideas were taken far beyond anything he intended. They were adopted by science-minded Americans, as well as those who had no interest in science but who were worried about the immigration of inferior races early in the twentieth century—“dangerous human pests” who represented “the rising tide of imbeciles” and who were polluting the best of the human race.
The eugenicists and the immigrationists joined forces to put a stop to this. The plan was to identify individuals who were feeble-minded—Jews were agreed to be largely feeble-minded, but so were many foreigners, as well as blacks—and stop them from breeding by isolation in institutions or by sterilization.
As Margaret Sanger said, “Fostering the good-for-nothing at the expense of the good is an extreme cruelty…there is no greater curse to posterity than that of bequeathing them an increasing population of imbeciles.” She spoke of the burden of caring for “this dead weight of human waste.”
Such views were widely shared. H. G. Wells spoke against “ill-trained swarms of inferior citizens.” Theodore Roosevelt said that “Society has no business to permit degenerates to reproduce their kind.” Luther Burbank: “Stop permitting criminals and weaklings to reproduce.” George Bernard Shaw said that only eugenics could save mankind.
There was overt racism in this movement, exemplified by texts such asThe Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy, by American author Lothrop Stoddard. But, at the time, racism was considered an unremarkable aspect of the effort to attain a marvelous goal—the improvement of humankind in the future. It was this avant-garde notion that attracted the most liberal and progressive minds of a generation. California was one of twenty-nine American states to pass laws allowing sterilization, but it proved the most forward-looking and enthusiastic—more sterilizations were carried out in California than anywhere else in America.
Eugenics research was funded by the Carnegie Foundation, and later by the Rockefeller Foundation. The latter was so enthusiastic that even after the center of the eugenics effort moved to Germany, and involved the gassing of individuals from mental institutions, the Rockefeller Foundation continued to finance German researchers at a very high level. (The foundation was quiet about it, but they were still funding research in 1939, only months before the onset of World War II.)
Since the 1920s, American eugenicists had been jealous because the Germans had taken leadership of the movement away from them. The Germans were admirably progressive. They set up ordinary-looking houses where “mental defectives” were brought and interviewed one at a time, before being led into a back room, which was, in fact, a gas chamber. There, they were gassed with carbon monoxide, and their bodies disposed of in a crematorium located on the property.
Eventually, this program was expanded into a vast network of concentration camps located near railroad lines, enabling the efficient transport and killing of ten million undesirables.
After World War II, nobody was a eugenicist, and nobody had ever been a eugenicist. Biographers of the celebrated and the powerful did not dwell on the attractions of this philosphy to their subjects, and sometimes did not mention it at all. Eugenics ceased to be a subject for college classrooms, although some argue that its ideas continue to have currency in disguised form.
But in retrospect, three points stand out. First, despite the construction of Cold Springs Harbor Laboratory, despite the efforts at universities and the pleadings of lawyers, there was no scientific basis for eugenics. In fact, nobody at that time knew what a gene really was. The movement was able to proceed because it employed vague terms never rigorously defined. “Feeble-mindedness” could mean anything from poverty and illiteracy to epilepsy. Similarly, there was no clear definition of “degenerate” or “unfit.” Second, the eugenics movement was really a social program masquerading as a scientific one. What drove it was concern about immigration and racism and undesirable people moving into one’s neighborhood or country. Once again, vague terminology helped conceal what was really going on.
Third, and most distressing, the scientific establishment in both the United States and Germany did not mount any sustained protest. Quite the contrary. In Germany scientists quickly fell into line with the program. Modern German researchers have gone back to review Nazi documents from the 1930s. They expected to find directives telling scientists what research should be done. But none were necessary. In the words of Ute Deichman, “Scientists, including those who were not members of the [Nazi] party, helped to get funding for their work through their modified behavior and direct cooperation with the state.” Deichman speaks of the “active role of scientists themselves in regard to Nazi race policy…where [research] was aimed at confirming the racial doctrine…no external pressure can be documented.” German scientists adjusted their research interests to the new policies. And those few who did not adjust disappeared.
A second example of politicized science is quite different in character, but it exemplifies the hazards of government ideology controlling the work of science, and of uncritical media promoting false concepts. Trofim Denisovich Lysenko was a self-promoting peasant who, it was said, “solved the problem of fertilizing the fields without fertilizers and minerals.” In 1928 he claimed to have invented a procedure called vernalization, by which seeds were moistened and chilled to enhance the later growth of crops.
Lysenko’s methods never faced a rigorous test, but his claim that his treated seeds passed on their characteristics to the next generation represented a revival of Lamarckian ideas at a time when the rest of the world was embracing Mendelian genetics. Josef Stalin was drawn to Lamarckian ideas, which implied a future unbounded by hereditary constraints; he also wanted improved agricultural production. Lysenko promised both, and became the darling of a Soviet media that was on the lookout for stories about clever peasants who had developed revolutionary procedures.
Lysenko was portrayed as a genius, and he milked his celebrity for all it was worth. He was especially skillful at denouncing his opponents. He used questionnaires from farmers to prove that vernalization increased crop yields, and thus avoided any direct tests. Carried on a wave of state-sponsored enthusiasm, his rise was rapid. By 1937, he was a member of the Supreme Soviet.
By then, Lysenko and his theories dominated Russian biology. The result was famines that killed millions, and purges that sent hundreds of dissenting Soviet scientists to the gulags or the firing squads. Lysenko was aggressive in attacking genetics, which was finally banned as “bourgeois pseudo-science” in 1948. There was never any basis for Lysenko’s ideas, yet he controlled Soviet research for thirty years. Lysenkoism ended in the 1960s, but Russian biology still has not entirely recovered from that era.
Now we are engaged in a great new theory, that once again has drawn the support of politicians, scientists, and celebrities around the world. Once again, the theory is promoted by major foundations. Once again, the research is carried out at prestigious universities. Once again, legislation is passed and social programs are urged in its name. Once again, critics are few and harshly dealt with.
Once again, the measures being urged have little basis in fact or science. Once again, groups with other agendas are hiding behind a movement that appears high-minded. Once again, claims of moral superiority are used to justify extreme actions. Once again, the fact that some people are hurt is shrugged off because an abstract cause is said to be greater than any human consequences. Once again, vague terms likesustainability andgenerational justice —terms that have no agreed definition—are employed in the service of a new crisis.
I am not arguing that global warming is the same as eugenics. But the similarities are not superficial. And I do claim that open and frank discussion of the data, and of the issues, is being suppressed. Leading scientific journals have taken strong editorial positions on the side of global warming, which, I argue, they have no business doing. Under the circumstances, any scientist who has doubts understands clearly that they will be wise to mute their expression.
One proof of this suppression is the fact that so many of the outspoken critics of global warming are retired professors. These individuals are no longer seeking grants, and no longer have to face colleagues whose grant applications and career advancement may be jeopardized by their criticisms. In science, the old men are usually wrong. But in politics, the old men are wise, counsel caution, and in the end are often right.
The past history of human belief is a cautionary tale. We have killed thousands of our fellow human beings because we believed they had signed a contract with the devil, and had become witches. We still kill more than a thousand people each year for witchcraft. In my view, there is only one hope for humankind to emerge from what Carl Sagan called “the demon-haunted world” of our past. That hope is science.
But as Alston Chase put it, “when the search for truth is confused with political advocacy, the pursuit of knowledge is reduced to the quest for power.”
That is the danger we now face. And that is why the intermixing of science and politics is a bad combination, with a bad history. We must remember the history, and be certain that what we present to the world as knowledge is disinterested and honest.
Michael Crichton's stand on Global Warming
Michael Crichton finishes State of Fear clarifying where he stands on the ideas expressed in his book. Following is the excerpt from the book (everything in bold is my emphasis).
A novel such asState of Fear, in which so many divergent views are expressed, may lead the reader to wonder where, exactly, the author stands on these issues. I have been reading environmental texts for three years, in itself a hazardous undertaking. But I have had an opportunity to look at a lot of data, and to consider many points of view. I conclude:
* We know astonishingly little about every aspect of the environment, from its past history, to its present state, to how to conserve and protect it. In every debate, all sides overstate the extent of existing knowledge and its degree of certainty.
* Atmospheric carbon dioxide is increasing, and human activity is the probable cause.
* We are also in the midst of a natural warming trend that began about 1850, as we emerged from a four-hundred-year cold spell known as the “Little Ice Age.”
* Nobody knows how much of the present warming trend might be a natural phenomenon.
* Nobody knows how much of the present warming trend might be man-made.
* Nobody knows how much warming will occur in the next century. The computer models vary by 400 percent, de facto proof that nobody knows. But if I had to guess—the only thing anyone is doing, really—I would guess the increase will be 0.812436 degrees C. There is no evidence that my guess about the state of the world one hundred years from now is any better or worse than anyone else’s. (We can’t “assess” the future, nor can we “predict” it. These are euphemisms. We can only guess. An informed guess is just a guess.)
* I suspect that part of the observed surface warming will ultimately be attributable to human activity. I suspect that the principal human effect will come from land use, and that the atmospheric component will be minor.
* Before making expensive policy decisions on the basis of climate models, I think it is reasonable to require that those models predict future temperatures accurately for a period of ten years. Twenty would be better.
* I think for anyone to believe in impending resource scarcity, after two hundred years of such false alarms, is kind of weird. I don’t know whether such a belief today is best ascribed to ignorance of history, sclerotic dogmatism, unhealthy love of Malthus, or simple pigheadedness, but it is evidently a hardy perennial in human calculation.
* There are many reasons to shift away from fossil fuels, and we will do so in the next century without legislation, financial incentives, carbon-conservation programs, or the interminable yammering of fearmongers. So far as I know, nobody had to ban horse transport in the early twentieth century.
* I suspect the people of 2100 will be much richer than we are, consume more energy, have a smaller global population, and enjoy more wilderness than we have today. I don’t think we have to worry about them.
* The current near-hysterical preoccupation with safety is at best a waste of resources and a crimp on the human spirit, and at worst an invitation to totalitarianism. Public education is desperately needed.
* I conclude that most environmental “principles” (such as sustainable development or the precautionary principle) have the effect of preserving the economic advantages of the West and thus constitute modern imperialism toward the developing world. It is a nice way of saying, “We got ours and we don’t want you to get yours, because you’ll cause too much pollution.”
* The “precautionary principle,” properly applied, forbids the precautionary principle. It is self-contradictory. The precautionary principle therefore cannot be spoken of in terms that are too harsh.
* I believe people are well intentioned. But I have great respect for the corrosive influence of bias, systematic distortions of thought, the power of rationalization, the guises of self-interest, and the inevitability of unintended consequences.
* I have more respect for people who change their views after acquiring new information than for those who cling to views they held thirty years ago. The world changes. Ideologues and zealots don’t.
* In the thirty-five-odd years since the environmental movement came into existence, science has undergone a major revolution. This revolution has brought new understanding of nonlinear dynamics, complex systems, chaos theory, catastrophe theory. It has transformed the way we think about evolution and ecology. Yet these no-longer-new ideas have hardly penetrated the thinking of environmental activists, which seems oddly fixed in the concepts and rhetoric of the 1970s.
* We haven’t the foggiest notion how to preserve what we term “wilderness,” and we had better study it in the field and learn how to do so. I see no evidence that we are conducting such research in a humble, rational, and systematic way. I therefore hold little hope for wilderness management in the twenty-first century. I blame environmental organizations every bit as much as developers and strip miners. There is no difference in outcomes between greed and incompetence.
* We need a new environmental movement, with new goals and new organizations. We need more people working in the field, in the actual environment, and fewer people behind computer screens. We need more scientists and many fewer lawyers.
* We cannot hope to manage a complex system such as the environment through litigation. We can only change its state temporarily—usually by preventing something—with eventual results that we cannot predict and ultimately cannot control.
* Nothing is more inherently political than our shared physical environment, and nothing is more ill served by allegiance to a single political party. Precisely because the environment is shared it cannot be managed by one faction according to its own economic or aesthetic preferences. Sooner or later, the opposing faction will take power, and previous policies will be reversed. Stable management of the environment requires recognition that all preferences have their place: snowmobilers and fly fishermen, dirt bikers and hikers, developers and preservationists. These preferences are at odds, and their incompatibility cannot be avoided. But resolving incompatible goals is a true function of politics.
* We desperately need a nonpartisan, blinded funding mechanism to conduct research to determine appropriate policy. Scientists are only too aware whom they are working for. Those who fund research—whether a drug company, a government agency, or an environmental organization—always have a particular outcome in mind. Research funding is almost never open-ended or open-minded. Scientists know that continued funding depends on delivering the results the funders desire. As a result, environmental organization “studies” are every bit as biased and suspect as industry “studies.” Government “studies” are similarly biased according to who is running the department or administration at the time. No faction should be given a free pass.
* I am certain there is too much certainty in the world.
* I personally experience a profound pleasure being in nature. My happiest days each year are those I spend in wilderness. I wish natural environments to be preserved for future generations. I am not satisfied they will be preserved in sufficient quantities, or with sufficient skill. I conclude that the “exploiters of the environment” include environmental organizations, government organizations, and big business. All have equally dismal track records.
* Everybody has an agenda. Except me.
A novel such asState of Fear, in which so many divergent views are expressed, may lead the reader to wonder where, exactly, the author stands on these issues. I have been reading environmental texts for three years, in itself a hazardous undertaking. But I have had an opportunity to look at a lot of data, and to consider many points of view. I conclude:
* We know astonishingly little about every aspect of the environment, from its past history, to its present state, to how to conserve and protect it. In every debate, all sides overstate the extent of existing knowledge and its degree of certainty.
* Atmospheric carbon dioxide is increasing, and human activity is the probable cause.
* We are also in the midst of a natural warming trend that began about 1850, as we emerged from a four-hundred-year cold spell known as the “Little Ice Age.”
* Nobody knows how much of the present warming trend might be a natural phenomenon.
* Nobody knows how much of the present warming trend might be man-made.
* Nobody knows how much warming will occur in the next century. The computer models vary by 400 percent, de facto proof that nobody knows. But if I had to guess—the only thing anyone is doing, really—I would guess the increase will be 0.812436 degrees C. There is no evidence that my guess about the state of the world one hundred years from now is any better or worse than anyone else’s. (We can’t “assess” the future, nor can we “predict” it. These are euphemisms. We can only guess. An informed guess is just a guess.)
* I suspect that part of the observed surface warming will ultimately be attributable to human activity. I suspect that the principal human effect will come from land use, and that the atmospheric component will be minor.
* Before making expensive policy decisions on the basis of climate models, I think it is reasonable to require that those models predict future temperatures accurately for a period of ten years. Twenty would be better.
* I think for anyone to believe in impending resource scarcity, after two hundred years of such false alarms, is kind of weird. I don’t know whether such a belief today is best ascribed to ignorance of history, sclerotic dogmatism, unhealthy love of Malthus, or simple pigheadedness, but it is evidently a hardy perennial in human calculation.
* There are many reasons to shift away from fossil fuels, and we will do so in the next century without legislation, financial incentives, carbon-conservation programs, or the interminable yammering of fearmongers. So far as I know, nobody had to ban horse transport in the early twentieth century.
* I suspect the people of 2100 will be much richer than we are, consume more energy, have a smaller global population, and enjoy more wilderness than we have today. I don’t think we have to worry about them.
* The current near-hysterical preoccupation with safety is at best a waste of resources and a crimp on the human spirit, and at worst an invitation to totalitarianism. Public education is desperately needed.
* I conclude that most environmental “principles” (such as sustainable development or the precautionary principle) have the effect of preserving the economic advantages of the West and thus constitute modern imperialism toward the developing world. It is a nice way of saying, “We got ours and we don’t want you to get yours, because you’ll cause too much pollution.”
* The “precautionary principle,” properly applied, forbids the precautionary principle. It is self-contradictory. The precautionary principle therefore cannot be spoken of in terms that are too harsh.
* I believe people are well intentioned. But I have great respect for the corrosive influence of bias, systematic distortions of thought, the power of rationalization, the guises of self-interest, and the inevitability of unintended consequences.
* I have more respect for people who change their views after acquiring new information than for those who cling to views they held thirty years ago. The world changes. Ideologues and zealots don’t.
* In the thirty-five-odd years since the environmental movement came into existence, science has undergone a major revolution. This revolution has brought new understanding of nonlinear dynamics, complex systems, chaos theory, catastrophe theory. It has transformed the way we think about evolution and ecology. Yet these no-longer-new ideas have hardly penetrated the thinking of environmental activists, which seems oddly fixed in the concepts and rhetoric of the 1970s.
* We haven’t the foggiest notion how to preserve what we term “wilderness,” and we had better study it in the field and learn how to do so. I see no evidence that we are conducting such research in a humble, rational, and systematic way. I therefore hold little hope for wilderness management in the twenty-first century. I blame environmental organizations every bit as much as developers and strip miners. There is no difference in outcomes between greed and incompetence.
* We need a new environmental movement, with new goals and new organizations. We need more people working in the field, in the actual environment, and fewer people behind computer screens. We need more scientists and many fewer lawyers.
* We cannot hope to manage a complex system such as the environment through litigation. We can only change its state temporarily—usually by preventing something—with eventual results that we cannot predict and ultimately cannot control.
* Nothing is more inherently political than our shared physical environment, and nothing is more ill served by allegiance to a single political party. Precisely because the environment is shared it cannot be managed by one faction according to its own economic or aesthetic preferences. Sooner or later, the opposing faction will take power, and previous policies will be reversed. Stable management of the environment requires recognition that all preferences have their place: snowmobilers and fly fishermen, dirt bikers and hikers, developers and preservationists. These preferences are at odds, and their incompatibility cannot be avoided. But resolving incompatible goals is a true function of politics.
* We desperately need a nonpartisan, blinded funding mechanism to conduct research to determine appropriate policy. Scientists are only too aware whom they are working for. Those who fund research—whether a drug company, a government agency, or an environmental organization—always have a particular outcome in mind. Research funding is almost never open-ended or open-minded. Scientists know that continued funding depends on delivering the results the funders desire. As a result, environmental organization “studies” are every bit as biased and suspect as industry “studies.” Government “studies” are similarly biased according to who is running the department or administration at the time. No faction should be given a free pass.
* I am certain there is too much certainty in the world.
* I personally experience a profound pleasure being in nature. My happiest days each year are those I spend in wilderness. I wish natural environments to be preserved for future generations. I am not satisfied they will be preserved in sufficient quantities, or with sufficient skill. I conclude that the “exploiters of the environment” include environmental organizations, government organizations, and big business. All have equally dismal track records.
* Everybody has an agenda. Except me.
Michael Crichton's State of Fear
Don't worry there are no spoilers here and in fact I won't even discuss the plot.
In my previous post I said I was reading Michael Crichton's State of Fear and I also mentioned that it did not seem gripping. Well I finished it off over the weekend and boy was I wrong. It is gripping in a unique way. It is more of a documentary examining & debunking the claims made by Global Warming advocates.
People who like substance along with adventures will find this book interesting. In the book Crichton says that Global Warming is more of a pop culture than a scientific fact and the issue has become more political.
Crichton provides a list of references he considered and stresses on the fact that there is no scientific / statistical proof that global warming is happening. He points out that 1st half of 20th century was hotter than 2nd half of 20th century which is contrary to what global warming advocates say.
All the global warming hype is created by media based on computer models. These models have continuously failed to predict the fate of the climate. Infact, in an example he gives in the novel one model was off by over 350%. Contrast that to the fact that when NASA sent an aircraft to Mars they were off by millionth of a percent. For a model to be acceptable according to Crichton it should be able to predict the climate of atleast 10 to 20 years which none has been able to do.
There are numerous examples in the novel which re-inforce Crichton's view. Infact, after reading the novel my views have been greatly affected. Time Magazine's cover story is on Global Warming and now I am sceptical about that too.
What more today's editorial on Times of India (Pune edition) was about oil and how if US & Venezuela kiss & make up we could have Oil for $50 a barrel. Well the editorial ended with the a statement that this can be a stop gap arrangement before we find alternative sources which do not contribute to Global Warming. These are exactly the kind of statements which are made in popular media which propogates the Global Warming myth.
In my previous post I said I was reading Michael Crichton's State of Fear and I also mentioned that it did not seem gripping. Well I finished it off over the weekend and boy was I wrong. It is gripping in a unique way. It is more of a documentary examining & debunking the claims made by Global Warming advocates.
People who like substance along with adventures will find this book interesting. In the book Crichton says that Global Warming is more of a pop culture than a scientific fact and the issue has become more political.
Crichton provides a list of references he considered and stresses on the fact that there is no scientific / statistical proof that global warming is happening. He points out that 1st half of 20th century was hotter than 2nd half of 20th century which is contrary to what global warming advocates say.
All the global warming hype is created by media based on computer models. These models have continuously failed to predict the fate of the climate. Infact, in an example he gives in the novel one model was off by over 350%. Contrast that to the fact that when NASA sent an aircraft to Mars they were off by millionth of a percent. For a model to be acceptable according to Crichton it should be able to predict the climate of atleast 10 to 20 years which none has been able to do.
There are numerous examples in the novel which re-inforce Crichton's view. Infact, after reading the novel my views have been greatly affected. Time Magazine's cover story is on Global Warming and now I am sceptical about that too.
What more today's editorial on Times of India (Pune edition) was about oil and how if US & Venezuela kiss & make up we could have Oil for $50 a barrel. Well the editorial ended with the a statement that this can be a stop gap arrangement before we find alternative sources which do not contribute to Global Warming. These are exactly the kind of statements which are made in popular media which propogates the Global Warming myth.
Friday, April 7, 2006
My Favorite Posts
This is a list of my favorites from all the posts on my Blog. I will include this in my links.
- Dad's Wisdom
- Of Human Spirit and Celebrating Life
- Antony & Brutus
- 6 Degrees of Separation
- State of Fear by Michael Crichton
Learn with me series (will be expanded)
- Economics
- Investing
- Physics
- To be added
- Mathematics
- To be added
Ross & Phoebe (FRIENDS) on Evolution
PHOEBE: That's fine. Go ahead and scoff. You know, there're a lot of things that I don't believe in, but that doesn't mean they're not true.
JOEY: Such as?
PHOEBE: Like crop circles, or the Bermuda triangle, or evolution?
ROSS: Whoa, whoa, whoa. What, you don't, uh, you don't believe in evolution?
PHOEBE: Nah. Not really.
ROSS: You don't believe in evolution?
PHOEBE: I don't know, it's just, you know...monkeys, Darwin, you know, it's a, it's a nice story, I just think it's a little too easy.
ROSS: Too easy? Too...The process of every living thing on this planet evolving over millions of years from single-celled organisms, too easy?
PHOEBE: Yeah, I just don't buy it.
ROSS: Uh, excuse me. Evolution is not for you to buy, Phoebe. Evolution is scientific fact, like, like, like the air we breathe, like gravity.
PHOEBE: Ok, don't get me started on gravity.
ROSS: You uh, you don't believe in gravity?
PHOEBE: Well, it's not so much that you know, like I don't believe in it, you know, it's just...I don't know, lately I get the feeling that I'm not so much being pulled down as I am being pushed.
AND LATER
ROSS: How can you not believe in evolution?
PHOEBE: Just don't. Look at this funky shirt!
ROSS: Pheebs, I have studied evolution my entire adult life. Ok, I can tell you, we have collected fossils from all over the world that actually show the evolution of different species, ok? You can literally see them evolving through time.
PHOEBE: Really? You can actually see it?
ROSS: You bet. In the U.S., China, Africa, all over.
PHOEBE: See, I didn't know that.
ROSS: Well, there you go.
PHOEBE: Huh. So now, the real question is, who put those fossils there, and why?
ROSS: Ok, Pheebs. See how I'm making these little toys move? Opposable thumbs. Without evolution, how do you explain opposable thumbs?
PHOEBE: Maybe the overlords needed them to steer their spacecrafts.
ROSS: Please tell me you're joking.
PHOEBE: Look, can't we just say that you believe in something, and I don't.
ROSS: No, no, Pheebs, we can't, ok, because--
PHOEBE: What is this obsessive need you have to make everyone agree with you? No, what's that all about? I think, I think maybe it's time you put Ross under the microscope.
ROSS: Is there blood coming out of my ears?
STILL LATER
PHOEBE: Uh-oh. It's Scary Scientist Man.
ROSS: Ok, Phoebe, this is it. In this briefcase I carry actual scientific facts. A briefcase of facts, if you will. Some of these fossils are over 200 million years old.
PHOEBE: Ok, look, before you even start, I'm not denying evolution, ok, I'm just saying that it's one of the possibilities.
ROSS: It's the only possibility, Phoebe.
PHOEBE: Ok, Ross, could you just open your mind like this much, ok? Wasn't there a time when the brightest minds in the world believed that the world was flat? And, up until like what, 50 years ago, you all thought the atom was the smallest thing, until you split it open, and this like, whole mess of crap came out. Now, are you telling me that you are so unbelievably arrogant that you can't admit that there's a teeny tiny possibility that you could be wrong about this?
ROSS: There might be, a teeny, tiny, possibility.
PHOEBE: I can't believe you caved.
ROSS: What?
PHOEBE: You just abandoned your whole belief system. I mean, before, I didn't agree with you, but at least I respected you. How, how, how are you going to go into work tomorrow? How, how are you going to face the other science guys? How, how are you going to face yourself? Oh! That was fun. So who's hungry?
JOEY: Such as?
PHOEBE: Like crop circles, or the Bermuda triangle, or evolution?
ROSS: Whoa, whoa, whoa. What, you don't, uh, you don't believe in evolution?
PHOEBE: Nah. Not really.
ROSS: You don't believe in evolution?
PHOEBE: I don't know, it's just, you know...monkeys, Darwin, you know, it's a, it's a nice story, I just think it's a little too easy.
ROSS: Too easy? Too...The process of every living thing on this planet evolving over millions of years from single-celled organisms, too easy?
PHOEBE: Yeah, I just don't buy it.
ROSS: Uh, excuse me. Evolution is not for you to buy, Phoebe. Evolution is scientific fact, like, like, like the air we breathe, like gravity.
PHOEBE: Ok, don't get me started on gravity.
ROSS: You uh, you don't believe in gravity?
PHOEBE: Well, it's not so much that you know, like I don't believe in it, you know, it's just...I don't know, lately I get the feeling that I'm not so much being pulled down as I am being pushed.
AND LATER
ROSS: How can you not believe in evolution?
PHOEBE: Just don't. Look at this funky shirt!
ROSS: Pheebs, I have studied evolution my entire adult life. Ok, I can tell you, we have collected fossils from all over the world that actually show the evolution of different species, ok? You can literally see them evolving through time.
PHOEBE: Really? You can actually see it?
ROSS: You bet. In the U.S., China, Africa, all over.
PHOEBE: See, I didn't know that.
ROSS: Well, there you go.
PHOEBE: Huh. So now, the real question is, who put those fossils there, and why?
ROSS: Ok, Pheebs. See how I'm making these little toys move? Opposable thumbs. Without evolution, how do you explain opposable thumbs?
PHOEBE: Maybe the overlords needed them to steer their spacecrafts.
ROSS: Please tell me you're joking.
PHOEBE: Look, can't we just say that you believe in something, and I don't.
ROSS: No, no, Pheebs, we can't, ok, because--
PHOEBE: What is this obsessive need you have to make everyone agree with you? No, what's that all about? I think, I think maybe it's time you put Ross under the microscope.
ROSS: Is there blood coming out of my ears?
STILL LATER
PHOEBE: Uh-oh. It's Scary Scientist Man.
ROSS: Ok, Phoebe, this is it. In this briefcase I carry actual scientific facts. A briefcase of facts, if you will. Some of these fossils are over 200 million years old.
PHOEBE: Ok, look, before you even start, I'm not denying evolution, ok, I'm just saying that it's one of the possibilities.
ROSS: It's the only possibility, Phoebe.
PHOEBE: Ok, Ross, could you just open your mind like this much, ok? Wasn't there a time when the brightest minds in the world believed that the world was flat? And, up until like what, 50 years ago, you all thought the atom was the smallest thing, until you split it open, and this like, whole mess of crap came out. Now, are you telling me that you are so unbelievably arrogant that you can't admit that there's a teeny tiny possibility that you could be wrong about this?
ROSS: There might be, a teeny, tiny, possibility.
PHOEBE: I can't believe you caved.
ROSS: What?
PHOEBE: You just abandoned your whole belief system. I mean, before, I didn't agree with you, but at least I respected you. How, how, how are you going to go into work tomorrow? How, how are you going to face the other science guys? How, how are you going to face yourself? Oh! That was fun. So who's hungry?
Evolution - Missing Link between Fish & Land Animals
Darwin's theory of evolution & Intelligent Design. The debate has been going on for quite some time much akin to debate Phoebe & Ross had on Friends.
ID believers have been demanding for missing links. In yesterday's issue of Nature paleontologists have found well-preserved fossils of a previously unknown fish that was on its way to evolving into a four-limbed land-dweller. It had a jaw, fins and scales like a fish, but a skull, neck, ribs and pectoral fin like the earliest limbed animals, called tetrapods. This is a major victory for the theory of evolution.
ID believers have been demanding for missing links. In yesterday's issue of Nature paleontologists have found well-preserved fossils of a previously unknown fish that was on its way to evolving into a four-limbed land-dweller. It had a jaw, fins and scales like a fish, but a skull, neck, ribs and pectoral fin like the earliest limbed animals, called tetrapods. This is a major victory for the theory of evolution.
Qantas Airline - Air Service
Got this as a forward. Don't know whether this is true but if it is then this is funny.
After every flight, Qantas (Australian Air Service) pilots fill out a form called a gripe sheet, which conveys to the mechanics problems encountered with the aircraft during the flight that need repair or correction.
The engineers read and correct the problem, and then respond in writing on the lower half of the form what remedial action was taken, and the pilot reviews the gripe sheets before the next flight.
Never let it be said that ground crews and engineers lack a sense of humour. Here are some actual logged maintenance complaints and problems as submitted by Qantas pilots and the solution recorded by Maintenance engineers.
By the way, Qantas is the only major airline that has never had an accident.
(P = The problem logged by the pilot)
(S = The solution and action taken by the engineers)
P: Left inside main tire almost needs replacement.
S: Almost replaced left inside main tire.
P: Test flight OK, except auto-land very rough.
S: Auto-land not installed on this aircraft.
P: Something loose in cockpit.
S: Something tightened in cockpit
P: Autopilot in altitude-hold mode produces a 200 feet per minute descent.
S: Cannot reproduce problem on ground.
P: Evidence of leak on right main landing gear.
S: Evidence removed.
P: DME volume unbelievably loud.
S: DME volume set to more believable level.
P: Friction locks cause throttle levers to stick.
S: That's what they're there for.
P: IFF inoperative.
S: IFF always inoperative in OFF mode.
P: Suspected crack in windshield.
S: Suspect you're right.
P: Number 3 engine missing.
S: Engine found on right wing after brief search.
P: Aircraft handles funny.
S: Aircraft warned to straighten up, fly right, and be serious.
P: Target radar hums.
S: Reprogrammed target radar with lyrics.
P: Mouse in cockpit.
S: Cat installed.
P: Noise coming from under instrument panel. Sounds like a midget pounding on something with a hammer.
S: Took hammer away from midget.
After every flight, Qantas (Australian Air Service) pilots fill out a form called a gripe sheet, which conveys to the mechanics problems encountered with the aircraft during the flight that need repair or correction.
The engineers read and correct the problem, and then respond in writing on the lower half of the form what remedial action was taken, and the pilot reviews the gripe sheets before the next flight.
Never let it be said that ground crews and engineers lack a sense of humour. Here are some actual logged maintenance complaints and problems as submitted by Qantas pilots and the solution recorded by Maintenance engineers.
By the way, Qantas is the only major airline that has never had an accident.
(P = The problem logged by the pilot)
(S = The solution and action taken by the engineers)
P: Left inside main tire almost needs replacement.
S: Almost replaced left inside main tire.
P: Test flight OK, except auto-land very rough.
S: Auto-land not installed on this aircraft.
P: Something loose in cockpit.
S: Something tightened in cockpit
P: Autopilot in altitude-hold mode produces a 200 feet per minute descent.
S: Cannot reproduce problem on ground.
P: Evidence of leak on right main landing gear.
S: Evidence removed.
P: DME volume unbelievably loud.
S: DME volume set to more believable level.
P: Friction locks cause throttle levers to stick.
S: That's what they're there for.
P: IFF inoperative.
S: IFF always inoperative in OFF mode.
P: Suspected crack in windshield.
S: Suspect you're right.
P: Number 3 engine missing.
S: Engine found on right wing after brief search.
P: Aircraft handles funny.
S: Aircraft warned to straighten up, fly right, and be serious.
P: Target radar hums.
S: Reprogrammed target radar with lyrics.
P: Mouse in cockpit.
S: Cat installed.
P: Noise coming from under instrument panel. Sounds like a midget pounding on something with a hammer.
S: Took hammer away from midget.
Home Loan - Things to do
I recently got a home loan and wanted to share the experience.
Please get clarification on following points if you are planning to take housing loan. Your agent can promise you to give loan on less ROI but this can be increased by bank any time based on your initial terms and conditions.
The floating rate of interest is based on 2 factors: the Prime Lending Rate (PLR)/Floating Reference Rate (FRR) and margin points.
Floating rate of Interest = PLR or FRR +/- margin points.
Whenever there is a change in PLR/FRR, the rate of interest automatically changes for all the floating rate customers and the effect will be applicable from the first day of the next quarter.
Margin points are the points that BANK offer under various schemes from time to time (Initial false promise).
e.g. When you’ll avail the loan, the margin points offered is: (-2.25 %).
So, the Rate of Interest applicable is current PLR +/- applicable margin points i.e. 10.75%+( -2.25% )= 8.5%.
However, if you wish to increase your margin points thus reducing the rate of interest, there would be a conversion fee of 0.5% on the principal outstanding plus a service tax of 10.2% on the same.
The following is the new ROI:
Tenure Rate of Interest.
1-20 years 8.00%(floating)
1-20 years 9.00%(fixed)
To change your rate of interest, you have to visit your nearest Home Finance Company branch with the following documents and contact the Customer Accounts Manager (CAM) there
Cheque for Switch Fee
Loan Agreement Copy
Covering letter mentioning your requirement
Please get clarification on following points if you are planning to take housing loan. Your agent can promise you to give loan on less ROI but this can be increased by bank any time based on your initial terms and conditions.
The floating rate of interest is based on 2 factors: the Prime Lending Rate (PLR)/Floating Reference Rate (FRR) and margin points.
Floating rate of Interest = PLR or FRR +/- margin points.
Whenever there is a change in PLR/FRR, the rate of interest automatically changes for all the floating rate customers and the effect will be applicable from the first day of the next quarter.
Margin points are the points that BANK offer under various schemes from time to time (Initial false promise).
e.g. When you’ll avail the loan, the margin points offered is: (-2.25 %).
So, the Rate of Interest applicable is current PLR +/- applicable margin points i.e. 10.75%+( -2.25% )= 8.5%.
However, if you wish to increase your margin points thus reducing the rate of interest, there would be a conversion fee of 0.5% on the principal outstanding plus a service tax of 10.2% on the same.
The following is the new ROI:
Tenure Rate of Interest.
1-20 years 8.00%(floating)
1-20 years 9.00%(fixed)
To change your rate of interest, you have to visit your nearest Home Finance Company branch with the following documents and contact the Customer Accounts Manager (CAM) there
Cheque for Switch Fee
Loan Agreement Copy
Covering letter mentioning your requirement
Dad's Wisdom - Compilation
This is compilation series of email Dad sent to me; ketki; mishy & vikas just before my marriage. The posts have been published on the blog. This is link to all those posts.
Part 1: Road Ahead: A Road Map - At the Start Point
Part 2: Road Ahead: Road Map 2 - Men R From Mars; Women R From Venus
Part 3: Road Ahead: Road Map 3 - Marriage is Social Contract plus Love!
Part 4: Road Ahead: Road Map 4 - Social Contract is 'DHARMA'
Part 5: Road Ahead: Road Map 5 - The Virus That Kills Marriage - 'MERI MARZI'!
Part 6: Road Ahead: Road Map 6 - Negotiating Cross Roads!
Other posts:
Life has a Noble Purpose
Save The Earth
Stagnation leads to decay & degeneration
Shayaari:
Shaayari - JALWA-E-ISHAQ
Shaayari - DAASTAAN-E-ISHAQ
Shaayari - DASTAAN-E-MAZHAB
Part 1: Road Ahead: A Road Map - At the Start Point
Part 2: Road Ahead: Road Map 2 - Men R From Mars; Women R From Venus
Part 3: Road Ahead: Road Map 3 - Marriage is Social Contract plus Love!
Part 4: Road Ahead: Road Map 4 - Social Contract is 'DHARMA'
Part 5: Road Ahead: Road Map 5 - The Virus That Kills Marriage - 'MERI MARZI'!
Part 6: Road Ahead: Road Map 6 - Negotiating Cross Roads!
Other posts:
Life has a Noble Purpose
Save The Earth
Stagnation leads to decay & degeneration
Shayaari:
Shaayari - JALWA-E-ISHAQ
Shaayari - DAASTAAN-E-ISHAQ
Shaayari - DASTAAN-E-MAZHAB
Dad's Wisdom - Part 6
Final one...
Hi everyone!
Lots of love & Greetings for the New Year!
I know none of u r interested to read what I write.Fair enough.But be blessed, it is ur major loss.
Perhaps,now, it seems 'trash' to u all.May be u haven't heard of the saying which says that every child thinks his parents were wrong till he/she becomes a parent and realises that parents were right.But it is too late to retrieve by then. Perhaps, u r too intoxicated by the brashness of the youthful energy that abounds in u in such proportions which pulls down ur brains shutters to create a mental block. May be u get scared by the bold use of sarcasm by me and u take an umbrage to it. This is an emotinal raction.But ,let me tell u that emotions have no place in logic.And I always maintain that emotions blind ur rational faculties. Use of sarcasm is to give fillip to ur thinking process so as to make u understand the point but NOT TO TREAT IT AS A GOSPEL TRUTH OR THE ONLY TRUTH. Maybe,ur cereberal tissues have not so fully developed to espy pearls of golden words ensconced in each bout of 'sarcasm n ridicule' from me.Lies behind the closed n jarred doors of 'deliberately-sentenced-nonsensical-write-ups' by u are scented words of guidance for smooth-riding into the terra-incognita of future.Let me assure u that life's journey is niether a cake-walk nor anything known as 'PERFECT MARRIED LIFE'.There is nothing called 'Straight Drive'in life.Most of the time it is zig-zag n cross-country.
The marriage vehicle which u ride so happily at the outset,will run across a large numbers of bumps, depressions,pot-holes n narrow lanes besides showing u greener pastures over larger stretches. As u move along, u go through dicey turns;meandering stetches n conflicting curves at every changing moment. Some will excite u; some others will frighten u. Some will bring joy unlimited; others will unleash agony untold.Like a pendulum u will oscillate between frustration n hope.Frustration will create confusion; Hope will generate expectations. Invariably,in all these situations, u donot know what to do.And as u go farther n farther from the 'Ground Zero' of marriage,the frequency of occurence of these events increases in a geometrical progression.Thus, u r at 'Cross-Roads of Life' very very frequently.
Come what may, there is no escape from this in any married life.There is nothing known as 'Perfect Married Life'.Equally true is the fact that there was nothing known as'The Perfect Wife' or 'The Perfect Husband'. In fact, there is nothing known as PERFECT HUMAN BEING. Those who r 70-80% perfect they become 'LORD RAMA', 'LORD KRISHNA' or 'BUDDHA".But they too have 20-30% imperfection.100% perfection is the domain of the GOD,and GOD alone.A normal human being is 40-50%perfection n 50-60%imperfection.People Like GANDHI or MARTIN LUTHER KING or MOTHER TERESSA or even a Flowrence Nightingale r 51-69% perfection n 31-49% imperfection. Imperfection leads to a number of awkward situations in life.And when u get married it gets doubled up. It is imperative that one must be prepared to face unknown events,springing up due to our imperfect ways, depending upon the degree of imperfection in us.If it is more than 60%,we r headed for disaster because one would then b a specimen from sub-normal human beings.And a definite crash, come what may, at the cross roads is their predicted fate.But even normal human beings may trip at these cross roads if they r not careful.
Therefore, one must be prepared to negotiate these cross-roads.In this write-up, I intend to give u some tips on how to negotiate the cross-roads.Take it or throw it ,I don't care.Here r TEN COMMANDMENTS of negotiating 'Cross Roads' in one's married life.
1ST COMMANDMENT.When tempers run high on both sides,no matter whose fault,ACKNOWLEDGE THAT A GOOF-UP HAS TAKEN PLACE.It needs to be immediately attended to BEFORE THE LEAK BECOMES A DELUGE.
2ND COMMANDMENT.When,ONE PERSON SHOUTS OR IS UNDER SOME OUTBURST OF ANGER,OTHER MUST KEEP QUIET,NO MATTER HOW PROVOKING OR UNREASONABLE THE FIRST ONE IS.Allow the flames to douse by keeping shut rather than harping about ur innocence which will only add fuel to the fire.
3RD COMMANDMENT.Marriage is not a public affair. It is a private n confidential matter.Resolve all issues between two of u.Do not discuss any matter with even closest of relatives or friends.DO NOT FIGHT IN THE PUBLIC.PEOPLE WILL HAVE NO SYMPATHY,THEY WILL ONLY WRITE AN OBITUARY OF UR MARRIAGE,EVEN IF U TALK TO THEM IN CONFIDENCE.
4TH COMMANDMENT.Gloss over smaller acts of omission n commission by either of the partners.DO NOT MAKE ISSUE OUT OF A NON ISSUE.CRIB N CRITICISE BUT UPTO A PERMISSIBLE LIMIT.NO PUBLIC CRITICISM, NEVER.
5TH COMMANDMENT.DO NOT HIDE ANYTHING FROM EACH OTHER. THERE R NO SECRETS BETWEEN HUSBAND N WIFE.Don't u ever think other partner will never know. BREACH OF TRUST IS THE BIGGEST CRIME IN THE MARRIED LIFE. IT 'LL BECOME UR 'WATERLOO'.
6TH COMMANDMENT.TO ERR IS HUMAN.Only humanbeings have the intelligence to understand that a mistake has been committed.Animals don't possess this sense.Be bold and a great human being i.e. accept ur fault boldly n retrieve the lost ground rather than justifying ur act with irrelevant arguements.
7TH COMMANDMENT. THERE IS NOTHING PERFECT IN LIFE.DON'T LOOK FOR IDEAL SOLUTIONS TO EACH OF UR PROBLEM.Compromise n adjustments, sooner or later, will bring peace n harmony.Rigidity n inflexibility of ur mind,thinking,attitude n behaviour will only invite disaster.
8TH COMMANDMENT.TRUST N MUTUAL CONFIDENCE IS MANDATORY PRINCIPLE OF SUCCESSFUL MARRIAGE.There r no half measures.One must b guided by rationality rather than emotions.
9TH COMMANDMENT. life is beautiful.LIVE IT FULLY.DO NOT LET GO THE TIME IN UNWANTED N MEANINGLESS SKIRMISHES.REMEMBER TIME N 'AGE' DO NOT WAIT FOR ANYONE TO GET MATURED.Let u not think life will give u a 2nd chance.No, Never.What u have lived is gone n gone for ever.ENJOY N BE HAPPY 'NOW'.'PRESENT' IS WHAT MATTERS.
10TH COMMANDMENT.EQUALITY OF GENDERS IN ALL MATTERS MUST DEFINE UR MUTUAL RELATIONSHIP.Do not let ur thoughts b clogged with a view that other partner can not do what u r doing. There fore seek advice on all family matters.
If u follow these commandments life will be a smooth journey.Rest u will get in further missives.
Read or not it does not matter to me. It is ur bad luck. U don't even know what perhaps has been missed by u? A LOT. U can still read n enrich urself. Nothing much 4 the time being.
Bye n So Long. LOVE! PAPA.
Hi everyone!
Lots of love & Greetings for the New Year!
I know none of u r interested to read what I write.Fair enough.But be blessed, it is ur major loss.
Perhaps,now, it seems 'trash' to u all.May be u haven't heard of the saying which says that every child thinks his parents were wrong till he/she becomes a parent and realises that parents were right.But it is too late to retrieve by then. Perhaps, u r too intoxicated by the brashness of the youthful energy that abounds in u in such proportions which pulls down ur brains shutters to create a mental block. May be u get scared by the bold use of sarcasm by me and u take an umbrage to it. This is an emotinal raction.But ,let me tell u that emotions have no place in logic.And I always maintain that emotions blind ur rational faculties. Use of sarcasm is to give fillip to ur thinking process so as to make u understand the point but NOT TO TREAT IT AS A GOSPEL TRUTH OR THE ONLY TRUTH. Maybe,ur cereberal tissues have not so fully developed to espy pearls of golden words ensconced in each bout of 'sarcasm n ridicule' from me.Lies behind the closed n jarred doors of 'deliberately-sentenced-nonsensical-write-ups' by u are scented words of guidance for smooth-riding into the terra-incognita of future.Let me assure u that life's journey is niether a cake-walk nor anything known as 'PERFECT MARRIED LIFE'.There is nothing called 'Straight Drive'in life.Most of the time it is zig-zag n cross-country.
The marriage vehicle which u ride so happily at the outset,will run across a large numbers of bumps, depressions,pot-holes n narrow lanes besides showing u greener pastures over larger stretches. As u move along, u go through dicey turns;meandering stetches n conflicting curves at every changing moment. Some will excite u; some others will frighten u. Some will bring joy unlimited; others will unleash agony untold.Like a pendulum u will oscillate between frustration n hope.Frustration will create confusion; Hope will generate expectations. Invariably,in all these situations, u donot know what to do.And as u go farther n farther from the 'Ground Zero' of marriage,the frequency of occurence of these events increases in a geometrical progression.Thus, u r at 'Cross-Roads of Life' very very frequently.
Come what may, there is no escape from this in any married life.There is nothing known as 'Perfect Married Life'.Equally true is the fact that there was nothing known as'The Perfect Wife' or 'The Perfect Husband'. In fact, there is nothing known as PERFECT HUMAN BEING. Those who r 70-80% perfect they become 'LORD RAMA', 'LORD KRISHNA' or 'BUDDHA".But they too have 20-30% imperfection.100% perfection is the domain of the GOD,and GOD alone.A normal human being is 40-50%perfection n 50-60%imperfection.People Like GANDHI or MARTIN LUTHER KING or MOTHER TERESSA or even a Flowrence Nightingale r 51-69% perfection n 31-49% imperfection. Imperfection leads to a number of awkward situations in life.And when u get married it gets doubled up. It is imperative that one must be prepared to face unknown events,springing up due to our imperfect ways, depending upon the degree of imperfection in us.If it is more than 60%,we r headed for disaster because one would then b a specimen from sub-normal human beings.And a definite crash, come what may, at the cross roads is their predicted fate.But even normal human beings may trip at these cross roads if they r not careful.
Therefore, one must be prepared to negotiate these cross-roads.In this write-up, I intend to give u some tips on how to negotiate the cross-roads.Take it or throw it ,I don't care.Here r TEN COMMANDMENTS of negotiating 'Cross Roads' in one's married life.
1ST COMMANDMENT.When tempers run high on both sides,no matter whose fault,ACKNOWLEDGE THAT A GOOF-UP HAS TAKEN PLACE.It needs to be immediately attended to BEFORE THE LEAK BECOMES A DELUGE.
2ND COMMANDMENT.When,ONE PERSON SHOUTS OR IS UNDER SOME OUTBURST OF ANGER,OTHER MUST KEEP QUIET,NO MATTER HOW PROVOKING OR UNREASONABLE THE FIRST ONE IS.Allow the flames to douse by keeping shut rather than harping about ur innocence which will only add fuel to the fire.
3RD COMMANDMENT.Marriage is not a public affair. It is a private n confidential matter.Resolve all issues between two of u.Do not discuss any matter with even closest of relatives or friends.DO NOT FIGHT IN THE PUBLIC.PEOPLE WILL HAVE NO SYMPATHY,THEY WILL ONLY WRITE AN OBITUARY OF UR MARRIAGE,EVEN IF U TALK TO THEM IN CONFIDENCE.
4TH COMMANDMENT.Gloss over smaller acts of omission n commission by either of the partners.DO NOT MAKE ISSUE OUT OF A NON ISSUE.CRIB N CRITICISE BUT UPTO A PERMISSIBLE LIMIT.NO PUBLIC CRITICISM, NEVER.
5TH COMMANDMENT.DO NOT HIDE ANYTHING FROM EACH OTHER. THERE R NO SECRETS BETWEEN HUSBAND N WIFE.Don't u ever think other partner will never know. BREACH OF TRUST IS THE BIGGEST CRIME IN THE MARRIED LIFE. IT 'LL BECOME UR 'WATERLOO'.
6TH COMMANDMENT.TO ERR IS HUMAN.Only humanbeings have the intelligence to understand that a mistake has been committed.Animals don't possess this sense.Be bold and a great human being i.e. accept ur fault boldly n retrieve the lost ground rather than justifying ur act with irrelevant arguements.
7TH COMMANDMENT. THERE IS NOTHING PERFECT IN LIFE.DON'T LOOK FOR IDEAL SOLUTIONS TO EACH OF UR PROBLEM.Compromise n adjustments, sooner or later, will bring peace n harmony.Rigidity n inflexibility of ur mind,thinking,attitude n behaviour will only invite disaster.
8TH COMMANDMENT.TRUST N MUTUAL CONFIDENCE IS MANDATORY PRINCIPLE OF SUCCESSFUL MARRIAGE.There r no half measures.One must b guided by rationality rather than emotions.
9TH COMMANDMENT. life is beautiful.LIVE IT FULLY.DO NOT LET GO THE TIME IN UNWANTED N MEANINGLESS SKIRMISHES.REMEMBER TIME N 'AGE' DO NOT WAIT FOR ANYONE TO GET MATURED.Let u not think life will give u a 2nd chance.No, Never.What u have lived is gone n gone for ever.ENJOY N BE HAPPY 'NOW'.'PRESENT' IS WHAT MATTERS.
10TH COMMANDMENT.EQUALITY OF GENDERS IN ALL MATTERS MUST DEFINE UR MUTUAL RELATIONSHIP.Do not let ur thoughts b clogged with a view that other partner can not do what u r doing. There fore seek advice on all family matters.
If u follow these commandments life will be a smooth journey.Rest u will get in further missives.
Read or not it does not matter to me. It is ur bad luck. U don't even know what perhaps has been missed by u? A LOT. U can still read n enrich urself. Nothing much 4 the time being.
Bye n So Long. LOVE! PAPA.
Dad's Wisdom - Part 5
5th one...
Hi Every one!
"Oh,God!He is here again".Did u say that? Well u better don't do that,for, I'm here to do the plain speaking.U know what is the biggest human vanity? It is sure outside ur vocabulary.'cause U people have been trapped behind the iron-doors of ur oversized egos n blinded by the self blinding logic of 'SELF RIGHTEOUSNESS'. Yes, this is the biggest human vanity.U want to accuse me of the same. Sure,go ahead.Welcome!
I tell u what.Have u heard of Bertrand Russel? How stupid of me to ask u this question? Isn't it? I should know most of u read only text book stuff.
Anyway , who was he? No, sorry,he was not a computer driver like U? Sorry again for addressing u as computer drivers for want of a proper nomenclature for ur profession.But why computer Drivers? Why not Pilots, professionals,Operators Or so on? Tell me.
Ok, wait.Let me complete the tale of Russel.He was a great 'Thinker' n a 'Social philospher' of 19th/20th Century.Once his student asked him," Sir, would u like to die for the principles u hold so dear to ur heart".
Russel thought for a while n said'" No, Never".The student was stunned,"But, Why Not"? " Because, I MAY BE WRONG" was Russel's reply. This is the catch.U KNOW DRIVERS NEVER THINK THEY MIGHT BE WRONG.AND THOSE WHO EAT, DRINK N LIVE BY COMPUTERS INVARIABLY DEVELOP THIS
KNOW-ALL ATTITUDE.After all computer is the answer for all human activities of the'THIRD WAVE SOCIETY'.NOW DON'T TELL ME U DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT IS A THIRD WAVE SOCIETY? GOD BLESS U ALL, U SURE HAVE MISMANAGED OR MALFUNCTIONING CEREBERAL TISSUES.I'm digressing but i don't want to lose an opportunity to provoke ur brain cells to get started and get on to the same grid as i 'm.
SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS , U C IS AN ATIITUDINAL DISORDER ACQUIRED WHILE INTERACTING WITH UNKNOWN N ALIEN ENVIRONMENTS.It is the self guarding mechanism of the body which gets activated when u smell danger to ur self from something not known.U develop an attitude to be cautious in ur approach.Nothing wrong.
There comes a stage when u become a slave of ur inhibtions n u do not allow this attitude to be shed.
This prolonged inclination towards extra vigiliance leads to this disorder. U become secretive.u donot trust any one.U trust those people who sing ur songs. Psychophants, they say!Worst is u become friend of ur own enemies.These outsiders put up a facade to say they r ur well-wishers. BUT IN REALITY THEY SOW THE SEED OF A MARITIAL DISCHORD.BE WARE OF SUCH OUTSIDERS HOWEVER SWEET THEY MAY SEEM.LET ME TELL U ONE THING VERY CLEARLY IF U ADD SUGAR TO POISON IT DOES NOT BECOME A SWEET DISH. IF U CONSUME SURE IT IS A DISASTER FOR UR MARRIAGE.INTERFERENCE BY AN OUTSIDER IN UR MARRIED LIFE IS A SURE INVITATION TO UR MARITIAL DISCHORD.IF U ALLOW OUTSIDERS TO INTERFERE IN UR MARRIED LIFE,U BETTER KNOW , U SUFFER FROM SELF RIGHTEOUSNESS.UR OVERT WELL-WISHER IS ONLY SEEKING A REVENGE ON YOU N EXPLOITING UR DEPENDENCE ON HIS/HER BRAINS. THIS IS CALLED EMOTINAL BLINDNESS N THE LACK OF THE ABILITY TO REASON. U R A LIVING SLAVE OF SOME ONE WHO IS CHEATING U. SELF RIGHTEOUSNESS LEADS U INTO THIS. IF U PERSIST THIS DISORDER BECOMES INCURABLE N IT BRINGS ONLY MISERIES TO UR NEAR N DEAR ONES.PERHAPS,BY THEN U DON'T CARE FOR THEM.Do u want to become the cause of the miseries of ur near & dear ones,please go ahead with it n allow outsiders to interfere in ur married life.It is a mental disorder which is doomed to bring u nothing in life at the end of the day.U only repent.But by then life has gone past u. Control outside interference,n u must to bring happiness to everyone. This disorder causes distrust in partners;leads to self-seeking goals;indifference n intolearnance towards those who question ur wrong-doing.SELF RIGHTEOUSNESS IS THE FOUNDATION STONE OF A DEADLY VIRUS CALLED 'MERI- MARZI'.U know how? OK, hold for a while.
Have u read Thomas Harris? May be some of u might have glanced through his famous treatise on human communications. Don't tell me u haven't heard of the book,"I'M OK, U R OK!" ? Now what can i say if u haven't? Let me tell u do't b afraid of reading.U know if u read one book a day(each book of 200pages) n u do it for ur life(Let's say for 100 years). At the end of it u would have only acquired 30% of the knowledge that is available in the word. This is the extent of ur ignorance n still u say u r MR/MS/MRS KNOW-ALL!
Alright, let me talk about a bit on 'I'M OK;U'R OK'.
This book is a master-piece on human-communications.It says every person has in him three states i.e.Parent,Adult n Child state.He/She communicates from one of these three states.Therefore to keep the communication going u ought to b in the same state,otherwise the communications will break down.Main theme is that every human being acquires one of the four postures in life. These r :-one,I'm not ok ,u r ok;two,I'm ok,u r not ok;three, i'm not ok, ur not ok n four,I'm ok , u r ok.Best is of course the last one.The first stage is acquired in the infancy only,even before the age of five.Later,environments, education,experiences nprocess of growing up which includes activities connected with both hardships n successes, convert him into one of the other three postures.The worst posture is of course 'I'M NOT OK, U R NOT OK'.The best no doubts is 'I'M OK ;U R OK'.It is invariably seen many PEOPLE adopt the posture:-'I'M OK; U R NOT OK'.This is also the stepping stone to the worst posture i.e, 'I'M NOT OK ; U R NOT OK'.This 'self acclaimed greatness' leads to self-serving philosophy 'MERI MARZI'.And this is the greatest enemyof 'MARRIAGE'.Remember in MARRIAGE' there is nothing known as 'MERI MARZI'. It is always 'HAMARI MARZI'. They say marriage is ultimately meeting of two minds.Two merge into one another.From an individual u become a couple.It is never an individual wish after marriage,what ever u were before marriage.If u believed in something else u ought not to have married.
Finally,let me tell u one thing very clearly, please never think in marriage u can cheat on each other.Also, remember the whole world is watching u.Sooner or later people will see through u if u have sustaining relationship merely on formalities.Marriage is a mutual responsibilty'.It can not survive on two strings pulling in different direction.The string which tied u together will snap if u:-
- INSIST ON SELF RIGTEOUSNESS
- 'MERI MARZI' BECOMES GUIDING PHILOSOPHY.
- U ALLOW MARRIAGE TO BECOME A PUBLIC AFFAIR N ALLOW OTHERS TO PEEP INTO UR LIFE.OUTSIDE INTERVENTION, WHOEVER HE/SHE MAYBE ,IS A SURE INVITATION FOR DISASTER.
- HIDE FACTS FROM PARTNERS. REMEMBER THERE R NO SECRETS BETWEEN HUSBAND N WIFE. IF U DO U R NOT ONE WHICH IS THE ANTI THESIS OF MARRIAGE.
So this is where i sign off today. Shall get back with more philosophy later.Bye n lots of love to u all.
Read it damnit, i spend so much time typing it.
LOVE RAJEE
Hi Every one!
"Oh,God!He is here again".Did u say that? Well u better don't do that,for, I'm here to do the plain speaking.U know what is the biggest human vanity? It is sure outside ur vocabulary.'cause U people have been trapped behind the iron-doors of ur oversized egos n blinded by the self blinding logic of 'SELF RIGHTEOUSNESS'. Yes, this is the biggest human vanity.U want to accuse me of the same. Sure,go ahead.Welcome!
I tell u what.Have u heard of Bertrand Russel? How stupid of me to ask u this question? Isn't it? I should know most of u read only text book stuff.
Anyway , who was he? No, sorry,he was not a computer driver like U? Sorry again for addressing u as computer drivers for want of a proper nomenclature for ur profession.But why computer Drivers? Why not Pilots, professionals,Operators Or so on? Tell me.
Ok, wait.Let me complete the tale of Russel.He was a great 'Thinker' n a 'Social philospher' of 19th/20th Century.Once his student asked him," Sir, would u like to die for the principles u hold so dear to ur heart".
Russel thought for a while n said'" No, Never".The student was stunned,"But, Why Not"? " Because, I MAY BE WRONG" was Russel's reply. This is the catch.U KNOW DRIVERS NEVER THINK THEY MIGHT BE WRONG.AND THOSE WHO EAT, DRINK N LIVE BY COMPUTERS INVARIABLY DEVELOP THIS
KNOW-ALL ATTITUDE.After all computer is the answer for all human activities of the'THIRD WAVE SOCIETY'.NOW DON'T TELL ME U DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT IS A THIRD WAVE SOCIETY? GOD BLESS U ALL, U SURE HAVE MISMANAGED OR MALFUNCTIONING CEREBERAL TISSUES.I'm digressing but i don't want to lose an opportunity to provoke ur brain cells to get started and get on to the same grid as i 'm.
SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS , U C IS AN ATIITUDINAL DISORDER ACQUIRED WHILE INTERACTING WITH UNKNOWN N ALIEN ENVIRONMENTS.It is the self guarding mechanism of the body which gets activated when u smell danger to ur self from something not known.U develop an attitude to be cautious in ur approach.Nothing wrong.
There comes a stage when u become a slave of ur inhibtions n u do not allow this attitude to be shed.
This prolonged inclination towards extra vigiliance leads to this disorder. U become secretive.u donot trust any one.U trust those people who sing ur songs. Psychophants, they say!Worst is u become friend of ur own enemies.These outsiders put up a facade to say they r ur well-wishers. BUT IN REALITY THEY SOW THE SEED OF A MARITIAL DISCHORD.BE WARE OF SUCH OUTSIDERS HOWEVER SWEET THEY MAY SEEM.LET ME TELL U ONE THING VERY CLEARLY IF U ADD SUGAR TO POISON IT DOES NOT BECOME A SWEET DISH. IF U CONSUME SURE IT IS A DISASTER FOR UR MARRIAGE.INTERFERENCE BY AN OUTSIDER IN UR MARRIED LIFE IS A SURE INVITATION TO UR MARITIAL DISCHORD.IF U ALLOW OUTSIDERS TO INTERFERE IN UR MARRIED LIFE,U BETTER KNOW , U SUFFER FROM SELF RIGHTEOUSNESS.UR OVERT WELL-WISHER IS ONLY SEEKING A REVENGE ON YOU N EXPLOITING UR DEPENDENCE ON HIS/HER BRAINS. THIS IS CALLED EMOTINAL BLINDNESS N THE LACK OF THE ABILITY TO REASON. U R A LIVING SLAVE OF SOME ONE WHO IS CHEATING U. SELF RIGHTEOUSNESS LEADS U INTO THIS. IF U PERSIST THIS DISORDER BECOMES INCURABLE N IT BRINGS ONLY MISERIES TO UR NEAR N DEAR ONES.PERHAPS,BY THEN U DON'T CARE FOR THEM.Do u want to become the cause of the miseries of ur near & dear ones,please go ahead with it n allow outsiders to interfere in ur married life.It is a mental disorder which is doomed to bring u nothing in life at the end of the day.U only repent.But by then life has gone past u. Control outside interference,n u must to bring happiness to everyone. This disorder causes distrust in partners;leads to self-seeking goals;indifference n intolearnance towards those who question ur wrong-doing.SELF RIGHTEOUSNESS IS THE FOUNDATION STONE OF A DEADLY VIRUS CALLED 'MERI- MARZI'.U know how? OK, hold for a while.
Have u read Thomas Harris? May be some of u might have glanced through his famous treatise on human communications. Don't tell me u haven't heard of the book,"I'M OK, U R OK!" ? Now what can i say if u haven't? Let me tell u do't b afraid of reading.U know if u read one book a day(each book of 200pages) n u do it for ur life(Let's say for 100 years). At the end of it u would have only acquired 30% of the knowledge that is available in the word. This is the extent of ur ignorance n still u say u r MR/MS/MRS KNOW-ALL!
Alright, let me talk about a bit on 'I'M OK;U'R OK'.
This book is a master-piece on human-communications.It says every person has in him three states i.e.Parent,Adult n Child state.He/She communicates from one of these three states.Therefore to keep the communication going u ought to b in the same state,otherwise the communications will break down.Main theme is that every human being acquires one of the four postures in life. These r :-one,I'm not ok ,u r ok;two,I'm ok,u r not ok;three, i'm not ok, ur not ok n four,I'm ok , u r ok.Best is of course the last one.The first stage is acquired in the infancy only,even before the age of five.Later,environments, education,experiences nprocess of growing up which includes activities connected with both hardships n successes, convert him into one of the other three postures.The worst posture is of course 'I'M NOT OK, U R NOT OK'.The best no doubts is 'I'M OK ;U R OK'.It is invariably seen many PEOPLE adopt the posture:-'I'M OK; U R NOT OK'.This is also the stepping stone to the worst posture i.e, 'I'M NOT OK ; U R NOT OK'.This 'self acclaimed greatness' leads to self-serving philosophy 'MERI MARZI'.And this is the greatest enemyof 'MARRIAGE'.Remember in MARRIAGE' there is nothing known as 'MERI MARZI'. It is always 'HAMARI MARZI'. They say marriage is ultimately meeting of two minds.Two merge into one another.From an individual u become a couple.It is never an individual wish after marriage,what ever u were before marriage.If u believed in something else u ought not to have married.
Finally,let me tell u one thing very clearly, please never think in marriage u can cheat on each other.Also, remember the whole world is watching u.Sooner or later people will see through u if u have sustaining relationship merely on formalities.Marriage is a mutual responsibilty'.It can not survive on two strings pulling in different direction.The string which tied u together will snap if u:-
- INSIST ON SELF RIGTEOUSNESS
- 'MERI MARZI' BECOMES GUIDING PHILOSOPHY.
- U ALLOW MARRIAGE TO BECOME A PUBLIC AFFAIR N ALLOW OTHERS TO PEEP INTO UR LIFE.OUTSIDE INTERVENTION, WHOEVER HE/SHE MAYBE ,IS A SURE INVITATION FOR DISASTER.
- HIDE FACTS FROM PARTNERS. REMEMBER THERE R NO SECRETS BETWEEN HUSBAND N WIFE. IF U DO U R NOT ONE WHICH IS THE ANTI THESIS OF MARRIAGE.
So this is where i sign off today. Shall get back with more philosophy later.Bye n lots of love to u all.
Read it damnit, i spend so much time typing it.
LOVE RAJEE
Dad's Wisdom - Part 4
4th mail
Hey Folks!
Love & blessings!
Well, I'm back again.This time there will b no poodle-faking n no beating round the bush.It 'll b real straight 'HARD TALK'.U must read it.Don't treat as trash.Last time two of u responded the other two probably treated it as rubbish.I'm a mind reader,too.
Ur writing or not writing gives me an idea of ur mental make-up. By now I have a fair idea of ur westernised misgivings.I know each one's mind.On that i will write individually to each one.For the time being let me hitch u on the band-wagon of my thought process, Which is :- IN THE INDIAN SOCIAL CONTEXT,REGARDLESS OF THE CAST CREED N RELIGION, MARRIAGE IS A SOCIAL CONTRACT PLUS LOVE NO MATTER HOW IT COMES ABOUT.WE R NOT NOURISHED IN THE ANIMAL-KINGDOM-PHILOSPHY OF THE WEST,WHO ALLUDE A LOPSIDED MEANING TO LIBERTY N FREEDOM AS THE ANIMALS DO IN THE JUNGLE.I only wish to remind u guys that u belong to a far too-superior-culture n a social system which has withstood the test of times.Let me stop at this for the time being.
I signed off last time saying, that I 'll explain Social Contract in my next communication. I shall do it in the paras appended below.
Social contract is 'DHARMA'.Heckles raised n antennas errected? No? OK,If i tell u that english word "RELIGION" does not contain its meaning in entirity, will u agree? In fact there is no equavalence of"DHARMA" in this language.It is an irony that the most popular language of the world is the most unscientific n underdeveloped.U don't seem to agree wih me.Give u another example.Look at the word "LOVE".It seems to cater for 'PARENTAL-
AFFECTION','BROTHER-SISTER-EMOTIONAL- AFFINITY'; 'EMOTIONAL-INFATUATION OF MARRIED COUPLE' N 'PHYSICAL VIBES BETWEEN A BOY N THE GIRL'.In 'Hindi' it will b 'MAMTA';SANEH';PREM'N 'PYAR'respectively. U people still don't agree.Ok, look at the words Uncle n Auntie.Do they fully define social relationships?
There r tons of examples I can give u.BUT REMEMBER LANGUAGE IS THE MIRROR OF A SOCIAL SYSTEM.LIKE ITS LANGUAGE THE WESTERN SOCIAL SYSTEMS, U GUYS R SO FOND OF,R MOST UNSCIENTIFIC.
TECCHNOLOGICAL ADVANCEMENT DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE CLAIM THAT WESTERN SOCIAL SYSTEMS R SCIENTIFIC.
'Freedom n Liberty' of the Western philosphy owe their origion to 'Slave-Mentality' n 'Jungle-Thinking'. Their craving for this bears no responsibilities n accountablity.Their concept is FREE-FOR-ALL-DICTUM , LEADING TO CHAOS&DISORDER;SELFISHNESS N GREED; INDIVIDUALISATION N CONFLICT.AS A CONTRAST TO THIS, SOUTH ASIAN SOCIAL SYSTEM N ALSO OF THE ORIENT, PAY ATTENTION TO SOCIAL EXISTENCE IN AN ORDERLY MANNER.Freedom n Liberty ,in this culture, have a far deeper meaning.We had systems like 'SVYAMAMBER',where a bride used to select a groom for herself. Our 'Guru-Shishya' system of the past was the best example of freedom n liberty in the learning process.Honour n dignity with discipline was the central theme of this freedom.So ther u r.Let us now revert to 'Dharma'.
The word 'religion' does not mean 'DHARMA'.U c religion in its dictionary meaning stands for temporal rituals n method of worshipping ur chosen god.It tells u 'what to do' n 'how to do' in seeking unison with ur god."Dharma", on the other hand is a 'way of life'.Religion has only temporal connotations,'DHARMA' has religious,societal, economical,miltary,familial,n existentional connotations.It speaks of values,ethos, realities, ettiquettes, ethics, attitudes, postures, inclinations in a given human activity.It leaves no scope for different interprettations. And it has a very scientific way of evolving themselves.What u c in modern india today is cultural abberratins brought about by alien philosphies heavily dominated by religious practices. India of the past never gave importance to religion ,cast n creed.Importance was given to disciplined existence of human beings.There were conflicts. But they were between "Dharma" n "Adharma"-the 'right n the wrong'.'Right n wrong' was not decided by an individual but by the social system of the community.Zones of freedom n liberty were well defined for individuals-male n female,groups, pairs,communities, societies,polities n kingdoms.There was no free for all system of the animal societies.DHARMA HAD COMMITTMENTS, DUTIES, RESPONSIBILITIES, ACCOUNTABILITIES,RESTRICTIONS, STIPULATIONS, DO'S
N DON'TS ON ALL SPHERES OF HUMAN ACTIVITY. IT DEMANDS SACRIFICES, CARE, CONCERN, HONESTY, INTEGRITY N LOYALITY FOR ALL RELATIONSHIPS.
DHARMA is thus a self binding code of conduct.It is an unwritten contract with self to do every thing within the frame work of 'Dharma'-which is an evolved philosphy of the South Asia.Incidentally,'Dharma' is a 'Sanskrit' word n "HINDU' is a Persian word.The latter is as foriegn as the word 'India'is.More on this in some other time.Remember, Dharma is an all encompassing self speaking philosphy,Which becomes binding to follow.It is a contract.
Why doI say,"Marriage is a social contract".Simply put, it is a social phenomenon between two individuals. It is not an individual activity in isolation.If Marriage is a social contract,It is simply a DHARMA, as defined above.It is not and can not be an individual activity.Western social systems,though,treat it as an individual phenomenon and thus apply the rules of jungle living.Our marriages,no matter how they r brought about,whether arranged or the familial acceptance of emotional vibes between two individuals, they r family affairs unlike the West which r individual affairs.In our marriages, honour, respect, dignity n prestige of two families r invested.
Therefore, marriages have to operate within the given frame work of social contract, which is Dharma. It does not allow freedom to operate outside the contract. This is the difference.
Finally, what is love? I 've already explained in my earlier mails. To simpify it is Loyality (L)
Orchestrated(O) Vibes(V) & Emotions(E)experienced during a visual,platonic,physical n social interaction between two individuals . Marriage is therefore,LOVE BACKED BY DHARMA.It must honour the ethos of its route.
I now finish off my sermons on marriage. To sum it up MARRIAGE IS A SOCIAL AFFAIR. IT IS NOT AN INDIVIDUAL EVENT.IT IS GOVERNED BY THE SOCIAL CODE OF CONDUCT.IT CARRIES HEAVY BURDEN OF SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITIES, FAMILY HONOUR& IZZAT ,THE NEED FOR THE CARE, CONCERN,SACRIFICE FOR TH PARTNER.IT DEMANDS NOT ONLY COMMITTMENTS BUT SHARING OF EACH OTHERS FEELINGS N AVOIDING HURTING SENSIBILITIES.IT IS NOT A CHILD'S PLAY TO SAY THE LEAST.
Next time I will harrangue on India, 'Indie' &Indus'.
Do not feel tired. i have taken 4 hours to type it.
With tons of love & good wishes.
PAPA
Reply to the post & its answer
Hi pa...
I agree with your conclusion... but do not agree with the means to that conclusion... what u did was something like... abc & xyz are 2 different ways of doing things... xyz is bad coz of 1; 2 & 3.. therefore abc is good...
This does not make abc good... some other might point out various faults with abc and thus conclude xyz is better... e.g. to some one from west arranged marriage might seem very odd.. and probably they might not like it.. and will start debunking indian civ...
I agree with you finishing sentences... not because I think western culture is equivalent to animal kingdom philosophy but simply because this is the way I have grown up and this is the way I am comfortable with...
I feel the values one has, has a lot to do with environment one is living in than with absolute rights and wrongs... as they say when in rome do as romans do... and it is true for trivial matters as well as philosophical...
Reply
I like it.If i were able to provoke u to say what u have said, I know I'm on the right track.U r right but u c i've done no mathematical calculations to say what i've said. Let me clarify some points.
Firstly, I've not pitted West against the East.
I've merely said 'Liberty' n 'freedom' in their social parlance stand for 'FREE FOR ALL'.This is bad. This is the cause of social turmoil & loose social relationships in their societies. They attach too much value to individual n his social freedom. Our system is exactly the opposite of it.
Secondly, to lead a peaceful, harmonious n secure life in a social system, individuals'll have to lose some of their individual freedom, liberty n privileges. Imagine what happens if every one starts doing things as per 'MERI MARZI' 'THIS IS MY LIFE ATTITUDE'. There 'll b chaos n disorder.Society 'll b in turmoils.
Thirdly,I'm not saying which type of marriage is better. I'm not talking of the 'FORM'of marriage but theperiod after marriage.More pronouncedly, I'm only defining golden rules to avoid conflict in marriage.
Fourthly, I agree one behaves acording to the environments of one's upbringing.These r the basic tenets of behaviour. But it is a truism abberrations too r caused by 'operative environments'. My sole agenda was to guard n caution u against the operative environments of ur chosen path.Tradidional Indian values n ethos may not b the perfect models for ur times.But basic moralities acquired in ur growing up will go to make ur character.As u interact with new environments u 'll b in conflict with urself.This is where u 'll define for urself 'The Right N The Wrong'.These r two perceptions of a human mind which constantly chase through out life.This is where the philosophy of the East beats West.This is why u find so many 'Yogis' 'Gurus' 'Godmen' n 'Temporal heads'of the East dominate the Materialistic-Man' of the West.
Finally, my aim is to make u thinking n alert so that while interacting with modern environmenmts u do not lose sight of ur 'ROOTS'.As long as u 've this at the back of ur mind, it serves the purpose. I 've achieved my aim because all of u 've responded in ur own style n individuality but within the frame work of ur understanding n social upbringing which is basically INDIAN. U know there has been an invasion of abberrations in our social system too. But they r under the hammer in our interaction with the West. S what u see today is the SYNTHESIS OF THE MORALISTIC EAST AND THE MATERIALISTIC WEST.SOME WHERE IN BETWEEN LIES UR GENERATION. U R PRODUCT OF THIS SYNTHESIS.
That's why u can only shed ur EASTERN MORALITIES AT PERIL TO UR MENTAL HARMONY ,FAMILIAL DIGNITY N NUPTIAL PEACE. This is the essence of my talk.Thats all. Thanx .Lots of love. Tons of affections.Billions time reminding u all as to WHAT U R - AN INDIAN PRODUCT IN WESTERN WRAP AROUND.
Bye & so long.
PAPA
Hey Folks!
Love & blessings!
Well, I'm back again.This time there will b no poodle-faking n no beating round the bush.It 'll b real straight 'HARD TALK'.U must read it.Don't treat as trash.Last time two of u responded the other two probably treated it as rubbish.I'm a mind reader,too.
Ur writing or not writing gives me an idea of ur mental make-up. By now I have a fair idea of ur westernised misgivings.I know each one's mind.On that i will write individually to each one.For the time being let me hitch u on the band-wagon of my thought process, Which is :- IN THE INDIAN SOCIAL CONTEXT,REGARDLESS OF THE CAST CREED N RELIGION, MARRIAGE IS A SOCIAL CONTRACT PLUS LOVE NO MATTER HOW IT COMES ABOUT.WE R NOT NOURISHED IN THE ANIMAL-KINGDOM-PHILOSPHY OF THE WEST,WHO ALLUDE A LOPSIDED MEANING TO LIBERTY N FREEDOM AS THE ANIMALS DO IN THE JUNGLE.I only wish to remind u guys that u belong to a far too-superior-culture n a social system which has withstood the test of times.Let me stop at this for the time being.
I signed off last time saying, that I 'll explain Social Contract in my next communication. I shall do it in the paras appended below.
Social contract is 'DHARMA'.Heckles raised n antennas errected? No? OK,If i tell u that english word "RELIGION" does not contain its meaning in entirity, will u agree? In fact there is no equavalence of"DHARMA" in this language.It is an irony that the most popular language of the world is the most unscientific n underdeveloped.U don't seem to agree wih me.Give u another example.Look at the word "LOVE".It seems to cater for 'PARENTAL-
AFFECTION','BROTHER-SISTER-EMOTIONAL- AFFINITY'; 'EMOTIONAL-INFATUATION OF MARRIED COUPLE' N 'PHYSICAL VIBES BETWEEN A BOY N THE GIRL'.In 'Hindi' it will b 'MAMTA';SANEH';PREM'N 'PYAR'respectively. U people still don't agree.Ok, look at the words Uncle n Auntie.Do they fully define social relationships?
There r tons of examples I can give u.BUT REMEMBER LANGUAGE IS THE MIRROR OF A SOCIAL SYSTEM.LIKE ITS LANGUAGE THE WESTERN SOCIAL SYSTEMS, U GUYS R SO FOND OF,R MOST UNSCIENTIFIC.
TECCHNOLOGICAL ADVANCEMENT DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE CLAIM THAT WESTERN SOCIAL SYSTEMS R SCIENTIFIC.
'Freedom n Liberty' of the Western philosphy owe their origion to 'Slave-Mentality' n 'Jungle-Thinking'. Their craving for this bears no responsibilities n accountablity.Their concept is FREE-FOR-ALL-DICTUM , LEADING TO CHAOS&DISORDER;SELFISHNESS N GREED; INDIVIDUALISATION N CONFLICT.AS A CONTRAST TO THIS, SOUTH ASIAN SOCIAL SYSTEM N ALSO OF THE ORIENT, PAY ATTENTION TO SOCIAL EXISTENCE IN AN ORDERLY MANNER.Freedom n Liberty ,in this culture, have a far deeper meaning.We had systems like 'SVYAMAMBER',where a bride used to select a groom for herself. Our 'Guru-Shishya' system of the past was the best example of freedom n liberty in the learning process.Honour n dignity with discipline was the central theme of this freedom.So ther u r.Let us now revert to 'Dharma'.
The word 'religion' does not mean 'DHARMA'.U c religion in its dictionary meaning stands for temporal rituals n method of worshipping ur chosen god.It tells u 'what to do' n 'how to do' in seeking unison with ur god."Dharma", on the other hand is a 'way of life'.Religion has only temporal connotations,'DHARMA' has religious,societal, economical,miltary,familial,n existentional connotations.It speaks of values,ethos, realities, ettiquettes, ethics, attitudes, postures, inclinations in a given human activity.It leaves no scope for different interprettations. And it has a very scientific way of evolving themselves.What u c in modern india today is cultural abberratins brought about by alien philosphies heavily dominated by religious practices. India of the past never gave importance to religion ,cast n creed.Importance was given to disciplined existence of human beings.There were conflicts. But they were between "Dharma" n "Adharma"-the 'right n the wrong'.'Right n wrong' was not decided by an individual but by the social system of the community.Zones of freedom n liberty were well defined for individuals-male n female,groups, pairs,communities, societies,polities n kingdoms.There was no free for all system of the animal societies.DHARMA HAD COMMITTMENTS, DUTIES, RESPONSIBILITIES, ACCOUNTABILITIES,RESTRICTIONS, STIPULATIONS, DO'S
N DON'TS ON ALL SPHERES OF HUMAN ACTIVITY. IT DEMANDS SACRIFICES, CARE, CONCERN, HONESTY, INTEGRITY N LOYALITY FOR ALL RELATIONSHIPS.
DHARMA is thus a self binding code of conduct.It is an unwritten contract with self to do every thing within the frame work of 'Dharma'-which is an evolved philosphy of the South Asia.Incidentally,'Dharma' is a 'Sanskrit' word n "HINDU' is a Persian word.The latter is as foriegn as the word 'India'is.More on this in some other time.Remember, Dharma is an all encompassing self speaking philosphy,Which becomes binding to follow.It is a contract.
Why doI say,"Marriage is a social contract".Simply put, it is a social phenomenon between two individuals. It is not an individual activity in isolation.If Marriage is a social contract,It is simply a DHARMA, as defined above.It is not and can not be an individual activity.Western social systems,though,treat it as an individual phenomenon and thus apply the rules of jungle living.Our marriages,no matter how they r brought about,whether arranged or the familial acceptance of emotional vibes between two individuals, they r family affairs unlike the West which r individual affairs.In our marriages, honour, respect, dignity n prestige of two families r invested.
Therefore, marriages have to operate within the given frame work of social contract, which is Dharma. It does not allow freedom to operate outside the contract. This is the difference.
Finally, what is love? I 've already explained in my earlier mails. To simpify it is Loyality (L)
Orchestrated(O) Vibes(V) & Emotions(E)experienced during a visual,platonic,physical n social interaction between two individuals . Marriage is therefore,LOVE BACKED BY DHARMA.It must honour the ethos of its route.
I now finish off my sermons on marriage. To sum it up MARRIAGE IS A SOCIAL AFFAIR. IT IS NOT AN INDIVIDUAL EVENT.IT IS GOVERNED BY THE SOCIAL CODE OF CONDUCT.IT CARRIES HEAVY BURDEN OF SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITIES, FAMILY HONOUR& IZZAT ,THE NEED FOR THE CARE, CONCERN,SACRIFICE FOR TH PARTNER.IT DEMANDS NOT ONLY COMMITTMENTS BUT SHARING OF EACH OTHERS FEELINGS N AVOIDING HURTING SENSIBILITIES.IT IS NOT A CHILD'S PLAY TO SAY THE LEAST.
Next time I will harrangue on India, 'Indie' &Indus'.
Do not feel tired. i have taken 4 hours to type it.
With tons of love & good wishes.
PAPA
Reply to the post & its answer
Hi pa...
I agree with your conclusion... but do not agree with the means to that conclusion... what u did was something like... abc & xyz are 2 different ways of doing things... xyz is bad coz of 1; 2 & 3.. therefore abc is good...
This does not make abc good... some other might point out various faults with abc and thus conclude xyz is better... e.g. to some one from west arranged marriage might seem very odd.. and probably they might not like it.. and will start debunking indian civ...
I agree with you finishing sentences... not because I think western culture is equivalent to animal kingdom philosophy but simply because this is the way I have grown up and this is the way I am comfortable with...
I feel the values one has, has a lot to do with environment one is living in than with absolute rights and wrongs... as they say when in rome do as romans do... and it is true for trivial matters as well as philosophical...
Reply
I like it.If i were able to provoke u to say what u have said, I know I'm on the right track.U r right but u c i've done no mathematical calculations to say what i've said. Let me clarify some points.
Firstly, I've not pitted West against the East.
I've merely said 'Liberty' n 'freedom' in their social parlance stand for 'FREE FOR ALL'.This is bad. This is the cause of social turmoil & loose social relationships in their societies. They attach too much value to individual n his social freedom. Our system is exactly the opposite of it.
Secondly, to lead a peaceful, harmonious n secure life in a social system, individuals'll have to lose some of their individual freedom, liberty n privileges. Imagine what happens if every one starts doing things as per 'MERI MARZI' 'THIS IS MY LIFE ATTITUDE'. There 'll b chaos n disorder.Society 'll b in turmoils.
Thirdly,I'm not saying which type of marriage is better. I'm not talking of the 'FORM'of marriage but theperiod after marriage.More pronouncedly, I'm only defining golden rules to avoid conflict in marriage.
Fourthly, I agree one behaves acording to the environments of one's upbringing.These r the basic tenets of behaviour. But it is a truism abberrations too r caused by 'operative environments'. My sole agenda was to guard n caution u against the operative environments of ur chosen path.Tradidional Indian values n ethos may not b the perfect models for ur times.But basic moralities acquired in ur growing up will go to make ur character.As u interact with new environments u 'll b in conflict with urself.This is where u 'll define for urself 'The Right N The Wrong'.These r two perceptions of a human mind which constantly chase through out life.This is where the philosophy of the East beats West.This is why u find so many 'Yogis' 'Gurus' 'Godmen' n 'Temporal heads'of the East dominate the Materialistic-Man' of the West.
Finally, my aim is to make u thinking n alert so that while interacting with modern environmenmts u do not lose sight of ur 'ROOTS'.As long as u 've this at the back of ur mind, it serves the purpose. I 've achieved my aim because all of u 've responded in ur own style n individuality but within the frame work of ur understanding n social upbringing which is basically INDIAN. U know there has been an invasion of abberrations in our social system too. But they r under the hammer in our interaction with the West. S what u see today is the SYNTHESIS OF THE MORALISTIC EAST AND THE MATERIALISTIC WEST.SOME WHERE IN BETWEEN LIES UR GENERATION. U R PRODUCT OF THIS SYNTHESIS.
That's why u can only shed ur EASTERN MORALITIES AT PERIL TO UR MENTAL HARMONY ,FAMILIAL DIGNITY N NUPTIAL PEACE. This is the essence of my talk.Thats all. Thanx .Lots of love. Tons of affections.Billions time reminding u all as to WHAT U R - AN INDIAN PRODUCT IN WESTERN WRAP AROUND.
Bye & so long.
PAPA
Dad's Wisdom - Part 3
3rd mail in the series
Hi Every One!
What ever u folks might rant,I'm back as a compulsive discourse-master to rattle out some of the random thoughts which cross my mind like a river gushing out of the montains.
U know I earlier defined marriage as MATURITY AIDED RELATIONSHIP REQUIRING INTIMACY,ADJUSTMENTS &GUIDED EQUALITY.let me refine it 4 u.It could also b defined as MUTUALLY ASSERTING RELATIONSHIP REDEEMING INTIMACY,AFFINITY &GENDER EQUALITY.It has a deper meaning. How? I'll explain.
It is very important to understand that the basic foundation of marriage rests upon the two-way n simultaneous flow of positive emotions depicting mutual care, concern,respect n sacrifice.U can not get away from this.Physical infatuation,intellectual compatibility or even 'gender-magnetisation'can not n will not become the foundations of maritial love.At best they are biological & psychological parameters explaining behavioural patterns of similiar human beings,albiet of different genders.There is a difference between various kinds of love.Pre-maritial love, whether arranged or self generated, is blind n full of formalities.It is so because u live in a world of dreams.Everything seems good.At times, people do cheat but they r abberrations.Such love will not last long.It will not lead to union of two minds- the ultimate goal of love.Similarly, if either of the two, cheats post-marriage, it will lead to maritial dischord,disharmony n friction.Post-maritial love demands true relationship because it is a real world.Niether of the partner can afford to show neglect &lack of attention towards eah other.
Sacrifice is not a one way traffic for females alone.Gents too will have to forgo a lot of pre-maritial activities if the love has to strengthen its bonding.Both must operate with open,receptive n pious mind to reinforce the moorings of love. THERE FORE ONE MUST NOTE THAT LOVE DEMANDS FROM THE PARTNERS PIETY OF THE MIND,FRANKNESS OF VIEWS N RIGHTEOUSNESS OF SELF CONDUCT.Love ,more so post-marriage,needs sanctity of conduct n purity of trust. This makes the relationship mutually assertive.It makes them adjust to each other freely. The leading gesture is voluntary suurender to each other or what u call intimacy.Both treat each other at par- a guided equality. This is the type of love which welds the two into a 'MADE-FOR-EACH-OTHER-PRODUCT' which empowers them collectively or singly to weather all social storms that rage in their lives or in the society.They ,thus acquire the capability to fulfil their social contract.And the big question. What is it?
Hold ur horses. It is not what u folks think.No, i'm not talking about social restrictions & social responsibilities.All of u r widely off the mark.Should I enunciate now or let it b in the next session.That is better.
OK Bye & tons of Love to all four.
PAPA
Hi Every One!
What ever u folks might rant,I'm back as a compulsive discourse-master to rattle out some of the random thoughts which cross my mind like a river gushing out of the montains.
U know I earlier defined marriage as MATURITY AIDED RELATIONSHIP REQUIRING INTIMACY,ADJUSTMENTS &GUIDED EQUALITY.let me refine it 4 u.It could also b defined as MUTUALLY ASSERTING RELATIONSHIP REDEEMING INTIMACY,AFFINITY &GENDER EQUALITY.It has a deper meaning. How? I'll explain.
It is very important to understand that the basic foundation of marriage rests upon the two-way n simultaneous flow of positive emotions depicting mutual care, concern,respect n sacrifice.U can not get away from this.Physical infatuation,intellectual compatibility or even 'gender-magnetisation'can not n will not become the foundations of maritial love.At best they are biological & psychological parameters explaining behavioural patterns of similiar human beings,albiet of different genders.There is a difference between various kinds of love.Pre-maritial love, whether arranged or self generated, is blind n full of formalities.It is so because u live in a world of dreams.Everything seems good.At times, people do cheat but they r abberrations.Such love will not last long.It will not lead to union of two minds- the ultimate goal of love.Similarly, if either of the two, cheats post-marriage, it will lead to maritial dischord,disharmony n friction.Post-maritial love demands true relationship because it is a real world.Niether of the partner can afford to show neglect &lack of attention towards eah other.
Sacrifice is not a one way traffic for females alone.Gents too will have to forgo a lot of pre-maritial activities if the love has to strengthen its bonding.Both must operate with open,receptive n pious mind to reinforce the moorings of love. THERE FORE ONE MUST NOTE THAT LOVE DEMANDS FROM THE PARTNERS PIETY OF THE MIND,FRANKNESS OF VIEWS N RIGHTEOUSNESS OF SELF CONDUCT.Love ,more so post-marriage,needs sanctity of conduct n purity of trust. This makes the relationship mutually assertive.It makes them adjust to each other freely. The leading gesture is voluntary suurender to each other or what u call intimacy.Both treat each other at par- a guided equality. This is the type of love which welds the two into a 'MADE-FOR-EACH-OTHER-PRODUCT' which empowers them collectively or singly to weather all social storms that rage in their lives or in the society.They ,thus acquire the capability to fulfil their social contract.And the big question. What is it?
Hold ur horses. It is not what u folks think.No, i'm not talking about social restrictions & social responsibilities.All of u r widely off the mark.Should I enunciate now or let it b in the next session.That is better.
OK Bye & tons of Love to all four.
PAPA
Dad's Wisdom - Part 2
2nd in a series of mail sent by Dad...
Hi kids!
I m back on the air.How do u feel? U c last time I signed off with a very subtle glimpses of social contract.Ok. What's it? U know Marriage can also b defined as:-
Maturity Aided Relationship Requiring Intimacy, Adjustments & Guided Equality
(M A R R I A G E )
This is what it sums up my 30 years of experience.
Ok. Have u read the book, "MEN R FROM MARS;WOMEN R FROM VENUS" by John Gray. If u haven't, better get hold of a copy & go thru this.It is a must both for a man n a woman who r getting married.It will give u an insight into the way men n women behave after marriage.It talks about as to how the basic cause of conflict between the two already exists, because anatomically, physically, psychologically n intellectually they r different.Thus,there ought to exist a chasm in their perceptions as they r governed by different mental processes.Both have strong inclinations towards their acquired attributes.
So,they think differently. It is natural.U don't need " UNIFIED THEORY" to explain this.
No, u don't need to pull ur hairs too. I m getting to the point.Simply put, if there is a different way of a thought process as a compulsive necessity, then, there would b a difference of opinion too.Right.This difference is the anti-dote of mental harmony. It seeds anger,frustration n distust culminating into mental n physical discomfiture.It breaks all communications and conflict begins.To avoid this conflict the duo needs a strong bonding of love.
Love leads both of them to minimise the difference of opinion; control the contours of self acclaimed righteousness and acquire the ability to telepahically read each oter's mind.When this happens they both merge into one another.They achieve the emotinal bonding which exhorts them to live 'by', 'for' n 'of' each other.Two individuals thus live ovlivious of others.But u r not alone on this earth.There r many others.U have to adhere to the social norms of conduct. U r not in the animal kingdom of the jungle.To live in the society in an honourable ,dignified n a self respect manner the two have to convert the 'emotive contract' into a 'social contract'.That is marriage. It implies couple lives by the honour code of the society.So, what is that honour code, which is binding?
I tell u I don't want to further bore u with the honour code of contact of the society, at this stage.
First of all I want u both to strengthen ur emotive contract by reading the book- "Men r from Mars; Women r from Venus" .Do that. It is a very interestin book.It will demolish ur self created walls of protection against each other, which u perhaps do not urself know n understand today. It is the sub conscious mind whih does it.Once u have demolished the walls u will become "MADE FOR EACH OTHER".Having that u will better understand ur social contract.Because people do not attain this it leads to maritial discord while carrying out social contract.
'Made For Each Other'tag will create mutual confidence, understanding,trust n faith in each other,which removes all doubts on trivial issues. Ok ,I 'll leave it at that. Next session I will talk of the nature of social contract.Bye & So long.
Tons of love.
PAPA
Hi kids!
I m back on the air.How do u feel? U c last time I signed off with a very subtle glimpses of social contract.Ok. What's it? U know Marriage can also b defined as:-
Maturity Aided Relationship Requiring Intimacy, Adjustments & Guided Equality
(M A R R I A G E )
This is what it sums up my 30 years of experience.
Ok. Have u read the book, "MEN R FROM MARS;WOMEN R FROM VENUS" by John Gray. If u haven't, better get hold of a copy & go thru this.It is a must both for a man n a woman who r getting married.It will give u an insight into the way men n women behave after marriage.It talks about as to how the basic cause of conflict between the two already exists, because anatomically, physically, psychologically n intellectually they r different.Thus,there ought to exist a chasm in their perceptions as they r governed by different mental processes.Both have strong inclinations towards their acquired attributes.
So,they think differently. It is natural.U don't need " UNIFIED THEORY" to explain this.
No, u don't need to pull ur hairs too. I m getting to the point.Simply put, if there is a different way of a thought process as a compulsive necessity, then, there would b a difference of opinion too.Right.This difference is the anti-dote of mental harmony. It seeds anger,frustration n distust culminating into mental n physical discomfiture.It breaks all communications and conflict begins.To avoid this conflict the duo needs a strong bonding of love.
Love leads both of them to minimise the difference of opinion; control the contours of self acclaimed righteousness and acquire the ability to telepahically read each oter's mind.When this happens they both merge into one another.They achieve the emotinal bonding which exhorts them to live 'by', 'for' n 'of' each other.Two individuals thus live ovlivious of others.But u r not alone on this earth.There r many others.U have to adhere to the social norms of conduct. U r not in the animal kingdom of the jungle.To live in the society in an honourable ,dignified n a self respect manner the two have to convert the 'emotive contract' into a 'social contract'.That is marriage. It implies couple lives by the honour code of the society.So, what is that honour code, which is binding?
I tell u I don't want to further bore u with the honour code of contact of the society, at this stage.
First of all I want u both to strengthen ur emotive contract by reading the book- "Men r from Mars; Women r from Venus" .Do that. It is a very interestin book.It will demolish ur self created walls of protection against each other, which u perhaps do not urself know n understand today. It is the sub conscious mind whih does it.Once u have demolished the walls u will become "MADE FOR EACH OTHER".Having that u will better understand ur social contract.Because people do not attain this it leads to maritial discord while carrying out social contract.
'Made For Each Other'tag will create mutual confidence, understanding,trust n faith in each other,which removes all doubts on trivial issues. Ok ,I 'll leave it at that. Next session I will talk of the nature of social contract.Bye & So long.
Tons of love.
PAPA
Dad's Wisdom - Part 1
Part one of series of email Dad sent to me; ketki; mishy & vikas just before my marriage.
Hullo,how r u both? I was free, I thought of engaging u both in a cerberal marathon to c if u can fathom the depth of the end product of the mysterious game of two nouns using superlatives and adjectives to define the rising vibrations and speeding gyrations at the end of the boundaries of the black-hole of human anatomy.And Stephen Hawking says time & space merge at the boundaries of the black holes. It implies there is no beginning & no end.In other words between the two boundaries,time moves in a cyclical fashion.Simply put time repeats,It does not move on like an arrow.But that is for the universe. What is the answer to my problem.Do u know what I m talking about? Perhaps yes ,perhaps no.U see U will have to dive deeper into the emotive texture of terra incognita of a wonderful creation of the god's leisure time activities.OK I will explain.
Please draw a straight line between two objects,Say, 'L' &'E'.Lets also assume L & E lie at a distance of 'D'kms.Further, an object 'O' moves
between them at a constant Velocity of 'V' kph. Now
u c both ends r only connected by object O. How much time O will take to cover distance D? I know u both r science students U will hurriedly say D/V = 'T'
time.No u r badly off the mark. It is not a mathematical problem.U c u will have to take into account various 'Variables'e.g. Nature of three objects, attitude of 'O' ,emotional vibrations of 'L'&'E';external factors affecting movement etc etc.So u see this is where Einstien's theory of relativity comes handy. And Stephen Hawking too falls upon this theory to seek answer to his querry on elusive "UNIFIED THEORY".He perhaps now realises there was 'NO Big-Bang'. Maybe that's why he has reached the dead end of all questions, if only he can find the 'Unified Theory'.Perhaps taking a cue from him Francis Fukuyama has gone on to suggest 'The End of History' In other words there is nothing more to be discovered or invented. In otherwords human advancement has reached its pinnacle.But that is not the answer to our problem.
Ok let me put it this way.There is no knowing the answer when u r at the start point.How can u know the result without going thru the examination? This is the Indian Philosphy.U dont know the depth of the river by standing at its banks. U c:-
"Straws like errors upon the surface flow-
One who is in search of truth must dive below."
OR
"JIN DHUNDA TIN PAYA GEHRE PANI PAITH-
MAIYAN BAPURA DHUNDAN RAHA, RAHA KINARE BAITH"
This is what I have been saying. U have reached the start point of the destination of love.As u cross the thershold the road will move zig zag.Love is a culmination of affinity,affection and infatuation.Marriage is a combination of love, anxiety and emotive togetherness. It needs adjustments, compromises and understanding of each other.Love is blind.Marriage is real.Love is an emotive contract between two individuals and it has no social responsibilities.Marriage is a social contract full of committments, acountabilities and responsibilities.There is a big difference between dreams and reality.Both of u r now knocking at the doors of the latter, I thought I will give u some tips. Tha in the next missive .Enough for the first time. Luv n bye.
Hullo,how r u both? I was free, I thought of engaging u both in a cerberal marathon to c if u can fathom the depth of the end product of the mysterious game of two nouns using superlatives and adjectives to define the rising vibrations and speeding gyrations at the end of the boundaries of the black-hole of human anatomy.And Stephen Hawking says time & space merge at the boundaries of the black holes. It implies there is no beginning & no end.In other words between the two boundaries,time moves in a cyclical fashion.Simply put time repeats,It does not move on like an arrow.But that is for the universe. What is the answer to my problem.Do u know what I m talking about? Perhaps yes ,perhaps no.U see U will have to dive deeper into the emotive texture of terra incognita of a wonderful creation of the god's leisure time activities.OK I will explain.
Please draw a straight line between two objects,Say, 'L' &'E'.Lets also assume L & E lie at a distance of 'D'kms.Further, an object 'O' moves
between them at a constant Velocity of 'V' kph. Now
u c both ends r only connected by object O. How much time O will take to cover distance D? I know u both r science students U will hurriedly say D/V = 'T'
time.No u r badly off the mark. It is not a mathematical problem.U c u will have to take into account various 'Variables'e.g. Nature of three objects, attitude of 'O' ,emotional vibrations of 'L'&'E';external factors affecting movement etc etc.So u see this is where Einstien's theory of relativity comes handy. And Stephen Hawking too falls upon this theory to seek answer to his querry on elusive "UNIFIED THEORY".He perhaps now realises there was 'NO Big-Bang'. Maybe that's why he has reached the dead end of all questions, if only he can find the 'Unified Theory'.Perhaps taking a cue from him Francis Fukuyama has gone on to suggest 'The End of History' In other words there is nothing more to be discovered or invented. In otherwords human advancement has reached its pinnacle.But that is not the answer to our problem.
Ok let me put it this way.There is no knowing the answer when u r at the start point.How can u know the result without going thru the examination? This is the Indian Philosphy.U dont know the depth of the river by standing at its banks. U c:-
"Straws like errors upon the surface flow-
One who is in search of truth must dive below."
OR
"JIN DHUNDA TIN PAYA GEHRE PANI PAITH-
MAIYAN BAPURA DHUNDAN RAHA, RAHA KINARE BAITH"
This is what I have been saying. U have reached the start point of the destination of love.As u cross the thershold the road will move zig zag.Love is a culmination of affinity,affection and infatuation.Marriage is a combination of love, anxiety and emotive togetherness. It needs adjustments, compromises and understanding of each other.Love is blind.Marriage is real.Love is an emotive contract between two individuals and it has no social responsibilities.Marriage is a social contract full of committments, acountabilities and responsibilities.There is a big difference between dreams and reality.Both of u r now knocking at the doors of the latter, I thought I will give u some tips. Tha in the next missive .Enough for the first time. Luv n bye.
Thursday, April 6, 2006
National Geographic's Secret Bible Week
National Geographic (India) is running Secret Bible Week every week night at 9:00 PM. Today is the last day of the series. I think DaVinci Code has re-ignited the interest in Bible. The movie based on the book is also releasing this summer.
National Geographic will also be telecasting the Gospel of Judas on Sunday. I plan to catch that having missed most of the series telecasted from Monday to Thursday. There are also attempts being made to publish the gospel. I think the show on Sunday is going to be interesting.
National Geographic will also be telecasting the Gospel of Judas on Sunday. I plan to catch that having missed most of the series telecasted from Monday to Thursday. There are also attempts being made to publish the gospel. I think the show on Sunday is going to be interesting.
Global Warming
I am currently reading Michael Crichton's "State of Fear". I have read through first 50 pages and the book is about environmental disasters. Though the book is a work of fiction Crichton does mention that all the foot notes are true.
Last night while reading the book I learnt that the 1st half of 20th century was warmer than 2nd half of 20th century in Greenland & Iceland. The glaciers in Greenland & Iceland are increasing rapidly. This runs contrary to everything we read about Global Warming in the media.
That was what I read last night and today I open my mail box and there is this article about Time Magazine's cover story. Sheer coincidence.
The article starts with "Polar Ice Caps Are Melting Faster Than Ever... More And More Land Is Being Devastated By Drought... Rising Waters Are Drowning Low-Lying Communities... By Any Measure, Earth Is At ... The Tipping Point. The climate is crashing, and global warming is to blame."
And this is what it has to say about Greenland's glacier:
"But glaciers, it turns out, can move with surprising speed, and so can nature. What few people reckoned on was that global climate systems are booby-trapped with tipping points and feedback loops, thresholds past which the slow creep of environmental decay gives way to sudden and self-perpetuating collapse. Pump enough CO2 into the sky, and that last part per million of greenhouse gas behaves like the 212th degree Fahrenheit that turns a pot of hot water into a plume of billowing steam. Melt enough Greenland ice, and you reach the point at which you're not simply dripping meltwater into the sea but dumping whole glaciers. By one recent measure, several Greenland ice sheets have doubled their rate of slide, and just last week the journal Science published a study suggesting that by the end of the century, the world could be locked in to an eventual rise in sea levels of as much as 20 ft. Nature, it seems, has finally got a bellyful of us."
I may be mis-interpreting things but on one hand I am reading that the glaciers are increasing and on other hand I am being told that glacier's are melting. Take your pick.
I guess with all complicated issues there is no correct side just statistics :)
Last night while reading the book I learnt that the 1st half of 20th century was warmer than 2nd half of 20th century in Greenland & Iceland. The glaciers in Greenland & Iceland are increasing rapidly. This runs contrary to everything we read about Global Warming in the media.
That was what I read last night and today I open my mail box and there is this article about Time Magazine's cover story. Sheer coincidence.
The article starts with "Polar Ice Caps Are Melting Faster Than Ever... More And More Land Is Being Devastated By Drought... Rising Waters Are Drowning Low-Lying Communities... By Any Measure, Earth Is At ... The Tipping Point. The climate is crashing, and global warming is to blame."
And this is what it has to say about Greenland's glacier:
"But glaciers, it turns out, can move with surprising speed, and so can nature. What few people reckoned on was that global climate systems are booby-trapped with tipping points and feedback loops, thresholds past which the slow creep of environmental decay gives way to sudden and self-perpetuating collapse. Pump enough CO2 into the sky, and that last part per million of greenhouse gas behaves like the 212th degree Fahrenheit that turns a pot of hot water into a plume of billowing steam. Melt enough Greenland ice, and you reach the point at which you're not simply dripping meltwater into the sea but dumping whole glaciers. By one recent measure, several Greenland ice sheets have doubled their rate of slide, and just last week the journal Science published a study suggesting that by the end of the century, the world could be locked in to an eventual rise in sea levels of as much as 20 ft. Nature, it seems, has finally got a bellyful of us."
I may be mis-interpreting things but on one hand I am reading that the glaciers are increasing and on other hand I am being told that glacier's are melting. Take your pick.
I guess with all complicated issues there is no correct side just statistics :)
MBA Salary
Front page news on Times of India, Pune edition was about the salary of ISB graduates. It has breached the 1 crore barrier and is the highest amongst all MBA grads (including IIMs).
A recent issue of Businessweek magazine asks the question: 'Is the MBA overrated?' The magazine studied the five highest-paid executives at each of the S & P 100 companies in 2004 and found that only one out of three had an MBA. Of the MBAs, only half went to top 10 ranked B-schools.
Graduate students of public health at Harvard University were asked: 'Which world would you prefer (prices remaining the same)? You get $50,000 a year and others get half that. You get $ 1,00,000 a year and others get double of that.'A majority of people preferred the first scenario where they were relatively 'poorer' but better off than their peers. That is why hearing about these tall salaries makes the aam junta uncomfortable. It does not matter how well you are doing, when someone is doing a lot better than you.
A recent issue of Businessweek magazine asks the question: 'Is the MBA overrated?' The magazine studied the five highest-paid executives at each of the S & P 100 companies in 2004 and found that only one out of three had an MBA. Of the MBAs, only half went to top 10 ranked B-schools.
Graduate students of public health at Harvard University were asked: 'Which world would you prefer (prices remaining the same)? You get $50,000 a year and others get half that. You get $ 1,00,000 a year and others get double of that.'A majority of people preferred the first scenario where they were relatively 'poorer' but better off than their peers. That is why hearing about these tall salaries makes the aam junta uncomfortable. It does not matter how well you are doing, when someone is doing a lot better than you.
India's Euphoric Market
Read the article on the net. The article is dated April 1, 2006.
"...India is taking steps to convert its own currency. Last month, Mumbai charged India's central bank and its finance ministry with producing a "road map" to fuller convertibility of the rupee. That has sent the already hot Indian stock market even higher. Thus, the Mumbai Sensitives are up 20% to 11,357 this year, just off the all-time high, as global investors scarf up India's largest, most liquid names. India is viewed as a stronger story than China, with a more developed consumer market and middle class, a rule of law and a lengthy history of entrepreneurship."
"...the star performers among the world's auto shares is Tata Motors, whose market value is now $7.9 billion -- two-thirds that of General Motors (GM)..."
"...India is taking steps to convert its own currency. Last month, Mumbai charged India's central bank and its finance ministry with producing a "road map" to fuller convertibility of the rupee. That has sent the already hot Indian stock market even higher. Thus, the Mumbai Sensitives are up 20% to 11,357 this year, just off the all-time high, as global investors scarf up India's largest, most liquid names. India is viewed as a stronger story than China, with a more developed consumer market and middle class, a rule of law and a lengthy history of entrepreneurship."
"...the star performers among the world's auto shares is Tata Motors, whose market value is now $7.9 billion -- two-thirds that of General Motors (GM)..."
Interesting Quote
October. This is one of the peculiarly dangerous months to speculate in stocks in. The others are July, January, September, April, November, May, March, June, December, August, and February.
-- Mark Twain
-- Mark Twain
Fibonacci Numbers
Fibonacci numbers are the result of work by Leonardo Fibonacci in the early 1200's while studying the Great Pyramid of Gizeh. The Fibonacci series is a numerical sequence comprised of adding the previous numbers together, i.e.,
(1,2,3,5,8,13,21,34,55,89,144,233 etc..)
An interesting property of these numbers is that as the series proceeds, any given number is 1.618 times the preceding number and 0.618% of the next number.
(34/55 = 55/89 = 144/233 =0.618) (55/34 =89/55 =233/144 =1.618), and 1.618 =1/0.618.
This properties of the Fibonacci series occur throughout nature, science and math and is the number 0.618 is often referred to as the "golden ratio" as it is the root of the following polynomial x^2+x-1=0 which can be rearranged to x= 1/(1+x). So that's were the fib # 0.618 comes from.
This number also figures prominently in the Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown
The other fibs 0.382 and 0.5 are commonly used in technical analysis of stocks. They have a less impressive background but are just as powerful in Technical analysis.
0.382=(1-.618)=(0.618*0.618) and 0.5 is the mean of the two numbers.
Other neat fib facts
(0.618*(1+0.618)=1
(0.382*(1+.618))=0.618
(1,2,3,5,8,13,21,34,55,89,144,233 etc..)
An interesting property of these numbers is that as the series proceeds, any given number is 1.618 times the preceding number and 0.618% of the next number.
(34/55 = 55/89 = 144/233 =0.618) (55/34 =89/55 =233/144 =1.618), and 1.618 =1/0.618.
This properties of the Fibonacci series occur throughout nature, science and math and is the number 0.618 is often referred to as the "golden ratio" as it is the root of the following polynomial x^2+x-1=0 which can be rearranged to x= 1/(1+x). So that's were the fib # 0.618 comes from.
This number also figures prominently in the Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown
The other fibs 0.382 and 0.5 are commonly used in technical analysis of stocks. They have a less impressive background but are just as powerful in Technical analysis.
0.382=(1-.618)=(0.618*0.618) and 0.5 is the mean of the two numbers.
Other neat fib facts
(0.618*(1+0.618)=1
(0.382*(1+.618))=0.618
I know what you are thinking
1. Think of a number... any number
2. Add 10 to it
3. Multiply by 4
4. Subtract 10
5. Divide by 2
6. Subtract 5
7. Divide by 2
8. Subtract original number
9. Add 20
10. Multiply by 4
You are left with 100 :)
The basics of any trick like this is to get rid of unknown. Once that is done everything else is just a show. In the example above the unknown (your number at line 1) is cancels itself (in line 8). What we are left with is fairly simple arthematics.
These problems can be made as long as possible or as short as possible. The shortest being:
1. Think of a number
2. Subtract the number from it self
You are left with zero :)
Another shortest one
1. Think of a number (other than zero)
2. Divide it by itself
You are left with one :)
2. Add 10 to it
3. Multiply by 4
4. Subtract 10
5. Divide by 2
6. Subtract 5
7. Divide by 2
8. Subtract original number
9. Add 20
10. Multiply by 4
You are left with 100 :)
The basics of any trick like this is to get rid of unknown. Once that is done everything else is just a show. In the example above the unknown (your number at line 1) is cancels itself (in line 8). What we are left with is fairly simple arthematics.
These problems can be made as long as possible or as short as possible. The shortest being:
1. Think of a number
2. Subtract the number from it self
You are left with zero :)
Another shortest one
1. Think of a number (other than zero)
2. Divide it by itself
You are left with one :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)