Cool Obama

Not covering his politics ... there is lots of it ... and I haven't been following it ...

This is about his cool quotient ...

Came across the piece on his physical condition in news ... here's dugout news for you ... seems like Obama is a real cool dude ... resting heart rate of 56/minute and BP of 105/62 ... both the numbers are impressive ... when Obama gets worked up both his heart rate and BP are expected to rise ... but since the rise will be from a very low base he would still remain cool for an increasing amount of (for the lack of a better word) "agitation" ... very cool thing to have if you are in a position where calm and rational thinking (of whichever shade of political thought) is extremely important ... some might say US President is a job which may not require one to have calm and rational thinking ... the previous President can be sited as a supporting artefact for this line of thinking ... leave "calm" and "rational"... he was accused of having done no thinking at all ...

Coming back to heart rates ... for comparison- an average person can expect a heart rate in the 70-80 beats/minute range ...my resting heart rate would be somewhere in the 75 to 85 beats per minute range ... and Lance Armstrong's resting heart rate would be around 32 (reported here) ... which probably explains why I haven't been winning any US President's elections or Tour de France lately...

Dead in the news

Michael Jackson .. mai-ka-lal jai-kisan (in desi jokes) ... Mikaeel ... is dead ... he died a few days back ... the whole world knew MJ ... most know about his death (its all over the media) ... many are sad ... he might even be remembered by a generation or two ...

I didn't know Michael ... and am sort of indifferent to his death ... it just makes me wonder why some immensely successful people face multiple troubles in their post-success lives ...

Hidden somewhere in the papers was news of another death ...
http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/renowned-educationist-anil-wilson-passes-away/481449/
An ex-principal of St Stephens, New Delhi had passed away ... some people people knew Anil Wilson ... most of them would be sad .... he would also be remembered by a generation or two ...

Unlike MJ's case I am not indifferent to Anil' death ....I had shared a very brief period of my life with Anil .... all of about 2 hours... when we sat in the same room.... along with 5-6 other people ... all loaded with radioactive glucose... in AIIMS ... ... All of us were in for a PET scan on 16 Oct 08 ... and though he was the known educationist ... it was I who was giving all the gyan... I was more experienced ... I had dealt with cancer for longer .... and was trying to build up some positive vibes in an otherwise gloomy room ...

anyways ...

I had wished him luck and said goodbye when I left ...

goodbye again dude ...

peace to all

Lemonade - A good use for life's lemons

some wise guy in England has set up a "young people repellent" - something called a "mosquito" - read a BBC piece about it This "mosquito" thingy emits a shrill annoying noise that is audible to only the young ... the irritating noise is supposed to keep the trouble-making teenagers and other young people away

Note: It is "SUPPOSED" to keep the young away ... but no one told the young about this supposedly intended purpose ... so, the young have put the mosquito noise to good use ... this economist piece points out

British teenagers have already shown how the table can be turned. Using mobile phones to record the silent-to-many output of the Mosquito machines they have used the sound to disrupt classes by irritating fellow students while teachers remain oblivious. And in schoolrooms, where mobiles are banned, the sound is a useful semi-private ringtone. In an already noisy world an arms race of sound is not to be welcomed.

logic of maa- bahen and other simians

For quite some time now, Bhajji and Monkeys have dominated gossip, blogs and news ... thankfully their story ended yesterday ... and in its end, it also ended up hogging max space on TV and morning news papers ... here's my take

A TOI piece suggested that Bhajji didn't racially abuse Symonds by calling him one of those-simian-species-which-should-not-be-named ... instead he was merely throwing "normal" insults on Symonds' mother ... It seems that this explanation was the clincher ... it ... along with lack of recorded proof and solid BCCI clout ... sealed the case in favor of Bhajji.

But look closely ... was the case closed in favor of Bhajji???

If we assume (as claimed by Bhajji, and not disputed by Symonds) that Symonds provoked Bhajji ... with something comparable to maa-behen ki ... then Bhajji should have fought for an equal punishment for Symonds ... Equal punishment for equal crime ... It would have been fair ... Both guys used bad language - both get fined for it ...

but now .. with only one guy punished ... Bhajji comes out of the controversy as the offending offish boor ... while Symonds is the poor sufferer ... Symonds' offensive provocation went unnoticed, while Bhajji coarseness got punished.

Obviously if we had assumed that Bhajji did intentionally call Symonds a Monkey ... then things would have fallen in the grey area ... the comments could have been found to be racially motivated - in which case Bhajji should have been punished to send out the message that society will not tolerate racial attack and abuse ... Or the comments could have been found to be of non-racially-motivated, cuss words of the saala, gadha, kutta, bunder variety ... using which, it seems, is an OK thing in todays international cricket ... and no action should have been taken

Anyways ... it is possible that Bhajji was so messed up with the racial abuse charges ... that he totally forgot to do the logical thing ... demand equal punishment for Symonds ... and with that he failed to establish, for the records, the fact that ... Symonds started it all ...

Now since we are talking about "logic" and "news" ... here's another one ...

Health Secretaries are the kind of people who should NOT be making logical mistakes ... Seems like our current one just made one -

While trying to say that the bird-flu was brought to India from Bangladesh, by illegal poultry traders (a very possible thing ... in fact most probable) he is supposed to have said this -

"If we see that the virus circulating in Bengal is the same as the Bangladeshi type, we can almost be certain that illegal trade of infected poultry from Bangladesh into India was the cause of the present outbreak. If the strains don't match, the virus may have then been brought into India by migratory birds."

how can same virus strain prove that "illegal poultry trade" is the cause of the virus spreading ??? ...

...The same set of wild migratory birds might have landed first in Bangladesh and then in Bengal to spread the same strain of H5N1 virus at both places ...

... wild birds in Bangladesh might have caught the virus and then migrated to join illegal bangladeshi bird-force in India, spreading the virus here ...

... some infected Bangladeshi chicken might have just walked over ...

there are many ways in which both the countries can end up having exactly the same virus strain ... but ... for our health secretary ... if the strains are same - illegal traders are the only ones to blame ...

His only saving grace ... he is procedurally smart ... he did what only an accomplished Indian civil servant can do ... he played it safe .. by by using an "almost" in "...we can almost be certain..." he sort of saved his a** ... that was very clever ploy... but it cannot fully hide fallacious logic ...

So that's all for today ... one should always remember that actually ... things are not all that bad ... not everything is gloomy ... and not everything needs to be logical ... so we can all chill out ... watch the news ... and enjoy

(Update 05 April 08)
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Ducks_cause_of_bird_flu_outbreaks/articleshow/2927117.cms

easy come, easy go

TATA नन्हूँ

Yesterday TATA launched its new people's car - Tata Nano ...
Here's a pic (googled out of a german website)

I just love the name "Nano" ... It sounds great ... and very importantly the actual meaning of the word ... and its popular-press usage ... both add a favorable flavor to the car ...

First on to the popular press ... "nano" is most commonly used along with "technology" in the word "nanothechnology" - the next in-thing ... the cutting edge of modern development ... the driving force of future ... nice association for a car that is touted as a paradigm shift (yes i am licensed to use the "p" word) in auto industry ... gives you the feeling that TATA Nano is capable of being the driving force for the masses that will make India's future

Not to leave the actual meaning of the word ... its a prefix that means one billionth ... with India's population being a little more than a billion ... one billionth is just the right fraction for each person and his/her car ...

Now to my favorite ... Nano sound so much like " नन्हूँ" ("nanhu") ... the everyday coo-chi-coo hindustani word that means - small and cute ... bang-on target for the car ...

nice choice of a name ... Mr Tata

(there is some discussion on small car related problems at Gokhale's blog post)

The Nobel Sherwani

The Sherwani is looking smart at the Nobel Awards Ceremony

Graceless on TV

Yesterday I spent a lot of time watching TV ... there was the T20 final and lots of bed time latter because I was tired after not eating the whole day (had a PET scan ... which required me to come empty stomach ... so hadn't eaten anything after previous night's dinner ... and since AIIMS is a "sarkaari" hospital, the scan scheduled for10 in morning actually took place at 4 in the evening ... leaving me hungry for longer than I could take)

So I was watching the TV and was stuck by total lack of grace from 2 people ... First was the Pakistani Captain ... he first thanked and then apologized to all the Muslims in the world ... I wondered why? He looked silly cause obviously all Muslims in the world had not supported his team ... infact we can do some calculations and find out his support levels ...

Here we go -

Reasonable assumptions
A> Muslims in India will support India (their own country)
B> Muslims in Bangladesh will not support Pakistan team (Bongs fought Pakis for their independence)
C> Muslims in non-cricket playing countries (like Indonesia) will not be interested in cricket and will support no one.

Now Numbers
World Muslim Population - 1500 million
Muslims in Cricket playing nations - 451 million
Muslims in Pakistan - 158 million
Muslims in India - 150 million
Muslims in Bangladesh - 135 million

Scenarios

Best Scenario for Pak Captain - All cricket interested Muslims except Indians and Bangladeshis support him (166 Million, slightly unlikely as there is no reason for all Kenyan, South African, Britisher etc etc Muslims to support Pakistan)
This translates int0 11.1% of world Muslim support and 36.8% of cricket interested Muslim support

Worst Scenario for Pak Captain - Only Pakistani Muslims support him (158 million, very likely)
This translates into 10.5% of World Muslim Support and 35% of cricket interested Muslim support

Bottom-line is that only 1 in 10 Muslims of the world would have supported him. Even in the cricket playing world only about one third Muslims would have supported him. He made a fool of himself by claiming global Muslim support. Two of my friends have written on this very topic. Samcho in his post Twenty20 and Siddhartha in his post ICC World Twenty20, Religion and myth-busting.

Now on to the second person who lacked grace ... it was Columbia University's President Lee Bollinger.... He invited Iran's president Ahmadinejad to his University and then went on to pile insults on him ... I am no fan of Ahmadinejad ... but I sincerely feel that if one invites a guest one should treat the guest in a civilized manner (if you hate someone to the limit of insulting - don't invite him in the first place) ... BBC showed the most insulting part of Bollinger's speech live ... makes me wonder if (and how much of) Ahmadinejad's speech was shown uncensored (I went to sleep after hearing Bollinger's part) ...

Reminds me of more crude behavior that I pointed out in my earlier post Saddam dead - Winners in West-Asia rejoice ... I don't expect the world to be free of crudeness ... infact crudeness adds spice to the world ... but I did expect the Presidents of a big university to be slightly better mannered

Thats all for this post ... will prolly write something when my PET Scan report comes out tomorrow.

I told you so

About a year back I wrote a protest post on this blog.
It was called Live-in, Wives, Legislation and Jail

At that time I thought that the "Domestic Violence Act" was unfair (I still do) . It (apart from its many other shortcomings) assumed that men were guilty and therefore must be punished by (pre-conviction) prison sentences imposed by their wives.

My argument, that the DV law is flawed, has been backed by this news article (to see the video click on "watch video"). The article says that the DV law is being misused- even Supreme Court thinks that the law was badly drafted.

A basic question ... Does a law become good just because it has been passed by an elected parliament ??? ... looking at the biased domestic violence law the answer seems to be - NO ... then comes the more important point ... when all laws are not good then shouldn't we stop following the "not good" ones ? (this may look like sedition to a lot of people - but it is an honest question)

You see - an impartial judiciary can ensure implementation of any law (by punishing the violators) ... India can boast of a slow, but largely impartial judiciary ... If judiciary has to implement "bad laws", it would effectively be spreading injustice (even if it has the best intentions ... because the fault lies with the law not the judiciary) ... Any law not based on time-tested and important principles like equality and assumed-innocence runs a big chance of being a "bad law"... By dishonouring the principles of equality, assumed-innocence etc, the parliament is actually exposing the common man (note the pun) to possible travesty of justice.

The onus is on the parliament - By passing good laws, they can prevent the courts from meeting out a travesty of justice ... more importantly they can prevent people (like me) from thinking "... should I even be following any of these biased rules? ..."

Greater good of people demands that the rules and laws be based upon equitable and universally accepted principles ... I think some "equitable" principals are laid out in our constitution (I know the constitution provides an exception from "equality" by saying that special rules can be made for women- making a women specific law for tackling a problem faced by both genders is plain idiotic) ... Whether these principles are "universally accepted" remains an open question (The fact is - An individual has practically no choice over his country's constitution just like she/he has no choice over her/his parents, her/his looks , religion, etc ... most people are usually happy with what they have ... the ones who are not become - whiners ... deserters ... misfits ... rebels ... revolutionaries ... pioneers ... inventors ... prophets etc)

Finally, the two things that can reduce the justifications (actually there are some good ones) for partial and biased laws are
1) A more swift, effective and impartial investigative force (can it be police?)
2) Faster justice from the courts

Saddam dead - Winners in West-Asia rejoice

Yesterday the whole world saw gruesome pictures of Saddam's assassination. I found broadcast of the pictures a disrespect to the dead. Today morning's Hindustan Times confirmed that most Indians also didn't like this version of victor's justice and its crude public broadcast.

We Indians have grown up on stories and mythologies of far more gallant treatment of the defeated. Most notable is the story about Porus, the king of Punjab(it was called something else at that time), whose army lost to Alakshendra's (Sikander). Sikandar asked Porus "how should i treat you?" and Porus is rumoured to have said " as one king treats another "...and Porus was treated like a king...his kingdom was restored (he was installed as a governor of Sikander)

Even in mythology - When Ravan was dying...Ram sent Laxman to go to the dying man and ask him for his knowledge...and when Laxman did this rudely, Rama instructs him to treat the man (guru at that point,cause he was the source of knowledge) respectfully.

No wonder Indians didn't like the circus show that is being put on by Bush/Maliki and being passed off as justice.

Interstingly the Iranian's and Israelis are rejoicing. They have their reasons too

Iran's chief enemy is gone..the men in power in today's Iraq were trained by Iran ...Shia/Persian Power has increased, Sunni/Arab power has decreased ...they have gained access to the holiest religious sites of Shias . Very importantly, they have gained a strategic significance due to which they can talk to America from a position of strength.

Israel on the other hand is happy to see the adversary who bombed them dead. One of the strongest Arab countries lies wasted. Muslim world, especially in west asia, is more polarized on shia/sunni lines and more likely to fight amongst itself than against Isreal. Americans have a ground presence in the region..another plus for Isreal.

I think Iran and Israel are rejoicing because they are the real victors of Iraq-America war.

Politics of Fear

These are very interesting googlevideo clips that were sent by my friend Jim.
They are part 1,2 and 3 of the same documentary. My guess is that copyright of these must be with BBC (or so it seems with whatever little i could see on my limited bandwidth) and also that hopefully no laws were broken when they were put at googlevideo

Part -1 Philo groundings of neo-cons and radical islamist
Part 2 - Ideologies develop,distort, but not flourish
Part 3 - The false fear

Live-in, Wives, Legislation and Jail

He: Oh Shut up! I am sick of that stupid line that you keep repeating. Can't you think of something smart to crib about.

She: You insensitive pig!

He: Bitch

She (angry): SLAP!!! (slaps him)

He (grimaces): SLAP!! (slaps her and say) next time you touch me i will break your neck.

Seems like a bad but fair domestic fight....actually its not....After Oct 25 the fight ceased to be fair.

From Oct 25 onwards, if you happen to be "He", you would have just broken the law. To be specific, you have committed "Domestic Violence" under sections 3(a) (physical abuse),3(c)(threat of physical abuse)and 3(d)(psychological/mental abuse) of THE PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT, 2005.

Your crime would be a cognizable and non-bailable offense. While "She" would have done nothing wrong (at least nothing of cognizable, non-bailable variety)

If "she" happens to be your live-in partner. She would have power to get you kicked out of your own flat (Which you were kind enough to let her share).

Worst case is, if "She" is your wife and you guys live in a joint family. Not only can she get you kicked out form the joint family home and prevent you from seeing your own kids, she can also restrain your mother and others from entering your shared bedroom

You might end up in jail for a year(apart from the Rs 20K fine). All this merely on the basis of her words (while your words do not carry the same weight...some witnesses are born truthful)

This law seems bad...actually its intent is not...it rightly wants to prevent Domestic Violence.

The law seems bad because it protects only one type of people who suffer physically, sexually, psychologically and emotionally in a domestic situations - Women.

Men can also suffer domestic violence. There is no reason to deny them protection in a domestic violence law.

We have other laws slanted against men. In India only men can be prosecuted for rape.

What happens when a woman rapes a man????

The lawmakers did not see the possibility of rape by women. That was extremely poor legislation. But the rape law was framed generations back, its mistakes can be overlooked (but must be corrected).

The Domestic Violence law is framed in today's enlightened world. I should be a progressive law - free from parochial mindsets and gender bias. Sadly, our lawmakers are still infusing a strong gender bias in laws that are better off being gender neutral.

I hope that in next election we will elect smart and unbiased representatives,who will legislate progressive laws.

Till then..Indian men better keep their wives and live-in partners happy......

Frank and Tony - Cricketing Gods

Here's one .....................When the "Rain Gods" shower their displeasure on cricket matches..............who saves the game ???

hint..... its not the players , neither the umpires, referees or the spectators

I must tell you......

The job is for two mathematician, statistician types.....whose abode is in the land of the English

Their names : "Frank Duckworth" and "Tony Lewis"

Their claim to fame: They have stated the cricketing "obvious" and then went on to give it a quantitative basis.

The obvious fact stated by Duckworth and Lewis :- The major resources needed by any team to score runs are 1) Overs, in which to score 2) The batsmen who can bat in these overs (wickets remaining)

Seems simple.. right???

Interestingly, This simple statement(and the attached tables and methods) have made Duckworth and Lewis an inalienable part of cricketing world. They decide the destiny of every team involved in an interrupted match.

This makes them "great men".. gods of the religion called cricket

History tells us this interesting fact about "great men". Most "great men" have not only stated the "obvious", but have also given some numbers and formula regarding the "obvious". Numerous people have become immortal by stating simple observations and then attaching confusing numbers to their observations. Take the case of Newton:- He first stated the obvious ("apples tend to fall on the earth") , he then went on to attach numbers/formulas with this "obvious" {9.8 m/sec,G, g, F=ma, v = ut+ 0.5 (at*at)..etc etc}

What Newton did for Physics, Duckworth/Lewis (D/L) have done for cricket. They have managed to confuse the common man.

D/L have given us formulas and tables that quantitatively link the two main batting resources- overs and wickets. They have reduced the two parameters into one - "Available run-scoring resources". Further, D/L have gone on to give the exact percentage of "available run-scoring resources" left with any team, at any stage of an innings ("stage" being defined by the remaining overs and the wickets in hand)

But how does D/L decide matches???

When rain interrupts matches, only parts of the initially available "run scoring resources" get used in the two innings (other parts get washed off).

While one team might get to use one fraction (say, only 75% of the resources) in their innings, the other team might get to use another fraction (say 50%).

It is unfair to compare the score of a team which used 50% of its resources to that of a team which used 75%.

This is where D/L come in, their method
1) Calculates the difference in available run scoring resources of the two teams
2) Adjusts for this difference, and
3) Gives a fair way of judging the winner.

Let me elaborate,

Take the example of "Team1" playing "Team2" in a one day match. Let there be two interruptions in Team1's batting and one Interruption in Team2 batting.

For Team1 -
Interruption 1 (9 overs washed when the team has played for 10 overs)
Status Interruption beginning - 1 wicket lost, 40 overs remaining - Resource avail - 84.2%
Status Interruption end - 1 wicket lost, 31 overs remaining - Resource avail - 73.2%
Resource loss = (84.2 -73.2) = 11%

Interruption 2 (i'll spare you the details) resource lost 9%

Total Resource loss (Team1) = 20%

Team1 Scores 160 Runs. As a result of rains, Team2 innings reduced to 39 overs

For Team 2

Resource loss due to shorter innings - 12%
Interruption 1 (I am sparing you the details) resources lost 18%

Total Resource loss (Team2) = 30%

Over all, Team1 had 80% resources at its disposal, while Team2 had 70% resources at its disposal.

D/L sets the new target for Team2 by reducing Team1's score in the proportion of the resources available

New Target = 160* (70/80) + 1 (plus one cause you need one more than the other team to win) = 141

If Team2 makes 141 by the end of the "reduced overs", then they win, else they lose.

This was a case when the team batting second had less resources at their disposal.

The other case is when the second batters have more resources than first batters. There is different calculation for this case - Team2 would need to score more than what Team1 scored

Lets take that case: Team1 has 70% available resources (and scores 160) while Team2 has 80% available resources

Warning: this formula has not resemblance to earlier formula
Now, Revised Target = 160 + (235(80-70)/100) + 1 = 184

Please note, in the first case, a proportionate reduction in target was done. But in the second case the "magic number" 235 was used.

D/L has funny ways.

Whatever you think of the confusing formulas, D/L have become a part of the cricketing history. A refined version of their method (which runs on computers) has been used for all interrupted international one day matches since 2002.

Congratulations Frank and Tony..

As for me.........I am looking for an "obvious" to state... I also want to find some confusing numbers behind it.