This is going to be a pretty small post - just a musing. Been working with photoshop a lot lately, and I've noticed something. The range of colours that lie between purples and cyans is defined as blue. The range of colours that lie between yellow and cyans are defined as green. Both of these ranges are fairly large. However, when it comes to Red, the range is very small. A little one way and you get pinks. A little the other way, and you get oranges. Same with Yellow - a very small range of colours is yellow. I'm talking only about these four colours because RBY are the three primary colours, and RGB is a popular method of colour representation.
Any ideas?
Tuesday, 21 December 2010
Tuesday, 14 December 2010
Lamenessness
[code in hypothetical language]
#define koi_humse 1main(){int i;boolean bool;for(i=0;i less than 13; i++){ printf("Mastana\n");}char mera[7]="Deewana";if(bool==koi_humse) exit(1);}[end code]
[puts on cool sunglasses]
Loop tera, Mastana,
Char mera, Deewana,
Bool koi humse na ho jaaye!
Sorry. I really am.
Saturday, 4 December 2010
Monday, 29 November 2010
Notes for the COAM External
Hi,
I doubt you'll read this, but it must be written. Here are some notes that should help the next time you take a viva:
1. Why don't people use Pentium 5, Pentium 6 etc?
Probably because they don't exist. That must be most of the reason.
2. Today's processors don't follow Moore's law.
Yes, they do. Your insistence that they don't does not change reality.
3. Dual core processors are the latest innovation - released 1-2 years ago.
No. There have been dual core processors at least since 2001.
4. Shrinking the manufacturing process increases total power consumption.
This is just stupid. It increases idle power consumption, not total.
5. Process shrinks are the only way to increase performance.
It's one way. There are many others.
6. Dual core processors exist because it's impossible to increase the clocks on a single core beyond a limit.
It can be done, refer Pentium 4. Dual cores exist because they're better at handling multitasking.
7. Pentium 4 dual core is the latest processor from Intel.
The only thing good about this is that you haven't seen Intel's garbage advertisements for the '2010 Core Processor Family'. You know what's bad? You don't read newspapers, or watch TV.
If you do read this, at least you will know that the world's changed since Ray-Bhurchandi was published. Just sayin'
I doubt you'll read this, but it must be written. Here are some notes that should help the next time you take a viva:
1. Why don't people use Pentium 5, Pentium 6 etc?
Probably because they don't exist. That must be most of the reason.
2. Today's processors don't follow Moore's law.
Yes, they do. Your insistence that they don't does not change reality.
3. Dual core processors are the latest innovation - released 1-2 years ago.
No. There have been dual core processors at least since 2001.
4. Shrinking the manufacturing process increases total power consumption.
This is just stupid. It increases idle power consumption, not total.
5. Process shrinks are the only way to increase performance.
It's one way. There are many others.
6. Dual core processors exist because it's impossible to increase the clocks on a single core beyond a limit.
It can be done, refer Pentium 4. Dual cores exist because they're better at handling multitasking.
7. Pentium 4 dual core is the latest processor from Intel.
The only thing good about this is that you haven't seen Intel's garbage advertisements for the '2010 Core Processor Family'. You know what's bad? You don't read newspapers, or watch TV.
If you do read this, at least you will know that the world's changed since Ray-Bhurchandi was published. Just sayin'
Tuesday, 2 November 2010
Self help
I saddens me greatly that there are people in this world who have read self help books, or spiritual types of books, and not read The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. Everyone knows that H2G2 has the biggest self help gyaan in the galaxy - 'Don't Panic' (in large, friendly letters, no less). What greater spiritual meaning can there be than 42, the answer to life, the universe and everything?
If you are a member of this group of people, please, please, remedy the situation by reading H2G2 as soon as possible. It's the best self help you could possibly get!
If you are a member of this group of people, please, please, remedy the situation by reading H2G2 as soon as possible. It's the best self help you could possibly get!
Sunday, 3 October 2010
(Dis)Belief
The Ayodhya verdict has come, and I've finally been able to have a decent look at it. I like the fact that the court wants an amicable solution that does not hurt any particular religion. There is one thing that riles me - the fact that the HC seems to have implicitly accepted (if not declared) that the Babri Masjid dome was the birthplace of Ram.
Too many questions come to mind here. But basically, how can anyone prove beyond doubt that Ram was born at that exact location? Does some scripture mention exact geographic co-ordinates? Just because people believe something doesn't mean it's true. If that's how the judgement is going to work, let me stake a claim too.
I claim, nay, I believe that the Flying Spaghetti Monster was born at the exact same location that is the claimed birthplace of Ram. Further, my scriptures say that FSM was born there before Ram. That is where his noodly appendage first touched man. I therefore stake claim to the disputed land.
The land must be handed over to the Church of Pastafarianism and we must be allowed to build a monument (probably spaghetti and meatballs) to FSM. According to the HC, this belief is all I need to 'prove' that FSM was indeed born there. I have not furnished a shred of evidence (because FSM was born thousands of years ago, before Ram), but my claim is as valid as the claim for a Temple there. Ridiculous.
There is documented proof of a Mosque there. There is specious evidence (?), if any, of a temple or of anyone being born there. So lets go by the evidence - build a Mosque there. Build a temple adjacent to it. And lets live peacefully ever after, not letting idiot politicians divide us again.
Too many questions come to mind here. But basically, how can anyone prove beyond doubt that Ram was born at that exact location? Does some scripture mention exact geographic co-ordinates? Just because people believe something doesn't mean it's true. If that's how the judgement is going to work, let me stake a claim too.
I claim, nay, I believe that the Flying Spaghetti Monster was born at the exact same location that is the claimed birthplace of Ram. Further, my scriptures say that FSM was born there before Ram. That is where his noodly appendage first touched man. I therefore stake claim to the disputed land.
The land must be handed over to the Church of Pastafarianism and we must be allowed to build a monument (probably spaghetti and meatballs) to FSM. According to the HC, this belief is all I need to 'prove' that FSM was indeed born there. I have not furnished a shred of evidence (because FSM was born thousands of years ago, before Ram), but my claim is as valid as the claim for a Temple there. Ridiculous.
There is documented proof of a Mosque there. There is specious evidence (?), if any, of a temple or of anyone being born there. So lets go by the evidence - build a Mosque there. Build a temple adjacent to it. And lets live peacefully ever after, not letting idiot politicians divide us again.
Sunday, 19 September 2010
All wrong!
I was searching google for the term 'books'. Google's collection of Related Searches includes 'Twilight books'.
This is wrong! Books and twilight are not related, except by the loosest definition of the word book.
This is wrong! Books and twilight are not related, except by the loosest definition of the word book.
Thursday, 16 September 2010
Owned!
Cutting sarcasm is a way of life. Circuitous speech is the only way I can talk any more. It's almost like I've forgotten how to talk 'normally'. The only rule is that if you're going dish it out, you should also be willing to take it in spirit.
I'm sitting in the car with my mum, she's driving. It's drizzling, and a film of mist begins to develop on the windscreen. She turns on the air conditioner to get rid of that mist. A few minutes later, the mist begins to develop again.
Me: You should turn up the AC, that should fix it.
Mum: The mist is on the outside, not the inside.
Me: Yeah, right. Just turn up the AC, you'll see.
Mum:
Then she flicks the wiper switch, and the mist gets cleaned up in one swipe of the wiper blades.
Now I'm silenced. Well play, mum!
I'm sitting in the car with my mum, she's driving. It's drizzling, and a film of mist begins to develop on the windscreen. She turns on the air conditioner to get rid of that mist. A few minutes later, the mist begins to develop again.
Me: You should turn up the AC, that should fix it.
Mum: The mist is on the outside, not the inside.
Me: Yeah, right. Just turn up the AC, you'll see.
Mum:
Then she flicks the wiper switch, and the mist gets cleaned up in one swipe of the wiper blades.
Now I'm silenced. Well play, mum!
Monday, 6 September 2010
Saturday, 4 September 2010
Procreation
This is a response to this blog post:
Existence
Please give that a read before you continue reading this.
(No, seriously!)
Now that you've read it, a little recap - Abhishek asks why people want to have children. I present my response to this question:
1. Because: They like children
Individual choice stands for a lot, and people like many things that make no sense to other people. There will also be people who must be in a relationship. Others will find that confounding. People want to have children, so they will.
2. Because: The BPL argument
A history teacher once put forward this argument to explain why you tend to see really poor people have large families. Poor people think that raising more children means there will be more people to support the family, and themselves. The said teacher had also, quite rightly pointed out - if there must be x number of children born every day, let them be born into a family that can support the children. The BPL argument is inherently flawed, but it is true.
3. Because: Cogito Ergo Sum
Man thinks, therefore he is. I like to believe that one of the most fundamental needs of the human race is the desire to gain knowledge. Knowledge comes from new ideas. New ideas cannot come about from an ageing, dying race of people. New ideas need new people - a new generation.
4. Because: Legacy
Another fundamental desire of the human race is to leave behind a legacy. Everyone wants to die knowing that someone, somewhere will remember them. For great luminaries of any generation, this is easy - their acts leave behind a legacy that will remind future generations of them. An ordinary person (by virtue of being ordinary) does not have access to this sort of legacy. Procreation is another way of being remembered. Your children will remember you. It's not as great a legacy as that left behind by a great scientist, but it's better than none.
5. Because: Anarchy
One of the reasons that the world at least attempts to control its excesses is so that something maybe left behind for the future generations. If the whole world were to go completely, and irreversibly sterile - it would be worse for the planet than it is now. Today you try to minimise using a fuel guzzling SUV because you want to limit the harm you cause to the planet. If there is no future, you might as well trash the planet as you go. And make no mistake - that is exactly what will happen. 2000 years of (recent) history point out that humanity is not a race well suited to compromise and agreement.
6. Because: It makes no difference if Humanity dies out
If the human race dies out, you only buy the planet a few million years. It's a seemingly long time, but not very long when compared to the age of the earth. A new dominant species will rise, and will eventually behave the same as we do now.
7. Because: Natural Selection
Natural selection is the reason why we're all here today. Natural selection exists on simple principles - the race must go one, and only the best of the race must go on. Consider a situation where the six billion people of the world have agreed to not reproduce. There will be people who will circumvent this agreement- let us say 2 million people, giving birth to a million babies. You can act all hurt about these people breaking the pact, but it will actually be Natural Selection acting in its best interests- the genes of those unfit to carry on the race, the 5.998 billion who abstained, are eliminated from the gene pool. The remaining million face possibly the best quality of life in modern history.
Finally - Abhishek says, "We exist, therefore, we protect existence." This is not a unique thought. It's just a rewording of natural selection. Every species exists to protect its own existence. There is nothing special about humans in this respect - it is a part of the instinct that every animal shares.
Those are some reasons for people to have babies. I don't agree with all of them, just some of them.
Existence
Please give that a read before you continue reading this.
(No, seriously!)
Now that you've read it, a little recap - Abhishek asks why people want to have children. I present my response to this question:
1. Because: They like children
Individual choice stands for a lot, and people like many things that make no sense to other people. There will also be people who must be in a relationship. Others will find that confounding. People want to have children, so they will.
2. Because: The BPL argument
A history teacher once put forward this argument to explain why you tend to see really poor people have large families. Poor people think that raising more children means there will be more people to support the family, and themselves. The said teacher had also, quite rightly pointed out - if there must be x number of children born every day, let them be born into a family that can support the children. The BPL argument is inherently flawed, but it is true.
3. Because: Cogito Ergo Sum
Man thinks, therefore he is. I like to believe that one of the most fundamental needs of the human race is the desire to gain knowledge. Knowledge comes from new ideas. New ideas cannot come about from an ageing, dying race of people. New ideas need new people - a new generation.
4. Because: Legacy
Another fundamental desire of the human race is to leave behind a legacy. Everyone wants to die knowing that someone, somewhere will remember them. For great luminaries of any generation, this is easy - their acts leave behind a legacy that will remind future generations of them. An ordinary person (by virtue of being ordinary) does not have access to this sort of legacy. Procreation is another way of being remembered. Your children will remember you. It's not as great a legacy as that left behind by a great scientist, but it's better than none.
5. Because: Anarchy
One of the reasons that the world at least attempts to control its excesses is so that something maybe left behind for the future generations. If the whole world were to go completely, and irreversibly sterile - it would be worse for the planet than it is now. Today you try to minimise using a fuel guzzling SUV because you want to limit the harm you cause to the planet. If there is no future, you might as well trash the planet as you go. And make no mistake - that is exactly what will happen. 2000 years of (recent) history point out that humanity is not a race well suited to compromise and agreement.
6. Because: It makes no difference if Humanity dies out
If the human race dies out, you only buy the planet a few million years. It's a seemingly long time, but not very long when compared to the age of the earth. A new dominant species will rise, and will eventually behave the same as we do now.
7. Because: Natural Selection
Natural selection is the reason why we're all here today. Natural selection exists on simple principles - the race must go one, and only the best of the race must go on. Consider a situation where the six billion people of the world have agreed to not reproduce. There will be people who will circumvent this agreement- let us say 2 million people, giving birth to a million babies. You can act all hurt about these people breaking the pact, but it will actually be Natural Selection acting in its best interests- the genes of those unfit to carry on the race, the 5.998 billion who abstained, are eliminated from the gene pool. The remaining million face possibly the best quality of life in modern history.
Finally - Abhishek says, "We exist, therefore, we protect existence." This is not a unique thought. It's just a rewording of natural selection. Every species exists to protect its own existence. There is nothing special about humans in this respect - it is a part of the instinct that every animal shares.
Those are some reasons for people to have babies. I don't agree with all of them, just some of them.
Monday, 30 August 2010
But Why?
Pakistani cricketers leave me confused. They are, on natural talent, probably the best team in the world. And yet, their cricketers indulge in some of the most brainless behaviour you can ever see. Take Shoaib Akhtar. A brilliant natural talent, a sight to see when on form, and yet he had to go take performance enhancing drugs. Ditto Mohammad Asif. Easily one of the best pace bowlers in the world right now, and he goes and takes drugs. I don't get it. What is it that these people are trying to improve? Their speed? Swing? What exactly is the point!?
I can understand if someone mediocre like Munaf Patel decides to take performance enhancing drugs (and he hasn't, I hope). What is the justification for taking illegal drugs when you're already SO DAMN GOOD!?
And that brings me to Mohammad Amir. All of 17. Already heralded as the next great pace bowler. And then you see him indulging in spot fixing. Again, why? It's not like he is (was?) a struggling nobody who couldn't be sure of his place on the team. He was probably the first automatic selection before every match. Why risk all that for some money?
I find it very perplexing. I feel sad that the match I thought was such a brilliant marquee for the game was fixed (if even in bits). Pakistan produces such an abundance of natural talent... if only they'd think a bit, the world would be better for it.
I can understand if someone mediocre like Munaf Patel decides to take performance enhancing drugs (and he hasn't, I hope). What is the justification for taking illegal drugs when you're already SO DAMN GOOD!?
And that brings me to Mohammad Amir. All of 17. Already heralded as the next great pace bowler. And then you see him indulging in spot fixing. Again, why? It's not like he is (was?) a struggling nobody who couldn't be sure of his place on the team. He was probably the first automatic selection before every match. Why risk all that for some money?
I find it very perplexing. I feel sad that the match I thought was such a brilliant marquee for the game was fixed (if even in bits). Pakistan produces such an abundance of natural talent... if only they'd think a bit, the world would be better for it.
Sunday, 22 August 2010
Weapon of mass STFU
Are you,
tired of windows fanboys screaming that windows is stable?
tired of linux fanboys screaming that linux is stabler?
tired of linux fanboys screaming that their OS is near impossible to break?
Do you just want them to STFU?The diligent folks working at Engineers - Very Insidious Ltd (E-VIL) have come up with just the product for you! We present for you, the Destructo Drive. Masterminded by the head of E-VIL, Dr. S.H. Ravan himself, this innocent looking usb drive guarantees a system crash on any OS.
Innocent looking Drive
Just plug it in, and get ready for the fanboys to be annihilated.
Destroyer of Worlds
tired of windows fanboys screaming that windows is stable?
tired of linux fanboys screaming that linux is stabler?
tired of linux fanboys screaming that their OS is near impossible to break?
Do you just want them to STFU?The diligent folks working at Engineers - Very Insidious Ltd (E-VIL) have come up with just the product for you! We present for you, the Destructo Drive. Masterminded by the head of E-VIL, Dr. S.H. Ravan himself, this innocent looking usb drive guarantees a system crash on any OS.
Innocent looking Drive
Destroyer of WorldsThursday, 8 July 2010
Cake as a metophor for life
Just the other day, I was talking to VRD, and ended up saying that cake is a metaphor for life. It was said in jest, but come to think of it, it is true. This is because cake, like life, can be bitter, sweet, dry, awesome, horrible, cheesy, hard etc.
Like life, cake has a lot of variety. Cakes can be confusing, astounding, magnificent or boring.
Most importantly, like life...
... the cake is a lie!
Like life, cake has a lot of variety. Cakes can be confusing, astounding, magnificent or boring.
Most importantly, like life...
... the cake is a lie!
Monday, 5 July 2010
Political Statement Fail
Honestly, I can't imagine Manmohan Singh/ Sonia Gandhi reacting any differently to statements like that
Saturday, 26 June 2010
Talent
Precocious Talent in the 20th Century:
Precocious 'talent' in the 21st Century:
How sad.
(For those in the dark: Row 1: Sachin Tendulkar, Eric Clapton, Michael Jackson. Row 2: Justin Bieber, Hannah Montana, Jonas Brothers)
Precocious 'talent' in the 21st Century:
How sad.
(For those in the dark: Row 1: Sachin Tendulkar, Eric Clapton, Michael Jackson. Row 2: Justin Bieber, Hannah Montana, Jonas Brothers)
Wednesday, 9 June 2010
Reassuring - I
I'm heading home from Manmad. It's 1 AM, the train is almost two hours late. After waiting for a bit at the station, the train finally arrives. I pick up the bags and board the train. S-6 looks more like a 'General' coach, with people sleeping in the aisles. I finally get to my berth - it's a middle berth. The berth is set into place, and I'm about to lie down. I suddenly notice that one of the chains holding up the berth is not taut. The entire berth is being supported by only one chain.
It makes me a little uneasy, but since there's nothing I can do, I try to sleep. The uneasiness just won't go. I keep wondering, will a single chain safely hold up my weight? The uneasiness gives way to calculation...
Approximate oval chain links as rectangular chain links (Since I've never been able to calculate stresses in curved members with a calculator, and certainly wasn't going to succeed with mental math)
Therefore, the links can fail in shear.
Yeild Strength of Mild Steel - Approximately 200 MPa (Close enough)
Shear strength is taken to be half of the Tensile Strength - 100 MPa
Diameter of chain links - 5 mm (Measured by 'looking')
Cross sectional area - (Pi/4)*5*5 = approx 20 sq. mm (actually 19.63)
Load on chain links - 90Kg x 9.8 = approx 900N(My weight + weight of berth)
Shear stress on any chain link - 900/20 = 45MPa
Permissible Shear Stress - 100 MPa
Conclusion : The berth will not fall, even though only one chain is holding it up.
Reassured, I sleep.
It makes me a little uneasy, but since there's nothing I can do, I try to sleep. The uneasiness just won't go. I keep wondering, will a single chain safely hold up my weight? The uneasiness gives way to calculation...
Approximate oval chain links as rectangular chain links (Since I've never been able to calculate stresses in curved members with a calculator, and certainly wasn't going to succeed with mental math)
Therefore, the links can fail in shear.
Yeild Strength of Mild Steel - Approximately 200 MPa (Close enough)
Shear strength is taken to be half of the Tensile Strength - 100 MPa
Diameter of chain links - 5 mm (Measured by 'looking')
Cross sectional area - (Pi/4)*5*5 = approx 20 sq. mm (actually 19.63)
Load on chain links - 90Kg x 9.8 = approx 900N(My weight + weight of berth)
Shear stress on any chain link - 900/20 = 45MPa
Permissible Shear Stress - 100 MPa
Conclusion : The berth will not fall, even though only one chain is holding it up.
Reassured, I sleep.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)