Photo Credit; Shashca.com

BJP is not interested in rape, because they are not committed by congress. 1

BJP is not interested in rapes because they are not committed by congress.

You know what’s trending today on twitter. ‪#‎BJPstandswithrapists‬

These are the people that will make India digital.

1. Kiran Bedi — supposedly a strong proponent of safety of citizen and heralded as a pioneer of “liberalization of women” in the country and a brave lady, because she retired with a very high designation of police officer in the country.

She says >> small and insignificant RAPEs — and assaults, gets more coverage in media and they are overshadowing the issue of corruption.

Lesson; some rapes can be small. More so, BJP is not interested in rapes because they are not committed by congress. Corruption, when uttered by BJP has to be read as Congress, because that is how BJP sways its vote bank, by construing an image of Congress as an epitome of corruption in the country, while totally absolving the massive amount of corruption it has enacted in the very few years it has ruled in the country.

2. FM — is it a radio or an honorable minister, Arun Jaitley — says, one SMALL incident of rape in Delhi.

Lesson; rapes can be small, all rapes are not as important. It shall not concern us for various reason. Today India lost a very small match against australia, let’s wait for the world cup. Let’s not blast our honorable finance minister. He is only being inspirational. More…

The quality of a scientific paper … A casual reposition. Reply

The quality of a scientific paper are not ZERO if citation is zero. Perhaps we need to define two parameters, quality and significance of scientific communication. Quality; a well done research in the best traditions and methods available. Significance; the outreach of the paper to bring effect into others work and others understanding toward the subject matter.

While there will always be a downside to both parameters, citation reflects the significance (and quality as much as it correlated to significance) of a paper. More…

Socialism is no answer. Reply

Saturday, February 12, 2011 at 1:39 am UTC + 05:30

… Let’s not confuse between socialism on one hand and compassion, humanistic concerns and equitable wealth for the communities on the other hand, because of poverty as a value system. Whats poverty got to do with inaccessibility? Accessibility is such an economic luxury, but spasms* created in education and community growth, can create barriers to such luxury …

spasm; short lived and involuntary growth, sporadic growth.

Whats the population; if male and female literacy is given as percentage. Reply

May I add one more small note, see how easy it becomes to understand an “order of estimate”; A good student, that is one with a good maths background, should immediately pick up, population ~ 1.19 million. 61.26 % male. 58.04 % female. (Not only literate but total male and female). Then even, one question can be asked, what is male-female disparity, in terms of their population. (That is, without regard, to any further attributes, such as literacy numbers, or purchasing power distributions etc, which are btw non-existent variables in India, because research in India means Governmental Apathy.)

Its a slightly tricky question, if you already note, there is a mistake in the above, The % is not scaled to 100. Its an over-estimation by a factor of 1.193, and the really smart student recognizes this, (s)he doesn’t go and change all calculations. See how all numbers came just from the first few digits of the given numbers; 11,92,948 >> 1.19 million, vs over estimation factor; 1.193 (or less precise 1.19). Male: 6,12,597 >> overestimated percentage: 61.26. Female; 5,80,351 >> overestimated percentage: 58.04.

You would know they are over-estimated, because these two numbers, male and female population, while exclusive parameters, hence must add up to normal: 100 or 1.00, added up to 61.26+58.04 = 119.30, or (61.26+58.04)/100 = 119.30/100 = 1.193, do you see how easily, without doing any further adding etc, I caught the actual overestimation factor, above, to be 1.193? Cool Huh? Just from the first few numbers. If maths runs in your mind, you can do all these, if it doesn’t, but you have the right numbers, you will be led to believe nobody would catch your mistakes, and lie about the numbers. Possible. Just from the numbers as are stated, we can, catch the inconsistency, thats why maths education is important. In-fact, I committed the mistakes and wanted to catch the inconsistency, and from the calculations gradually caught it, so a more consistent picture was envisaged. More…

Mathew and anti Mathew effect. 2

I wanted to write this article, separately, as I didn’t want to break the flow of Physics arguments in the article, where this point came up.

This point was originally raised by Feynman; as far as I know. If David Mermin comes, he will stick his cotton buds, and wipe this out, and claim he said it, there is no lack of such incredible people. All he does say in that article, linked here, is so typical of plagiarists that you wouldn’t believe how murkily he dismisses Feynman as the original fellow who might have said so, “he is a great mind calculator, so nobody would ask him to shut up and calculate”.

How about nobody would think “Madonna” is a slut. A beautiful lady in the corner, well nobody would be harsh to her, such harshness would only be toward me, only I would be one to whom such a treatment can be mated, and that would be David Mermin’s famous and infamous proof and evidence of Mathew Effect of which he is apparently a victim.
If, anything, even I knew of “shut up and calculate” in my grad days, as a phrase ascribed to Feynman, in my privacy of studies, in other words never discussed with anyone, but knew of it, and grew in associating this behavioral treatment towards myself, going as far idiosyncratically, even to compare the thickness of my own hair, with Feynman’s, I can’t be Feynman, or can I be? Can “shut up and calculate” be used on any grad student or similarly placed researcher? Yes, it can be and thats the whole message, not the interpretation by the name of the city of Copenhagen. More…

सत्य कि बिबिधता सिमित हैं, यद्यपि सिर्फ एक में सीमित नहीं। Reply

बिज्ञान अक्सर परिभाषाओं के दायरे में सिमित रह जाती है क्यों कि इस से ऊपर उठना अल्बर्ट आइनस्टीन के भाषा में “बिज्ञान चमत्कार है अगर इसे कमाने कि एक पन्था से दुरी से देखा जाये तो” जैसे “पूर्ब सोम कि सत्य” जैसा प्रतीत है. यह अलग बिचारों से अलग हो जाती है, पर सत्य एक मात्र उपलब्धि न होने पर भी बहत सारे उपलब्धि भी नहीं हैं, कुछ और सीमित उपलब्धियां सत्य कि भरमाई करते हैं।

चेतन भगत के बिकने के कारण भी ढेर सारे हैं जो बिज्ञान से तालुक नहीं रखते, इसके परिभाषाओं के दायरे में, लेकिन क्या हम कह सकते हैं वो कामशास्त्र से ज्यादा महत्व रखता है? चेतन एक जातीय आशा कि कयामत से परिबंधित है, पर कामशास्त्र एक प्राचीन अतः अंतराष्ट्रीय, तथा एक कोमल भाबना कि महिमा जैसे परिकल्पनिया है. यह चेतन कि महनीयता के ऊपर प्रश्न नहीं, बल्कि सत्य कि बिबिधता के ऊपर आलोकित करने की चेष्टा है।

सत्य कि बिबिधता सिमित हैं, यद्यपि सिर्फ एक में सीमित नहीं।

सत्य अनिर्बचनिया है. यह सुन्दर भी है, शील भी है … More…