Cowboy country

Yet another action movie, about a "Suicidal mission". I watched "The expendables" recently, though it is another run-of-the-mill action movie, I did not like it much (I usually like action movies). I think my time to depart from the action movies, has come now :-). It was okay, since there are fine fight sequences, and explosion scenes which are visually good. However, the thing of "Some 5-6 US commando boys" ripping 300-400 soldiers on a "south american island", seems so trite to me. Also, the purported suicide mission where all the team comes back unscathed, no injuries, nothing.

Also, this another movie, "War of the Worlds", where the teenage son, ditches his father and sister, to "join war", against the aliens. "We should help the soldiers", he keeps on fighting with his father. And finally, when the battle is raging in front of their eyes, he runs towards it. Is it bravery? I am sure that boy did not know about "war", in the first place. Had he known, he would not have ran for it, in his adolescence. And, the father can't tell him not to!

This is too much to take for me now, come on, make movies like that, it is okay, but don't blow your own foot at war, thinking such stuff.

The last man on Earth

Looks like there is a movie called "The last man on earth" which is similar in storyline to the "I am Legend" movie. I watched it recently, and it is similar (in storyline) to the new movie. In that, a doctor (scientist) survives, and rest all become draculae. They sleep (or lay dead) at day, and roam at night. He loses his family to that "plague" which is carried over from Europe by wind.

He gets rid of them using sharp wooden cones, and burns them at a pit in the city, meant to burn bodies infected of plague. Those folks are allergic to garlic, and all usual stuff. One day, he meets a dog, that roams during day, and thinks it is not infected. But, he realizes later that it is infected, but, has the ability to roam during day. He kills it (with same wooden cone and mallet routine), and buries it. He meets another girl, who is similar, but realizes late. She comes to kill him as to preserve her own kind of folks. He cures her with the antibodies in his body.

Finally, the gang of mutated draculae comes to his place, and kills him. The heroine (cured lady) remains.

The draculae are shown as just animals, not brainy things. They, in particular, try to break-into his house, every day, just banging on the windows. They are less ferocious and gory, using the known dracula theme. However, that was enough for folks then, I guess.

The hero cures the lady towards the end, but however, why didn't he try to do that on others, is some point to think about. He mentions not having "equipment and resources", sometime in the movie, though. However, I think it is a great "original idea" shown in the movie. Without it, I would have credited it to the new movie, I guess.

The movie is similar to "I am legend" in the storyline only, I think, at least, "I am legend" is a modern adaptation of some such thing. However, there are some similarities, between the two. Hero being a scientist, his association with a dog, discovering the cure towards the end of story, someone with the cure remaining after conclusion etc... However, I guess these are basic stuff (except, may be the coincidence of dog thing) in any plot (particularly Hollywood stories :-))

However, the original idea is of that movie only (if not of something before that), definitely not "I am Legend". The idea is good, and it's a pretty fancy one. I wonder, if there is some such concept, like, "last human being" in any religions, mythological stuff. Anyway, another good movie. Did not like it as much, only because it is not that contemporary.

Concept of personal freedom and repercussions

Personal freedom is taken very heavily by the west (especially the US). I would say, it is taken a tad more seriously than needed. I am not saying to be shackled, and lose freedom, but what I am saying is that, everything has it's own costs, even freedom.

People may ask, how does freedom have a cost? People might even say that it is the thing of "not having freedom" that is costly than having freedom, which must be benign. Again, I am not saying anything like that. But, volition (the right to choose), needs to be guided, and should not be simply left to the person's perceptions (and freedom). It could be any established social system, or, even a good friend who can guide you, that guides choices. Taking personal freedom too seriously, and not heeding to anyone's (or anything's) judgment, would basically make one go in the wrong direction, most often.

One big evidence of this, in modern societies (even developing countries like India), is the number of divorcees, single parenting, rise of crimes due to bad up-bringing of kids. Now, I don't agree that divorce is a good thing, especially for the kids. (In some countries, kids have their own agendas, and do not listen to parents, even if both are them are together. However, that is a different story :-().

The person who has parted ways in the couple, is thinking of his/her own life, and his/her freedom, and not heeding anything else. This ultimately ends up bad for him/her self too. It is inevitable to have issues, when a relationship breaks up. There is no single human being, who does never feel bad in his whole life, breaking up from (at least one of) partners. Even if one such person exists, it is extremely rare, and I would like to call him/her, a devil or a dracula than a human. This is the cost that one is paying for the arbitrary volition, exercised in the past (and of course, bad society as well).

And the kids, they don't listen to the parents, even though the parents mean no harm. So much of independence in the wrong age! People talk about drugs, friends influencing kids to wrong ways etc... Why is it that the east is more tolerant to such things than the west? Because, we know when to set a bird free, and when not to. It is very bad to let them go, when their judgment is weak, and can't consider all relevant factors. This will do more evil than good. Certainly a heavy price to pay for personal freedom.

And finally, one important thing. One of the things that sets humanity apart from animals, is the ability to feel others, trust others and live by them. Instinctively, and evolutionarily, every creature is self-aware and skeptic of the environment, may it be the nature, predators or social competition from same species. However, only animals live and die like that. Humans should not.

Why shouldn't they, because instinct is in stark contrast to civilization. If humans had not thought and got organized, there would not be any social structures. Even with a large brain, if instinct dominates, then there can't be any civilization. And, having social conditions (may it be live-ins or divorces or whatever), which can bring the beast in you, are dangerous to these structures. Don't forget that these (work/religion/rulers etc...) structures are the reason why humans are able to live happily today (that includes you and me :-))

What is human life, if one does not trust another living thing? What is it, if one does not feel others? And what is a human, if he/she thinks personal ego is paramount? Do we want to live and die that way? And what is the point of forming societies, and co-existence 2000 years ago, if we are not able to let ego go off even now? Ego is part of instinct, and only humans have any opportunity to live outside the instinct. After letting it go, one would have the right freedom, that does not agree to lose, through one's inner self, rather than through the external world.

Hi all, I improved the look of Minesweeper and mazes creating program. Enjoy!

I watched this 'I am legend' recently, and I liked it. It is as close to SciFi as I have seen (apart from the aha films like Matrix etc...). After watching these Red Planets and AVPs etc..., this movie came as a welcome surprise for me. The storyline and the near-future-ness of the movie, set it apart from those. Ok, what is shown in the movie:

1. Cancer cure (feasible near-future)
2. A virus that eats cancerous cells and keeps a check on Cancer (again, feasible)
3. The virus mutates and infects under UV rays (feasible, ok).
4. The virus infects and increases the metabolism rate, forcing people to do more activity (perfectly reasonable).
5. Only some survive the effect, others die (ok, may be feasible)
6. Those folks, affected by the virus, have to do stuff at a greater rate, to survive. Their brains are useless to satisfy their instinct, which probably asks them to rip each other apart. (perfectly plausible). In order to satisfy their instincts, they stopped using brains and acting like civilized humans.

In a sentence, they are suffering from infection. This is not like those movies where, people die and become zombies. And somehow, the virus re-animates them (Very unlikely). Also, it is not like those entirely imaginative movies like, alien technologies (god knows what is the Science in showing those as SciFi), and Matrix type movies (which are great to watch, but, entirely imaginative more or less)

As an aside, the main point of Matrix story is slightly un-justified. If machines are taking energy from us, and making us live life through a program, so be it, many people would say. As the humans are living a life anyway, what is the point of trying to change it, and come to "reality" etc... Did machines kill folks, no. Did they torture us, no. All they want is our body heat, as per the movie. At least they didn't even hint about machines ditching us, and moving to an alternate power source.

This movie revolves around the near-future that gives great satisfaction to view it, and feel the idea in it. Everything in the movie is close to future, and relevant to the contemporary setting (be it social, humanity etc...). I would truly recommend it as a SciFi movie. In my opinion, SciFi movies are better that way, having an angle relevant to contemporary things, and showing somewhat imaginative (believable) SciFi. And, I liked the humanity/social angle in it as well.

There's another movie about 'human cloning' and using the clones to replace the organs of folks, who insured them (essentially killing the clones). It is called 'The island' and I liked that as well. It is contemporary and believable SciFi.

I was playing with my kid on mspaint, and discovered something nice and interesting. Can you believe it, the above image is created using mspaint, and 4 attractive colors. Do you like it? It looks very similar to those window glass art.

One more addition: Fifteen puzzle. Numbers 1 to 15 are jumbled, and one has to arrange them properly, using an empty slot.

Another addition. Jumbled pictures. Pictures are given which are jumbled, and one can re-arrange the squares into proper pictures, by swapping them. Try playing it.

Added another game, 4-in-a-row. Enjoy

Another one, "Flip and match" hidden entities. This game is available in various complexities, like easy/medium and hard, on board sizes 8*8, 10*10 and 12*12.

One more addition: Minesweeper! One can play upto 18*18 (on Firefox, and 21*21 on IE) on the space given. Enjoy. However, the algorithm can be bettered (for better boards) for sizes more than 10*10, will work on it later.

Flagging mines with right-click is not there yet.

New addition: Maze creator, a program that can create mazes (less than 100*100 dimensions). Try creating some and solving them.

Folks, try my new NumberDumber number puzzles collection. One can generate a puzzle for himself/herself to solve, or use the solver to get a solution to a known "digit arithmetic puzzle". Test your math skills.

For those of you interested in designing interior, there is a software called "Home Designer Suite", which is awesome. It can give nice images of 3-d interior, that one can design and see, by himself.

Sorry folks, I got into some Copyright issues with the originators of those interior photos, had to remove them from here. Sorry about it.

There is another small puzzle that I came up with, it is actually a trick question than a puzzle, and probably for school kids puzzles.

If you go from point A to point B (on road), by taking a right turn, and then a left turn, how do you come back from B to A? What turns will you take in order? (This can be asked as a quick reply question to folks, and see what they say? People say reverse, as in, "first left turn and then a right turn", which is wrong).

Oh my God!
What is that, Red Planet. What is it about, Science Fiction??
No way. That movie is way bad for me. I have never seen anything like that, which is called "SciFi".

I have seen bad SciFi movies, and the list is pretty long. I started with "Terminator 2" and felt pretty cool about it. I watched through Matrix and the like "alternate reality" movies, and found them great. However, we had been doing the "stereotyped Alien" for quite sometime now. We had been excusing the lack of imagination of the folks making it (alien is always almost like a human or an octopus or a lizard, nothing else). There is so much of variety of living beings on earth, don't these guys just change the "Alien" just once? And aliens are always pure evil, slimy things that kill for nothing.

And the stories never seem to end. Alien kills predator kills alien kills predator again, blah...blah...blah... In this movie, those people on the spaceship does not know that Mars has oxygen now, (just) enough so that, humans can breathe with no discomfort at all. And, the scientists who planted the algay and bugs in the first place on Mars, they did not know it. Surprise!!

For once, I got serious doubt on the ability of those Nasa scientists :-)

And, they went to Mars, just to find that their folks camp there is ransacked and everybody is killed. Another surprise!! Where are we now, don't we have phones and stuff to decide whether the base is in sane condition or not. Oh, for God's sakes, please find funds for Nasa, and it's Mars expedition. Too much over my head, and definitely no science in this, and not even good fiction.

And, thirdly, they have a bot, that can "search and destroy" aliens automatically. Since when is Nasa developing such a thing, really? I can imagine those scientists, who devoted their lives to find one living thing on Mars, and dreaming of capturing an alien and studying it to quench their thirsts of knowledge, but, I haven't heard of this breed of science folks, who had to make a bot, which automatically searches and destroys aliens. Is it that Nasa had come to this conclusion due to all Hollywood movies coming out currently.

I gave a moratorium on SciFi movies for myself, after watching it. My brain was so dead, that I could not watch any other SciFi (good or bad) for 2-3 months more.

Fermat's theorem about prime numbers

I could also prove the fermat's theorem about prime numbers,

(2^p - 1) == 1 (mod p) for any prime number. The proof uses binomial expansion.

sum of all nCr, r from 0 to n is 2^n. If we keep a prime number p for n,

pCr, r from 0 to p is 2^p.
In these co-efficients, except pC0, and pCp, everything else must have p as a factor, since, p is a prime.

So, finally, pC0 + pCp + pK = 2^p.
pK + 1 = 2^p - 1.

So, (2^p - 1) == 1 (mod p).

I was pleasantly surprised about this, although.
(This is called Fermat's little theorem)

The statement is more generic. If p is a prime, for any integer a, a^p == a (mod p).
This can be proved using induction, on a.

1^p == 1 (mod p) trivial, we have also seen 2^p == 2 (mod p) incidentally.
Also assume that n^p == n (mod p).
(n + 1)^p = Sum from 0 to p (pCr * n^r)

All terms except pC0 and pCp have p as the factor. So,

pC0 + pCp * n^p + pK = (n + 1)^p
n^p == n (mod p)
So,
pK + (n + 1) = (n + 1) ^p
So, (n + 1) ^p == (n + 1) mod p

Puzzle for guessing by not knowing

I came across this puzzle sometime back. There are two guys A and B. And there are two numbers x and y, which are between 2 and 9 (digits, 2 <= x <= y <= 9). A knows their sum, and B knows their product. And the dialogue between them goes as follows:

A: I don't know what the numbers are.
B: I don't know the numbers as well.
A: I still don't know what the numbers are.
B: Same, I don't know the numbers.
A: I still don't know the numbers.
B: I know the numbers now

What is the value of x + y?

I also got some interest in the problem of finding, a number between 1 and n^2, which has the highest number of factors (including 1 and itself). One can easily prove that such a number is not divisible by any prime number >= n, for n > 4. Try it.

Of course, this problem can be formalized as optimization problem.
Given that,

k1*log(2) + k2*log(3) + k3*log(5) + .... all prime logs with co-efficients < log(n)
(or, equivalently, 2^k1*3^k2*5^k3*7^k4*..... < n)

maximize (k1 + 1)*(k2 + 1)*(k3 + 1)*(k4 + 1)*....

Finally the number, with most factors is given by 2^k1*3^k2*5^k3*7^k4*.....

Also, I believe n! is not a square number, for any n > 1. Can you prove it? I think it involves the proven conjecture that between any 2n and 3n, there exists a prime number. Can you prove using that statement? Can we do without it?

In fact, I think n! is not any power of any number, not k^2, k^3, k^4 etc... Can you prove this also?

Ok, I give up. I tried doing 101-200 numbers, but, could not get satisfying stuff. Please fill in the gaps.

4!*4 + sqrt(4)/.4
4^4*.4 - .4
103
4!*4 + 4 + 4
(44 - sqrt(4))/.4
4!*4 + 4/.4
107
4!*4 + 4!/sqrt(4)
(44 - .4)/.4
44/.4
(44 + .4)/.4
44/.4 + sqrt(4)
113
44/.4 + 4
(44 + sqrt(4))/.4
4!*sqrt(4)/.4 - 4
117
4!*sqrt(4)/.4 - sqrt(4)
(4!*sqrt(4) - .4)/.4
4!*sqrt(4)/.4
(4!*sqrt(4) + .4)/.4
4!*sqrt(4)/.4 + sqrt(4)
123
4!*sqrt(4)/.4 + 4
(4!*sqrt(4) + sqrt(4))/.4
4^4/sqrt(4) - sqrt(4)
(4^4 - sqrt(4))/sqrt(4)
4^4/sqrt(4)
(4^4 + sqrt(4))/sqrt(4)
4^4/sqrt(4) + sqrt(4)
131
4^4/sqrt(4) + 4
133
44/.4 + 4!
135
4*(4! + 4/.4)
137
(4! - .4)/.4 * sqrt(4)
139
(4^4 + 4!)/sqrt(4)
141
(4! + .4)/.4 * sqrt(4)
143
((4!)^sqrt(4))/4
(4!/.4 - sqrt(4))/.4
4!/.4/.4 - 4
147
4!/.4/.4 - sqrt(4)
(4!/.4 - .4)/.4
4!/.4/.4
(4!/.4 + .4)/.4
4!/.4/.4 + sqrt(4)
153
4!/.4/.4 + 4
(4!/.4 + sqrt(4))/.4
(4!/4)!/4 - 4!
157
158
159
(4!/.4 + 4)/.4
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
4!*(4 + sqrt(4)) + 4!
((4! + sqrt(4))^sqrt(4))/4
(44 + 4!)/.4
171
44*4 - 4
173
((4!/4)! - 4!)/4
(4! + 4)/.4/.4
(4!/4)!/4 - 4
177
(4!/4)!/4 - sqrt(4)
((4!/4)! - 4)/4
(4!/4)!/4
((4!/4)! + 4)/4
(4!/4)!/4 + sqrt(4)
183
(4!/4)!/4 + 4
185
((4!/4)! + 4!)/4
187
4!*(4 + 4) - 4
189
4!*(4 + 4) - sqrt(4)
191
4!*(4 + 4)
193
4!*(4 + 4) + sqrt(4)
195
4!*(4 + 4) + 4
197
198
199
(4!*4 + 4)*sqrt(4)

Do you know, every prime number p > 3, satisfies the following:

p^2 = 24*k + 1, for some number k.
Also, every prime p > 30,
p^4 = 240*k + 1, for some number k.

Try proving them. Also, an extension of Eratoshenes sieve method gives the following approximation of ratio of first n numbers to primes in them:

Number of primes ~= n*(1 - 1/2)(1 - 1/3)(1 - 1/5)(1 - 1/7)(1 - 1/11).....(1 - 1/pk) where pk is the largest prime < sqrt(n).

Ratio is thus, approximately, (1 - 1/2)(1 - 1/3)(1 - 1/5)(1 - 1/7)(1 - 1/11).....(1 - 1/pk)

Also, a composite number (n) definitely has a prime factor <= sqrt(n). Do you know? Try proving it.

Reverted the look back to original one, retro look is gone now.

Look at this:
http://www.cut-the-knot.org/arithmetic/funny/1_4_Func.shtml

Using trignometric functions etc..., makes us able to represent any natural number, using one instance of any other natural number (of course, lots of trig function calls and reciprocal function calls there).

Looks like finding a representation of 75, using only 3 4's is great here. It will solve the issues for representing 73/77 and 99. If we are lucky with the representation of 75, we may be able to do 87 also.

Okey, I could not wait longer, so, browsed the net for other sites with such problems. Here is one, similar problem (not exactly the same, since they use "whole part function", kind of cheating if you ask me), with different approach, and representations:
http://www.cut-the-knot.org/arithmetic/funny/4_4.shtml

For the mathematically inclined, here is something:

We have numbers from 0 to 100 written here, using at max 4 4's and some math operators. The operators that are used are, +, -, *, /, sqrt, . (decimal), ! (factorial) and ^ (to the power of).

However, I could not do some numbers, which are 73/77/87/93 and 99. Interested, please jump in.

(As an aside, is there some theory around these puzzles? I see these in my newspaper every day, and decided to compute these numbers).

4 - 4
4/4
sqrt(4)
sqrt(4) + 4/4
4
4 + 4/4
4 + sqrt(4)
4 + sqrt(4) + 4/4
4 + 4
4 + 4 + 4/4
4 + 4 + sqrt(4)
(4! - sqrt(4))/sqrt(4)
4!/sqrt(4)
(4! + sqrt(4))/sqrt(4)
(4! + 4)/sqrt(4)
4*4 - 4/4
4*4
4*4 + 4/4
4*4 + sqrt(4)
4! - 4 - 4/4
4! - 4
4! - 4 + 4/4
4! - sqrt(4)
4! - 4/4
4!
4! + 4/4
4! + sqrt(4)
4! + sqrt(4) + 4/4
4! + 4
4! + 4 + 4/4
4! + 4 + sqrt(4)
4! + (4! + 4)/4
4! + 4*sqrt(4)
4! + (4 - .4)/.4
4! + 4*sqrt(4) + sqrt(4)
4! + 44/4
4! + 4!/sqrt(4)
4! + (4! + sqrt(4))/sqrt(4)
44 - 4!/4
(4*4 - .4)/.4
44 - 4
(4*4 + .4)/.4
44 - sqrt(4)
44 - 4/4
44
44 + 4/4
44 + sqrt(4)
4!*sqrt(4) - 4/4
4!*sqrt(4)
4!*sqrt(4) + 4/4
4!*sqrt(4) + sqrt(4)
(4! - 4 + .4)/.4
4!*sqrt(4) + 4
(4! - sqrt(4))/.4 - sqrt(4)
(4! - 4)/.4 + 4
(4! - .4)/.4 - 4
4!/.4 - 4
(4! + .4)/.4 - 4
4!/.4 - sqrt(4)
(4! - .4)/.4
4!/.4
(4! + .4)/.4
4!/.4 + sqrt(4)
(4! + .4)/.4 + sqrt(4)
4!/.4 + 4
(4! + .4)/.4 + 4
(4! + 4)/.4 - 4
(4! + sqrt(4))/.4 + sqrt(4)
(4! + 4)/.4 - sqrt(4)
(4! + 4 - .4)/.4
(4! + 4)/.4
(4! + 4 + .4)/.4
(4! + 4)/.4 + sqrt(4)
73 not present
(4! + 4)/.4 + 4
(4! + 4 + sqrt(4))/.4
4!/.4 + 4*4
77 not present
4*(4! - 4) - sqrt(4)
(4! - sqrt(4))/.4 + 4!
(4! + 4 + 4)/.4
(4 - 4/4)^4
4!/.4 - sqrt(4) + 4!
(4! - .4)/.4 + 4!
4!/.4 + 4!
(4! + .4)/.4 + 4!
4!/.4 + sqrt(4) + 4!
87 not present
44*sqrt(4)
(4! + sqrt(4))/.4 + 4!
44*sqrt(4) + sqrt(4)
4!*4 - sqrt(4)/.4
4!*4 - 4
93 not present
(4! + 4)/.4 + 4!
4!*4 - 4/4
4!*4
4!*4 + 4/4
4!*4 + sqrt(4)
99 not present
4!*4 + 4

The scene from 101-200 is not that rosy. Many numbers can't be properly expressed here. That work is un-finished as of now. Will post it soon, as I conclude it.

All, I changed the look to be more retro-ish for this month end. Let me know, if you like it or not. Remember, this also does abide by the 3-4 colors at max rule.

All, I liked this song, from Chronicles of Narnia:
http://www.mp3raid.com/music/no_need_to_say_goodbye_ost_narnia.html

Very mellifluous and nice to hear.

The topic of the day is, what is life, what's living and what's not?

This is a topic, of importance philosophically, biologically, and even in computer science (Artificial Intelligence). I thought about this for some time, and I got the following candidates:

1) A thinking being is a living being.
2) A bunch of chemical reactions in a body, make it (by definition) a living being.
3) A creature with living and reproducing instincts, is a living being.

I thought about the first one for sometime, and it is very satisfying to accept it, as we, humans are thinking beings, and we regard ourselves as the "top of the progress", of the species evolution. Naturally, we would say, all beings evolved from brain-less to humans, so, a creature must have a brain, and humans are higher/better creatures since, we have brains.

But, this argument is not that convincing, if you look close. Dinosaurs, lived happily, for millions of years, even though their brains are of the size of a peanut (Don't believe the drama in Jurassic park, where Dino looks through the glass, twists the door-nob etc..., all without much acquiantence with them. I bet even our ancestor humans could not do that). And, many primitive organisms do not have any thinking unit, like no brain. Also, humans are able to outlive their critical period (you are into space now, if earth burns, lets go to moon), but, what if humans are not able to do so? If a big meteore had hit us, in 17th century, we would have vanished like Dinos. Let's say tomorrow, something un-containable happens to Earth, the species evolution might take an entirely different turn, than the "big brains" slogan. My point is that, evolution is not "progressing towards more brains", humans having brains is just like, dinos having big bodies. It helps to survive, that's all.

So after thinking that "thinking is not the one to think about" :-), we move ahead to the second one. This is more of a definition out of a theory book, in the sense, all cryptic stuff, nothing helps anyone to understand. Ok, but, let us see, what this offers us. "A bunch of chemical reactions....", I would say no. The best counter-example for this, is a virus. A virus, is it a living organism? People say yes, right. But, you know what that foul creature does?

If we go by this definition, viruses have the option of "suddenly starting to live", and to "die suddenly", not joking. A virus, by itself, does not do any 'bunch of chemical reactions...', it is just like a stone on Mars. The moment it finds a body that already does these, it attaches to it, and starts the 'chemical reactions'. And that is not all, after that body is savaged, it again returns to the 'stone on the Mars' look. So, is virus living or not? Well, it is somewhat in between... I am never a fan of such life-less definitions :-) myself, and, looks like this is a bad definition anyway.

Now comes the third one: 'Instinct means life', kind of definition. I actually, took a lot of time, to get to formulate this definition itself, and it looked so fundamental a statement, and it looked more and more profound, as I looked deeper into it. And, along with it, I think I discovered the meaning of evolution.

Darwin's theory is about "survival of the fittest, by natural selection". Let's focus on the 'survival of the fittest' part. The assumption here, is that, there is a population (of one species), with natural genetic variety, and nature randomly conducts a test on them, like a running race. Everybody runs, but 0nly some survive. And their genetic variety, moves ahead, and waits for the next test conducted by nature, at some random time in future.

I emboldened Everybody, in the previous paragraph. That is the underlying assumption in Darwin's theory. Let us understand this. Let's say, there is a population of humans, most of them short. Only some are tall. Then, there comes a huge flood, which submerges their habitat. The short fellows, can't survive (can't get their head up, lets say), even though they stand and try things like crazy. The tall fellows, also try to stand, and can breathe in the floods, which keep up for a week or so. Now, who survives, only the tall folks.

Let's say now that, the tall folks didn't want to survive, they didn't run the race. They just sat under trees, and waited till their lives are taken away by the flood. Now, who survives, no one, right. That is the point here. Everybody runs the race for their lives, when natures gives them a race to run. And, that is the assumption (most probably) in Darwin's theory. And that explains that, all creatures, along the way of evolution, had the instinct to survive, right from the protozoans, amoebas everything. Because, even if the first uni-cellular organism, did not try to survive, the evolution would not have moved an inch.

That clarifies our first presumption, that a creature needs to have 'the instinct to survive', in order to be living (more-or-less).

There is a small problem with this, which is, for evolution, we need this instinct, not for survival. So, if a species does not have this instinct, it is fine for that species, but no progress happens from that species (no evolution). Almost, there is no such thing, as a non-evolving-species in the world, anyway.

The second instinct, to reproduce, what about that? Is that necessary? Given that the life of a creature can be terminated (first instinct would not be possible without it), and given one population of one species always has finite genetic variety, it is not good for evolution, if all these things die, or they allow only 2-3 'natural selection' running races, since, only finite types of genetic variety exists, in the population. Instead, it is better, if the genetic variety has a way of changing, it helps nature to select using many types of races. If all these creatures reproduce, and generate a different group of genetic variety, that is good for evolution, in 2 ways. First, the first instinct is enforceable. Second, the genetic variety changes from generations to generations, enabling nature to conduct new types of tests on the species, which in turn, could cause new paths for evolution.

Thus, we conclude that the second instinct is also necessary for evolution. Looks like, this is the most fundamental thing, for a living creature. Any living creature (from which evolution is possible), needs to have the 'instinct to survive' and the 'instinct to reproduce'.

One might argue that, some creatures like Sheep, do not have the instinct to survive. One might say that, sheep, do follow the butcher, even if it sees the sheep before it, being killed by guillotine. Thus, one might say, it does not yield for it's life. But, that conclusion is wrong.

Sheep, cannot connect between the one before it, walking up to the guillotine, and its head getting chopped off. It's brain is not that great. It walks like a 3 year old, doing stuff, even after you warning him/her, it just can't connect the reason and effect, that's all. If you give it a near death experience with the guillotine, and do not actually kill it, the next time (or after several such attempts (on several such generations)), it develops the instinct to avoid guillotine. That's the beauty of instinct, you don't need to think.

Although, I want to mention one small counter-example to even this 'instinct is life' argument. There is some rodent species, which multiply like crazy. And, one fine day, they start their journey to the sea. This happens every year and, on the way, many of these get crushed by moving vehicles, some of them fall prey to predators etc... But, they continue their journey to the seas. And, what do they do, when they reach the shores? They jump into the sea, and die, not joking. And, this happens year by year, generations by generations, no change. That's the closest counter-example to this theory.

However, it is a very accurate commentary on the theory of evolution. I was delighted to find the roots of Darwin, who found the roots of mine.

I watched Kingdom of Heaven recently. I was very charmed by the movie, actually. Infact, I liked the Salahuddin character so much in that movie, that, I decided to keep it in my blog name.

I liked the movie, (I generally have a penchant for History based flicks), and the realistic way, they tried to show the history. The people's attire in Jerusalem, in Medieval times, how 'holy wars' transmogrify into 'mercenary factories', the way arabs walk, the 'humanity of Christianity', the 'moroccan kind of music', everything.

And, coming to talk about History, I realized how much distorted it can be portrayed as, sometime ago (not with this movie, anyway. My fasicnation with the history movies, does not seem to wane, even with ordinary history flicks). I realized the vagaries called the 'history stories'.

All of you know that the great greek warrior, Alexander the Great, halted his campaign, in India. (If you don't) basically, due to some reason, Alexander called it done, while campaigning in India. And both sides, the west and India, do quite flowery commentary on this. I thought the Indian version is authentic, until, I saw the movie made by Hollywood folks, about Alexander.

First, anyway, is the Indian version (it is not my version, at all). There are actually 2-3 versions doing the rounds, and it depends, your level of excitement about your homeland (in general, not just Indian version).

Alexander, entered India, and an Emperor (of India), on Alexander's path, preferred not to fight with him. He gave great gifts to the warrior, to pacify him and show his loyalty. But, there is a very small King, beside his land, who decided to fight Alexander. And that king, had an army of only 500 warriors, and a small Castle. With valor filled in their hearts, all of them fight Alexander for 45 days. Finally, the small King (named Purushottam), loses to Alexander. The king, does not submit himself, whatever Alexander does, and prefers death.

Alexander does not kill him. He learns his lesson. Valor/Dignity of a Warrior can't be defeated, though, you defeat people and Kingdoms. Recognizing this King, as a better Warrior/Ruler than himself, he turns back, to go back to Rome. On his way back, he dies in vain (I think the death is meant to show his guilt).

Sure does make a great story, and rises the heads of every Indian. God knows how much is true, in here.

Now, comes the western version. The Alexander movie, talks about Alexander starting his campaign, with only 10000 warriors. So, Alex did not start with a great Army, and after all, by the time he defeated Persian Empire, and crossed the mighty Himalayas, his numbers could have eroded like crazy. So, in comparison, 500 warriors of an Indian King, does not look so bad. However, is 10K the right number? We might have to adjust that too, but let's do it later, if needed.

Alex comes to India, despite resistence from his army, about crossing the mighty Himalayas. He gives a good speech that motivates them to venture into the hitherto, unknown territory, past Himalayas. They get into India, suffering many casulaties, while crossing the mountains.

And, ka boom, Indians fight "guerilla wars". The fatigued army will be slain, in a non Man-to-Man fashion, by the tribal Indian savages. It is definitely not something that the warrior likes. He decides to abandon his quest, and not fight this "monkey tribe". He loses his best friend, in these "tribal ambushes", and on the way back, dies because he loved his friend, who died an unholy death.

Great again, isn't it. The west does not acknowledge any oriental civilization, and, they need glory too, like us. It sure helps every western man to believe in what he wants, and keeps their heads above the rest.

But, everyone can have their pride, until they meet each other, this way :-). But, wait a minute, what is the truth? Is India, a total "Monkey tribe", at that time. May be yes, may be no. Is Alexander, died due to an unholy death of his friend? May be yes, may be no. Is the existence of King Purushottam real? May be yes, may be no. I realized that, the truth is somewhere in between the two.

If you see, today's newspaper, some of them write 'in favor of' ruling, and some write 'in favor of' the opposition. And, the truth is somewhere, in between (All of us, know that). I took that analogy, to intrapolate, yesterday's history. After this, there are some things, which looked practical to me, rather than the flowery descriptions of the historians.

Alex might have started with 10K or may be, 20K warriors. After defeating the Byzantines, and Persians, he must have got down 1K or even fewer numbers, may be even 500 dilapidated warriors. Indian King named Purushottam, existed, and he fought a level battle with Alex, not a lopsided one. And, that guy got defeated to Alex.

Alex, due to his dwindling numbers, took a logistical decision to get back home. On the way back, he got a fever, due to the sea journey, and died. There is nothing to feel great about, for either the Indians or for the west here.

History, is same as today, with similar people around. Expecting the past to be drastically different from our present, is just like expecting a goat out of a chicken egg. The need to have glorious history, is to motivate patriotism, and unity, that is needed for the rulers to have armies, and orderly people. Rulers enforced great history, and encouraged story writers to write good about them and ancestors. King is always good, in the history, unless his and his descendants' reign is over.

What more, there is an even more flowery version, doing the rounds in India about Alex's departure. According to this version, Alex had a wife, who is travelling with him, on his campaign. (She might be a Persian princess grabbed by Alex on the way, may be. She may not be his queen). And, after the fierce battle that is happening between Alex and Puru, she feared the death of her husband, in the hands of the Indian warrior.

So, one night, she got out of her camp, and approached Puru, in his camp. She tied a Rakhi to his arm (Rakshabandhan, which is Indian ladies' oath taking from Brothers', asking their protection), and asked him not to harm her sindhur (husband). And thus, the warrior King of India, to uphold the promise made to her, voluntarily surrendered to Alex. Also, one of the days in the battle, happened to be Rakshabandhan day.

What say folks? Too much spicy, huh? Yes, that is right. It is very spicy, dramatic, makes a good stoy, or even a movie. Not history.

We see anachronisms everywhere in the history movies. Not the obvious ones, but more subtle ones. Things like, the King asking people to fight for their families, and not for the city walls. He asks them to protect their families, rather than the priests and cathedrals of the city. When are we talking this, 1500-1600 ish, definitely, pre-renaissance.

And, everyone knows what is important to the west, before renaissance, self or the church? Right. Always some contemporary idealism's spice is thrown into narrations of history, just to make it more dramatic and appealing. People talk socilaist, in Indian movies of 50s-70s, and it is quite common to talk about 'Dignity of labor' etc... in those movies. Now, there is no such thing, in Indian cinemas. Guess why, no-ones takes socialism seriously in India, now anyway.

So, if you want to make a story about a medieval King, who sent 100 youngsters as slaves to the rival King, just to ensure his town's priest is freed, think again. Contemporary ideals, do not allow it. If you want to make a story about, a king, who romanced countless many women, think again, contemporary ideals do not allow it. If you want to write about Socialism, as panacea to the world's problems in your story, think again, contemporary social-economic ideals do not allow that.

Conclusion, history is much more dependent on the contemporary context, and not simply independent. Next time you read history, try to tone it down to be within practical ranges. Stories are one, and history is another, if you see it.

I recently got a good idea, regarding all the interior pics lying around. The daily newspapers, have color interior photos (paper quality is not all that good, but you get the idea looking at the pictures).

At least once a week, my local newspaper gets these photos, and a supplement detailing how various people did it in their houses.

I cut these photos/graphics, and keep them some place. One day, I hope a 3d software (free-one) comes that can be used to model these things. (I think google has a closest software to this, check out "google sketchup" at http://sketchup.google.com/. Can someone come up with a set of drawings of interior items, which can be used to build up rooms and such), using which I can re-construct these models, into 3d houses, comprising of rooms/decks/gardens/landscapes/elevations, all combined.

That is my long-term dream, but, however, I am cutting and keeping the interior pics, as a first step to it.

Folks of the west (US mostly), think that they are more civilized/suave than the people of the east. Many of them, talk about the plights of 3rd world countries like India etc..., in a pretty sad (even derogatory) tone. But, when you think of it, one thing that surprises is that, the Orient is far more civilized than the Occident, and that is the reason why many of the Oriental countries are under-developed (at least developed but, xenophobic).

You read it right, civilization has nothing to do with development, and it is negatively related to development, when you think of it.

The other day, an Indian born American comedian joked, "Indians do not hate America, they just hate each other". Sadly, that is true. When Richard Nixon visited India (50-60 years ago, I think), he commented about Indians as "Treacherous, underhanded and never showing their true face". There might be some sizable cold-war connotations of that statement, however, these are not entirely false. However, you should not worry about visiting the East, remember "they just hate each other".

Today, India is a country of inaction, because, there is no significant good (or bad) that can be done in this country. If a guy kills another, and undergoing trial, there will be some 'human rights folks' etc... in India, who support him. If a guy takes money out of his own pocket, and spends that to alleviate the conditions in a slum, there will be at least a couple of tabloids, thrashing him for 'having ulterior political motives', and say, he wants to make money as a politician holding office.

Nothing is trusted in India, neither good nor bad. This kind of keeps the country, in a stable state, where, the rest of the world is going in either progressive or regressive direction. (You think there is no nation going backwards, what about the nations which militantly urge about "going back to medieval days", Afg....an)

Why do people behave treacherously, hiding their original intentions, never trusting others in India? Why are Indians so touch to get convinced? Why are people of the west, so easy to convince, tell them something good, and they almost always do it, without asking 'what's in it for you?'. Why are the people of East, not trusting anyone, they see or hear or talk to? Is that what civilization and a social history of 2000 years teaches you? May be yes.

I have the following lines of thought:

1) Humans are animals, in groups.
2) Civilization does not change people to be more human.

Does the civilization make our appetites, thirsts any smaller? No
Does the civilization make a greedy man, not greedy? No
Does civilization reduce the crime rate? No.

All that civilization does is 'it tries to ensures fairness to all'. This is important, since, societies are groups of people, which need some amount of fairness, to sustain (We have many examples of civilizations which had no-fairness, crumbling, be revolutions or something else). The way it ensures fairness, is to build systems of people, like, religion men and folks, king and his folks, your boss and you, family system, judiciary etc...

These systems ensure fairness, within their reach. Before Julius Caesar was assassinated, there was no importance to the concept of body-guarding rulers and religion-men, and after that, it has become important. A family system, was the natural offshoot of the instinctive men, when they need to survive together in a group. Religion, is like, an explanation about the inexplicable, you have a huge storm, and to think that it is fair, you invented religion.

However, people are people. There are many men, whom races/civilizations trusted, and moved to their tunes. To their utter dismay, those men cheated them, just to satisfy their own greed. The lesson is very hard to a 'Germany of Second world war' or, to the 'Troy losing by devious means, with a trojan horse'. These lessons can never be forgotten by people. Next time, if such a ruler/fighter is spotted, he/she is obviously doubted, for the well-being of oneself. And, looks like that is the lesson of History.

But, people are smart and the greed always gets the best of them, right? So, after the systems institute a protocol (law, may be) to punish such men, there will be 10 more loopholes staring in front of the greedy. Don't tell me, once the original flaw is closed, it is one less, No. See, how many bad ways of making money are there today, vs, 200 years ago. Today, people know that their jobs get fake news, and they are loathsome bankers to people, and they charge lot of fee in the name of your child's education, but still do that. All civilization teaches people, is to "just hate each other", sadly.

Calculate, how many such incidents happened in the history-rich East and middle-eat, vs, how many in the USA. USA, does not know, men, as it should, and thinks it is cultured. It still has a lot of potential to (:-() trust men, who are no good.

Do you know that minimizing number of colors is important in Interior? Of the 4 photos got by googling, check for yourself how many are using 3-4 colors at max!

And of the things that are using more, imagine, how would it look like, if you removed the colors used in small quantity. It would surely be better looking. Folks thinking of making their homes look good, but, can't do it, use this simple trick. Follow 3-4 colors to the brim, whatever you put in the room, should have one of these colors, down to the exact shades (shown in the lighting used).

Often times, we do not recognize how much of color clutter, we put in a room. We just keep piling things in a room, till the scene falls apart visually. We sure do know each individual item kept, looks great by itself, but, 'why is the whole thing not working'? People get confused about their ability to choose interior accessories, since, the thing just does not look good in the room, it only looks good in the shop.

Happy decorating!

Hi all,

This is my blog. I will be posting tidbits for simple folks. Let's keep it fun.