Free Stress Test

While roaming around one of the most popular streets of my current city of living, my friend and I were stopped by this soft-spoken gentleman about taking a free stress test, with some advice on how to deal with it. Now I am very well clued on how to deal with stress, but even then I wouldn't normally resist something that was being offered free, just to have some fun; I noticed just in time that this was a store that was into selling and promoting the works of L. Ron Hubbard, the chap responsible for Dianetics and Scientology. Indeed, the store display was lined with copies of the book in various languages. I was all for turning away, but was not quick enough, because my friend, knowing nothing about the subject, thought it was a great idea and walked in. I had no choice but to follow.

It turned out to be a fun(ny) experience anyway. The testing equipment consisted of a sufficiently complicated looking device, with a pointer display, some knobs and dials, and two hollow metal cylinders hooked up to it. All you had to do was take one cylinder in each hand, sit down and relax, and think about the questions the guy was asking. Depending on how your mind reacted to the thoughts in your brain, you'd have some invisible response, which would measure up as stress on the display. The funny parts were two: the guy could not convincingly answer any questions we asked him about how the device worked, and secondly, I managed to actually hoodwink the machine.

Anyone with basic high school science education should have been able to figure out that the entire setup was nothing more than a very elaborate stethoscope: your fingers carry a very gentle pulse, which would be transmitted through the cylinder and wires and fed to a very sensitive transducer, that would produce a very tiny current which would move the pointer accordingly (using a basic galvanometer arrangement). It helps that I'm trained as an electrical engineer, but these are basic concepts that you learn in Class 9 Physics in school. One can also design the thing to have knobs to control sensitivity and the zero setting of the galvanometer (which was there in this case).

My friend went first. Certainly, the machine reacted the way I expected it to react; the pointed zoomed out of range when he thought about stressful things. The guy didn't spend much time with him; hardly thirty seconds, because he simply asked him to think about his life and recent events in it. After my friend answered, the guy asked him what he had been thinking about (as expected, the recent exams and the grades that followed). His basic method was easy to figure out. By asking you to think about something, he's very indirectly leading you to think about something stressful, because most people usually have some problem bugging them, and if you sit them down and ask them to think about recent events, their thoughts will jump first to that problem, and their pulse will correspondingly rise, depending on how deep the problem is. To generate a little more 'stress', the guy can start asking questions relating to specific areas of life - family, relationships, work, social activities, anything. Somewhere or the other there is bound to be something, which generates an emotional reaction, leading to that increase in heartbeat.

When my turn came, I kept a smooth, even tone of voice, and a steady breath, to control my heartbeat so that the machine wouldn't react. As expected, it didn't. The guy started to ask me questions almost immediately, starting with what I do. I answered I'm a student, so he asked me if there was something bothering me there. On purpose, I brought a worried tone to my voice as I started talking about courses and grades, but kept my breathing even. The machine stayed even. The guy started to increase sensitivity at various intervals then onwards. He next asked about my family, if I'd had any losses or tragedies. I lost my grandfather a few years back, but I've had deeper losses than that, and I was able to lie my way through it without the machine turning a blip. If the guy was discomfited, he didn't show it, because next he went on to ask about relationships: if I was presently in one, to which I said no (actually the answer is yes); if I had been in one earlier, to which I answered yes (truthfully); what had happened to that relationship, to which I said it hadn't been working out so we broke up.

At this point he came out, saying that I was a very unusual person, because most people get pretty stressed when they think about past relationships and their breakup. My heart did a flip, hoping he wouldn't figure out that I had deliberately been cheating on this test, and then the pointer zoomed! He noticed this, and was quick to jump on it, asking how it was that I wasn't feeling stressed out when thinking about past events of my life, but was showing a reaction after I was done thinking about them. I had to look straight at him and invent a fib on the spot, which wasn't too difficult; I simply told him that I'd moved on quite definitely from my past and had made my peace with it, and thinking about my own past again did not cause me any stress; what did cause me stress was him asking about how I'd made my peace, because that hadn't been an easy thing to do. This wasn't completely a fib though, it was at least partially true. I checked the sensitivity knob surreptitiously; it was at 9 on a scale from 0 to 10!

We asked him about how the device worked, how it actually was able to measure stress. He did not answer clearly. Either he was ignorant of how it worked, or did not want to reveal it and spoil the wonder device for us. We mentioned that we study engineering, and this device looks interesting and so on, but he was careful to lead the conversation towards what was really on his agenda: to talk about Dianetics; the philosophy, book and its author. That Hubbard discovered the 'active' and 'reactive' mind and how the reactive mind behaves, that he wrote this book which is the best selling book in the world today (huh? I thought that was the Bible, but never mind), and that he founded Scientology, which is helping so many people overcome their problems by aiming at the root, rather than the symptoms. He talked about how psychology is now dead, how modern psychology treats humans as mere animals, without paying any attention to the 'spirit', and deplored the state of psychology medicine today. What nonsense. (It was funny to watch him sidestep the questions though.)

I haven't read Dianetics myself, but I remember I did try once. I couldn't get beyond the first page. I've read summaries of the ideas in it, and by all standards, they are fanciful and despicable. That so many people believed in that nonsense, started over fifty years ago, and still believe in it to the extent that there is now a Church of Scientology which feeds all those and even crazier ideas to the unsuspecting public stands testimony as to how stupid people can be. And cleverly enough, the Church maintains a strict copyright over its documents and teachings, so that only initiates have access to it, and those who do cannot make them public for fear of severe legal action. Of course, there are always leaks, so we have some idea of what those teachings precisely are, but I would think that one read of Dianetics (for those brave enough to undergo such torture), or of the gist of it (for those smart enough to spare themselves the torment) should be enough to indicate the level of ludicrousness that Scientology must be attaining with its initiates, never mind the secrecy.

Anyone who wants to read a good summary of Dianetics can read the relevant chapter in the book Fads & Fallacies: In The Name Of Science, by that excellent gentleman Martin Gardner. The language of the book may seem harsh to many, and the book was written in the 1950s, so quite a few of the fads mentioned have been rendered irrelevant in today's world. Nevertheless, it is an excellent book, painstakingly researched and written, evident by the details presented in the book. For those who want to buy it, it's available on Amazon. (If you'd rather just read about Dianetics and Scientology, you can read up on Wikipedia. It is truly hilarious.) Fifty years on, I would be highly delighted to read a book written and updated to reflect pseudoscience today (hopefully there isn't too much of it floating around, apart from this Scientology madness). Of course, it won't be easy, with all the tangled webs of copyright protections and such, but if anyone can direct me to such a book, I'd be highly grateful. If there isn't one yet, maybe I'll write one in due time.

And moving back to the stress test, well, once we were done with the Dianetics lecture, I made a firm case for leaving, without buying the book (he offered us a Hindi translation of it!), and once out of there, explained the entire thing in detail to my friend. To his credit, he is not a gullible person and had retained enough skepticism all throughout the session to be able to see through the charade, and we laughed a lot over the entire thing afterwards.

You'd ask me why I was fooling around with this guy; even if it is pretty elaborate, at least he is giving you a stress test and telling you that something's not okay, right? Wrong. If it's nothing more than an elaborate stethoscope, let him come out and say that. There is no cause for anyone to try make an impression by showing magic tricks and illusions in matters such as stress, which have been shown to profoundly impact health. Also, this is not being done with a goal to helping people; it is nothing more than a money-making exercise. The aim of going through that entire routine of a stress test is to harp on later about Dianetics and how great it is, this is a sales pitch in the end. Don't sit back and tell me that the choice of buying the book is mine in the end. People are smart enough to know without being told that they are under stress.

I do not have to waste time sitting through this charade of a stress test, then find out that I'm stressed, listen to a sales pitch from someone who has little or no training in medicine and finally buy and read a book of pseudoscientific fairy tales. It makes much more sense to seek professional help (qualified professional help at that). Any good psychologist would be able to not only tell me if I'm stressed, but also help objectively determine factors causing that stress, counsel me accordingly, and prescribe lifestyle changes, diagnostic procedures, therapeutic treatment or medication as required. The last thing they would do is tell me to read some crackpot book and believe what it says. If nothing else, this episode highlights how important it is for every individual on this planet to have a firm grounding in basic science at the school level.

Dancing Lady

Thanks are due to the naughtiest guy in class for this. It's not spectacularly amazing or anything, but just pure fun, and really, really, time consuming.

Which direction is this lady dancing in? She is definitely spinning, and she is spinning backwards (for herself). But is she going clockwise or counterclockwise?

There are probably hundreds of such trick images circulating the internet, each one perhaps equally interesting, because each probably presents a different trick, or a different way in which our mind plays tricks on us. Of course this particular one has no answer, because depending on how you see it, she can be moving in either direction. If you try hard enough, you can see both types of spin, and you can even train yourself to make her change direction at will. It's actually really simple: you just have to figure out that critical point of her spin, from where your brain starts to pick up on the direction of her motion. If you happen to start looking at her only from that critical point onwards (achieved easily and simply by a quick shutting and opening of the eyes), you can make her change direction. It's important not to preserve the image of her motion in the mind as you're trying this.

If you received this in a chain mail or forwarded message over the internet, you probably also got a lot of text about left brain and right brain and their relative abilities and so on and so forth. While all of that is probably very interesting, it is perhaps best left to the explanatory capabilities of Wikipedia or some other reliable encyclopedia. For the moment, concentration on enjoying the illusion. This is magic at its best -  the magic of the human mind.

(Image courtesy http://www.nicholasroussos.com/ who're hosting it up there for people to link to)

In A Mood To Experiment

Experimentation is an awesome thing. I'm not talking about huge things like going on a bungee-jumping adventure or something wild like that. I'm talking about simple everyday things, mundane things, things that you would never think twice about in the normal course of life, things that don't count way up there on the Bucket List or anything. Simple experiments with how you live and what you do in your daily life. They enrich life, spice things up a little, are fun to do, and often end up with rather positive results.

One experiment I did recently was chop off my own hair, rather than go to a hairdresser. Now I confess, I'm no professional. I did a rather bad job of it. I used a pair of scissors which has become a little blunt through years of use (in cutting paper at that). I cut the entire thing very unevenly (it's turned out shorter on one side that on the other, and quite a few locks of hair that should've been cut were left untouched). I cut it shorter than I intended to. And yet, with all that, it's not a huge disaster that I absolutely cannot deal with. Lucky for me, my hair curl and wave a lot, so that covers up the uneven length. Because of the way I cut it, I ended up changing my style entirely, and guess what, the new style is pretty flexible and suits me too. And regular shampooing and conditioning ensures that they stay manageable. I probably couldn't go to a formal party looking like this, but nobody in my daily life seemed to feel there was anything wrong with it, which is a lot more than I ask for.

Another experiment, which effectively occurs twice a week, is my cooking. I have no training of any kind there either, whether by a professional expert, or by an amateur one (by which I mean my mom). Every time I enter the kitchen to cook is a time for a new experiment, a new random choice of vegetables, spices and cooking time. Well, not completely random either, I do try to make things conform to what has been approved already by the experts. But my lack of expertise means it won't always turn out that way, and often there are no preapproved guidelines to follow. So it's effectively an experiment, and quite often, if I don't worry unnecessarily about the results, it turns out pretty decent.

A third, more general experiment, is walking about and negotiating stuff alone. A slightly risky experiment to make, I admit, but this falls more into the realm of exploring. The fact that each human being needs to seek their own way and learn to negotiate the world on their own anyway doesn't make it any less of an experiment. An experiment seems to indicate some sense of underlying choice for most people, the choice of whether to do the experiment or not, in which case, negotiating the world is not an experiment, because you don't have a choice there. I disagree, because an experiment is anything where something new is attempted to gain a result, and you don't have to know that result. You only have to find it. Doing it with someone always makes it easier, simply because you have two thinking minds, so you can have two varying opinions, and some amount of cross critical thinking can get you far ahead. Doing it alone is slightly more of a challenge, because you have to pose questions to yourself and answer them yourself as well. But that makes the challenge only more challenging, doesn't it?

I'm in a mood to experiment. I have been for the past few years in fact, perhaps a little passively, perhaps only in erratically timed spurts. The mood feels good, and a little more active right now. I'm happy.

I Went There. So?

I'm an atheist, or at least I am far on the side of the spectrum that leads towards atheism. I don't believe in gods or in divine or supernatural presences, and I think people who do are kidding themselves in some way. But I still participate in certain religious ceremonies or excursions, when my family or friends have them. In a way, I think it's hypocritical and it is, but blandly saying that I won't be a part of it because I don't believe in it is also a little difficult for me.

The trouble is most of these religious functions are also social functions. I can't refuse to attend my cousin's wedding just because it's a religious ceremony; it's her wedding, she's happy and I'm happy for her, and I should be there to celebrate it with her. The same goes for every wedding ceremony or reception that I've ever attended. I've never gone to a wedding that was simply a court marriage followed by a simple reception or celebration party. Or if there's a festival around or something, and everyone's going to a temple or some kind of celebration, it's not just about going there to worship or pray. There's a kind of social bonding taking place as well, the very act of going out together, cooking together and spending time together. And people just expect you to be there, without asking whether you believe or not: they just assume that you do.

So I go along for the ride, I go to all these temples, I take the offerings that are given, I go through all the rounds of worship rituals. Actually, no, I don't do most of the ritualistic things. I simply stand there while everyone else is doing them, and I look at everyone and feel lost and awkward, because in my heart, I know I should not be there. Then once the ritualistic part is over, the social part starts. The food, the photographs, the talking, the laughing. Apparently it's a package deal; I cannot just avoid the ritual part of it and stay for the social part of it; it's either take it all or leave it all. Even if it doesn't mean anything to me.

I've tried objecting to it, even screaming at times that it doesn't make sense because I don't believe in it at all, but would you believe it, they still want me to go through with it. They think that either I'm being deliberately difficult, or I'm somewhat misguided, or that I should be made to do it for my own good, even when I don't believe. It's even funny in a way: people will be pleased with an outward show even when I openly declare that I do not believe, while the reason that they themselves do it is because they sincerely believe. Apparently, it's also a face-saving exercise in the end.

So now, I just go along for the ride. I still have to deal with the feeling of being lost and awkward, but once that's over, the fun begins. So, I wait for the party to start.

Schrodinger's Rapist

Awesome post. It highlights a lot of things that are not often understood by a lot of people.

Schrodinger's Rapist

Unfortunately, this situation creates problems for me, because of my innate nature. I happen to like being friendly. I like the idea of being able to say good morning to the complete stranger on the bus, without worrying about whether that person is going to take that as a signal of some kind. I like being able to talk to the person behind me in the queue, without worrying about whether he is some kind of threat to me. I like being able to ask a question to the guy sitting next to me in the auditorium, perhaps even have a normal conversation, without that person trying to push his way into my inner circle.

And, unfortunately, that doesn't quite happen. If I behave friendly, even in the slightest way, a guy is going to take that as a signal that I'm interested, and perhaps interested in something more. Rather, he's going to jump ahead to the idea that I'm interested in something more, because of course, most other girls are so aloof, so untrusting, so if this one is being friendly, she must be having different ideas. This is not just speculation. It has actually happened. Of course I have different ideas. I believe in being nice to the people around me, but I expect that niceness to be reciprocated, and I expect that they in turn should not try to be more than nice. I'm trying to not send out any signals to indicate any interest or lack thereof, I'm just trying to be pleasant-mannered, but somehow, that in itself ends up being a signal!

It sucks.

Cheat The Prophet

Just found a very likable quote all over again.

"The human race, to which so many of my readers belong, has been playing at children's games from the beginning, and will probably do it till the end, which is a nuisance for the few people who grow up. And one of the games to which it is most attached is called, "Keep to-morrow dark," and which is also named (by the rustics in Shropshire, I have no doubt) "Cheat the Prophet". The players listen very carefully and respectfully to all that the clever men have to say about what is to happen in the next generation. The players then wait until all the clever men are dead, and bury them nicely. They then go and do something else. That is all. For a race of simple tastes, however, it is great fun."

I'd recommend reading the book from whence it came as well: The Napoleon of Notting Hill, by G K Chesterton. It's available for free from Project Gutenberg, and I've just started it. It seems it'll be a good read.

My Journey To Atheism

A topic that has been a recurring interest for me, particularly in an active manner in recent months, is atheism. I have been an atheist for a very long while now, but it wasn't until pretty recently that I started thinking more actively about it.

I used to be religious as a kid. Or rather, I thought I was. Sure, we read in Social Studies about all the major religions of the world, and I studied in a secular school run by a private trust, so there was no religious propaganda of any kind. Indeed, one of the best-liked features of school was that every religious holiday was indeed a holiday; there wouldn't be any religious ceremonies in school, so we all enjoyed the benefit of one more day in the week on which we could sleep late! I knew I was born to a Hindu family, and so was heir to all the religious traditions and beliefs that Hindu families inherit through the generations, and for a long time I thought I was religious enough in my own way.

How wrong I was.

I never learnt any prayers, neither did I ever worship regularly, nor did I like visiting temples. This stemmed initially from the fact that I was too lazy to do stuff like that. Later on, it became laziness plus the fact that it all seemed rather pointless. For instance, it felt somewhat weird to be chanting strange words whose meaning I did not know; my mom, with huge efforts, taught me one or two prayers, but when I asked for the meaning of the words, she didn't quite take me seriously (though she is well-versed with what the prayers mean), and I lost interest quickly. Neither did the idea of bowing down before someone else sit well with me; that was probably partially due to a sense of ego, but at any rate, it did not make sense to me.

My mom prayed and worshipped everyday, and still does, but she never insisted that I should do so as well; this is the first point of difference between me and most others my age whom I've interacted with. My dad was already an atheist, so there was no insistence on religious customs coming from him, and he too never insisted on my either worshipping or not worshipping, leaving the choice to me. He was secular minded too, which may sound weird when said in connection with an atheist, but I can't really infer anything else on seeing the various religious books and texts that he collected over the years (we had the Bible and Quran, apart from the standard Ramayana and Gita, but then we also had various philosophical works, such as essays by Bertrand Russell and the like).

And what of me? I thought I was quite a religious person, because I used to watch just about every mythological serial that came on TV, and for quite some time, I did believe that every detail portrayed was literally true. But science education intervened, and subconsciously I came to the conclusion that these are just stories and cannot be true in the literal sense. The big bang theory, evolution of life, models of the atom and descriptions of subatomic particles had a more convincing ring to them, and I discarded the idea of gods and goddesses and mythical kings and queens for these more tangible mysteries, presented by science. I still continued watching the TV serials, because the stories were interesting enough (and there was nothing else that I could watch on TV).

The real change came about due to Social Studies, in Class 8. That was when we studied modern history, and in particular detail about all the social reformers of the 18th and 19th centuries: the beliefs they held, the societies they founded and the ideas they propagated. Most of them, while not seemingly atheist, at least believed that religious and spiritual belief are personal matters, and the worship of idols or images, or the practice of mindless ritual does no good to anyone. Reading about these people led me to actively think about what I believe, as far as my spiritual beliefs are concerned, and I realized I was already pretty non-religious, by all standards, only I hadn't known it before then.

Class 9 and the next three years were a sort of accelerated maturity period for me. I grappled with the ideas of atheism and agnosticism, flipped and flaunted the names around without really knowing or trying to know what they imply. I also found a new interest in reading non-fiction, and I read quite a few religious books, as part of that interest, though not with any spiritual inclinations in mind. I also happened to read quite a few excellent general science books. And once I was done dabbling with all the different aspects of the matter, I realized that I was still an atheist, not believing in gods or indeed in anything of a supernatural nature, and if anything, my convictions were only strengthened, as a result of my reading.

The next four years, after I was done with school, were when I started reading actively about atheism and atheist activity in the world. It's not been much so far, except for finding out which of my friends are atheist, and reading about atheism in the western world and what it implies to be an atheist in the west. Thus far I was shielded, in part because I wasn't proclaiming my atheist beliefs out in the open world. Atheists in the west have to contend with deeply religious people, who frown upon atheism as a source of degeneracy. Hindus also frown upon atheistic nature, but at present we have enough problems in the form of interreligious disharmony to deal with, alongside terrorism and the like, so nobody's going to worry about who's atheist, in all the mess.

Most of my reading thus far comes from people who have lived and grown in a predominantly Christian community, so their views and their reactions are quite different from what I have developed so far living in a predominantly Hindu community (of course, there's also the fact that I haven't yet gained enough experience in the world to talk very conclusively about what I've observed). These people have lived and faced an entire world of differences, arising solely from their lack of belief in any kind of divinity (which is quite an issue with most religious people in the west, who feel their identity is under attack if their religion is attacked). There have been a lot of words written and spoken on the matter, and a lot of ideas and opinions aired. So there is this entirely new point of view to think about, and at present I am devoting quite some energy to it.

My journey is still continuing. It's like watching a flower bloom - with every layer of petals opening up, a new and more intricate structure is laid bare to look at and analyze. But I still know, at the end of it, how I've travelled and where I've ended up: for all practical purposes, I'm an atheist.

The Music of Laughter

Dictionary Definition:

laughter/noun

1. the action or sound of laughing

2. an inner quality, mood, disposition, etc., suggestive of laughter; mirthfulness: a man of laughter and goodwill

3. an expression or appearance of merriment or amusement

4. Archaic an object of laughter; subject or matter for amusement

I love the sound of laughter. Warm-hearted, deep-throated, genuine laughter. It could be guys guffawing over a shared joke, girls giggling over a shared secret, friends amusing themselves over silly behaviour, but laughter still has a peculiar quality, of conveying something beautiful directly to the heart, much the way that music does.

Why does it affect me so powerfully? There hasn't been much for me to laugh about in a long time; I have a rather degenerate sense of humour, which is why I find people who do have a good sense of humour irresistible. I mean, there is a lot going on, but it's mostly neutral stuff; there's nothing to be depressed about, but then it's not exactly ecstatic joy either. I keep cheerful most of the time, but it's not very often that I get to hear free, open laughter, which conveys genuine enjoyment of the moment in progress.

Laughter conveys goodwill, delight, an extremely positive vibe around oneself, and if the vibe is strong enough, it reaches everyone around the person laughing, which is why they say laughter is infectious. Unfortunately, it's a little rare to hear genuine good laughter; mostly it's people throwing out a fake laugh, trying to appear cool or be snobbish or just make a lot of noise. Fake laughter puzzles me more than it irritates me; I can't understand why anyone would want to laugh if they don't feel like it. And the lack of genuine laughter is also due to the fact that people often don't laugh when they feel like it, simply because they're trying to appear cool or be snobbish or they just don't want to pitch in to the general goodwill. Suppression of laughter puzzles me more; I simply cannot understand people who try to control their delight, even when it's clean and bright.

It's important to have a sense of humour, and it's important to use it, and use it well. If you don't have a sense of humour, it's important to be around people who have one, and it's important to be able to pick up on it when it's being used. Life would otherwise be a very cold place to be, with a very dim sinking glow on the horizon.

Art Experience

We engineers lose out a lot when we're stuck in our rooms doing nothing but solving equations. Sure, there's internet and there's music, but there's art too, but not many people are into that.

Art isn't just a pretty painting. It ties together history, observation, ideas, themes, and beauty. Sure, you can find any number of books to teach you how to appreciate and identify artworks, but there's nothing like the experience of being face to face with a beautiful artwork and having an interactive session with someone who's involved deeply with art and with teaching people about it.

This is probably why I was never quite as impressed or excited about museums and their collections back home. Sure, there were loads of things, and loads of beautiful things, but unless you have that human touch, of someone who knows and understands the significance of those things, and can convey that opinion (if you don't want to call it anything else), you can't really begin to form an opinion of any depth of your own. I now have had the opportunity to go through a museum gallery guided by someone, whose particular interest it is to cultivate interest and curiosity, and most of all, wonder, in others, in appreciating the richness of the legacy passed down to us, and it was a wonderful opportunity and experience.

Art isn't just paintings. It's also about sculptures, scrolls, costumes, furniture, and just about anything that conveys the aesthetic bent of the mind, or rather of the collective mindset that represents a particular era. This mindset is very fickle; it will change even from decade to decade, but that change isn't an unwelcome thing, because it makes for progress, for innovation, for a new kind of creativity to take birth and shape itself.

I had read about Renaissance art, and something about the artists whose works defined that period, and in fact, sub-periods within that period. But this occasion, I was face to face with a painting from that period. I was asked to describe what I saw in that painting. It was from the early Renaissance. What did we notice? There was a prominent solid gold background, solid gold halos about the figures, very rich and vibrant colours, though darkened with time due to the use of tempera colours, an extravagantly larger size for the more important figures in the painting, a triangular shape for composing the figures, a lack of three dimensional perspective (depth). The figures themselves were of the Virgin Mary, the baby Jesus, and saintly figures of their time. Each figure was distinctly identifiable by certain accessories that were peculiarly assigned to them; for example, the Virgin Mary is always clothed in a red robe, symbolizing the sacrifice by her baby Jesus, and a blue cloak, symbolizing her exalted status (certain exotic shades of blue were a very expensive pigment to make, especially if you made it from lapis lazuli or the like). These are tiny things, but they make all the difference.

The next painting was also of the early Renaissance, but at an advanced stage, perhaps thirty years later. What was similar or different between it and the older painting? The same figures of the Virgin Mary and baby Jesus, with saints, but with more figures this time, including angels and women. The same gold halos and solid gold background, but this time with a sense of perspective, with arches and platforms added to give a sense of depth to the painting. The same use of tempera colours, but with a little more delicacy.

The next painting was a complete contrast. It belonged to the high Renaissance period. Again, the Virgin Mary with baby Jesus. But, there was now a background, of a village, a hill, a river, an entire countryside. A deliberate arrangement of ledges and steps, to give both a sense of depth, as well as a sense of immediacy, as though you could reach out and touch the figures. The materials were oil on canvas, which led to the portrayal of much finer detail than is possible with tempera on wood. The halos which so blatantly declared divinity were now simply reduced to faint gold circles, to convey a subtle message rather than a blunt one. The colours were still rich, but now more subtle, with folds and curves very delicately worked out. The figures were of proportionate size, but the triangular composition style was still preserved. The entire mood of the painting was one of peacefulness and serenity, which are rather human qualities. Compare this to the earlier paintings, which you could say were intended to inspire respect and awe for the divine figures that they were portraying. The focus in this painting was on realism, trying to show things realistically, exactly as they are.

The next painting was again different! It was of the period of Mannerism, where the focus was on showing the manner of things. This one again featured the Virgin Mary, with baby Jesus, but equally prominent was her cousin St Elizabeth. Also shown were John the Baptist and two angels. The mood was one of violence, fear, concern, anxiety. John the Baptist was dying, and painted in the classical pose. The two angels were in shock. Jesus was afraid, Mary was unhappy, and Elizabeth looking very grim. The figures were all disproportionate (Jesus, who would've been only eight months old or so was almost the same size as Mary) and muscularly built. There were no fine details, only broad swathes of colours and tiny lines that combined to produces the general effect of figures. There was no background, no intention to convey depth, no halos, no calmness or serenity, no delicacy or subtlety. A cursory knowledge of the events of the New Testament tells us that this is the point when Elizabeth warns Mary that her son would be killed, with this idea being conveyed to the viewer in the form of John's dying posture, John being a sort of precursor to Jesus and their lives running on somewhat parallel lines.

This, I then understood, was appreciating art. Not merely admiring it for its aesthetic beauty, but also understanding its significance in relation to the life of the people when it was created, and the purpose for which it was created. That tends to lend it a fuller quality, and your appreciation then gains some substance, much like the way you would admire someone better when you can see their intelligence aside from their good looks.

The next leg of the tour explored American Art, and its evolution from the time when the country was born until the second world war. The art from the various time periods in American history reflect the ongoing themes and turbulence of the times, as all art does. A young country that has just started to take shape is fresh with the ideas of exploration, patriotism, innovation, individualism, aspiration to perfection, and utilitarianism, and this is precisely reflected in the artworks of that time.

We started with portraits of famous and prominent figures, which were just that: portraits; paintings by skilled artists to immortalize the subjects of the paintings. The centerpiece of the gallery was the bust of George Washington, portraying him in a stern and serious mood, as an orator, a statesman, a man with a huge responsibility on his shoulders. Equally striking were the paintings of famous landscapes, showing exploration of the new territories that would form part of the young country, as well as paintings of scenes of patriotism arising from both the War of Revolution as well as the Civil War, the most striking of which was the painting of Lady Schuyler burning her fields.

This latter painting shows a young woman, Lady Schuyler, picking up a torch and preparing to set fire to the wheat fields behind her, as her husband helps and her daughter watches, along with another young woman and (presumably) a young slave boy helping. Lady Schuyler is the most prominent figure, dressed in white, blue and red (the colours of the flag, and hence of patriotism), deliberately placed in the centre and given a very discernible triangular composition, in spite of the figures all around her. The scene is easy to understand given the context; the family has learned that British troops are approaching, and rather than be conquered, they would set their fields on fire before they fled to warn others, so that no resources would be left behind. One doesn't know how true the story is, but the painting serves to portray and inspire patriotism, in a very symbolic way, and must have conveyed the same ideals throughout time, wherever it was displayed.

Also striking was a certain quilt made by a pair of young ladies for their home, beautifully crafted and carefully preserved. It may seem odd for something as simple as a quilt to be displayed in a museum, but remember that art is anything that's beautifully crafted by human hands. Quilts were in fact rather important items in early American history, indeed there were customs such as quilt-making parties that served to foster community bonding. The women of the household typically made all the household linen themselves, or at least for ceremonial occasions, and both men and women got together for quilt-making parties and each one would make one part of the quilt, the whole being put together when everyone was done. This particular quilt was probably made for a ceremonial occasion, given that it has come to us so well preserved.

It was formed in the main of two kinds of motifs, one being a simple yet elegant flower motif, probably signifying growth and flourishing of the community and the nation, the other being a rework of the bald eagle emblem, complete with drum and other attributes. The pattern was laid out in nine squares, four bearing the emblem motif and five the flower motif, symmetrical in layout, though each individual motif was not quite symmetrical, with the whole being bordered by a simpler flower and leaf pattern. The colour theme was white, with pink, red and green used for the flower motifs. These colours were also symbolic of prosperity and continuing stability. Most interestingly, the word LIBEBTY was worked into the eagle motif, though whether the spelling was deliberate or accidental we may not know. One might suspect it was deliberate, because of the custom amongst craftsmen out of humility to never allow anything crafted to be absolutely perfect, because only the Creator is held to be perfect, and challenging his perfection is to invite trouble.

And this museum is a publicly funded museum, which means around half its operating budget comes from public taxes. The rest has to be raised through private donations, as do the collections themselves, because a museum operating on public funds does not have the kind of money that private museums or vanity museums do, for purchasing works of art. A publicly funded museum cannot spend 15 billion dollars for one painting, the way a private museum could. The collection is thus painstakingly built up, over decades, by convincing people to donate money and fund the museum's activities, including helping it acquire pieces for the collections, as well as donate their own collections as a civic responsibility. The dynamics of how this works also add to the awe you feel as you walk into such a place.

Museums are all about preserving history. Preserving, as best as we can, every representative material piece of the past, and recording our history through each of these pieces. An art museum simply preserves history through the arts, adding a touch of the aesthetic to our sense of history.

(My experience courtesy the Los Angeles County Museum of Art and the University of Southern California)

Random Conversation: Sexy Alu Mattar

"Oh man, I had a full meal."

"What was for dinner?"

"Alu mattar. My roomie made it. It was sexy."

"The alu mattar? Sexy?"

"Yes, of course!"

"Do you realize you're changing the definition of sexy?"

"Why, what's wrong with calling it sexy?"

"Oh really? So... what were the curves like?"

"Of the mattar? Absolutely round and fresh, man, and the alu? Such lovely angular shape... And the tomatoes, so perfectly soft and mashed up... and the garlic and ginger paste and the ajwine added such lovely flavour...!"

"You know, that kind of description could be used for..."

"Yeah, I know."

Pay It Forward

They say, that humankind has a natural, inexplicable, karmic gift: what goes around, comes around. Actually, that is only half the circle. If you want the full circle to exist, there is an accompanying responsibility: what comes around, must go around. In simple words, that means everyone must be at the giving end when they can give it, if they wish to be at the receiving end when they need it.

Human society is huge. We number somewhere in the neighbourhood of seven billion people, every single one different from the other. We live in organized cooperative society (or at least, most of us do), where each one must contribute, so that the collective good is served. So why is altruism necessary? Why would one want to selflessly help someone else, without any expectation of reward?

It makes immediate sense when one says that each person must contribute; each one must work and earn a living, and the combined contributions of each person help sustain the community as a whole. Earlier, we had the barter system so the reward for contribution was direct; now we have money, so it's a little more complicated, but it's still essentially the same in principle. But it wouldn't make immediate sense to someone extremely practical, that going a little bit out of your way to help out others without any expectation of reward is just as important. You don't get a clear answer to the question: "What am I going to get out of it?"

Anyone who's interested in why our ancestors developed a sense of altruism and why we still have it today may refer to the relevant chapter in The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins. The book is about atheism, but Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist, and he offers an explanation from that point of view. Altruism is essentially an investment, due to the extreme unpredictability of life. I cannot be sure of getting food everyday, but if I live in a group where everyone tries to get food, and shares equally whatever is obtained, surely my chances of starving at the end of the day are significantly lesser, than if I were to live alone. I share my excess today, in the hope that tomorrow someone will share their excess with me, if mine depletes. Individuals who possess this sense are more likely to survive, more likely to reproduce, and more likely to pass on this trait to their offspring, which is why we have it today, so many generations after it developed in primitive humans.

There can still be an objection raised at this point. Alright, so someone does you a favour. Why should you not return the favour to that person, the one who did it to you? That person deserves it more than anyone else, why must one be altruistic in general? And isn't such an investment a dangerous one to make at all? What if you do something for someone who will never be capable of returning the favour back to you?

There is nothing to prevent us from being good to people who do us a good turn. In fact, it's a very nice thing to do. It makes perfect logical sense. And as for someone who can't return the favour back to you, how do you know that there isn't a third person, who can do you good, but who is in need of something which the second person can give? How do you know that there isn't a chain of such people? The whole concept of altruism is based on this, that it works in a circle, and that such a circle is possible, never mind its actual realization in life.

The movie Pay It Forward was based on this idea. You may not always be able to return a favour that someone does you. Someone else may not be able to return you a favour that you do them. So why not just go on helping people anyway? Someday you will receive help too, because you are part of the circle. And the more people you help, and the more you encourage this concept, the bigger the circle can be.

The next observation is, how do we know that there is such a circle at all? There are hundreds of people in the world who do not receive the help they need, at the most critical points in their lifetime. Isn't the circle supposed to include everyone, if it exists? It's true that there are people who don't receive help. There are people who are harmed for no fault of theirs, often even deliberately harmed by someone else for that someone's personal benefit. But that makes it all the more urgent for people to understand and adopt the concept of altruism. It's true that you need to be able to support yourself at a minimum level, before you can support others. But doesn't it fit in, that others can help you reach that minimum level, from where you can take off and then begin the paying forward process yourself?

Most of all, it often doesn't take too much effort to go out of your way to help someone else. Helping out can be for things as simple as helping your neighbour with heavy bags, or giving someone a lift. That kind of thing is not just manners; in a way, it's altruism. If everyone gives it, everyone receives it too. And if you receive it, you should think about giving it too.

Deadlines Matter To Us!

A firm of surveyors, in the mood for some whacky fun, took an extremely fat book and went out to study the reaction of people in various professions. 

The doctor looked through the book, pausing to note intriguing passages, and declared his opinion that it would take him six months to complete a study of the book. 

The lawyer skimmed through it, flipping quickly through the pages, and said it would take him a couple of months to plough through it. 

The manager glanced at the book and its title, and averred it would take him a week or so to get through it. 

The engineer didn't even look at the book. "When's the exam?"

Many thanks to the two lovely ladies who told me this story.

Being Feminine

For some time, I have found my thoughts often turning to the concept of femininity. Femininity, not feminism. I am already a rather headstrong feminist, in that I believe in equal rights and opportunities, as well as equal standards and regard between the sexes. The trouble is the latter part seems to somewhat collide with popular perceptions of femininity.

What does it mean to be feminine? I have good reason to ask, and good authority to answer, since I was labelled a "non-female" by a good number of people (men, actually) for quite some time, for different reasons. What was different about me, that people thought I wasn't feminine? 

I was a tomboy for quite some time. A very long time, in fact. I always wore jeans and t-shirts, and they were the baggy, loose kind, that guys usually wear. I never wore makeup or jewelry; never bothered with my hair except for keeping it clean and tightly tied up, away from my face; never worried about getting rid of acne; never giggled with a group of girls, talking about boys or movies; never went for any intense grooming sessions; never displayed those typical gestures or mannerisms that most "feminine" girls seem to have. And then there was the matter of attitude too. Apparently I simply didn't "behave" like a girl, whatever that is supposed to mean. And several times, people advised me with earnest and good intentions to change all that!

Things did change gradually. My tastes in clothes changed a little; I still wear only t-shirts and jeans, but these are now somewhat of the "feminine" kind (read better-fitting). I wear a minimal amount of jewelry, and I keep my hair more loosely tied now, so that some of the neatness has been sacrificed. I do some minimal amount of the grooming part, with the emphasis on neatness. I still don't wear makeup or giggle, though I laugh a lot. I don't roam around with a pack of girls talking about boys or movies. I don't know if I have yet developed "girly" behaviour or not. 

But, it seems this was enough to change that tag! I thought being feminine meant having or displaying qualities that are unique to one as a female; that means you get those qualities only if you are a female. Nothing has changed in my essential mind or body in the past ten years, and yet, a simple change of clothes and elimination of acne seems to have changed the tag. Is that all femininity is about? The clothes and the hair and the makeup? If so, it isn't exactly a very useful or practical thing, is it? And if it has no use, why in the universe would I go to the trouble of developing that feminine quality in the first place! How presumptuous indeed to imply, that an essential part of my worth comes from such superficial things!

The other aspect is that being feminine apparently requires certain social attitudes as well. But in a way, this seems to be trampling on the ground of feminism, insofar as that is used to view certain social mores and norms. For example, I can cross a busy street in India without getting killed, and I'm quite skilled at that. Crossing the road alone is not a problem for me, and neither is it for hundreds of girls in India. Yet, if I happen to cross the road, or even walk by the side of the road with a guy, he will invariably move between me and the oncoming traffic. This is regardless of how much the guy knows or doesn't know me. Of course, he has been taught by his seniors and his peers that this is how you must treat a female, so it doesn't matter if he's a friend or a stranger; he will still walk on the side where the traffic is. 

Now I can complain about this, protesting that it is really unnecessary and I am quite capable of crossing the road facing the traffic myself, thank you very much: this is the feminist in me speaking. Or I can quietly accept it, because part of the "feminine" social deal is that it's okay to let a guy care for you any way he can; that in fact, it's supposed to be that way, that it's a guy's duty to take care of any female he's with. What makes it funny, apart from complicating matters, is that when a female refuses a male's "protection" or "care" in this manner, she actually affronts his "masculinity" (read male ego)! Whenever I protest against any guy trying to keep me away from the traffic, even on the safest and most orderly of roads, they physically pull me to the other side, saying things like, "You won't understand! Just come to the other side!" Those who don't or won't go so far as that, give me a look that combines surprise with a shade of being offended.

There are plenty of things like this, that a guy would do trying to be chivalrous: picking up bags, extending a hand over difficult terrain, opening doors, holding out chairs and so on. I find it rather strange; I don't need anyone, guy or girl, to do things like that for me. Yet tons of girls accept such behaviour, and indeed expect it from guys. So, is this attitude also part of being "feminine"? I've never seen a girl pull out a chair for a guy. Ever.

Surely, being feminine must be more than dressing yourself up or acting like a wimp? I still wonder.

New World

A new world is mine to make my own. And yet, life is no different in this world than it was in the old one.

How does it matter which side of the road you walk on? You still have to walk. 

How does it matter what time of day or night you walk? It's still unsafe to walk alone. 

How does it matter who you meet and talk to and roam about with? You still need friends, and you will find them wherever you go. 

How does it matter, who cooks best and who cooks worst, or indeed, who cooks at all? You still have to eat food to live. And to eat that food, you have to cook it the best you can. 

How does it matter how many people in the city you talk to? Girls will be girls, and boy will be boys. And girls and boys will always have the same issues around them and between them, that they always did. 

How does it matter how you try to disguise yourself? Your heart is always the same, still beating strong within you, with the rhythm that you have learnt and developed over so many years. 

How does it matter which song you listen to? Music is universal, it speaks to the mind in a language that does not have words or alphabets. 

How does it matter how many stories you hear? There will always be stories, and each brings out a new and fresh aspect of human nature you never knew existed before. And you will have your stories to tell and reveal too. 

How does it matter how far away a friend or a parent or a lover may be? You send them your love every time you think of them.

And how does it matter how far your goal is? In your dreams, you still see that which is most precious to you, that which is most priceless, that which you desire to have and cherish so passionately that when you awaken, nothing will stop you on your journey as you step towards it. 

At the end of the day, when your mind is exhausted and your heart begins to have misgivings, your sleep will rejuvenate you, invigorate you, and cheer you and offer you solace, so that you may continue with the next leg of your journey on the morrow. 

This new world is then, already my own.

Are You Smarter Than A Fifth Grader?

This seems to be the smartest program on TV just about now. I knew there was a reason why I stopped watching TV except for Looney Tunes and Tom & Jerry.

The contestants are equally smart. I'll tell you the story of a contestant who got knocked out in just three questions, having used a cheat on each one of them.

Question 1: How many consonants are there in the word "Vowel"?

Question 2: True or False? "Vincent van Gogh was born in France."

Question 3: How many demonstrative adjectives are there in the following sentence? "That scruffy dog chased the multicoloured cat up the tall fence."

Now, I'm guessing that most people would score on the first one without skipping a beat. Our smart young lady chose to save herself instantly. Her idea was, there are two consonants in the spelling of "Voul". She learnt the correct spelling on the show.

Not many of us really know where Vincent van Gogh was born, but I think the name is at least a sufficient indication that the guy is a Dutchman, and not French.

Not too many people would remember third standard English grammar, which happens to be 5th standard English grammar for the Americans, but a demonstrative adjective is one which points towards a noun, rather than qualitatively defining it. There are only four in the entire English language: This, That, These, Those. No prizes for guessing the answer on this one.

This is the state of the language, amongst the people who are supposed to be the experts in it. And I, though living where I do and promoting the standard of language that I do, am still forced to shell out 8000 in cash, to pay for a test to prove my proficiency in the same language. And no hope for a reprieve. The little consolation I have is in watching the show, and gloating that I am smarter than an American 5th grader, and definitely much smarter than an average American of my age.

Bonny, and Blithe, and Good, and Gay

So India finally had its first major step in bringing homosexuals back to the community - decriminalizing their existence.

That was a pretty harsh step - condemning gayness to the point where it was actually a crime. It was an archaic and idiotic law at that time, and it is even more so today. Imagine the horror of having your existence labelled a crime, and for something that's actually a personal matter - the matter of who you fall in love with.

People who have opposed homosexuality usually have one of four particular reasons to oppose it: either that it is not permitted by religion, or that it could have adverse consequences for society (in terms of demographics), or that it involves 'unnatural' thinking or behaviour, or that it would lead to higher rates of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) amongst the existing population.

I find all these reasons weird.

The argument of religion is perhaps the most ridiculous. The idea of religion determining the validity of one's sexual orientation is most horrendous, for all the good reasons that atheists proclaim aloud all the time. It is rather alarming, to find that your entire social and moral structure is dictated by a belief system, which rather than being all-encompassing and tolerant, instead preaches the "righteousness" of only one set group of attributes in people, and condemns the rest. I would not, for one minute, accept any religion that effectively said that a certain denomination of people must be discriminated against; neither would I accept the preachings or claims of any so-called spiritual or religious or moral teacher who said so. If there is a divine being which created everything, then homosexuals were created by that same being, hence there is no call to treat them lesser than heterosexuals. If there never was any divine being, it doesn't change things, because everyone is still born with the rights of equality and freedom.

Another common argument is the fact that homosexuality could lead to a "breakdown in the fabric of society". What kind of breakdown are these people talking about? Any child which is raised in the home of a loving, honest, upright, caring family is likely to imbibe those attributes as well. How does it matter whether that family is two men, or two women, or a man and a woman? A child needs a safe, happy home to live in. A large number of children come from different kinds of families. There are children who have lost one parent, children who have lost both parents, children who have divorced parents, children who have been adopted, by either single parents or couples, children who have been adopted alongside natural children, children who have step-parents and step-siblings, resulting from extension of a few of the situations above, and so on. Even with the differing conditions, these children can be happy, if they have a happy and loving home atmosphere. Why should children with homosexual parents be any different?

One more objection is that homosexual tendencies are "unnatural". This sentiment reeks of bigotry. If someone is different, either actively or passively, that does not mean that they are criminals. If you think someone is unnatural for not thinking or acting the way you do, that means the other person has the right to think the same way about you. Sexual orientation is moreover, a private matter, that has no direct bearing on anyone except each individual for himself/herself. There is no call for anyone to go about labelling anyone else's sexual bent "unnatural".

Some people use the unnatural tag with the argument that children can be born naturally only to a man and a woman together, thus it is unnatural for any other liaison to exist. But how does it matter? Gay couples can always adopt children, apart from using one partner's sperm with donated ova, together with help from a surrogate mother. Lesbian couples have an added advantage in only needing the sperm, since either partner can herself become a mother. Infertility treatments allow for the conception of children by couples who couldn't normally have them. Isn't that going against the "law of nature"? But nobody in their senses would oppose the use of such treatments to have children, so how does this particular argument justify going against homosexuality?

The last problem - the one of spread of STDs - is a legitimate concern. But again, there are no grounds for condemning homosexuality, because the latter is not the only reason for spread of STDs. Unsafe sexual practices are followed by hundreds of people, heterosexual or not, often unknowingly. Those who know, often don't care until it's too late. Open any personal column or sex advice column in any magazine, and you will read plenty of cases about boys who visit prostitutes to "check their virility", about people who indulge in unprotected sex with partners and later realize that they know nothing about their partner's sexual habits or history, and about people who don't even understand the concept of protection, either against pregnancy or against STDs, much less know any level of detail about how various forms of protection work.

A lot of people don't know that there are STDs apart from AIDS, and many people live under the delusion that AIDS spreads mainly (or only) due to homosexual contact. Thanks to this state of affairs, and the equally dismal level of basic sexual education in the country, STDs are spreading at exponential levels, and instead of fostering sexual education and promoting safe practices and preventive procedures, people are instead attacking homosexuality as the cause.

Some basic sex education needs to be provided to teenagers at the right stages of life. After all, would it not be much better to arm adolescents with correct information and equip them to make good choices, rather than let them find out a whole motley bunch of mistruths on their own? Sex education is a separate issue on its own. People would rather not have any sex ed given to their children, for fear of encouraging experimentation in "evil practices" (of which they consider homosexuality is one). Unfortunately, in an age when information of every kind, true and untrue, is available at one's fingertips, unless active steps are taken to combat misinformation, things are likely to go down the drain.

And meanwhile, the issue of homosexuality stands on its own. Some progress is apparently being made in recent years; some homosexual marriages have been solemnized, by religious priests, and the parents of those couples have been accepting of the situation. There may be many more couples in nooks and corners in the country, quietly living their lives, keeping their secret. With at least their existence now no longer criminal in the eyes of the law, there may now come about a slow social revolution, culminating in a fairer quality of life for a significant part of the human populace.

Read A Book Daily...

I'm a condemned person for some time now. I'm about to jump off a precipice and find out whether all the effort I've put into designing and building my wings is going to work, because now I have to fly...

But there's still time to jump off that precipice. I have to find a landowner who's willing to let me use his property for my take-off.

And in the meanwhile I've to wait. So what do I do?

I read a book daily.

I've harboured this idea for a long time - I want my own library. A huge cupboard full of books, all neatly categorized, covered with good newspaper to protect the delicate covers from scratches and brutal treatment, and looking beautiful and inviting. I go crazy every time I go to a bookstore. I can't resist the temptation to buy just one more book, one more beautiful piece of writing, and my heart breaks every time I see the prices. I often soothe that wound by buying a Penguin classic that I don't already have - it's a bargain, seriously. You get a nice classic for just around one hundred rupees, and it's a good book to add to the collection. Penguin has its own taste in selecting books to publish, and it's taste matches with my own, and the best part is, my taste isn't confined to just one type of literature.

And now there's a new form of entertainment. It's called thin-slicing, the concept for which you should thank this young man. You get to read the first chapter of a book totally free, and from that, you must thin-slice and make out whether you'd like to buy the book or not. It's a great way to find out about books. And it makes for great recreation too.

Heh heh, you can let your imagination soar about the chapters you read too.

I've decided to read a book daily. Not just the actual paper that I can clasp in my hands, hold up to my face and smell deeply, write my name on and declare my ownership of, but also a trial run for all these new books by all these various authors, which I might probably not even see in my local bookstore.

It's probably also good to have a way to evaluate the books without the danger of falling to the temptation to buy them, which is likely to happen in an actual bookstore.

I can't help it, the atmosphere is just too tempting!

Colourblind

"Don't try to understand bureaucratic logic. Trust me, you don't want to," said my wise friend Marcus Licinius Crassus. He told me the following story.

A steel company in a small central-eastern state in my country, once wished to set up mining operations there. They penned a letter and sent it to the Department of Administrative Affairs to seek the required permissions. The Department flipped the moment they received the letter. Reason? It was in green ink.

"Oh no, our department correspondence and work is carried out only in red and black ink," said they, and so the forwarded the application for a second opinion to the Ministry of Interior Affairs. And those guys flipped out too. Reason? "Green ink is used only by the top guys in the military."

So they forwarded the application to the Ministry of Defence. And again, those guys flipped out! Reason? "This is nothing to do with us or our department! It must go back where it came from!"

And so the application found it's way back, over the course of eight months, back to the Ministry of Interior Affairs, which sent it back to the Department of Administrative Affairs, which sent it back to the steel company, stating that the application needed to be in line with the law passed two months back, stating that all applications and forms must henceforth always be penned in blue or black ink.

I don't know about the steel company, but Reynolds, Add and Cello must have made a fortune in blue and black ink since then.

Warning: True story. Oops, you already read it. :D

Viva la Project!

What have you done in this project?
Nothing, really.

Why do we need hybrid systems?
Environment friendly, you big bad smoking chimney!

Why do we combine solar power with wind power in a hybrid system, of all the renewable sources we can use?
Reminds me of the beach. Soak in the sun, with a cool breeze flowing... Gets me started, man!

What have you done in one year?
Watched movies, went on a trip, drank chai, got drunk, ate lots of nice food, celebrated my birthday, what more do you want to know, you sneak!

What is the efficiency of solar system/wind system?
Should be good, else we wouldn't use it.

What have you actually simulated?
How the thing works, you doof. Why not just read the damn report?

Why have you used voltage signals in the simulation, when a power system deals with load?
Coz that's what's possible in the goddamn software! Man, talk about being a prof...

Why have you chosen LabVIEW instead of Matlab?
Coz that's what my guide told me to do. Plus, it has a nice view... isn't that what it's supposed to be? Lab-View?

What are the voltage ranges we can deal with in this hybrid system, ie what is the load you can supply?
Whatever load you want, you build a big enough machine, and it'll supply. Talk to Homepower.org, they deal in installation info.

What is the use of your project?
Getting a grade so I can get out of here. Also perhaps some kid could copy it and get a grade too.

What machine is used in a wind turbine system?
The one that's used in all of them.

How can you increase the efficiency or power output of a hybrid system?
Umm... throw out the garbage on time? So that the system doesn't have to waste time doing it.

How cost-effective is a hybrid system?
Not much. I spent all my time and energy on this one, and that other idiot spent only 10 grand on his... and got a better grade! Talk about unfair!