Yeh Mehloon,Yeh Takhto,Yeh Taajon Ki Duniya,
Yeh Insaan Key Dushman Samaajon Ki Duniya,
Yeh Daulat Key Bhookey Riwazon Ki Duniya,
Yeh Duniya Agar Mil Bhi Jaye To Kya Hai
Har Eik Jism Ghayal,Har Eik Rooh Pyaasi,
Nigahoon Mein Uljhan,Diloon Mein Udaasi,
Yeh Duniya Hai Ya Aalam-e-Badhawasi,
Yeh Duniya Agar Mil Bhi Jaye To Kya Hai
Yahaan Eik Khiloona Hai Insaan Ki Hasti,
Yeh Basti Hai Murda Paraston Ki Basti,
Yahaan To Jeevan Se Hai Maut Sasti,
Yeh Duniya Agar Mil Bhi Jaye To Kya Hai
Jawaani Bhatakti Hai Badkaar Ban Kar,
Jawaan Jism Sajtey Hein Bazaar Ban Kar,
Yahaan Pyaar Hota Hai Beopaar Ban Kar,
Yeh Duniya Agar Mil Bhi Jaye To Kya Hai
Yeh Duniya Jahaan Aadmi Kuch Nahi Hai,
Wafa Kuch Nahi,Doosti Kuch Nahi Hai,
Yahaan Pyaar Ki Qadr Hi Kuch Nahi Hai,
Yeh Duniya Agar Mil Bhi Jaye To Kya Hai
Jala Du Isey,Phoonk Daloo Yeh Duniya.
Meray Saamney Sey Hata Loo Yeh Duniya,
Tumhari Hai Tum Hi Sanmbhaloo Yeh Duniya,
Yeh Duniya Agar Mil Bhi Jaye To Kya Hai
Yeh Duniya Agar Mil Bhi Jaye To Kya Hai
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Issues in life of ppl --- zindagi main bahut load, pareshani. Still ppl njoi. Dont learn frm mistakes. Dont even want to pay for the mistakes. Just want somehow those probs to vanish. Even by putting those on others names. Still complaints nd more complaints. Somehow thgs turn for better. Do we ever leave thgs bcoz we assess ourselves n realise tat wat we r getting is far more than our worth? NO, tat will b foolishness..aint!! just grab opportunities n shrug off the probs, issues n make urself happy.
Monday, June 01, 2009
Friday, April 17, 2009
Restrain and Refrain
re⋅straint /rɪˈstreɪnt/ –noun 1. a restraining action or influence: freedom from restraint.
2. Sometimes, restraints. a means of or device for restraining, as a harness for the body.
3. the act of restraining, holding back, controlling, or checking.
4. the state or fact of being restrained; deprivation of liberty; confinement.
5. constraint or reserve in feelings, behavior, etc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re⋅frain1 /rɪˈfreɪn/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ri-freyn] Show IPA
–verb (used without object) 1. to abstain from an impulse to say or do something (often fol. by from): I refrained from telling him what I thought.
–verb (used with object) 2. Archaic. to curb.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well quite related words but I think the two have a basic difference: Former being an external force and latter pointing to the internal force. Its by force and by choice thing. Ppl want to do so many things as soon as they get a chance - at the first available option. Ppl want to be liberated, throw away any shackles but are restrained by the society, the family, the religion and what not. But give them the chance and take away the conscience and they will do it.
Some ppl understand the reasons and refrain from a number of stuffs because they want to do things which they believe in. Ppl may ask how can they believe that what they are not doing is not right because they haven't experienced it and one should not believe on others words. But if one really wants to understand things, I believe it doesn't require the hands on experience always.
There is another group which refrains from stuffs because it is their in their brains...it has been stuffed down without any analysis.
2. Sometimes, restraints. a means of or device for restraining, as a harness for the body.
3. the act of restraining, holding back, controlling, or checking.
4. the state or fact of being restrained; deprivation of liberty; confinement.
5. constraint or reserve in feelings, behavior, etc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re⋅frain1 /rɪˈfreɪn/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ri-freyn] Show IPA
–verb (used without object) 1. to abstain from an impulse to say or do something (often fol. by from): I refrained from telling him what I thought.
–verb (used with object) 2. Archaic. to curb.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well quite related words but I think the two have a basic difference: Former being an external force and latter pointing to the internal force. Its by force and by choice thing. Ppl want to do so many things as soon as they get a chance - at the first available option. Ppl want to be liberated, throw away any shackles but are restrained by the society, the family, the religion and what not. But give them the chance and take away the conscience and they will do it.
Some ppl understand the reasons and refrain from a number of stuffs because they want to do things which they believe in. Ppl may ask how can they believe that what they are not doing is not right because they haven't experienced it and one should not believe on others words. But if one really wants to understand things, I believe it doesn't require the hands on experience always.
There is another group which refrains from stuffs because it is their in their brains...it has been stuffed down without any analysis.
Manipulation
Manipulation of ppl - the brain wash.
The manipulators always try to attack the point where ppl/masses are weakest so that they are not able to question a lot about it. They put the facts in such a way that the ppl are bound to think the way they want them to. Ppl show that the life is to be utilized for the service of certain things like GOD and for this even if they need to lay down lives or take lives, they should go ahead and do it. But who are these GODs regarding whom these manipulators are talking. Are these the real God who always want peace and harmony and righteous thinking or are these the artificially created ones who cater to the thoughts of the manipulators in such a way that these manipulators are successful in fulfilling their heinous plans and taking away the life, the prestige, the respect of their opponents!!!
The manipulators always try to attack the point where ppl/masses are weakest so that they are not able to question a lot about it. They put the facts in such a way that the ppl are bound to think the way they want them to. Ppl show that the life is to be utilized for the service of certain things like GOD and for this even if they need to lay down lives or take lives, they should go ahead and do it. But who are these GODs regarding whom these manipulators are talking. Are these the real God who always want peace and harmony and righteous thinking or are these the artificially created ones who cater to the thoughts of the manipulators in such a way that these manipulators are successful in fulfilling their heinous plans and taking away the life, the prestige, the respect of their opponents!!!
Monday, April 13, 2009
The winds of change
http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/other/turner_review.pdf
http://www.laitman.com/2008/10/the-financial-crisis-an-analysis/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_entities_involved_in_2007-2008_financial_crises
http://www.laitman.com/2008/10/the-financial-crisis-an-analysis/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_entities_involved_in_2007-2008_financial_crises
Report card for Politicians
Well I believe all the things are judged by the progress made in a period of time. This is judged either through the performance in exams or through the progress report of the project which displays how much of the project has been completed.
In India, the biggest project that is the Five year plan and the budgets are not reviewed as regularly as they should be. Y shouldn't every year a report card of the project be placed in the parliament and available for the public scrutiny? All the projects that are promised in budgets with all the financials should be placed with all the relevant progress and the money expended displayed in it. May be the budget has all of this but they are not displayed in the right manner to give the public the right view. So I think there should be a dedicated progress report card displaying the progresses made and the reasons for delay and what are the steps that are being taken to avoid them in future.
In India, the biggest project that is the Five year plan and the budgets are not reviewed as regularly as they should be. Y shouldn't every year a report card of the project be placed in the parliament and available for the public scrutiny? All the projects that are promised in budgets with all the financials should be placed with all the relevant progress and the money expended displayed in it. May be the budget has all of this but they are not displayed in the right manner to give the public the right view. So I think there should be a dedicated progress report card displaying the progresses made and the reasons for delay and what are the steps that are being taken to avoid them in future.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
PYTHON
Its not about python, the reptile but a very high level programming language Python :)
http://www.python.org/ says
Python is a dynamic object-oriented programming language that can be used for many kinds of software development. It offers strong support for integration with other languages and tools, comes with extensive standard libraries, and can be learned in a few days. Many Python programmers report substantial productivity gains and feel the language encourages the development of higher quality, more maintainable code
What is dynamic object oriented programming language?
As per the publication http://jeffsutherland.com/papers/Rans/OOlanguages.pdf it is :
A project commenced at Xerox PARC in the early 70z with the aim of creating the quintessential dynamic object oriented language. This is one which allows new classes, objects and behaviouf to be appended on the fly by representing the class hierarchy, objects and methods of a program as meta-data at run-time.
Also,
dynamic programming language
Refers to a language that requires less rigid coding on the part of the programmer. It typically features "dynamic typing," which gives the programmer more freedom to pass parameters at runtime without having to define them beforehand. A dynamic language may also perform some amount of self checking at runtime, which would normally be done ahead of time in a compilation stage. Although a dynamic language offers runtime flexibility and is generally easier to program, it does not eliminate the programmer's responsibility for understanding the interactions that will take place.
Convert to Machine Code at Runtime
The term may also refer to interpreted languages in general, which convert source code or bytecode to machine language at runtime, as well as to just-in-time compilation, the process of compiling the program the moment before it is executed.
Dynamic and Non-Dynamic Examples
Numerous languages fall into the dynamic category, including JavaScript, VBScript, Lisp, Perl, PHP, Python, Ruby and Smalltalk. Examples of languages that are not dynamic are C/C++, Java, COBOL and FORTRAN. See dynamic, interpreter and JIT compiler.
Nice one is http://visualwikipedia.com/en/Object-oriented_programming_language
Some useful sites for python which I found useful as I start to learn python are:
http://code.activestate.com/recipes/146847/
http://koichitamura.blogspot.com/2008/06/various-ways-to-integrate-python-and-c.html
http://svn.python.org/projects/ctypes/tags/ctypes-1.0.2/
http://snippets.dzone.com/tag/python
http://starship.python.net/crew/theller/ctypes/
http://www.python.org/ says
Python is a dynamic object-oriented programming language that can be used for many kinds of software development. It offers strong support for integration with other languages and tools, comes with extensive standard libraries, and can be learned in a few days. Many Python programmers report substantial productivity gains and feel the language encourages the development of higher quality, more maintainable code
What is dynamic object oriented programming language?
As per the publication http://jeffsutherland.com/papers/Rans/OOlanguages.pdf it is :
A project commenced at Xerox PARC in the early 70z with the aim of creating the quintessential dynamic object oriented language. This is one which allows new classes, objects and behaviouf to be appended on the fly by representing the class hierarchy, objects and methods of a program as meta-data at run-time.
Also,
dynamic programming language
Refers to a language that requires less rigid coding on the part of the programmer. It typically features "dynamic typing," which gives the programmer more freedom to pass parameters at runtime without having to define them beforehand. A dynamic language may also perform some amount of self checking at runtime, which would normally be done ahead of time in a compilation stage. Although a dynamic language offers runtime flexibility and is generally easier to program, it does not eliminate the programmer's responsibility for understanding the interactions that will take place.
Convert to Machine Code at Runtime
The term may also refer to interpreted languages in general, which convert source code or bytecode to machine language at runtime, as well as to just-in-time compilation, the process of compiling the program the moment before it is executed.
Dynamic and Non-Dynamic Examples
Numerous languages fall into the dynamic category, including JavaScript, VBScript, Lisp, Perl, PHP, Python, Ruby and Smalltalk. Examples of languages that are not dynamic are C/C++, Java, COBOL and FORTRAN. See dynamic, interpreter and JIT compiler.
Nice one is http://visualwikipedia.com/en/Object-oriented_programming_language
Some useful sites for python which I found useful as I start to learn python are:
http://code.activestate.com/recipes/146847/
http://koichitamura.blogspot.com/2008/06/various-ways-to-integrate-python-and-c.html
http://svn.python.org/projects/ctypes/tags/ctypes-1.0.2/
http://snippets.dzone.com/tag/python
http://starship.python.net/crew/theller/ctypes/
Sunday, February 08, 2009
Hypocrisy
This is what I read when I check dictionary.com for hypocrisy.
hy⋅poc⋅ri⋅sy
–noun, plural -sies. 1. a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.
2. a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude.
3. an act or instance of hypocrisy.
When ppl expect others to treat them in certain fashion and they themselves treat others in not the same fashion, I think it is a genuine case of hypocrisy. People think others should try to make them happy, think about their scenarios, their problems and be considerate about them but do they themselves do the same when they talk to the same person from whom they expect so much? No is the answer in majority of cases. For such people having the thought to be cared for is hypocrisy I think.
From wikipedia::::
Psychology of hypocrisy
In psychology, hypocritical behavior is closely related to the fundamental attribution error: individuals are more likely to explain their own actions by their environment, yet they attribute the actions of others to 'innate characteristics', thus leading towards judging others while justifying ones' own actions.
Also, some people genuinely fail to recognize that they have character faults which they condemn in others. This is called psychological projection. This is self-deception rather than deliberate deception of other people. In other words, "psychological hypocrisy" is usually interpreted by psychological theorists to be an unconscious defense mechanism rather than a conscious act of deception, as in the more classic connotation of hypocrisy. People understand vices which they are struggling to overcome or have overcome in the past. Efforts to get other people to overcome such vices may be sincere. There may be an element of hypocrisy as well if the actors do not readily admit to themselves or to others how far they are or have been subject to these vices.
A Common Fallacy
It is a common fallacy to accuse someone of being a hypocrite to disprove their argument. This can be known as an ad hominem attack.
This ad hominem attack must have been faced by a large number of ppl. I have seen people restricting others from going to pubs and drinking but they themselves drink, may be in close company of few friends. But, should they drink if they want to restrict others from doing the same. Even in lob, I have seen ppl expecting others to understand them but not taking the pain to understand y similar thing happened with others and they say "lob is the ultimate reason for human existence".
Ppl want others to care for them but do they deserve it?
Persons who believe in certain principles and dont agree with certain other principles but feel proud of calling themselves the follower of a certain culture are also in a way hypocrites. If we dont believe in certain aspects we should say that we dont agree with certain things and we should change them. Not because society expects us to be sth we silently accept things...but if one takes pride in being something, he/she should try to abide by it fully, even if it is painful to him/her. But does it mean hard core followers of religions are right in doing what they do because they believe in these? A bit of confusion here but if people who teach religion to these people teach it the right way, I think there will not be any such confusion. People are misguided and if one wants others to follow what he/she is doing then he/she must have full understanding of the reasons and the implications of it.
hy⋅poc⋅ri⋅sy
–noun, plural -sies. 1. a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.
2. a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude.
3. an act or instance of hypocrisy.
When ppl expect others to treat them in certain fashion and they themselves treat others in not the same fashion, I think it is a genuine case of hypocrisy. People think others should try to make them happy, think about their scenarios, their problems and be considerate about them but do they themselves do the same when they talk to the same person from whom they expect so much? No is the answer in majority of cases. For such people having the thought to be cared for is hypocrisy I think.
From wikipedia::::
Psychology of hypocrisy
In psychology, hypocritical behavior is closely related to the fundamental attribution error: individuals are more likely to explain their own actions by their environment, yet they attribute the actions of others to 'innate characteristics', thus leading towards judging others while justifying ones' own actions.
Also, some people genuinely fail to recognize that they have character faults which they condemn in others. This is called psychological projection. This is self-deception rather than deliberate deception of other people. In other words, "psychological hypocrisy" is usually interpreted by psychological theorists to be an unconscious defense mechanism rather than a conscious act of deception, as in the more classic connotation of hypocrisy. People understand vices which they are struggling to overcome or have overcome in the past. Efforts to get other people to overcome such vices may be sincere. There may be an element of hypocrisy as well if the actors do not readily admit to themselves or to others how far they are or have been subject to these vices.
A Common Fallacy
It is a common fallacy to accuse someone of being a hypocrite to disprove their argument. This can be known as an ad hominem attack.
This ad hominem attack must have been faced by a large number of ppl. I have seen people restricting others from going to pubs and drinking but they themselves drink, may be in close company of few friends. But, should they drink if they want to restrict others from doing the same. Even in lob, I have seen ppl expecting others to understand them but not taking the pain to understand y similar thing happened with others and they say "lob is the ultimate reason for human existence".
Ppl want others to care for them but do they deserve it?
Persons who believe in certain principles and dont agree with certain other principles but feel proud of calling themselves the follower of a certain culture are also in a way hypocrites. If we dont believe in certain aspects we should say that we dont agree with certain things and we should change them. Not because society expects us to be sth we silently accept things...but if one takes pride in being something, he/she should try to abide by it fully, even if it is painful to him/her. But does it mean hard core followers of religions are right in doing what they do because they believe in these? A bit of confusion here but if people who teach religion to these people teach it the right way, I think there will not be any such confusion. People are misguided and if one wants others to follow what he/she is doing then he/she must have full understanding of the reasons and the implications of it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)