CricTrivia

What is the total number of runs scored since the first Test was played, and for how many wickets?

The total number of runs scored in the 1942 Tests played between March 1877 and December 30, 2009 (I'm writing this after the Boxing Day Tests in Melbourne and Durban), was 1,899,965. There had been 59,496 wickets, so that gives an average of 31.93 runs per wicket all told.

How often has a team scored 400 or more in its first innings yet gone on to lose the Test?

This has now happened on no fewer than 57 occasions in Tests. There have been 12 instances of a team scoring more than 500 in their first innings yet still losing, with the highest of all being Australia's 586 against England in Sydney in 1894-95, in the first Test ever won by a team who had to follow on. The most recent instance was also in Sydney: in January 2008, India scored 532 in their first innings but still went down to Australia by 122 runs.

Reflections in Water

Some interesting pictures in there !

RSK

Mirror_in_the_Water.pps 5392K View Download

Pink Pakistani

The Pakistani players walked out in bright pink caps as part of the colour change that is becoming a tradition at the SCG Test. This game is helping the The McGrath Foundation, which was set up by Glenn McGrath's late wife Jane, and the tourists presented the signed hats to the local bowling hero on the outfield. Last year A$580,000 was raised during the game here against South Africa, helping the number of breast care nurses at the foundation rise from seven to 53

Job Interview @ IKEA !

DIRT IS GOOD

( from Economist)

Shock studies periodically expose and deplore sloppy habits. Fully 76% of kitchen sink cloths are infested with germs. One in three American men does not wash his hands after using a public lavatory.

There is nothing fixed, however, about Western fascination with dirt—or terror of it. As recently as 1965 only half of British women wore an underarm deodorant. Back in 1940 just over half of American households had a proper bathroom. In 1951 nearly two-fifths of English households lacked a bath—and not only for reasons of post-war poverty.

Regular all-over bathing, elaborated in ancient Greece and Rome and celebrated in luxurious contemporary ensuite bathrooms, was distrusted for about 400 years in the second millennium. Water was thought to carry disease into the skin; pores nicely clogged with dirt were a means to block it out. In the 17th century the European aristocracy, who washed little, wore linen shirts in order to draw out dirt from the skin instead, and heavy perfumes and oils to mask bad smells.

Has the persecution of dirt, however, gone too far? Some immunologists believe that children now growing up in hyperclean, sterile environments are failing to develop immune systems properly because of inadequate exposure to bacteria. This idea, known as the hygiene hypothesis, is a possible explanation for growing incidences of eczema and other allergic diseases in rich countries, which are rare in poorer ones. Various studies have shown that children growing up with older siblings, who bring germs into the house, or on farms, where they come into daily contact with animals, muck and unpasteurised milk, are less likely to develop hay fever or asthma, though the scientific evidence is not conclusive.

A recent experiment by dermatologists at the University of California, San Diego, suggests a molecular basis for the hygiene hypothesis. They found common bacteria living on the surface of skin that can help wounds to heal by releasing a special molecule to stop outer-skin cells getting inflamed. Bacteria-free skin, in other words, may provoke inflammation and slow healing.

First-time parents, writes Mary Ruebush, an American immunologist and author of “Why Dirt is Good”, frantically try to keep their babies away from dirt. “When that pacifier falls on the floor, the parents cannot throw themselves on it quickly enough to wash it off, soak it in bleach, run it through the dishwasher, the microwave, you name it.” The trouble is, she adds, such a baby will not have the contact with germs that are needed to build up a strong immune system. Children rather should be encouraged to play in the dirt.

Researchers have even found what they think might be dirt that can make people happy

Some researchers in Britain have even found what they think might be dirt that can make people happy. An experiment on mice showed that certain bacteria normally found in soil stimulated neurons in the brain that produce serotonin, which influences mood. The results, says Chris Lowry, at Bristol University, “leave us wondering if we shouldn’t all be spending more time playing in the dirt.” From demon and pest to guarantor of happiness and childhood health? Not bad for humble grime.

My Review: 3 Idiots

What a delightful movie !

The stories and the narrative of Dil Chahta Hai, Munna Bhai and Tare Zameen Par flow through this film, seamlessly making you feel it is one long continuum.....

The acting is of high class, the dialogues are modern -day, urban, the underlying message of PURSUE WHAT YOU LIKE is very "in with the times " and in keeping with the ethos of a Nation on the verge of great times....

Boman Irani plays a longish role with great aplomb as do Amir Khan, Madhavan and the third "idiot".....

The IIM, B campus looks cute, as do some of the locales in Ladakh...particularly the turquoise blue lake( towards the end)....

The over-done caricature of a South Indian student jars as does the length of the film.... a few sub-plots ( Javed Jafri, Child Delivery scene) could have been deleted to condense the film....

Hirani does a good job once again( after the 2 Munna Bhais) but I, for one , can't figure out his obsession with repeated display of urinating men and toilet scenes.... surely, he has managed the humour content quite well even without those ( gross) scenes....

All in all.....Amir Khan maintains his image of a sincere and serious film actor and doles out a good movie..... some of the other Khans will never ever reach his standards ( with the exception of , of course, Yusuf Khan !) , unfortunately !

Cartoon of 2009?