Importance of " More..".

The more generous we are, the more joyous we become.   The more cooperative we are, the more valuable we become.   The more enthusiastic we are, the more productive we become.   The more serving we are, the more prosperous we become.   The more outgoing we are, the more helpful we become.   The more curious we are, the more creative we become.   The more patient we are, the more understanding we become.   The more persistent we are, the more successful we become.

And Pakistan did not know?

1.  ( from BBC) 
2.  More now on the intelligence that led the US to Bin Laden. A senior White House official described the compound where the al-Qaeda leader lived: "We were shocked by what we saw - an extraordinarily unique compound. It is roughly eight times larger than the other homes in the area. It has 12-18ft walls topped with barbed wire. Internal walls sectioned-off different portions of the compound to provide extra privacy. Access to the compound is restricted by two security gates, and the residents of the compound burn their trash, 
   unlike their neighbours, who put the trash out for collection."
3. The official continued: "The main structure, a three-storey building, has few windows facing the outside of the compound. A terrace on the third floor has a 7ft privacy wall. The property is valued at approximately $1m but has no telephone or internet service connected to it."

1. And the White House official went on: "We soon learned that more people were living at the compound than the two brothers and their families. A third family lived there - one whose size and makeup matched the Bin Laden family members that we believed most likely to be with Osama Bin Laden. Our best assessment, based on a large body of reporting from multiple sources, was that Bin Laden was living there with several family members, including his youngest wife."

How the Sukhoi 30 was bought : Great Story

A plane tale from the past

Shekhar GuptaPosted: Mar 12, 2005 at 0000 hrs IST

This is a story from the summer of 1996 that I had salted away for my memoirs, but am tempted to tell now because it may have some relevance to the muddying politics of these times. I do, however, seek forgiveness if any of the eminent cast of characters still prefers that the story isn't told.

You might remember how a little controversy had started to build in the last days of the Narasimha Rao government when, with election campaign in full swing, the Sukhoi-30 deal was signed with the Russians and, as you would expect, The Indian Express broke the story (scooped by Amitav Ranjan, now senior assistant editor). There were immediate protests from the BJP. This was after all a caretaker government. Then, surprisingly, the BJP stepped back.

I got a call one morning from Jaswant Singh to talk about the Sukhoi story. What did I think about the deal, he asked. Did I suspect there was a scam, like Bofors? I told him I had heard no such thing and that my friends in the IAF thought this was a great aircraft. He then asked me if I would see Mr Vajpayee (then leader of the Opposition) to talk more about this. The same afternoon, I got a call from Vajpayee's home to see him at breakfast the next morning. But before I get into the meat of our discussions that morning, I can't avoid the temptation of mentioning what I — and all animal lovers would understand why — found the highlight of that meeting, Vajpayee lovingly, and generously, buttering a crisp toast and feeding it in small pieces to his favourite pomeranian, while exploring the possibility of a scandal bigger than Bofors.

His question, briefly, was as follows. The lame-duck Congress government had sealed the deal in its last days in an unseemly hurry. It was also his 'information' that the government had paid an advance of around $350 million to the Russians without any final price settlement. Why such an unusual rush? Did the Congress want to collect a kickback in the last, cash-and-carry phase of its government? He said he had heard that the Express knew more about this, or if not, could I have it looked at more closely? He said his apprehension was that "if it is a good plane, unsubstantiated talk of a scam should not scuttle the deal." At the same time, knowing the very venal ways of the Rao government, and circumstantial evidence in the case, you naturally suspected a kickback.

We checked out our usual sources and suspects and it did not seem that the decision, though hasty, was mala fide. The BJP too kept quiet, Rao's Congress was defeated anyway, and Vajpayee's coalition government was sworn in, although it lasted only 13 days.

It was towards the last couple of days of that government that Jaswant Singh called me to chat on the sidelines of a public function. "That Sukhoi story," he said, "is actually nothing." Having been in government now, they had been able to look at the files and it was a clean deal and the haste, if any, was in a larger national interest, so it would be better to forget all about it. He wouldn't tell me what that "larger" national interest was. I did find out later, but for that juicy little tidbit you have to read this article for a little bit longer.

The scene now shifts to the IAF mess on New Delhi's Zakir Hussain Marg, a few months later, and we pick up the thread of that Sukhoi story again. Now Gowda's coalition was in power and Mulayam Singh Yadav was the defence minister. His ministry had organised a small dinner for him to meet senior editors at the IAF's showpiece mess in Delhi (you can't miss it as you drive past, that's the building with a MiG and a rare HF-24 Marut, the only home-built supersonic fighter of '60s vintage, displayed in its lawns). Mulayam's defence ministry had just finalised the Sukhoi order. I stole a discreet moment to ask him if he had looked at the Sukhoi deal closely, because it was signed in such haste, there was a large, arbitrary advance involved, and because the top leaders of the BJP were at one stage suspicious about it.

"I know, I know, Jaswantji and Atalji had brought this up with me," he said. Then he went on to describe in detail how, before the final deal was signed, he had actually invited Vajpayee and Jaswant to South Block to have a detailed presentation on the deal given to them. He said they had suggested changes in the deal documentation, including the provision of a sovereign guarantee from the Russian government that no kickbacks were paid and, should any be discovered any time in future, they would reimburse the amount to the Government of India. (I later checked this with Jaswant Singh who confirmed it.) Then Mulayam said with a lot of delight: "They came to my office, we settled everything, but you people never found anything out." That conversation ended with Mulayam telling me triumphantly, and repeatedly, "Dekha, media fail ho gaya (see, the media failed to find out)."

We had failed, alright, to find out such a marvellous story, of how arch-rivals Mulayam and the BJP had actually exchanged notes on such a sensitive issue behind closed doors. Though late, it was still a great story, I thought, and so asked Ritu Sarin, the head of our investigative bureau, to find out more and, sure enough, she landed up at Jaswant Singh's office to check. At which point I once again got an invitation to Vajpayee's house. This time, the point was simple. Could the Express avoid this story please? Because if it was published, it might hamper our ability to communicate across party lines even on issues of such sensitivity and national interest. These are days of bitter, ideological politics, but governing India is serious business, he said, or something to that effect.

Now the mystery of what exactly that "larger" national interest was that had led to such haste and a large advance payment in the last days of the Rao government. It seems that Yeltsin had told Rao that he, too, was heading for elections, that the Sukhoi factory happened to be in his constituency, was too broke to even pay salaries to its staff and if India could pay it that advance it would work like magic in his election campaign. That advance was, therefore, a political deal between the big boys, to be adjusted in the final pricing later. It was a conscious, diplomatic decision, cleared by Rao (who, in retirement many years later, confirmed this to me with a wicked smile), and executed by none else than the then finance minister, Manmohan Singh.

Now, go over this story carefully, underline the cast of characters: Rao and Manmohan, Vajpayee and Jaswant, Mulayam Singh Yadav — and you know why it is relevant today. Rao took an incredibly bold decision (given the Bofors background) which the BJP, locked in a bitter electoral battle with him, was suspicious of, but did not make an issue of, in the national interest. When the BJP found the real reason (the Yeltsin request) they kept quiet — they in fact said Rao's government had handled it masterfully. Then Mulayam Singh, whose entire politics is based on anti-BJPism, was large-hearted enough to open the files to its leaders and take their advice, again in the national interest. In one story, therefore, you had the top leadership of all three major political groups — bitter enemies — involved. Yet they talked, shared confidences, and did the right thing by their nation. Now compare that with the lack of communication, even social graces, the general antagonism in our politics through this past month, and you know why that Sukhoi story is so relevant, and worthy of recall. If some harmless journalistic confidences are broken in the process, I stand guilty, but I think I should be forgiven.

Write to sg@expressindia.com

Wow !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qar7g8jauBo

MyReview : Chalo Dilli

A typical Vinay Patak movie -  low budget, simple plot, wittily told. 

Brings up  the Bharat vs India debate interestingly..... Lara plays the high-profile investment banker who has no clue how the 98 % ( or more?) Indians live...Pathak plays the street-smart Karolbagh sari shop owner, living by his wits......  deleting of an out-of-place item song and some clever editing would have made the film a bit more effective.......... do see it

RSK

Paradoxes

Brain-Twisting Paradoxes Paradoxes have been around since the time of Ancient Greeks & the credit of popularizing them goes to recent logicians. Using logic you can usually find a fatal flaw in the paradox which shows why the seemingly impossible is either possible or the entire paradox is built on flawed thinking. Can you all work out the problems in each of the 11 paradoxes shown here? If you do, post your solutions or the fallacies in the comments. 11 The Omnipotence Paradox The paradox states that if the being can perform such actions, then it can limit its own ability to perform actions and hence it cannot perform all actions, yet, on the other hand, if it cannot limit its own actions, then that is—straight off—something it cannot do. This seems to imply that an omnipotent being's ability to limit itself necessarily means that it will, indeed, limit itself. This paradox is often formulated in terms of the God of the Abrahamic religions, though this is not a requirement. One version of the omnipotence paradox is the so-called paradox of the stone: "Could an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that even that being could not lift it?" If so, then it seems that the being could cease to be omnipotent; if not, it seems that the being was not omnipotent to begin with. An answer to the paradox is that having a weakness, such as a stone he cannot lift, does not fall under omnipotence, since the definition of omnipotence implies having no weaknesses. 10 The Sorites' Paradox The paradox goes as follows: consider a heap of sand from which grains are individually removed. One might construct the argument, using premises, as follows: 1,000,000 grains of sand is a heap of sand. (Premise 1) A heap of sand minus one grain is still a heap. (Premise 2) Repeated applications of Premise 2 (each time starting with one less grain), eventually forces one to accept the conclusion that a heap may be composed of just one grain of sand. On the face of it, there are some ways to avoid this conclusion. One may object to the first premise by denying 1,000,000 grains of sand makes a heap. But 1,000,000 is just an arbitrarily large number, and the argument will go through with any such number. So the response must deny outright that there are such things as heaps. Peter Unger defends this solution. Alternatively, one may object to the second premise by stating that it is not true for all collections of grains that removing one grain from it still makes a heap. Or one may accept the conclusion by insisting that a heap of sand can be composed of just one grain. 9 The Interesting number paradox Claim: There is no such thing as an uninteresting natural number. Proof by Contradiction: Assume that you have a non-empty set of natural numbers that are not interesting. Due to the well-ordered property of the natural numbers, there must be some smallest number in the set of not interesting numbers. Being the smallest number of a set one might consider not interesting makes that number interesting. Since the numbers in this set were defined as not interesting, we have reached a contradiction because this smallest number cannot be both interesting and uninteresting. Therefore the set of uninteresting numbers must be empty, proving there is no such thing as an uninteresting number. 8 The arrow paradox In the arrow paradox, Zeno states that for motion to be occurring, an object must change the position which it occupies. He gives an example of an arrow in flight. He states that in any one instant of time, for the arrow to be moving it must either move to where it is, or it must move to where it is not. It cannot move to where it is not, because this is a single instant, and it cannot move to where it is because it is already there. In other words, in any instant of time there is no motion occurring, because an instant is a snapshot. Therefore, if it cannot move in a single instant it cannot move in any instant, making any motion impossible. This paradox is also known as the fletcher's paradox—a fletcher being a maker of arrows. Whereas the first two paradoxes presented divide space, this paradox starts by dividing time – and not into segments, but into points. 7 Achilles & the tortoise paradox In the paradox of Achilles and the Tortoise, Achilles is in a footrace with the tortoise. Achilles allows the tortoise a head start of 100 feet. If we suppose that each racer starts running at some constant speed (one very fast and one very slow), then after some finite time, Achilles will have run 100 feet, bringing him to the tortoise's starting point. During this time, the tortoise has run a much shorter distance, say, 10 feet. It will then take Achilles some further time to run that distance, by which time the tortoise will have advanced farther; and then more time still to reach this third point, while the tortoise moves ahead. Thus, whenever Achilles reaches somewhere the tortoise has been, he still has farther to go. Therefore, because there are an infinite number of points Achilles must reach where the tortoise has already been, he can never overtake the tortoise. Of course, simple experience tells us that Achilles will be able to overtake the tortoise, which is why this is a paradox. [JFrater: I will point out the problem with this paradox to give you all an idea of how the others might be wrong: in physical reality it is impossible to transverse the infinite - how can you get from one point in infinity to another without crossing an infinity of points? You can't - thus it is impossible. But in mathematics it is not. This paradox shows us how mathematics may appear to prove something - but in reality, it fails. So the problem with this paradox is that it is applying mathematical rules to a non-mathematical situation. This makes it invalid.] 6 The Buridan's ass paradox This is a figurative description of a man of indecision. It refers to a paradoxical situation wherein an ass, placed exactly in the middle between two stacks of hay of equal size and quality, will starve to death since it cannot make any rational decision to start eating one rather than the other. The paradox is named after the 14th century French philosopher Jean Buridan. The paradox was not originated by Buridan himself. It is first found in Aristotle's De Caelo, where Aristotle mentions an example of a man who remains unmoved because he is as hungry as he is thirsty and is positioned exactly between food and drink. Later writers satirised this view in terms of an ass who, confronted by two equally desirable and accessible bales of hay, must necessarily starve while pondering a decision. 5 The unexpected hanging paradox A judge tells a condemned prisoner that he will be hanged at noon on one weekday in the following week, but that the execution will be a surprise to the prisoner. He will not know the day of the hanging until the executioner knocks on his cell door at noon that day. Having reflected on his sentence, the prisoner draws the conclusion that he will escape from the hanging. His reasoning is in several parts. He begins by concluding that the "surprise hanging" can't be on a Friday, as if he hasn't been hanged by Thursday, there is only one day left – and so it won't be a surprise if he's hanged on a Friday. Since the judge's sentence stipulated that the hanging would be a surprise to him, he concludes it cannot occur on Friday. He then reasons that the surprise hanging cannot be on Thursday either, because Friday has already been eliminated and if he hasn't been hanged by Wednesday night, the hanging must occur on Thursday, making a Thursday hanging not a surprise either. By similar reasoning he concludes that the hanging can also not occur on Wednesday, Tuesday or Monday. Joyfully he retires to his cell confident that the hanging will not occur at all. The next week, the executioner knocks on the prisoner's door at noon on Wednesday — which, despite all the above, will still be an utter surprise to him. Everything the judge said has come true. 4 The barber's Paradox Suppose there is a town with just one male barber; and that every man in the town keeps himself clean-shaven: some by shaving themselves, some by attending the barber. It seems reasonable to imagine that the barber obeys the following rule: He shaves all and only those men in town who do not shave themselves. Under this scenario, we can ask the following question: Does the barber shave himself? Asking this, however, we discover that the situation presented is in fact impossible: - If the barber does not shave himself, he must abide by the rule and shave himself. - If he does shave himself, according to the rule he will not shave himself 3 Epimenides' Paradox This paradox arises from the statement in which Epimenides, against the general sentiment of Crete, proposed that Zeus was immortal, as in the following poem: They fashioned a tomb for thee, O holy and high one The Cretans, always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies! But thou art not dead: thou livest and abidest forever, For in thee we live and move and have our being. He was, however, unaware that, by calling all Cretens liars, he had, unintentionally, called himself one, even though what he 'meant' was all Cretens except himself. Thus arises the paradox that if all Cretens are liars, he is also one, & if he is a liar, then all Cretens are truthful. So, if all Cretens are truthful, then he himself is speaking the truth & if he is speaking the truth, all Cretens are liars. Thus continues the infinite regression. 2 The paradox of the court The Paradox of the Court is a very old problem in logic stemming from ancient Greece. It is said that the famous sophist Protagoras took on a pupil, Euathlus, on the understanding that the student pay Protagoras for his instruction after he had won his first case (in some versions: if and only if Euathlus wins his first court case). Some accounts claim that Protagoras demanded his money as soon as Euathlus completed his education; others say that Protagoras waited until it was obvious that Euathlus was making no effort to take on clients and still others assert that Euathlus made a genuine attempt but that no clients ever came. In any case, Protagoras decided to sue Euathlus for the amount owed. Protagoras argued that if he won the case he would be paid his money. If Euathlus won the case, Protagoras would still be paid according to the original contract, because Euathlus would have won his first case. Euathlus, however, claimed that if he won then by the court's decision he would not have to pay Protagoras. If on the other hand Protagoras won then Euathlus would still not have won a case and therefore not be obliged to pay. The question is: which of the two men is in the right? 1 The unstoppable force paradox The Irresistible force paradox, also the unstoppable force paradox, is a classic paradox formulated as "What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?" The paradox should be understood as an exercise in logic, not as the postulation of a possible reality. According to modern scientific understanding, no force is completely irresistible, and there are no immovable objects and cannot be any, as even a minuscule force will cause a slight acceleration on an object of any mass. An immovable object would have to have an inertia that was infinite and therefore infinite mass. Such an object would collapse under its own gravity and create a singularity. An unstoppable force would require infinite energy, which does not exist in a finite universe. Bonus Olbers' Paradox In astrophysics and physical cosmology, Olbers' paradox is the argument that the darkness of the night sky conflicts with the assumption of an infinite and eternal static universe. It is one of the pieces of evidence for a non-static universe such as the current Big Bang model. The argument is also referred to as the "dark night sky paradox" The paradox states that at any angle from the earth the sight line will end at the surface of a star. To understand this we compare it to standing in a forest of white trees. If at any point the vision of the observer ended at the surface of a tree, wouldn't the observer only see white? This contradicts the darkness of the night sky and leads many to wonder why we do not see only light from stars in the night sky. __._,_.___,_._,___

Rules of Life

Cherie Carter-Scott's Rules of Life

Cherie Carter-Scott is a very modern guru. Her theories explain our attitudes and behaviour with a special clarity, and provide a practical guide to behaviour and self development. She got her PhD in human and organisational development and for the nearly 30 years has been an international lecturer, consultant and author. She founded the MMS (Motivation Management Service) Institute and has been called a guardian angel to many CEO's. Carter-Scott's book If Life Is A Game, These Are The Rules is considered an essential reading for anyone interested in behaviour, relationships, communications, and human personality. Cherie Carter-Scott's rules for life - also known as 'The Ten Rules For Being Human' and referenced in her book with Jack Canfield: 'Chicken Soup For The Soul' - are a map for understanding and pursuing personal development, and for helping others to understand and develop too. 'If Life Is A Game, These Are The Rules' is also commonly referenced book in the life-coaching industry.

Below is a brief summary and explanation of Cherie Carter-Scott's 'rules of life'.

Cherie Carter-Scott's Rules of Life

Rule One - You will receive a body. Whether you love it or hate it, it's yours for life, so accept it. What counts is what's inside.

Rule Two - You will be presented with lessons. Life is a constant learning experience, which every day provides opportunities for you to learn more. These lessons specific to you, and learning them 'is the key to discovering and fulfilling the meaning and relevance of your own life'.

Rule Three - There are no mistakes, only lessons. Your development towards wisdom is a process of experimentation, trial and error, so it's inevitable things will not always go to plan or turn out how you'd want. Compassion is the remedy for harsh judgement - of ourselves and others. Forgiveness is not only divine - it's also 'the act of erasing an emotional debt'. Behaving ethically, with integrity, and with humour - especially the ability to laugh at yourself and your own mishaps - are central to the perspective that 'mistakes' are simply lessons we must learn.

Rule Four - The lesson is repeated until learned. Lessons repeat until learned. What manifest as problems and challenges, irritations and frustrations are more lessons - they will repeat until you see them as such and learn from them. Your own awareness and your ability to change are requisites of executing this rule. Also fundamental is the acceptance that you are not a victim of fate or circumstance - 'causality' must be acknowledged; that is to say: things happen to you because of how you are and what you do. To blame anyone or anything else for your misfortunes is an escape and a denial; you yourself are responsible for you, and what happens to you. Patience is required - change doesn't happen overnight, so give change time to happen. ["Life is a succession of lessons which must be lived to be understood." - Helen Keller]

Rule Five - Learning does not end. While you are alive there are always lessons to be learned. Surrender to the 'rhythm of life', don't struggle against it. Commit to the process of constant learning and change - be humble enough to always acknowledge your own weaknesses, and be flexible enough to adapt from what you may be accustomed to, because rigidity will deny you the freedom of new possibilities.

Rule Six - "There" is no better than "here". The other side of the hill may be greener than your own, but being there is not the key to endless happiness. Be grateful for and enjoy what you have, and where you are on your journey. Appreciate the abundance of what's good in your life, rather than measure and amass things that do not actually lead to happiness. Living in the present helps you attain peace.

Rule Seven - Others are only mirrors of you. You love or hate something about another person according to what love or hate about yourself. Be tolerant; accept others as they are, and strive for clarity of self-awareness; strive to truly understand and have an objective perception of your own self, your thoughts and feelings. Negative experiences are opportunities to heal the wounds that you carry. Support others, and by doing so you support yourself. Where you are unable to support others it is a sign that you are not adequately attending to your own needs.

Rule Eight - What you make of your life is up to you. You have all the tools and resources you need. What you do with them is up to you. Take responsibility for yourself. Learn to let go when you cannot change things. Don't get angry about things - bitter memories clutter your mind. Courage resides in all of us - use it when you need to do what's right for you. We all possess a strong natural power and adventurous spirit, which you should draw on to embrace what lies ahead.

Rule Nine - Your answers lie inside of you. Trust your instincts and your innermost feelings, whether you hear them as a little voice or a flash of inspiration. Listen to feelings as well as sounds. Look, listen, and trust. Draw on your natural inspiration.

Rule Ten - You will forget all this at birth. We are all born with all of these capabilities - our early experiences lead us into a physical world, away from our spiritual selves, so that we become doubtful, cynical and lacking belief and confidence. The ten Rules are not commandments, they are universal truths that apply to us all. When you lose your way, call upon them. Have faith in the strength of your spirit. Aspire to be wise - wisdom the ultimate path of your life, and it knows no limits other than those you impose on yourself.

http://www.businessballs.com/rulesoflife.htm