Ok.. I'm taking a break from serious stuff. This one's on the lighter side..
You've heard of Moore's law.. well, he was no Einstein.. if he can make laws, so can I. Here are mine. These have been verified many times experimentally and accidentally. There's no doubt about their validity whatsoever (they definitely work perfectly well in my frame of reference )
Tim's First Law: With respect to a stationary bus stop, the frequency of buses is always higher in the opposite direction of intended travel.
Tim's Second Law: The no of lines constituting the syllabus of a particular subject is inversely proportional to the effort required in comprehending it.
Motivation behind the laws:
The First Law: You know how irritating it is when your carrying your heavy backpack, waiting at a bus stop, and you see a bus every minute or so stopping on the other side of the road, and all you can do is watch the passengers coming after you leave before you in LIFO manner. Well, every time this happens it baffles me. I mean, either the bus operators conspire against me, or its just how things work!!! Since this happens almost at any bus stop and across a wide range of time slots, i concluded it couldn't be a meticulous plan against me. That means its a natural phenomenon. It doesn't hurt that bad now - at least i got a law out of it :)
The Second Law: Its happened more than once - I'll have about 32 hours left for an exam, and i pick up the syllabus, discover that a one or more modules are just 2 lines long covering about 2 or 3 topics and judge that its not gonna be a herculean task finishing it. And then when I actually get down to study, brimming with self confidence, i learn just how deep the thing is...more than compensating its width - or the lack of it.
20 years from now, when people start quoting these laws, they may use this page as reference - this is the official release of my laws as i can't find an appropriate journal to submit them as a paper [:)]
Monday, October 6, 2008
Friday, May 30, 2008
Change aint all that bad – Twenty Twenty made me concede
When the news first came out - the introduction of a new format for cricket – twenty-twenty, I wasn't excited. Actually, my reaction was similar to those of the likes of Javed Miandad. "T20 will spoil the game; it’s a commercial gimmick, another example of giving in to an instant, commercial, action craving world". I didn’t believe it would be taken seriously. I expected it to be a filler of sorts – casual cricket when there were no tests and ODIs. I remember seeing the T20 world cup ads on TV during the ‘07 world cup. I scorned at the whole affair. ` T20 world cup. Who’s gonna watch that? It’s an insult. Batsmen thrashing around like mad in a quick death manner. A game in which bowlers are reduced to organic bowling machines.’ It’s like those commercial breaks. Short and sweet…but not the real thing.
I kept true to my word and didn’t watch the T20 World Cup - Not the first few matches’ anyway. But soon the buzz word in hostel was T20. All people watched in the TV room was T20. Curiosity got the better of me.
I must admit that I enjoyed the blitzkrieg on the field. Yuvraj hitting 6 sixes in an over, and going on to score 50 in just 12 balls! How was I not supposed to enjoy that? And then India made it to the finals. That was enough reason to watch the finals anyway. And I enjoyed it. A tie, and then the tiebreaker...
But that didn’t last long. When ICL became the talk in the papers, I went back to my old self. I didn’t watch a single ICL game. Then came IPL. I wasn’t very amused. I was filled, yet again, with the snobbish feeling of being a higher being by endorsing only tests and ODIs. But two or more matches’ later people acquired a new lingo - chargers and kings and daredevils!!! What was that? I didn’t even know the teams. Friends told me how superb the past matches were. That was it! Not again...this time I'm watching the whole thing. Who do I support? Ignoring the usual favourites I chose Punjab Kings XI - Shaun marsh more than impressed me. The match against the Delhi Daredevils which Punjab went on to win (by DL) was another match that got me hooked to the Punjab Kings XI. Jayawardene's batting in that match convinced me, T20 was more than just wild hitting.
But something, much bigger, shocking, made me take notice. The match between the Kolkata Kinghtriders and Punjab Kings XI. Punjab put up a reasonably imposing target of 174 (the highest ever IPL score on that ground). Kolkata came into bat with a required run rate of over 8.5, yet right till the 15th over they hardly scored over 8 runs an over, with the most expensive over yielding only 11 runs. At the end of 15 overs they needed 71 runs - to be made in 30 balls. That was an asking rate of over 14 per over - and they were 5 wickets down. By the middle of the 15th over they lost their 6th wicket - and they still needed 69 runs of 27 balls. All their main batsmen, save Ganguly were out. Ganguly himself was just at 45, hitting just 2 sixes in the innings.
A team has lost all its strike batsmen save the one who’s been at the centre for 75% of the match, scoring just 45. They need more than 70 runs in less than 5 overs, with an asking rate of more than 15. Statistics, logic, past performances - nothing but a wild dream would suggest a victory for the Knightriders from that point. How does a team make 70 runs in 30 balls with just 4 wickets remaining?
A very unexpected candidate showed just how. In came Umar Gul. The guy hit two sixes of the last two balls. Those were some massive shots. But they still needed 57 runs in 24 balls. Ganguly was on strike. And something happened. He literally went nuts. A six, then a four, then a six. At then end of the over they needed 39 of 18 - my throat ached..this cant be happening. I mean…the guy was so indolent till just one over back... but I was optimistic. `A few more shots like that would cost them a wicket - not what they need at this stage’.. I expected them to slow down.. I was wrong...in the next over, Gul hits a four and a six. And to make things more painful, they got 4 leg byes - the ball clipping the pad and missing the wicket keeper..this was frustrating.. they got away with that many times in the innings. At the end of the 18th over they needed 23 runs of 12 balls.. the match was no more one sided. In the 19th over, Punjab did get their wicket as expected.. Gul was caught out in an attempt to continue with his massacre. But Ganguly was still there...Ganguly smartly avoided running of the last ball to take strike in the final over. Final over - 15 in 6 balls..can they do it? They did it! with 2 balls to spare.. a six, a double and then a six...
Kolkata actually won the match!!! In retrospect you can always say, its Ganguly..he's great in the last overs..or whatever...but it still hard to digest.. If a team can win a match from a stage were they need over 14 runs an over with 4 wickets remaing...anything can happen. T20 is indeed unpredictive (in a broad sense - yes)
And you know what? Bowlers do play a big role in this game. True thou it may be that an economy of 8 is considered normal and an economy of 6.5 “outstanding”. But the bowlers have proved that the game is more than batsmen being arrogant and reckless. Bowlers have being fooling around with the batsmen all through the tournament – slow deliveries, change in pace… and they've had their share of success. And if they make a slight mistake, they’re punished. What results is some fine bowling. Either it’s a great delivery, or it’s a great shot (sometimes both).
I don’t know why ICC brought in the new format. Was it the money or the popularity? Well, I really don’t care. I’m not a fanatic. I watch cricket because I enjoy the game. Change is never pleasant. So at first, the idea of a new format is unwelcome. But I’ve begun to like the format. Why? Because it’s unpredictable. One over can change the game. Every bowl is filled with suspense – will it be a six, or a wicket, will the ball carry to the boundary or will it be caught? Can the batsmen take the second run, or will the fielder make a direct hit onto the wicket….You can’t say. You’ve got to wait and watch (It doesn’t take that long…it happens very fast) You can’t proclaim a winner even if uve got great experience and what not. And it’s short. It’s sweet..It’s exciting, it’s tense..
As some people say “Commercial breaks are the best part of TV” (no double meanings intended ;))
I do look forward to the ODIs now. As a good friend pointed out.. the ODIs are going to get a lot more exciting.
I kept true to my word and didn’t watch the T20 World Cup - Not the first few matches’ anyway. But soon the buzz word in hostel was T20. All people watched in the TV room was T20. Curiosity got the better of me.
I must admit that I enjoyed the blitzkrieg on the field. Yuvraj hitting 6 sixes in an over, and going on to score 50 in just 12 balls! How was I not supposed to enjoy that? And then India made it to the finals. That was enough reason to watch the finals anyway. And I enjoyed it. A tie, and then the tiebreaker...
But that didn’t last long. When ICL became the talk in the papers, I went back to my old self. I didn’t watch a single ICL game. Then came IPL. I wasn’t very amused. I was filled, yet again, with the snobbish feeling of being a higher being by endorsing only tests and ODIs. But two or more matches’ later people acquired a new lingo - chargers and kings and daredevils!!! What was that? I didn’t even know the teams. Friends told me how superb the past matches were. That was it! Not again...this time I'm watching the whole thing. Who do I support? Ignoring the usual favourites I chose Punjab Kings XI - Shaun marsh more than impressed me. The match against the Delhi Daredevils which Punjab went on to win (by DL) was another match that got me hooked to the Punjab Kings XI. Jayawardene's batting in that match convinced me, T20 was more than just wild hitting.
But something, much bigger, shocking, made me take notice. The match between the Kolkata Kinghtriders and Punjab Kings XI. Punjab put up a reasonably imposing target of 174 (the highest ever IPL score on that ground). Kolkata came into bat with a required run rate of over 8.5, yet right till the 15th over they hardly scored over 8 runs an over, with the most expensive over yielding only 11 runs. At the end of 15 overs they needed 71 runs - to be made in 30 balls. That was an asking rate of over 14 per over - and they were 5 wickets down. By the middle of the 15th over they lost their 6th wicket - and they still needed 69 runs of 27 balls. All their main batsmen, save Ganguly were out. Ganguly himself was just at 45, hitting just 2 sixes in the innings.
A team has lost all its strike batsmen save the one who’s been at the centre for 75% of the match, scoring just 45. They need more than 70 runs in less than 5 overs, with an asking rate of more than 15. Statistics, logic, past performances - nothing but a wild dream would suggest a victory for the Knightriders from that point. How does a team make 70 runs in 30 balls with just 4 wickets remaining?
A very unexpected candidate showed just how. In came Umar Gul. The guy hit two sixes of the last two balls. Those were some massive shots. But they still needed 57 runs in 24 balls. Ganguly was on strike. And something happened. He literally went nuts. A six, then a four, then a six. At then end of the over they needed 39 of 18 - my throat ached..this cant be happening. I mean…the guy was so indolent till just one over back... but I was optimistic. `A few more shots like that would cost them a wicket - not what they need at this stage’.. I expected them to slow down.. I was wrong...in the next over, Gul hits a four and a six. And to make things more painful, they got 4 leg byes - the ball clipping the pad and missing the wicket keeper..this was frustrating.. they got away with that many times in the innings. At the end of the 18th over they needed 23 runs of 12 balls.. the match was no more one sided. In the 19th over, Punjab did get their wicket as expected.. Gul was caught out in an attempt to continue with his massacre. But Ganguly was still there...Ganguly smartly avoided running of the last ball to take strike in the final over. Final over - 15 in 6 balls..can they do it? They did it! with 2 balls to spare.. a six, a double and then a six...
Kolkata actually won the match!!! In retrospect you can always say, its Ganguly..he's great in the last overs..or whatever...but it still hard to digest.. If a team can win a match from a stage were they need over 14 runs an over with 4 wickets remaing...anything can happen. T20 is indeed unpredictive (in a broad sense - yes)
And you know what? Bowlers do play a big role in this game. True thou it may be that an economy of 8 is considered normal and an economy of 6.5 “outstanding”. But the bowlers have proved that the game is more than batsmen being arrogant and reckless. Bowlers have being fooling around with the batsmen all through the tournament – slow deliveries, change in pace… and they've had their share of success. And if they make a slight mistake, they’re punished. What results is some fine bowling. Either it’s a great delivery, or it’s a great shot (sometimes both).
I don’t know why ICC brought in the new format. Was it the money or the popularity? Well, I really don’t care. I’m not a fanatic. I watch cricket because I enjoy the game. Change is never pleasant. So at first, the idea of a new format is unwelcome. But I’ve begun to like the format. Why? Because it’s unpredictable. One over can change the game. Every bowl is filled with suspense – will it be a six, or a wicket, will the ball carry to the boundary or will it be caught? Can the batsmen take the second run, or will the fielder make a direct hit onto the wicket….You can’t say. You’ve got to wait and watch (It doesn’t take that long…it happens very fast) You can’t proclaim a winner even if uve got great experience and what not. And it’s short. It’s sweet..It’s exciting, it’s tense..
As some people say “Commercial breaks are the best part of TV” (no double meanings intended ;))
I do look forward to the ODIs now. As a good friend pointed out.. the ODIs are going to get a lot more exciting.
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Free World? What's that?
So we live in a free world - do we? That's what we keep telling ourselves. We pity our forefathers because they lived in a "rigid" world, a world in which you were told what to do, or more frustratingly, what not to do. There was a right way of doing things and those who chose to be different were labeled as immoral.
I'm sure that in many cases this may indeed be true. We do, as a matter of fact have the right to disagree with traditions and norms. We do what we want, and it no longer matters what society dictates. Or at least that’s what we believe.
But if you look closely, things aren’t as rosy as we would want it to be. Freedom you say? What freedom? Define freedom. Dictionary.com defines freedom as: exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc. In other words, I should be allowed to choose what is right for me and what isn’t. And my choices shouldn’t affect my individual rights and dignity. Again you may say that this is indeed the way things are. I disagree.
Let’s take homosexuality for instance. If I were to say that, I feel homosexuality is abnormal and sick, I would be labeled old-fashioned, narrow minded, orthodox, conservative etc. I didn’t say that people shouldn’t engage in the act or that it’s wrong or pass any judgment. All I did was express my view, which in the so called free world, shouldn’t be a problem. Yet, I become a lesser human in the eyes of others - because I don’t subscribe to the popular view - that is homosexuality is normal and beautiful in its own way. Free world?
Something similar is true about the age old debate of creation or intelligent design vs. evolution. In the scientific world, it’s logical to accept evolution and discard creation. Creation limits nature and, leaves no scope for freedom - after all creation claims we have a creator. A person who accepts the intelligent design view is generally looked down upon by the scientific community and is considered ignorant and intellectually limited. Why? Doesn’t a free world allow an individual to choose what he or she wants to believe? It’s perfectly okay to believe that one is right and only his or her view is right - I’m not saying that all views must be accepted as correct - but if a person's views are what define his dignity and worth, then there is obviously no respect for another person's right to believe whatever he or she wants - something I fail to accept as a characteristic of a free world.
There are many similar issues which have a popular world view and a "conservative" one. What difference is there really, between the freedom our forefathers enjoyed and what we witness? They had a conservative view to most issues: good people go to heaven and bad people to hell, sex outside marriage is wrong etc, and our generation has a popular view to these issues. Either case there is a fixed correct view and all other views are wrong - or stupid. What's the
difference? All that has changed are the standards.
A truly free society would respect each individual's right to hold his own independent view. Of course you don’t have to agree to or respect the view. A person would be accepted and treated equal irrespective of his views...that’s true freedom.
You will find lots people endorsing popular views just to be accepted as modern and broad minded - you call that freedom? That’s being slave to freedom. You change all your principles just to be labeled a free thinker!!! We live in a world which doesn’t even allow us freedom of thought.
Free world? What’s that? Happy Independence Day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)