Sunday, June 25, 2017

Reservations Should Be Used Once per Person

If abolishing reservations is going to take time, atleast as a first step, reservations should be changed to single use per person. The idea of reservations is, those who are deprived of privileges would get extra boost to be equal with others. If they have used reservation once, it means, they have been "made" equal with others. Then, why do they need reservation again?

Many people start using reservations at school (mostly unknowingly), and then at college for graduation, then post graduation. Later while applying for jobs, they may get a normal job (with reservation), then may apply for state service jobs, and finally may try for civil services. Giving these many chances is very unfair.

The person should be given only once chance to use the reservation and let them decide to use at college or at civil services or wherever they feel it is more appropriate.

Sunday, June 18, 2017

Atheists Have More Blind Faith Than Theists

Is an atheist more scientific or a theist?

Is Atheism also a religion?

Anybody who has studied little advanced Science or Mathematics would know that, it is very difficult to prove that something does not exist or something cannot be achieved. Except in Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science, it is practically not possible to prove that something does not exist in any non-trivial case. Even in Mathematics or its related fields, proving that something cannot be done is very difficult, and typically the proof is very complicated.

Whereas proving of existence of something is relatively easy. You just need to find where it is or show one sample of it. Whereas, proving non-existence of anything is practically not possible.

For example, if somebody has to prove that a particular virus is not present in somebody, practically it is not possible. The tests that we have typically finds virus only if it is in millions. If the body has only handful of viruses, and if the blood sample that one has taken does not have those, then tests cannot find it. To really prove that there is no virus in the body, one has to take out the complete blood and test it. By then, the person would be dead. On the other hand, by luck, if somebody gets the blood sample with virus, then they can prove the existence of virus.

To prove absence of a person in a relatively big apartment is also pretty difficult, if you don't have man power or technology. While you are searching, if that person also moves so as to avoid you, then you can never find him/her, unless you have some support. Even if you have lot of technology and many power, you need to prove that, that apartment does not have any place to hide. The most complex thing is, there are magicians who make people invisible for some time. You need to prove that, there was no magic involved there, which is practically not possible, if you have to convince someone who is not into lot of physics. Also, you need to prove that, there is no unknown technology which can hide that person, which is not possible. Physics rules are not applicable at very small or very big scale. If you want to depend on rules of Physics, you need to prove that, they are not using anything that is at the very small scale. We can safely forget scientifically proving the absence of a person in a city. Let's not talk about state or country.

In software development, most of the testers would have irritated by sporadic bugs which comes very rarely. When they file those bugs, the typical response from developers like me is, "Show me the bug infront of my eyes. Then only, I will take it". Obviously, no tester would be happy with that response. If a customer raises a critical bug, and if the tester says, "I have tested it thoroughly and there cannot exist a bug", then either he/she will lose the job or the customer.

But, for atheists, it is perfectly correct to say that, "God does not exist", irrespective of whether they can prove even trivial things or not.

Scientifically, it is possible that, somebody has seen God and is believing. But, Scientifically, it is not possible to prove the non-existence of God. Many people ask Theists, "How can you be a theist, when you believe in Science". I want to ask them back, "How can you be an atheist, when you believe in science."

An atheist is Millinillion (10^3003) times more unscientific than a theist.

If you don't believe in god, be Agnostic, and not an Atheist.

Sunday, June 11, 2017

To the brink and back by Jairam Ramesh.

I used to get frustrated, Whenever I hear from Congress supporters saying, it was Rajiv Gandhi who wanted to bring economic reforms, and after his untimely death, P.V.Narasimha Rao brought those economic reforms.

Jairam Ramesh went a step ahead. He said in his book, "To the brink and back", before the 1991 elections, Rajiv Gandhi cleared three names for the finance minister, I.G.Patel, Manmohan Singh and S.Venkitaramanan. He wrote as if, P.V.Narasimha Rao did exactly what Rajiv Gandhi would have done (including the selection of the Finance Minister).

It is believed that, I.G.Patel was the first preference for P.V.Narasimha Rao. But, he declined and Manmohan Singh accepted it. S.Venkitaramanan was the then Reserve Bank Governor.

In olden days, whenever poets write any book, they start by glorifying their king. In the same way, Jairam Ramesh's book started with the glorification of Rajiv Gandhi.

During the discussion of the reforms in 1991, most of the ministers did not accept the reforms and rejected it. Later Jairam Ramesh added the preamble of praising Nehru-Gandhi family and described as if Nehru-Gandhi family wanted the reforms, and all the ministers accepted it.

I would have liked the book much more, had he skipped the "too exaggerating" praises of Rajiv Gandhi.