Transformation from being Stubborn to Perseverance, SHE changed me

The last four months were quite a learning experience for me. A lot has changed within me. For the better of course. The way i think, talk, view things etc. One such great change is my transformation from a stubborn to a persevering one. Never knew that she can have such a great effect on me.
Thank YOU my friend, I miss YOU.....................

DEFINITIONS
Perseverance - To go on resolutely in spite of opposition, importunity, or obstacles; to remain unchanged or fixed in a specified character, condition, or position; to stick with something, especially something difficult or challenging.
Being stubborn - Bring unreasonably or perversely unyielding; mulish; unyielding and not open to reason; performed or carried on in an obstinate or rigid manner; difficult to handle, manage or treat.


COMPARISONS
Going forward vs. Stonewalling
Working toward something vs. Refusing to do something
Having a positive goal vs. Having a negative goal
Making something happen vs. Not permitting something to happen


Someone has wisely quoted:
"The difference between perseverance and obstinacy is that one comes from a strong will, and the other from a strong won't."


KEY POINT
It's good to persevere, and not good to be stubborn. When you persevere, you are working toward a positive goal that's attainable. You are flexible and creative in pursuing possible alternatives toward your goal.

When you're being stubborn, you're either being negative to yourself (refusing to give up when you should), or to others (refusing to do what they want or to give them what they want), or to something (being in denial and refusing to face the facts).


BENEFITS
When you persevere, you make things happen. When you're being stubborn you just stop things from happening. Persevering accomplishes something. Being stubborn accomplishes nothing.


Rohit Bhaskar
29th September 2007

Supercomputers and Nanotechnology

Many problems we regard as needing cleverness can sometimes be solved by resorting to exhaustive searches, that is, by using massive, raw computer power. This is what happens in most of those inexpensive pocket chess computers. These little machines use programs much like the ones that we developed in the 1960s, using what were then some of the largest research computers in the world. Those old programs worked by examining the consequences of tens of thousands of possible moves before choosing one to actually make. But in those days the programs took so long to make those moves that the concepts they used were discarded as inadequate. Today, however, we can run the same programs on faster computers so that they can consider millions of possible moves, and now they play much better chess. However, that shouldn't fool us into thinking that we now understand the basic problem any better. There is good reason to believe that outstanding human chess players actually examine merely dozens, rather than millions, of possible moves, subjecting each to more thoughtful analysis.

In any case, as computers improved in speed and memory size, quite a few programming methods became practical, ones that had actually been discarded in the earlier years of AI research. An Apple desktop computer (or an Amiga, Atari, IBM, or whatever) can do more than could a typical million-dollar machine of a decade earlier, yet private citizens can afford to play games with them. In 1960 a million-bit memory cost a million dollars; today a memory of the same size (and working a hundred times faster) can be purchased for the price of a good dinner. Some seers predict another hundredfold decrease in size and cast, perhaps in less than a decade, when we learn how to make each microcircuit ten times smaller in linear size and thus a hundred times smaller in area. What will happen after that? No one knows, but we can be sure of one thing: those two-dimensional chips we use today make very inefficient use of space. Once we start to build three-dimensional microstructures, we might gain another millionfald in density. To be sure, that would involve serious new problems with power, insulation, and heat. For a futuristic but sensible discussion of such possibilities, I recommend Eric Drexler's Engines of Creation (Falcon Press, 1986).

Not only have small components become cheaper; they have also become faster. In 1960 a typical component required a microsecond to function; today our circuits operate a thousand times faster. Few optimists, however, predict another thousandfold increase in speed over the next generation. Does this mean that even with decreasing costs we will soon encounter limits on what we can make computers do? The answer is no, because we are just beginning a new era of parallel computers.

Most computers today are still serial; that is, they do only one thing at a time. Typically, a serial computer has millions of memory elements, but only a few of them operate at any moment, while the rest of them wait for their turn: in each cycle of operation, a serial computer can retrieve and use only one of the items in its memory banks. Wouldn't it be better to keep more of the hardware in actual operation? A more active type of computer architecture was proposed in Daniel Hillis's Connection Machine (MIT Press, 1986), which describes a way to assemble a large machine from a large number of very small, serial computers that operate concurrently and pass messages among themselves. Only a few years after being conceived, Connection Machines are already commercially available, and they indeed appear to have fulfilled their promise to break through some of the speed limitations of serial computers. In certain respects they are now the fastest computers in the world.

This is not to say that parallel computers do not have their own limitations. For, just as one cannot start building a house before the boards and bricks have arrived, you cannot always start work simultaneously on all aspects of solving a problem. T would certainly be nice if we could take any program for a serial computer, divide it into a million parts, and then get the answer a million times faster by running those parts simultaneously on that many computers in parallel. But that can't be done, in general, particularly when certain parts of the solution depend upon the solutions to other parts. Nevertheless, this quite often turns out to be feasible in actual practice. And although this is only a guess, I suspect that it will happen surprisingly often for the purposes of artificial intelligence. Why do I think so? Simply because it seems very clear that our brains themselves must work that way.

Consider that brain cells work at very modest speeds in comparison to the speeds of computer parts. They work at rates of less than a thousand operations per second, a million times slower than what happens inside a modern computer circuit chip. Could any computer with such slow parts do all the things that a person can do? The answer must lie in parallel computation: different parts of the brain must do many more different things at the same time. True, that would take at least a billion nerve cells working in parallel, but the brain has many times that number of cells.

Three Reasons of NOT Having the Relationship of Your Dreams

Some people have the relationships of their dreams, but most people don't. Most people are secretly suffering and settling -- stuck wishing things were better without much chance of change.

What's the difference? What keeps people trapped in dead end situations?

There are three main reasons why people don't have the relationships of their dreams.

Reason #1: Blaming their partner for the problems. "It's all their fault!"

The first and most obvious reason is blaming their partner for everything. They think, "If my partner would only change, things would be perfect." This is such an easy trap to fall into, but if you think about it, it's very dis-empowering.

Why?

Because it implies that your future and happiness depends on somebody else changing. And when you think about how hard it is to change your own behavior (as in dieting, quitting smoking, working out, etc.) you start to realize that this strategy is not going to be very successful.

Reason #2: "People know what to do, but they're not doing what they know."

Some people don't have the relationship of their dreams because they are not willing to do the things that they know would help transform the relationship.

This is often a spin-off of reason #1. After-all, "It's their fault, why should I change?" It also may be because of past programming, conditioning and baggage. But whatever is stopping you, you may be unwilling to lead the transformation in your relationship.

Reason #3, "You are willing to change, you just don't know what to change."

The last reason you might not have the relationship of your dreams, is that you don't know what to do.

You don't have the tools, skills and training to deal with the emotional, impactful and important issues that come up in relationships without taking it personally or making it personal -- without attacking or defending.

Doctors learn the language of medicine. Attorneys learn the language of law. Plumbers learn the language of pluming. And couples need to learn the language of compassion and understanding for relationships.

You may not have the specialized skills you need to listen effectively so your partner really wants to talk openly and vulnerably with you.(Most people don't. not even doctors and lawyers. Look at their divorce rates!)

Or, you may not have the skills that will allow you to talk in a way that your partner will really want to listen and understand you.

AI and the World of the Future

In the evening we friends were discussing AI. As the black coffee from large beer mugs started to pour in, it was getting more and more interesting. A whole lot of different ideas and views surfaced. It was really a great time, one of the best coffee time chats in a long long time. Few of the points that I inferred..........

Intelligent machines may be within the technological reach of the next century. Over the next few generations we'll have to face the problems they pose. Unless some unforeseen obstacles appear, our mind-engineering skills could grow to the point of enabling us to construct accomplished artificial scientists, artists, composers, and personal companions. Is AI merely another advance in technology, or is it a turning point in human evolution that should be a focus of discussion and planning by all mankind? The prospect of intelligent machines is one that we're ill prepared to think about, because it raises such unusual moral, social, artistic, philosophical, and religious issues. Are we obliged to treat artificial intelligences as sentient beings? Should they have rights? And what should we do when there remains no real need for honest work, when artificial workers can do everything from mining, fanning, medicine, and manufacturing all the way to house cleaning? Must our lives then drift into pointless restlessness and all our social schemes disintegrate?

These questions have been discussed most thoughtfully in the literary works of such writers as Isaac Asimov, Gregory Benford, Arthur C. Clarke, Frederick Pohl, and Jack Williamson, who all tried to imagine how such presences might change the aspirations of humanity. Some optimistic futurists maintain that once we've satisfied all our worldly needs, we might then turn to the worlds of the mind. But consider how that enterprise itself would be affected by the presence of those artificial mindlike entities. That same AI technology would offer ways to modify the hardware of our brains and thus to endlessly extend the mental worlds we could explore.

You might ask why this essay mixes both computers and psychology. The reason is that though we'd like to talk about making intelligent machines, people are the only such intelligence we can imitate or study now. One trouble, though, is that we still don't know enough about how people work! Does this mean that we can't develop smart machines before we get some better theories of psychology? Not necessarily. There certainly could be ways to make very smart machines based on principles that our brains do not use, as in the case of those very fast, dumb chess machines. But since we're the first very smart machines to have evolved, we just might represent one of the simplest ways!

But, you might object, there's more to a human mind than merely intellect. What about emotion, intuition, courage, inspiration, creativity, and so forth. Surely it would be easier simply to understand intelligence than to try to analyze all those other aspects of our personalities! Not so, I maintain, because traditional distinctions like those between logic and intuition, between intellect and emotion, unwisely try to separate knowledge and meaning from purpose and intention. In The Society of Mind, I argue that little can be done without combining elements of both. Furthermore, when we put them together, it becomes easier, rather than harder, to understand such matters, because, though there are many kinds of questions, the answers to each of them illuminate the rest. Many people firmly believe that computers, by their nature, lack such admirable human qualities as imagination, sympathy, and creativity. Computers, so that opinion goes, can be only logical and literal. Because they can't make new ideas, intelligent machines lie, if at all, in futures too remote for concern. However, we have to be wary of such words as "creativity." We may only mislead ourselves when we ask our machines to do those things that we admire most. No one could deny that our machines, as we know them today, lack many useful qualities that we take for granted in ourselves. But it may be wrong to seek the sources of those qualities in the exceptional performances we see in our cultural heroes. Instead, we ought to look more carefully at what we ordinary people do: the things we call common sense and scarcely ever consider at all. Experience has shown that science frequently develops most fruitfully once we learn to examine the things that seem the simplest, instead of those that seem the most mysterious.

Missing someone DEAR

It is lunch break, I am sitting with my friends in the canteen and waiting for Chintu da (our canteen boy) to bring the lunch. A whole lot of halla-gulla is happening all around, jokes are being cracked, discussions are going on. The place is as lively as always. But something is not the same. I get, its something to do with me. I am missing her, feeling empty, i can feel the big void within me. I remember the song "bheed mein bhi hum tanha rahe...aankhon ki talash jo hai woh hai tera chehra...ki bin tere..." from the movie 'Aggar'. The song truly echoes my current state.

Have u ever missed someone and felt terrible because u think that he/she doesn't miss u? Missing someone is a terrible but at the same time, sweet feeling. U will be sitting around wondering if u meant anything to him/her. Thinking if he/she ever cares about u. Rushing to the phone once it rings or a sms drops hoping that it's him/her. Sitting in front of the television but thinking of him/her, missing the final episode of your favourite show. Looking out of the window hoping that he/she will surprise u by appearing downstairs.

Laying on your bed, thinking of the last time u were out together or talked to each other. Thinking of how nice it will be to sit under the stars, talking about everything, your dreams, plans, future. Logging on to the internet hoping to see him/her online. When u realise that he/she isn't online and did not return your e-mail, u will start worrying if he/she is okay. Missing someone is a way of growing up i guess. It exposes u to loneliness. It teaches u how to cope with being lonely and let u know that there is actually a feeling known as emptiness.

Sometimes it feels good to miss someone. U know that u really care and u indulge in the feeling of loving/caring for him/her. But missing someone and not knowing if he/she is feeling the same is terrible. U feel as if u are being left alone. So if u miss someone, tell him/her and let them know. At the same time, ask if they miss u. Don't let the feeling of missing someone become jealousy or paranoia. If u are the one being missed and u know it, let the other party know. If u miss him/her too, tell them. Don't let them wait.

As for me , i am feeling terrible.
Well, what are you and me waiting for then !................

Rohit Bhaskar

Friendship - Hurt - SORRY - HOPE, I miss HER

There is this theory, that you can't help who you fall in love with. What I used to think was total bullshit until she came along. I was Mr. Play -it -safe. Mr. Always-Busy. I never let a girl get close to me; I kept a distance. Until she came along. It was more than a quarter century of years, never been in love, never even had a short-term relationship. Until she came along. It just started with friendship phones, e-mail, specifically saying electronic communication. Got in touch with her after a long long time. Yes, we knew each other but it is just for record. Maybe we were destined to meet once more in life and this was the time. We were so comfortable with each other, shared our joy, problems and much more. As time passed by the feelings inside me started to evolve and take a different form. Yes it felt beautiful. She changed everything, she gave me something I never had before; she made me feel important and worthy. Yah, I am the hopeless type. She was always right. My views were changing. I started to see life with a different and better perspective. I never told her my new feelings for her, perhaps was afraid of losing her, losing my dear friend. I was still making up my mind and waiting for the right time. Then suddenly I did something wrong. I am still not so clear what. Yah, I know I am dumb. She has stopped communicating. She doesn't even check my mails or maybe she checks, she never replies. I know I have hurt her, hurt her really very bad. Some of my friends suggested I write a letter to her, but don't send it. This way I would be free to get out of my emotions. But I dont want to get out of it. This absence of hers has created such a void in my life, now i know her true worth. I know she was the truest of true friend, full of life, never demanding and very caring. Will she ever forgive me and come back into my life. I HOPE.

My whole life is taking a different course and I am trying my best to hold it here. But it is only SHE who can help me.
Please come back, Please reply,

Saying SORRY, the magic word

How many people can say the magic word 'SORRY' easily? Not many I guess, certainly not me. Is it just an admission of guilt? Maybe not. Maybe there are other human emotions at play here. Maybe it also depends on power structures. For some, pride and ego come in the way, of even recognizing that hurt has been caused.

How many of us can say sorry to a child? The ability, or lack of it to do so, might tell us a lot about ourselves. Some find it easier to say sorry to their superiors than to their children, or, those lower in rank in the hierarchy. I've seen this 'failing' commonly among patriarchs or even matriarchs, for that matter. It is easier for them to ask God for forgiveness than to ask for forgiveness from the person concerned. So, it is fear to expose any weakness, or the soft underbelly, that prevents a 'Sorry'.

For some like my friend, it is safer to show that they are sorry, in deeds than in words. He will realize that in his anger he has caused hurt. So, he will put his arms around whoever has borne the brunt at that time, and say in a cajoling voice, "Come on yaar, let's go for a drink!" Or, "Come on yaar, let's go out, ple-e-ase?" Not comprehending why the other person is being, in his eyes, childish and mean in not dropping the issue and going on. After all, a peace offering is being made..! If they cared for him, wouldn't they accept? Of course, its useless telling him that they care for themselves too! "Childish, who me?.."

Yet another kind of person will not say 'sorry', because he/she feels justified for having done whatever has caused the heartburn. A sort of self-defense. "This will show him that he can't just fool around with me!" For them "A compromise, yes. A sorry, no!"

There is also this often very sorry business of being 'sorry' in politics. Sorry for the historical wrongs, one people might have inflicted on the other, either for political supremacy or economic gain. We have Tony Blair saying sorry to the Irish for the English indifference during the potato famine; Bill Clinton apologizing to the African-Americans for slavery -- both highly commendable. John Howard refusing to say 'Sorry' to the Aborigines for past injustices by the earlier colonials. Queen Elizabeth refusing to apologize for the Jallianwalla Bag massacre, on her last visit to India and the Duke even going so far as to suggest that the numbers have been exaggerated! Wonder what the motive was there.

Then of course the mother of all sorry is to tell sorry to a person you care the most for but hurt him/her somehow. Maybe a fight, quarrel, showdown, misunderstanding or by any other means you hurt him/her knowing or not knowing. At first there is this thought that comes into the mind, "who'll break the ice". Even thinking that is not so appropriate as from when did self ego started to play role in true relations, whatever be the name. You take the first step. You try your best but never get any reply. You are never told whether you have been forgiven. You try and try but no answers. Some lose faith and move on in life. But is this what you started it all for. No, not me. We forget the word "HOPE". It is the only strength and source of power that keeps everything ticking at its pace. You say sorry to a person because you know that person means a lot to you. You don't get any replies because your deeds have reduced your worth. But how so ever small does it get, you hope that one day there will be a reply, you will be forgiven and everything will become like before. You feel liberated and happy by knowing that at last all that effort put in help reduce the pain that you caused to someone so dear.

So, I urge every human being to say 'SORRY' and see if it liberates you or makes you feel small.