|
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
|
|
Mystery of the lost sock!
|
Have you ever lost a sock? Just one sock, consistently?
This happens to me all the time. When ever I do my laundry, I make sure I put "pairs" of socks in to the washer. While transferring them to the dryer, I again make sure my washer did not eat any of my socks. After drying, kablooie, one sock is missing. Just one freaking sock. I have no idea how this happens but it happens all the time.
This made me consider a possibility. Say, this is a common phenomenon where everyone looses a sock after laundry. Then, the person using the dryer next to mine also looses a sock and hence flicks one from mine to compensate for his lost one. This is not an impossible proposition as I always leave my clothes in the dryer and come back after it is done while others stay there.
But the laundromat scene is a recent one as I used to have a washer and dryer within the house where I used to live earlier. I lost socks even there. Did my landlord steal them? That is unlikely since he was an elderly man and used to dress formally. Hence his socks were those black ones that go with the dress shoes. Mine on the other hand were white sports-type quarters. He wouldn't take that chance for just one sock.
Any other theories on the sock mystery?Labels: disappear, drier, laundromat, laundry, loose, lost, missing, mystery, one sock, socks, washer |
|
posted by bachi
11:00
 
|
| |
|
-
Thought I let you know:
You are not alone. Many, many, many people have this same question. Maybe Casper (the Friendly Ghost) or one of his friends is at fault.
http://learningforlifetime.blogspot.com/2007/05/great-sock-mystery.html
http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-plaschke29apr29,1,630065.column?coll=la-headlines-sports
http://avoca.vicnet.net.au/~ozideas/davincisocks.htm
http://www.txtwriter.com/onscience/Articles/awolsocks.html
-
hhhmmm... it never occurred to me to search for this on Google (I avoided the word "Googling" as the "Google guys" are not very happy about the idea).
|
|
| << HOME |
|
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
|
|
Return on Investment
|
There are companies big on patents and IPRs (Intellectual Property Right). Say, they also have product divisions.
Now, in order to encourage its employees to come out with new useful innovative ideas, the company pays a certain amount of money to an employee for each patent filed. Pretty neat. But unfortunately this does not take into consideration whether the patent filed is useful or utterly useless. When I say useful, I mean whether it results in any revenue to the company or not. Hence this results in employees just trying to file patents rather than work towards genuinely useful and resourceful patents.
Now let us put it in the perspective of a product. I say, each employee who worked on a product that is successfully completed should also be provided with certain monetary benefits irrespective of whether the product sells or not. But that does not happen. The employees working on a product are rewarded only when the product sells.
Do you think this is fair? I think this is BULLSHIT! Just the way an employee working on a product is acknowledged only when the product sells, the one who has a patent should also be kept in the same boat. If the patent generates revenue, the employee gets the pocket money. If not, I'm sorry.Labels: business, company, equal, erward, ipr, money, outcome, patent, policy, product, value |
|
|
posted by bachi
22:05
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bikettitude
|
The title sounds a little weird. Doesn't it? It is "bike attitude" and here is the story behind it.
Recently I started to bike to work a couple of days a week. When I was talking to my parents (in India), I told them about this and they were shocked. I'm sure what I told them started a train of thoughts in their minds that might have lead to the conclusion that I was kicked out of my job and hence had to sell my Wrangler and ended up on this bicycle.
It is not surprising to me since we are not used to seeing people bike to work unless they can not afford to buy a motor vehicle (be it a two wheeler or a car). Only when you are a kid are you considered OK riding a bike. But keep in mind it got to be a real fancy one with gears and metallic finish. Once out of high school, nobody wants to ride a bike anymore. it is your duty to contribute to the increasing congestion on the roads and the pollution in the air.
While here, when my colleagues see me with my bike, I hear them say "I wish I stayed closer to work so that I can bike too". Of course, the question is, are they saying it just for the heck of it or do they really mean it?Labels: attitude, bicycle, bike, biking, cultre, ego, india, money, professional, rich neighborhood, status symbol, wealthy, work |
|
|
posted by bachi
15:52
|
| |
|
-
yup you are right...enjoy biking
-
I think as the price of gas gets higher and higher, more people will wish they lived closer to work. But I think they real issue is the society we live in today. Time is a precious commodity. As I was doing my errands last w/e I asked myself why didn't I use the bicycle instead? I used the car because I was time constrainted. Instead I spent more time in traffic. I think the concept of biking to work is related to how much time do I gain/lose by doing so? (Also - I can get in better shape, reduce carbon emmissions, save money). I think any distance greater than 10 miles, requires a person to be in good shape and not to be too busy.
-
Hey anonymous. I totally agree with you. Modern man has "discovered" and "invented" so many things and made his life so easy and comfortable that he hardly finds time to do what he likes to do. Unfortunately the distance between, want, need and like has been increasing forever.
|
|
| << HOME |
|
|
|
|
|
Sunday, May 6, 2007
|
|
We don't, but birds do!
|
Just now I read this article that says windmills are posing threat to birds and other wildlife.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-wind4may04,1,4228015.story?coll=la-headlines-nation
The study shows that the huge blades and the turbines pose a potential threat to night migrating song birds and other hunting birds. I totally agree with them. The poor things obviously had no idea a couple of days ago that there would pop up a 100 ft tall thing that would slice them within the blink of an eye.
But evolution is a wonderful thing. How many things haven't changed in the past couple of million years that living things didn't get adjusted to? I would guess that is what is going to happen with this too. If these birds survive the advent of windmills without getting extinct, then there is a very high chance that they learn how to co-exist (I know how unfortunate this is) with the developing world.
I'm afraid only man has a difficult time adjusting with things around him. We don't seem to learn from our past mistakes. But I'm confident the birds would.Labels: birds, electricity, fossil fuel, global warming, green house gases, melting ice caps, wind energy, windmills |
|
|
posted by bachi
21:30
|
| |
|
-
I read the same article about birds and windmills. I too agree that most living things have some intelligence. But should nothing be done and let the environment get worse? Will the birds be better off? I don't think so.
-
Nope! We do not want the environment to get worse and hence need windmills. That is exactly my point. When one shows so much concern about the birds... I think there are a lot of other ways we can stop doing things that kill birds. One good example - hunting for the selfish pleasure of man.
-
BTW - I'm not against windmills. But living in the East Coast area and reading about the propose expenses for the windmills but I'm not sure this the most efficient approach. Wouldn't using the same budget and installing solar panels on peoples homes be a better return? Over 100K homes could be outfitted. 500K if the government refund could be used. This would help the birds, the environment, and homes that need their roofs replaced! See http://www.newsday.com/business/ny-bzwind255185937apr25,0,6114263.story?coll=ny-business-print
for proposed windmill costs.
-
Hhhmmm... Let us save the birds and the money. Go solar!!!
|
|
| << HOME |
|
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
|
|
The Inconvenient Truth about "An Inconvenient Truth"?
|
After trying hard to restrain myself from watching the documentary till I read the book, An Inconvenient Truth, I finally gave up. I saw the movie recently and I should say I'm impressed with it. Now that I did not do so much research in the field of Global Warming, I have to take the information provided by Mr. would have been President on his face value. Assuming all the information provided by him is accurate, it scares the hell out of me to imagine what the world would be like in a couple of decades (or sooner?) if our attitude towards the mother nature does not change.
Having said that, I could not help but notice the following inconvenient truth.
1. Through out the movie, the Sr. Bush administration and the dubya administration have been blamed for not acting on the issue. I wonder where the Clinton administration went. That was an impressive 8 year jump made by the, "I invented the Internet", guy.
2. Having mentioned that every individual's contribution is essential and makes a difference does not seem to consider himself as an individual. Why am I saying this? Have you observed the guy driving an SUV in the movie? Well, I did! Also I would be foolish to believe that he pays attention to energy conservation with regards to the amount of gas and electricity his houses consume. Now don't tell me he is breeding solar panels in his backyard or that there is a windmill on his rooftop.
Sniffing on the Internet for some statistics regarding his lifestyle, I gathered the following information.
He has a 10,000-square-foot, 20-room, eight-bathroom home in Nashville, a 4,000-square-foot home in Arlington, Va and a third home in Carthage, Tenn http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm.
His Nashville home alone devoured an incredible 221,000 kilowatt-hours in 2006 putting his utilities bill at a modest $30,000 http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=nation_world&id=5072659.
This is all bullshit since it is not from reliable sources. Right? Not really. It may not be accurate but I think it is close enough.
OK! Enough of blaming the poor guy. He is just trying to help the humanity. But I can't stop here as still there is something quite important (at least according to me) that I want to share. Let us try throwing light on this subject from a couple of different angles.
1. The statistics, those impressive view graphs with all those peaks and valleys in the movie pop out of an equation that Al Gore put together. When I say equation I don't really mean a mathematical equation. Rather a logical one. I mean, he took into consideration only a few things that he thought are causing this problem. How do I know if there are a million other factors missing from here? To give an example, what if the Sun is actually behaving funny with its mighty rays and that is in fact causing this problem? Scientists may figure this out after 20 years from now while we keep mudslinging. How did the previous ice age occur? There were no gas guzzlers or atomic fuel plants then.
2. Another perspective. May be the only factor is population? If we control the population, the demand for everything the greedy man wants will go down right? Don't you think that itself should impact every other negative element in Mr. Gore's equation? Say, like the need for cars, electricity at home, cutting down trees for houses etc.?
Dear liberals, if you are still reading (still haven't ripped your computer screen, or thrashed the keyboard), I want to make one thing clear. I'm not anti-democrat and absolutely not pro republican. This blog is not for a political debate. It is more of a logical and common sensical thing. Well... I'm an engineer and hence, obviously, cursed with the disease, logico-mania.Labels: al gore, an inconvenient truth, global warming, green house gases, melting ice caps, nobel peace prize, pollution |
|
|
posted by bachi
12:13
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
myprofile |
previouspost |
myarchives |
mylinks |
bloginfo |
|
Thought I let you know:
You are not alone. Many, many, many people have this same question. Maybe Casper (the Friendly Ghost) or one of his friends is at fault.
http://learningforlifetime.blogspot.com/2007/05/great-sock-mystery.html
http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-plaschke29apr29,1,630065.column?coll=la-headlines-sports
http://avoca.vicnet.net.au/~ozideas/davincisocks.htm
http://www.txtwriter.com/onscience/Articles/awolsocks.html