Every time I read a newspaper or a book I wonder how those authors manage to write thousands of words. It seems impossible to me. Whenever I try to pen down a post, it does not exceed hundred words, how much ever I try. But this time, I decided my post would be at least a thousand words. So I started off thinking about all the happenings in the country, so many hot issues, people supporting agitations and some opposing them and as usual authors writing volumes about the happenings and their precious "opinions". But no, they are not my kind and so I decided not to write about them.
Then, I got this brilliant idea. So here's my post of a thousand words.
A picture is worth a thousand words, or so they say.
A display of my photographic skills, titled "SoBrightTheProOfSun" [searching for anagrams?? I don't think there is one. :)] Location : Kanyakumari, India. Time : Sunrise.
15 comments:
(once again) supppppppper cooooool pic duuuuuuuuuuude!!
And an equally apt title. Tried for 30 minutes to come up with some (meaningless at the very least) anagram, but I guess I'm no Langdon :)
And don't worry too much about the authors who 'manage to write thousands of words'. If you notice closely, almost all articles you read have a similar template depending on the genre (sports, politics, movie reviews, etc) with the same punch words occurring over and over again. Don't give them so much credit.
Thanks. May be you are right about the writers ;).
And about the anagrams, here they come ( as meaningless as they can be ) :
1. Gopi, run forth the boss.
( No, this is not a clue to any treasure, guess the boss here is Sun himself :D )
2. Oh, bring the soft pours.
( Asking the rains to come over and shade the brightness of the glowing sun ).
I could find two and equally stupid explanations for them..ha ha ha.
are you saying that you came up with these TWO (not one . . . TWO!!) just by rearranging/manipulating the actual phrase in your mind and/or on paper??
or did you write a program to do it? (even this doesn't seem to be trivial.)
how the HELL did you come up with those?? I can see that 'the' is common in all three phrases, but STILL!!
seriously, if you did come up with them all by yourself, you should be afraid. there's a very high chance that you possess 'a beautiful mind'. be very very afraid.
Yes raa.
But I dint use the more intelligent computer to do these for me. I guess it would have been tougher and time consuming as well. :)
Used the notepad and rearranged the alphabets/words here and there..the first one was easy u see, 'Gopi' being the easier word.
About the 'the' repeating, ya, I too was doubtful if I can use it or not. However, the original anagram also re-used the 'the' if u remember. Hence justified ;).
And coming to the 'beautiful mind' thing, no need to be afraid until I get 'hired' by THE agency. ha ha.
Beautiful is dangerous(?) :).
> the first one was easy u see
I disagree.
new found admiration for your mind . . . . . you rock, rocky!!
beauty, in all its forms, is not just dangerous - it's fatal.
Now, I have a doubt.
Is beauty fatal to the thing that is beautiful or to the person(rather, owner) of that thing ;)
Directly, a beautiful entity is fatal to every living being in its surroundings (which may encompass anything from a small room to the entire world). The assumptions are 1) The entity is unreplicably (or replicable but infeasible) unique, 2) There exist atleast two (groups of) beings in the surroundings that know the meaning of 'ownership', 3) A many-to-one ownership is not possible.
The road to perdition is simple and almost always, the same path is taken.
Step 1) The two (groups of) beings desire exclusive ownership (doesn't matter whether one of them already IS the owner).
Step 2) The thought processes on both sides become irrational and unjustified, with just one goal occupying the entire mind which mutilates it and renders it immune to any kind of rationality and/or compromise.
Step 3) The only thing the mind can now exercise is one of the most primitive instincts - to ensure the survival of the fittest.
Step 4) A stand-off ensues resulting in total and utter demolition of one or both the sides.
Step 5) Irrespective of the result of the above step, after a brief interval, somehow two groups again come into existence (the original 2 groups got destroyed and two completely new ones are born; one original group survived and a new one was born; the original group that survived split into two; etc)
Step 6) Goto Step 1
Indirectly though, sometimes, this might even imply that the entity's beauty is fatal to itself. This happens when one of the parties has an "if I can't have it, then neither can you" attitude. Unfortunately, this attitude is highly prevalent in the human species.
Afterword: thoo nee yabba, jeevitham lo ae exam lo koodaa intha systematic gaa answer raasi undamu!!
ha ha..ardham chesukodaniki 2 times chadavalsi vachindi..its still beyond my capability. So, no more attempts.
But it sounds scary visualizing a brain as the 'entity' and groups desiring to be owners. :o
I guess this comment would qualify as a post in itself titled "Beauty, Behavioral analysis of potential owners".
May be u can also think about a thesis on this subject. wat say?
arey, santhoshinchu itla answers rayananduku, no evaluator would read the answer twice. Okka sari chaduvutharu..ardham aithe ok, lekapothe pakkana oka sunna petti pamputharu ;).
> sounds scary visualizing a brain as the 'entity' and groups desiring to be owners
reminds me of an experiment that someone told me about when I was a kid. don't know how true it is. but i certainly believed it back when I was a school kid.
a bunch of mice were thrown into a maze. those that could find their way out were thrown into it again, while the rest were discarded. so these selected mice were repeatedly trained in finding their way out of the maze, till they were perfect at it. they were then killed and their brains were mixed into rat-food and fed to a fresh bunch of mice. these new mice were thrown into the maze, and they coolly found their way out without taking any erroneous turns.
apparently, such experiments were proposed on other species, like monkeys, but were heavily opposed due to the consequences this might lead to, monkeys being closely related to man.
i repeat - be very very afraid.
Biologically -
the theory of evolution says that intelligent traits in beings develop over a spread of generations.
And it is the responsibility of the entity to contribute to this evolution, by offering itself, so that the species gets betters.
I guess the dead rats wouldn't have minded it at all.
Mathematically -
As per probability, there should exist an entity, (infeasibility, that you've mentioned, again being a probability) better than the entity in question.
Combining this with the general feeling - "If someone/something better than me will be doing it, why shouldn't I", which again is more common in human beings, I guess
the entity will be more than happy to offer itself as bait. And, you know who/what the better entity here is ;).
Spiritually -
In the first place, the entity was created for a cause. It is supposed to be a small pulley in the big machine called Nature and it is its duty to perform the task it has been assigned.
Fiction(ally?) -
I think the entity is left with no choice. Even if it looks like the entity has a choice, He(the creator) already knows what the entity is going to do. Doesn't He?
In effect, being afraid wouldn't serve the purpose. Either the entity should be part of it and be remembered(;)) or get out of the process and stay ignorant.
Both the choices need fearlessness, I think.
Dude, I think we are stress-testing the blogger.com's comments section. ;)
I didn't understand your "Mathematical" view and your "in effect" section. Please elucidate.
Bottom line: Manaki emails kottey kondari janaalakey kaadu, manaki koodaa baagaaney ochhu aanglapu bhaasha.
Mathematically - (simplified :) )
If an entity X is selected for a cause based on some of its unique properties, then an entity Y having the same unique properties, and infact, better ones, will also be selected for that cause. Here, I am cautioning the "more beautiful minds" to be ready for the same treatment. ha ha.
In effect -
If the entity chose to be selected - Going through the ordeals the selected ones would be put through( like the ones the mice were put through ) , would need courage. Fear won't help.
If the entity chose not to be selected - Knowing the fact that the entity could have contributed to a great cause and still refrained from doing so, is itself a tough feeling to overcome. This would need courage. Here also being afraid won't help.
bottomline : inka aapudaama?? :D
sare inka nee ishtam. aapeddaam :(
the picture is simply superb.really its too gud :).
Thanks Sirisha.
Post a Comment