1. Don't try to win the point on your serve directly. Don't try too hard for that ace! It could lead to cheap points being given and takes away some of the fun.
2. Look and hit.
3. See where your opponent is, just after he hits his shot and just before you hit yours.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Apostrophe Catastrophe
Labels:
Memory,
Observation,
Verse
Came across this post in Blogosphere about apostrophe abuse. Ended up writing a ditty there.. but could not edit it there... could not editee/a written ditty.
The abuse of the apostrophe is on my list of pet peeves as well. (The under-use of the hyphen is a close second)
------------------------------------------------
APOSTROPHE CATASTROPHE
Or, The abuse of apostrophe's,
Or, Its not right,
Or, Soon it will find it's grave!
------------------------------------------------
Loud and strong
Proud and long
Grammarians complain
But it's all in vain
It'll happen now, and again
Then it'll be the common strain!
Sound and fury down the drain
Might as well say "Amen"!
- Thomas Jay Cubb
The abuse of the apostrophe is on my list of pet peeves as well. (The under-use of the hyphen is a close second)
------------------------------------------------
APOSTROPHE CATASTROPHE
Or, The abuse of apostrophe's,
Or, Its not right,
Or, Soon it will find it's grave!
------------------------------------------------
Loud and strong
Proud and long
Grammarians complain
But it's all in vain
It'll happen now, and again
Then it'll be the common strain!
Sound and fury down the drain
Might as well say "Amen"!
- Thomas Jay Cubb
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Current Jokes
While in school, we were taught that the waveform for AC is a sine curve.
The representation of the signal was like: ^u^u^u^u or /\/\/\/\/\/\/\ with a line passing through it: you know what I mean.
This realization led to the postulation of the following explanations/justifications.
1. Why don't birds on wires get electrocuted?
Because they might be perched on a section of the wire through which the wave-form doesn't pass.
2. Why we need not pay for electricity.
Because the current comes to our home and then goes right back to the power-station.
Yup, these are PJs.
3. How could power-cuts possibly help to save energy?
The power was generated by water falling on the turbines. The power was being generated anyway (other localities would have power), the water was falling. It could not go back up, so weren't we actually wasting that water!
The representation of the signal was like: ^u^u^u^u or /\/\/\/\/\/\/\ with a line passing through it: you know what I mean.
This realization led to the postulation of the following explanations/justifications.
1. Why don't birds on wires get electrocuted?
Because they might be perched on a section of the wire through which the wave-form doesn't pass.
2. Why we need not pay for electricity.
Because the current comes to our home and then goes right back to the power-station.
Yup, these are PJs.
3. How could power-cuts possibly help to save energy?
The power was generated by water falling on the turbines. The power was being generated anyway (other localities would have power), the water was falling. It could not go back up, so weren't we actually wasting that water!
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Plastics Or Trees: Hobson's Choice
Labels:
Observation,
Rant
It's a disposable world and convenience is everything.
With the ban on plastic bags coming into effect in many places, the usage of paper bags would likely increase. Paper bags match the convenience, accessibility, ease-of-storage etc of plastic bags more than bags made of other materials.
Plastic is notoriously difficult to dispose of, as it is non-biodegradable. But should the lives of an extra million innocent trees be sacrificed just because of our inability to exorcise the plastic demon?
Paper comes from trees - so, wouldn't it mean that more trees will have to be cut, to meet the growing demand for paper? Paper bags would also have a tendency to tear and would be spoiled if they get wet.
Which is the lesser evil? There ain't no such thing as a free lunch; to gain something, you must sacrifice something!
Counters:
1. Use cloth bags instead. <==> But maintaining the bag, keeping it safe etc are just too bugging, right? And in any case, how many should we carry around?
2. Paper is recyclable. <==> So is plastic. The question is whether we really bother.
3. Paper can be made without cutting trees too...
With the ban on plastic bags coming into effect in many places, the usage of paper bags would likely increase. Paper bags match the convenience, accessibility, ease-of-storage etc of plastic bags more than bags made of other materials.
Plastic is notoriously difficult to dispose of, as it is non-biodegradable. But should the lives of an extra million innocent trees be sacrificed just because of our inability to exorcise the plastic demon?
Paper comes from trees - so, wouldn't it mean that more trees will have to be cut, to meet the growing demand for paper? Paper bags would also have a tendency to tear and would be spoiled if they get wet.
Which is the lesser evil? There ain't no such thing as a free lunch; to gain something, you must sacrifice something!
Counters:
1. Use cloth bags instead. <==> But maintaining the bag, keeping it safe etc are just too bugging, right? And in any case, how many should we carry around?
2. Paper is recyclable. <==> So is plastic. The question is whether we really bother.
3. Paper can be made without cutting trees too...
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Vegetarian Abortionists
Labels:
Observation,
Rant
Can a person who is vegetarian (lacto-vegetarian/vegan, the kind who avoids even eggs) by choice, because of moral reasons ("Respect life! Should not kill to eat, doesn't matter how indirectly we may be responsible!"), ever support the cause of abortion?
Is a 'vegetarian abortionist' a perfect oxymoron? If a person does both, should it not be construed/interpreted as hypocrisy? An egg is also like a fetus: if eating an egg kills the bird, the abortion kills the baby. Or is the life of a human not worth the life of a chicken?
Both the issues in question are very much what you may call matters of life and death, and are very similar.
Once we do an "I-choose-to-do-so" and enter a moral high-ground, we have to stay there, and do so consistently on similar things.* Or one has to be prepared to be branded a hypocrite!
* The same lines of reasoning would also hold for those members of the PETA (People For the Ethical Treatment of Animals), if any, who do not help suffering people.
DISCLAIMERS/NOTES OF EXPLANATION
----------------------------------------------------
1. Just a logical musing, not a diatribe. I have nothing against vegetarians or anti-abortionists: or even for pro-abortionists or non-vegetarians for that matter! :-) Also, nothing at all if the choice you exercise in what you eat (or do not) is as a victim of circumstance (religion / availability/ income).
2. Not to be interpreted as a case for cannibalism of any kind! :-)
3. I shall not be forced to eat gross things during the course of any argument resulting out of or inspired by this post. At the most, if forced, I will eat...my words! ;-)
- Thomas Jay Cubb
Inspired by and dedicated to my dear friend Anup Kesavan.
Is a 'vegetarian abortionist' a perfect oxymoron? If a person does both, should it not be construed/interpreted as hypocrisy? An egg is also like a fetus: if eating an egg kills the bird, the abortion kills the baby. Or is the life of a human not worth the life of a chicken?
Both the issues in question are very much what you may call matters of life and death, and are very similar.
Once we do an "I-choose-to-do-so" and enter a moral high-ground, we have to stay there, and do so consistently on similar things.* Or one has to be prepared to be branded a hypocrite!
* The same lines of reasoning would also hold for those members of the PETA (People For the Ethical Treatment of Animals), if any, who do not help suffering people.
DISCLAIMERS/NOTES OF EXPLANATION
----------------------------------------------------
1. Just a logical musing, not a diatribe. I have nothing against vegetarians or anti-abortionists: or even for pro-abortionists or non-vegetarians for that matter! :-) Also, nothing at all if the choice you exercise in what you eat (or do not) is as a victim of circumstance (religion / availability/ income).
2. Not to be interpreted as a case for cannibalism of any kind! :-)
3. I shall not be forced to eat gross things during the course of any argument resulting out of or inspired by this post. At the most, if forced, I will eat...my words! ;-)
- Thomas Jay Cubb
Inspired by and dedicated to my dear friend Anup Kesavan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
