Tuesday, August 12, 2008

New Blog from Zuha

Working on my new projects tentatively titled as "Jewel Junks", which ll go live in another 3 months.

wait n watch this space for more...

Wednesday, February 13, 2008


come in, little car, the modellers have been expecting you ..

It's small, it's cheap, it's low emission so... the arrival of the Tata Nano, India's new 'people's car', has been greeted by a wailing and a gnashing of the teeth from the environmental aristocracy. The prospect of millions of the global peasantry driving, emitting and pushing up 'our' gas prices is a nightmare. It promises to be, said Yale environmental law professor Daniel Esty, "an environmental disaster of substantial proportions."

In fact, the size, or even existence, of this environmental disaster is doubtful. A few millions of a car that emits 30 g CO2 per km simply isn't even an influence upon global CO2 emissions, let alone a disaster of even insubstantial portions. At that emission rate, doing 20,000 km a year each car will produce 600 kg of CO2: one hundred million of them on the roads would be less than 1 per cent of current emissions of over 6 Gtonnes. No, not substantial then.

But whether it is a substantial addition or not is dwarfed by the seeming ignorance of other commentators: "In none of our reports did we assume there'd be a car like this," said Judi Greenwald, a researcher with the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. Well, OK, cut Judi a little slack, no one did predict a car exactly like this: but everyone has indeed predicted that something similar would happen, that the peons would at some point be able to get off Shank's Pony and move around in the same way us civilised folks do. Indeed, all the concerns we have about global warming are rather based upon predictions that this will happen.

The Tata Nano: Stop me before I pollute again.

Apologies, but this is where a little economics becomes necessary. Yes, we've all heard of the International Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, those people who issue the reports containing the scientific consensus on the issue (yes, we are assuming they are correct here). Greenland's ice disappears sometime around 2,500, East Antarctica a couple of centuries later and boy, then we all really are in trouble. But all too few people, and unfortunately all too few environmentalists, stop and wonder where those numbers come from. Yes, we've got lovely computer models to tell us what the temperature rises will be if we stick x amount of methane into the atmosphere, y amount of CO2 and so on: but someone, somewhere, has had to work out how much methane, how much CO2 is likely to be so emitted. And that comes from the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios, the SRES.

The SRES is a series of economic models based upon four families (again divided into scenarios but we're not going to worry about that level of detail). The A1 family assumes that in 2100 the world output (GDP) will be $550 trillion for some 7 billion people. That is, that the world will be at least ten times richer in 92 years than it was eight years ago (essentially, growth goes on as it has since 1850). A2 (what the Stern Review uses and, umm, the low globalisation model) has 16 billion people and $250 trillion in GDP. B2 10 billions and $250 trillion, B1 $350 trillion and 7 billion again. These are the economic assumptions upon which everything we are told about climate change rests. Yes, there are different assumptions in them about how technology develops but all of them are entirely without any attempts at all at mitigation. That is, all the numbers we work with assume that we don't have carbon taxes, we don't ban patio heaters, we don't abolish the aeroplane. Anything we do along those lines reduces the damage that might be done.

Just as an aside we might note that these models all assume that the less trade we have, the more regionally based the world economy, the more self-sufficient we all become, buying locally, the worse the outcome. Campaigning to reduce globalisation to counter global warming is like fucking for virginity.

While none of the families specifically predicts the Tata Nano, all of them predict that the great unwashed will indeed have transport: and no, none of them predict that that transport will not be fossil fuel based. So while those folks at the Pew Center might be correct that this specific thing was not predicted, something very like it was. In fact, the existence of growing wealth and thus mobility is rather written into the plans that worry us.

Which leads us to the glorious George Monbiot. In a recent column he said:
"So economic growth this century could be 32 times as big an environmental issue as population growth. And if governments, banks and businesses have their way, it never stops. By 2115, the cumulative total rises to 3,200%, by 2138 to 6,400%. As resources are finite, this is of course impossible, but it is not hard to see that rising economic activity - not human numbers - is the immediate and overwhelming threat."

Leave aside his (known) ignorance of economics: growth is not defined by nor is it dependent upon the consumption of resources. It's defined as the addition of value to them: making sandpaper and a computer chip both consume sand, but one is the addition of rather more value than the other. Thus economic growth is not constrained in the way that he thinks by resource availability. Look rather to his "this is of course impossible".

In talking about climate change and the dangers thereof he tells us that a continuation of past economic growth is impossible. But as we can see above, the world's largest report on the subject, indeed the scientific consensus, is that said growth is indeed possible. In fact, the terrors of climate change depend upon it being so, for the whole science is based upon the outcome of economic growth. Thus George has either, by showing the impossibility, told us that climate change isn't a problem or that, perhaps more likely, he doesn't know what he's talking about.

Which brings us back to those worrying about the Tata Nano: it isn't a horror for the climate, it isn't a disaster. It's actually one of the things already built into our models which lead us to our current understanding of what will happen. We've already taken account of it in our calculations, you see? As we have all those other things: more flights, more people, more wealth. We even know the solution, a Pigou Tax, but that's a matter for another day. ®

(Courtesy : Tim Worstall , this article is first published at theregister.co.uk titled as When poor people pollute - the Tata Nano and eco-crime)

Tuesday, December 18, 2007

Evening Classes for Women

Women think they already know everything, but wait... training courses are now available for women on the following subjects:

[Note: Due to the intense nature of the course material, each session has a maximum of eight participants.]

1. Silence, the Final Frontier: Where No Woman Has Gone Before

2. The Undiscovered Side of Banking: Making Deposits

3. Parties: Going Without New Outfits

4. Man Management: Minor Househod Chores Can Wait Till After The Game

5. Bathroom Etiquette I: Men Need Space in the Bathroom Cabinet Too

6. Bathroom Etiquette II: His Razor is His

7. Communication Skills I: Tears - The Last Resort, not the First

8. Communication Skills II : Thinking Before peaking

9. Communication Skills III: Getting What you Want Without Nagging

10. Driving a Car Safely: A Skill You CAN Acquire

11. Telephone Skills: How to Hang Up

12. Introduction to Parking (hahahahahahaha)

13. Advanced Parking: Backing Into a Space

14. Water Retention: Fact or Fat

15. Cooking I: Bringing Back Bacon, Eggs and Butter

16. Cooking II: Bran and Tofu are Not for Human Consumption

17. Cooking III: How not to Inflict Your Diets on Other People

18. Compliments: Accepting Them Gracefully

19. PMS: Your Problem . . . Not His

20. Dancing: Why Men Don't Like To

21. Classic Footwear: Wearing Shoes You Already Have

22. Household Dust: A Harmless Natural Occurrence Only Women Notice

23. Integrating Your Laundry: Washing It All Together

24. Oil and Gas: Your Car Needs Both

25. TV Remotes: For Men Only

Tuesday, December 11, 2007

Things That Would Change if Microsoft Built Cars

  1. A particular year's model would not be available for at least 2 years until after it was scheduled to go into production.
  2. Every time they repainted the lines on the road, you would have to buy a new car.
  3. Occasionally your car would just die for no reason, and you would have to restart it. For some bizarre reason, you accept this.
  4. You couldn't have more than one person in the car unless you purchased a CarXP or CarNT, and then you would have to buy extra seats.
  5. Linux would build a car that ran on water, was twice as reliable, and 10 times as fast, but would only run on 5% of the roads.
  6. The oil, gas, alternator and alternator warning lights would be replaced by a single "General Car Fault" light.
  7. People would be excited about the 'new' features in Microsoft cars, forgetting that these features had been available in other cars a decade ago.
  8. We'd all have to switch to MS Gas.
  9. The US Government would GET subsidies from Auto Manufacturers instead of GIVING them.
  10. New seats would force everyone to get the same size butt!

Friday, December 7, 2007

Cars and Computers

For all of us who feel the deepest love and affection for the way Computers have enhanced our lives, read on.....

At a recent computer expo (COMDEX 2006), Bill Gates reportedly compared the computer industry with the auto industry and stated, "If GM had kept up with technology like the computer industry has, we would all be driving $25.00 cars that got 1,000 miles to the gallon."

In response to Bill's comments, General Motors issued a press release stating:
If GM had developed technology like Microsoft, we would all be driving cars with the following characteristics:

1. For no reason whatsoever, your car would crash twice a day.

2. Every time they repainted the lines in the road, you would have to buy a new car.

3. Occasionally your car would die on the freeway for no reason. You would have to pull to the side of the road, close all of the windows, shut off the car, restart it, and reopen the windows before you could continue. For some reason you would simply accept this.

4. Occasionally, executing a maneuver such as a left turn would cause your car to shut down and refuse to restart, in which case you would have to reinstall the engine.

5. Macintosh would make a car that was powered by the sun, was reliable, five times as fast and twice as easy to drive - but would run on only five percent of the roads.

6. The oil, water, temperature, and alternator warning lights would all be replaced by a single "This Car Has Performed an Illegal Operation" warning light.

7. The airbag system would ask "Are you sure?" before deploying.

8. Occasionally, for no reason whatsoever, your car would lock you out and refuse to let you in until you simultaneously lifted the door handle, turned the key and grabbed hold of the radio antenna.

9. Every time a new car was introduced car buyers would have to learn how to drive all over again because none of the controls would operate in the same manner as the old car.

10. You'd have to press the "Start" button to turn the engine off.

Friday, November 30, 2007

Young and pretty lady wishes to marry a rich guy. Fantastic reply from a financial person

[A young and pretty lady posted this on a popular forum.]

Title: What should Ido to marry a rich guy?

I'm going to be honest of what I'm going to say here. I'm 25 this year. I'm very pretty, have style and good taste. I wish to marry a guy with $500kannual salary or above. You might say that I'm greedy, but an annual salary of $1M is considered only as middle class in New York. My requirement is not high. Is there anyone in this forum who has an income of $500k annualsalary? Are you all married? I wanted to ask: what should I do to marry rich persons like you? Among those I've dated, the richest is $250k annual income, and it seems that this is my upper limit. If someone is going to move into high cost residential area on the west of New York City Garden, $250k annual income is not enough.

I'm here humbly to ask a few questions: 1) where do most rich bachelors hang out? (Please list down thenames and addresses of bars, restaurant, gym)2) Which age group should I target?3) Why most wives of the riches is only average-looking? I'vemet a few girls who don’t have looks and are not interesting, butthey are able to marry rich guys4) How do you decide who can be your wife, and who can only beyour girlfriend? (My target now is to get married)

Ms. Pretty


Here's a reply from a Wall Street Financial guy:

Dear Ms. Pretty,

I have read your post with great interest. Guess there are lots of girls out there who have similar questions like yours. Please allow me to analyze your situation as a professional investor. My annual income is more than $500k, which meets your requirement, so I hope everyone believes that I’m not wasting time here.

From the standpoint of a business person, it is a bad decision to marry you. The answer is very simple, so let me explain. Put the details aside, what you're trying to do is an exchange of "beauty" and "money": Person A provides beauty, and Person B pays for it, fair and square. However, there's a deadly problem here, your beauty will fade, but my money will not be gone without any good reason. The fact is, my income might increase from year to year, but you can't be prettier year after year.

Hence from the viewpoint of economics, I am an appreciation asset, and you are a depreciation asset. It's not just normal depreciation, but exponential depreciation. If that is your only asset, your value will be much worried 10 years later.

By the terms we use in Wall Street, every trading has a position, dating with you is also a "trading position". If the trade value dropped we will sell it and it is not a good idea to keep it for long term – same goes with the marriage that you wanted. It might be cruel to say this, but in orderto make a wiser decision any assets with great depreciation value will be sold or "leased". Anyone with over $500k annual income is not a fool; we would only date you, but will not marry you.

I would advice that you forget looking for any clues to marry a rich guy. And by the way, you could make yourself to become a rich person with $500k annual income. This has betterchance than finding a rich fool.Hope this reply helps. If you are interested in "leasing" services, do contact me.


Wall Street Financial guy

Monday, November 26, 2007

WOW...wat a life it was...!!!

Gone are the days!!!

When the school reopened in June,
And we settled in our new desks and

When we queued up in book depot,
And got our new books and notes!

When we wanted two Sundays and no Mondays,
Yet managed to line up daily for the morning prayers.

We learnt writing with slates and pencils, and
Progressed To fountain pens and ball pens and then Micro tips!

When we began drawing with crayons and evolved to
Color pencils and finally sketch pens!

When we started calculating
first with tables and then with
Clarke's tables and advanced to
Calculators and computers!

When we chased one another in the
corridors in Intervals, and returned to the classrooms
Drenched in sweat!

When we had lunch in classrooms, corridors,
under the trees and even in cycle sheds!

When all the colors in the world,
Decorated the campus on the Second Saturdays!

When a single P.T. period in the week's Time Table,
Was awaited more eagerly than the monsoons!

When cricket was played with writing pads as bats,
And Neckties and socks rolled into balls!

When few played
"kabadi" and "Kho-Kho" in scorching sun,
While others simply played
"book cricket" in the
Confines of classroom!

Of fights but no conspiracies,
Of Competitions but seldom jealousy!

When we used to
watch Live Cricket telecast,
In the opposite house in Intervals and Lunch breaks!

When few rushed at 3:45 to
"Conquer" window seats in our School bus!
While few others had "Big Fun", "peppermint",
"kulfi"," milk ice !" and "sharbat !" at 4'O Clock!

Gone are the days
Of Sports Day,
and the annual School Day ,
And the one-month long
preparations for them.

Gone are the days
Of the stressful Quarterly,
Half Yearly and Annual Exams, And the most
enjoyed holidays after them!

Gone are the days
Of tenth and twelfth standards, when
We Spent almost the whole year writing revision tests!

We learnt,

We enjoyed,

We played,

We won,

We lost,

We laughed,

We cried,

We fought,

We thought.

With so much fun in them, so many friends,

So much experience, all this and more!

Gone are the days
When we used
to talk for hours with our friends!
Now we don't have time to say a 'Hi'!

Gone are the days
When we played games on the road!
Now we
Code on the road with laptop!

Gone are the days
When we saw stars
Shining at Night!
Now we see stars when our code doesn't

Gone are the days
When we sat to chat with Friends on grounds!
Now we chat in chat rooms.....!

Gone are the days
Where we
studied just to pass!
Now we study to save our job!

Gone are the days
Where we had no money in our pockets and still fun filled on ourhearts!!
Now we have the atm as well as credit card but with an empty heart!!

Gone are the days
Where we shouted on the road!
Now we don't shout even at home

Gone are the days
Where we got lectures from all!
Now we give lectures to all... like the one I'm doing now....!!

Gone are the days
But not the memories, which will be
Lingering in our hearts for ever and ever and
Ever and ever and ever .....

Gone are the Days….
But still there are lot more Days to come in ourLife !!


Live for the moment...live for NoW...

We live only once , life will never come again, and
that is what makes life so sweet.

“Nobody can go back and start a new beginning, but
anyone can start today and make a new ending.”

There are as many nights as days, and
the one is just as long as the other in the year's course.

Even a happy life cannot be without a measure of darkness, and
the word 'happy' would lose its meaning if it were not balanced by sadness.