Hi all,
Its been a tumultuous last couple of days for the students who are now wondering whether they should be really proud of the institute they willingly chose to study in, or are all the people here are just a puppet in the play which is pre-planned without the well-beings of the students taken into account? Its all a fault of the reservation system or quota as they call it... Many students who don't really have that 'potential' or rather the capability to sustain under the arduous pressures of the present education system, come to be apart of the institute with the only help of the quota or reservation system. Now who would have thought that a student studying in the fourth semester, who should be enjoying his youth to the fullest with joy and felicity would be put to a situation or under unbearable pressure of failure that he would commit suicide??
I strongly oppose those who say that the students should be made accustomed to withstand extreme pressure and tensions. Now that is completely not what a student is supposed to be doing. He/She should be made to think independently, think innovative and always in a complete sanity of senses.
Now that that fourth semester student has done what was done previously by three different students and hundreds do across India is something which is more than enough to agitate our so called education ministers to alter the existing orthodox text-book exam oriented system.
I also appeal to all my fellow students not to succumb to the tensed situations and pressures and enjoy the precious life they are given to the fullest. Exams will come and go but the friends and memories will always remain.
Be grateful for the parents for what they did for you and also to your friends. Never commit such a ghastly mistake and make them languish forever in your memories for the rest of your life. Sympathies go out to the Family of Saurabh. May his soul rest in peace.
...Viva la Vida...
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
LED Fading from Digital output control by a switch
int lastState = 0; // last state of the switch
int currentState = 0; // current state of the switch
int ledLevel = 0; // level of the LED analogWrite
long lastFadeTime = 0; // last time you decremented the LED level
void setup() {
pinMode (2, INPUT); // the switch pin
pinMode(6, OUTPUT); // the LED pin
Serial.begin(9600); // initialize serial communication
}
void loop() {
// read the switch:
currentState = digitalRead(2);
// if the switch has changed, do something:
if (currentState != lastState) {
// if the switch is high:
if (currentState == 1) {
// set the LED level
ledLevel = 255;
Serial.println("turned on");
}
// save the current state of the switch as the last state for next time through:
lastState = currentState;
}
if (millis() - lastFadeTime > 5) {
// fade the LED level:
if (ledLevel >0 ) {
// turn on or off the LED
analogWrite(6, ledLevel);
// decrement the LED level:
ledLevel--;
}
else {
// turn the LED off:
digitalWrite(6, LOW);
}
// note the last time you faded the LED:
lastFadeTime = millis();
}
}
-------by Hardik Pandya
int currentState = 0; // current state of the switch
int ledLevel = 0; // level of the LED analogWrite
long lastFadeTime = 0; // last time you decremented the LED level
void setup() {
pinMode (2, INPUT); // the switch pin
pinMode(6, OUTPUT); // the LED pin
Serial.begin(9600); // initialize serial communication
}
void loop() {
// read the switch:
currentState = digitalRead(2);
// if the switch has changed, do something:
if (currentState != lastState) {
// if the switch is high:
if (currentState == 1) {
// set the LED level
ledLevel = 255;
Serial.println("turned on");
}
// save the current state of the switch as the last state for next time through:
lastState = currentState;
}
if (millis() - lastFadeTime > 5) {
// fade the LED level:
if (ledLevel >0 ) {
// turn on or off the LED
analogWrite(6, ledLevel);
// decrement the LED level:
ledLevel--;
}
else {
// turn the LED off:
digitalWrite(6, LOW);
}
// note the last time you faded the LED:
lastFadeTime = millis();
}
}
-------by Hardik Pandya
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Big Money Little Value
Real Madrid have topped the league table of the world's richest football clubs for the fifth straight year, according to Deloitte's sport unit.
Its Football Money League, based on data for season 2008/09, also says Real are the first global sports team to see annual revenues top 400m euros (£357m).
Real's arch-rivals Barcelona have taken second spot in the list, ahead of Manchester United who drop to third.
Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool are fifth, sixth and seventh respectively.
With international TV rights becoming an increasingly important source of income and leagues competing for attention around the world, the Spanish model has clear dangers.
Nils Blythe, Business correspondent
Why TV is the key to Real success
The authors said that United would have been top of the Money League if the pound was still at June 2007 levels.
But they point out that, despite exchange rate issues, seven of the top 20 in its table are from England, the other three being Tottenham (15th), Manchester City(19th), and relegated club Newcastle United (20th).
All the 20 clubs represented are from the "big five" European leagues, with Germany contributing five clubs, Italy four, and France and Spain two each.
'Challenges'
Real retained top position despite a disappointing season, coming second in La Liga and exiting the Champions League at the Round of 16 stage.
But they were boosted by a much-improved television contract with Mediapro, guaranteeing the club more than 1.1bn euros over seven seasons.
Arch-rivals Barcelona had a hugely successful season, winning La Liga and the Champions League - beating Manchester United, who won the English Premier League in 2008/09, in the final.
"We continue to assert that the game's top clubs are well placed to meet the challenges presented by the difficult economic environment," said Deloitte's Dan Jones, who compiled the report.
"Their large and loyal supporter bases, ability to drive broadcast audiences, and continuing attraction to corporate partners, provide a strong base to underpin revenues."
He said that this was shown by the fact that the combined revenues of the top 20 Money League clubs was over 3.9bn euros in 2008/09, up 26m euros on the previous year.
And the majority of Money League clubs maintained average match attendances when comparing 2008/09 with 2007/08.
There was not a great deal of movement in the top 20, with two new clubs - Werder Bremen and Manchester City - replacing VfB Stuttgart and Fenerbahce.
WEALTHIEST CLUBS BY REVENUE
1) Real Madrid: 401.4m euros
2) Barcelona: 365.9m euros
3) Man Utd: 327m euros
4) Bayern Munich: 289.5m euros
5) Arsenal: 263m euros
6) Chelsea: 242.3m
7) Liverpool: 217m euros
8) Juventus: 202.3m euros
9) Inter Milan 196.5m euros
10) AC Milan: 196.5.m euros
Source: Deloitte: 2008/09
Mr Jones said the limited change "reflects the fact that those clubs with the largest supporter bases in strongest economic markets, high attraction to commercial partners, and consistent participation in European competition, will dominate the top positions".
Football income
However, there were warnings that many clubs now face "increased pressure on ticket pricing strategies and all clubs will continue to face challenges in managing match day" returns.
And the report also points out that the current season, 2009/10, will offer clarification about whether the global recession has had a major impact on clubs' revenues.
The Deloitte review does not include the cost of transfer fees or player wages, or VAT and other sales taxes, and concentrates solely on day-to-day income from football business.
Income includes money from ticket sales, sponsorship, merchandising and other commercial revenues, television monies, corporate hospitality, and non-match day stadium use such as for conferences.
The list had been headed by Manchester United for eight years until Real Madrid deposed them.
Its Football Money League, based on data for season 2008/09, also says Real are the first global sports team to see annual revenues top 400m euros (£357m).
Real's arch-rivals Barcelona have taken second spot in the list, ahead of Manchester United who drop to third.
Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool are fifth, sixth and seventh respectively.
With international TV rights becoming an increasingly important source of income and leagues competing for attention around the world, the Spanish model has clear dangers.
Nils Blythe, Business correspondent
Why TV is the key to Real success
The authors said that United would have been top of the Money League if the pound was still at June 2007 levels.
But they point out that, despite exchange rate issues, seven of the top 20 in its table are from England, the other three being Tottenham (15th), Manchester City(19th), and relegated club Newcastle United (20th).
All the 20 clubs represented are from the "big five" European leagues, with Germany contributing five clubs, Italy four, and France and Spain two each.
'Challenges'
Real retained top position despite a disappointing season, coming second in La Liga and exiting the Champions League at the Round of 16 stage.
But they were boosted by a much-improved television contract with Mediapro, guaranteeing the club more than 1.1bn euros over seven seasons.
Arch-rivals Barcelona had a hugely successful season, winning La Liga and the Champions League - beating Manchester United, who won the English Premier League in 2008/09, in the final.
"We continue to assert that the game's top clubs are well placed to meet the challenges presented by the difficult economic environment," said Deloitte's Dan Jones, who compiled the report.
"Their large and loyal supporter bases, ability to drive broadcast audiences, and continuing attraction to corporate partners, provide a strong base to underpin revenues."
He said that this was shown by the fact that the combined revenues of the top 20 Money League clubs was over 3.9bn euros in 2008/09, up 26m euros on the previous year.
And the majority of Money League clubs maintained average match attendances when comparing 2008/09 with 2007/08.
There was not a great deal of movement in the top 20, with two new clubs - Werder Bremen and Manchester City - replacing VfB Stuttgart and Fenerbahce.
WEALTHIEST CLUBS BY REVENUE
1) Real Madrid: 401.4m euros
2) Barcelona: 365.9m euros
3) Man Utd: 327m euros
4) Bayern Munich: 289.5m euros
5) Arsenal: 263m euros
6) Chelsea: 242.3m
7) Liverpool: 217m euros
8) Juventus: 202.3m euros
9) Inter Milan 196.5m euros
10) AC Milan: 196.5.m euros
Source: Deloitte: 2008/09
Mr Jones said the limited change "reflects the fact that those clubs with the largest supporter bases in strongest economic markets, high attraction to commercial partners, and consistent participation in European competition, will dominate the top positions".
Football income
However, there were warnings that many clubs now face "increased pressure on ticket pricing strategies and all clubs will continue to face challenges in managing match day" returns.
And the report also points out that the current season, 2009/10, will offer clarification about whether the global recession has had a major impact on clubs' revenues.
The Deloitte review does not include the cost of transfer fees or player wages, or VAT and other sales taxes, and concentrates solely on day-to-day income from football business.
Income includes money from ticket sales, sponsorship, merchandising and other commercial revenues, television monies, corporate hospitality, and non-match day stadium use such as for conferences.
The list had been headed by Manchester United for eight years until Real Madrid deposed them.
PussyCat Dolls lose 2 dolls
Ashley Roberts announced on micro-blogging site Twitter that she had "an amazing ride" and had "learned so much".
She added she will "always love those girls. My sistas 4 life."
Kimberley Wyatt who recently judged Sky One's Got To Dance talent show left over the weekend saying "money and fame can't buy happiness".
In a statement, Roberts added that she has "gotten the acting bug and am falling in love with it. I have a few projects in the works and when ready I will announce more details to all of you".
She also said she is "in the studio recording some of my own music".
Roberts' and Wyatt's exits follow the departure of former group member Carmit Bachar, who quit the group in 2008.
It follows rumours of a rift in the group over the elevation of member Nicole Scherzinger to lead singer.
Kimberley Wyatt and Ashley Roberts
The pair are understood to be working on other projects
Scherzinger, who dated former F1 world champion Lewis Hamilton, has just been announced in the line up for US television show Dancing With the Stars.
Initially forming in 1995 as a burlesque troupe based in Los Angeles, the changing line-up settled on six members who began recording music in 2003.
Their single Don't Cha was number one in the UK in 2005 and a chat-topping debut album PCD followed in 2006.
She added she will "always love those girls. My sistas 4 life."
Kimberley Wyatt who recently judged Sky One's Got To Dance talent show left over the weekend saying "money and fame can't buy happiness".
In a statement, Roberts added that she has "gotten the acting bug and am falling in love with it. I have a few projects in the works and when ready I will announce more details to all of you".
She also said she is "in the studio recording some of my own music".
Roberts' and Wyatt's exits follow the departure of former group member Carmit Bachar, who quit the group in 2008.
It follows rumours of a rift in the group over the elevation of member Nicole Scherzinger to lead singer.
Kimberley Wyatt and Ashley Roberts
The pair are understood to be working on other projects
Scherzinger, who dated former F1 world champion Lewis Hamilton, has just been announced in the line up for US television show Dancing With the Stars.
Initially forming in 1995 as a burlesque troupe based in Los Angeles, the changing line-up settled on six members who began recording music in 2003.
Their single Don't Cha was number one in the UK in 2005 and a chat-topping debut album PCD followed in 2006.
Monday, March 1, 2010
United look to restore home rule
David Beckham is back in town but Manchester United FC will be more concerned with rediscovering their formidable home form when they look to protect a slender first-leg advantage against AC Milan.
And The White Pele is all set to put the Theatre of Dreams ablaze with his pin-point headers and slingshot shoots... Can't wait to latch on to the match on 10th night at 1.15am.
But one thing is for sure, that this time, it will not be a happy hunting for Beckham at Old Trafford.
UEFA Champions League further proceedings...
Arsenal 20:45 Porto More »
Referee: TBD
Stadium: Arsenal Stadium, London (ENG)
Fiorentina 20:45 Bayern More »
Referee: TBD
Stadium: Artemio Franchi, Florence (ITA)
10 March 2010
Home Away Status Match info
Real Madrid 20:45 Lyon More »
Referee: TBD
Stadium: Santiago Bernabéu, Madrid (ESP)
Man. United 20:45 Milan More »
Referee: TBD
Stadium: Old Trafford, Manchester (ENG)
16 March 2010
Home Away Status Match info
Sevilla 20:45 CSKA Moskva More »
Referee: TBD
Stadium: Ramón Sánchez-Pizjuán, Seville (ESP)
Chelsea 20:45 Internazionale More »
Referee: TBD
Stadium: Stamford Bridge, London (ENG)
17 March 2010
Home Away Status Match info
Barcelona 20:45 Stuttgart More »
Referee: TBD
Stadium: Camp Nou, Barcelona (ESP)
Bordeaux 20:45 Olympiacos More »
Referee: TBD
Stadium: Stade Chaban-Delmas, Bordeaux (FRA)
Referee: TBD
Stadium: Arsenal Stadium, London (ENG)
Fiorentina 20:45 Bayern More »
Referee: TBD
Stadium: Artemio Franchi, Florence (ITA)
10 March 2010
Home Away Status Match info
Real Madrid 20:45 Lyon More »
Referee: TBD
Stadium: Santiago Bernabéu, Madrid (ESP)
Man. United 20:45 Milan More »
Referee: TBD
Stadium: Old Trafford, Manchester (ENG)
16 March 2010
Home Away Status Match info
Sevilla 20:45 CSKA Moskva More »
Referee: TBD
Stadium: Ramón Sánchez-Pizjuán, Seville (ESP)
Chelsea 20:45 Internazionale More »
Referee: TBD
Stadium: Stamford Bridge, London (ENG)
17 March 2010
Home Away Status Match info
Barcelona 20:45 Stuttgart More »
Referee: TBD
Stadium: Camp Nou, Barcelona (ESP)
Bordeaux 20:45 Olympiacos More »
Referee: TBD
Stadium: Stade Chaban-Delmas, Bordeaux (FRA)
An Age Of Extremes
A few months ago, when Sarah Palin, the postergirl of right wing Republicans was contracted by Fox News to be a guest anchor, she remarked, "I am thrilled to be joining the great journalistic talent at Fox News. It's wonderful to be part of a place that so values fair and balanced news."
Ah! "Fair" and "balanced", those wonderful words that Fox News has made its tagline, words that every aspiring journalist is reminded are critical to professional credibility. Unfortunately, since I didn't go to journalism school, I am still not sure what those words mean. After all, if the channel that has often been accused of being 'the propaganda arm of the Republican party' can proudly claim to be 'fair' and 'balanced', then I guess we need to redefine the meaning of the words.
We still don't have a Fox News equivalent in India - although a few channels have slipped dangerously in that direction - but the dilemma of what constitutes 'fair' and 'balanced' television is universal. On Indian news television, the escape route has been to ensure that any discussion programme represents strikingly contrary viewpoints. So, if you have a right wing voice which believes that Hindutva is the core of Indian nationalism, you must have a left-liberal view that is convinced that Hindutva is a communal platform. If you have someone who condemns human right violations in Kashmir, you must have someone who believes that human rights activists are apologists for militants.
If there is one thing that contemporary news television has done, it has accentuated the polarities in public debate. The limited discussion time on television does place a premium on short, snappy soundbites. On television, the moderate viewpoint that might qualify its responses with a considered 'on the other hand' is quickly discarded. By contrast, the more direct, extreme view is celebrated because it leads to, let's be honest, a 'big fight'. As someone who has 'moderated' many such 'fights', let me say that the experience has been mostly enjoyable. To have two articulate speakers slug it out - lets say an Arun Jaitley from the BJP and a Kapil Sibal from the Congress - does make for terrific television: it can be edgy, dramatic and exciting. But also, at times, dare I say, a little predictable.
The recent debate over Naxalism typifies the problems associated with converting a highly complex subject into a binary black and white conflict. Much like a boxing match, the participating pugilists are placed in their respective corners. On one side, you have the votaries of the strong state: for them, the Naxals are terrorists who must be eliminated. On the other, you have the so-called Naxal 'sympathisers' who believe that the Indian state is brutal and repressive. Bring them to a television studio, and the debate follows a familiar pattern: loud, accusatory and, in many instances, highly personalised.
Lost in the cacophony, there seems little space or time to discuss how a just and acceptable solution can be found to what is both a socio-economic and a security challenge. Why should every reference to alleged 'atrocities' committed by a local militia like the Salva Judum in Chattisgarh be seen as an exhibition of 'anti-national' behaviour? On the other hand, why should unbridled criticism of Naxal violence be seen as state propaganda? What if, one were to suggest, that both sides are in danger of being victims of their own propaganda machines, that maybe the Salwa Judum and the Naxals are two sides of the same violent coin? Maybe, the polarities on television mirror the divisions in society itself.
Perhaps, we have pigeonholed the world around us into neat little boxes. The space for exploring the grey areas of an issue, to be more accepting of a counter-argument to our entrenched belief system is shrinking. Or atleast we don't seem to wish to enter the hidden crevices of a vexed question that might force us to re-examine our convictions.
And yet, the question I ask is this: why can one not be equally critical of Udhav Thackeray and Digvijay Singh's brand of politics without having to constantly 'prove' ones credentials to be a 'fair' and 'balanced' journalist? Or is that the price one must pay for being a journalist in the age of extremes?
Post-script: If Fox News has chosen Sarah Palin as its brand ambassador for 'fair' and 'balanced' reporting, maybe we should also look for similar home-grown figures? Maybe, our tough-talking home minister is an option? Better still, why can't we have both Chidambaram and author-activist Arundhati Roy on the same programme on Naxalism? Would certainly make for fascinating television.
By Rajdeep Sardesai on IBN networks
Ah! "Fair" and "balanced", those wonderful words that Fox News has made its tagline, words that every aspiring journalist is reminded are critical to professional credibility. Unfortunately, since I didn't go to journalism school, I am still not sure what those words mean. After all, if the channel that has often been accused of being 'the propaganda arm of the Republican party' can proudly claim to be 'fair' and 'balanced', then I guess we need to redefine the meaning of the words.
We still don't have a Fox News equivalent in India - although a few channels have slipped dangerously in that direction - but the dilemma of what constitutes 'fair' and 'balanced' television is universal. On Indian news television, the escape route has been to ensure that any discussion programme represents strikingly contrary viewpoints. So, if you have a right wing voice which believes that Hindutva is the core of Indian nationalism, you must have a left-liberal view that is convinced that Hindutva is a communal platform. If you have someone who condemns human right violations in Kashmir, you must have someone who believes that human rights activists are apologists for militants.
If there is one thing that contemporary news television has done, it has accentuated the polarities in public debate. The limited discussion time on television does place a premium on short, snappy soundbites. On television, the moderate viewpoint that might qualify its responses with a considered 'on the other hand' is quickly discarded. By contrast, the more direct, extreme view is celebrated because it leads to, let's be honest, a 'big fight'. As someone who has 'moderated' many such 'fights', let me say that the experience has been mostly enjoyable. To have two articulate speakers slug it out - lets say an Arun Jaitley from the BJP and a Kapil Sibal from the Congress - does make for terrific television: it can be edgy, dramatic and exciting. But also, at times, dare I say, a little predictable.
The recent debate over Naxalism typifies the problems associated with converting a highly complex subject into a binary black and white conflict. Much like a boxing match, the participating pugilists are placed in their respective corners. On one side, you have the votaries of the strong state: for them, the Naxals are terrorists who must be eliminated. On the other, you have the so-called Naxal 'sympathisers' who believe that the Indian state is brutal and repressive. Bring them to a television studio, and the debate follows a familiar pattern: loud, accusatory and, in many instances, highly personalised.
Lost in the cacophony, there seems little space or time to discuss how a just and acceptable solution can be found to what is both a socio-economic and a security challenge. Why should every reference to alleged 'atrocities' committed by a local militia like the Salva Judum in Chattisgarh be seen as an exhibition of 'anti-national' behaviour? On the other hand, why should unbridled criticism of Naxal violence be seen as state propaganda? What if, one were to suggest, that both sides are in danger of being victims of their own propaganda machines, that maybe the Salwa Judum and the Naxals are two sides of the same violent coin? Maybe, the polarities on television mirror the divisions in society itself.
Perhaps, we have pigeonholed the world around us into neat little boxes. The space for exploring the grey areas of an issue, to be more accepting of a counter-argument to our entrenched belief system is shrinking. Or atleast we don't seem to wish to enter the hidden crevices of a vexed question that might force us to re-examine our convictions.
And yet, the question I ask is this: why can one not be equally critical of Udhav Thackeray and Digvijay Singh's brand of politics without having to constantly 'prove' ones credentials to be a 'fair' and 'balanced' journalist? Or is that the price one must pay for being a journalist in the age of extremes?
Post-script: If Fox News has chosen Sarah Palin as its brand ambassador for 'fair' and 'balanced' reporting, maybe we should also look for similar home-grown figures? Maybe, our tough-talking home minister is an option? Better still, why can't we have both Chidambaram and author-activist Arundhati Roy on the same programme on Naxalism? Would certainly make for fascinating television.
By Rajdeep Sardesai on IBN networks
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)