How to Predict What You’ll Like? Ask a Stranger – TIME.

Evita is not exactly a role model for today’s corporate woman. Atleast not to the public. Intentionally or unintentionally everywhere we see the use of the feminine sex-appeal at workplace. By women themselves, or their influence. Lady luck, some might call it, others just plainly refer to it as the feminine charm.

I landed up in an argument with a friend over this very thing. Work with people for their ability to perform in the task and not to use their gender and sexuality, I said. But now that I ponder over it, I see the boundaries of ethics slightly blurred. It is as if they seem to stretch and vanish, as and when required.

We wear a smart suit to an important meeting. Chop hair to look professional. Wear an expensive watch to impress. Spray designer perfume to seem rich. Display abundance through a mobile phone. Put a large man at the gate as the bouncer. All of them and more appeal to our senses at a certain level. They create a hope, an image, a promise that may not be true. It’s just we have learnt to equalise these things with an act or an emotion. It is the years of conditioning that we have undergone. And we have learnt to use these inputs to our benefit to get the output we desire.

If we are all allowed to make fake promises, then why sneer at the method and not the outcome?

Terrorists are given a free pass… allowed to surrender.
Criminals get to reform in jails. Early release if they behave well.
But we let the ‘filth’ of our society lie in one corner while we pretend it doesn’t exist. There is not exit strategy in place for them. There is no strategy to save them. To improve their lives.
There is not amnesty granted to them.
The society forgives the family of a terrorist but not of the prostitute.

What would the society rather have… prostitution or terrorism?

Thoughts after watching Dev D… A must watch!!!!!

Google Earth Goes Deep With Ocean Simulations – NYTimes.com.

Overused, abused and overhyped. The word we constantly use to identify ourselves, to describe ourselves… The word I. In the languages I am aware of, like English it is spoken quickly and is of single syllable. Whereas words referring to the second or third person is usually longer and takes more time to deliver.

Besides the overuse, there could be another reason behind this relationship. May be we are supposed to give less time to ourselves while talking about ourselves and give more stress and mental space when talking about others.

If it is so, in the languages where this relation is swapped i.e. first person reference is longer than the second or third person reference, does it reflect something different about the culture. Do people give more or less importance to themselves there? Are egoes bigger?

If one starts to speak those languages, would it alter his behaviour?

Can language, the result of culture, history and heritage, in turn affect the future cultures?