Note that this does not have any added functionality. Right now, this is exactly the game as you would play in the browser. Please feel free to test and note your comments.

Note : You will need Flash Player installed. As a thumb rule, if you can play Nadirim in your browser, the Desktop version will also work.

You comments and enhancement suggestions are welcome. For those who are curious, this is XULRunner wrapped around Nadirim.

You are now not on Nadirim's website. This is not an official client and the author is in no way affiliated to Nadirim.

UPDATE : 30 Oct 2011

Download for Win 32 : Nadirim Desktop Setup

                          

"In the simplest case, involving only two people, the couple begins by walking down a long hallway from darkness into sunlight. (The hallway is wide enough for them to walk side by side, but too narrow to accommodate more than two people at a time.) At the end of the hallway, the couple will find two sets of footprints, on which they’ll stand facing one another, nearly touching. (Depending on their preference, they may be dressed or naked.) They’ll look up and see a window bright with sunlight, and suspended in that window above their heads they’ll find the entanglement apparatus, which has been precisely calibrated (using a system of adjustable prisms) to divide the sunlight passing through a nonlinear crystal (made of beta-barium borate) so that half of the light shines on each person’s face. They’ll stand for approximately a minute, allowing countless entangled photons to bombard their skin, gently entangling their flesh by the photoelectric effect. Then they’ll turn away and walk back down the hall and out into the open."

- Jonathon Keats

I see how this goes. Any attempt to detect the entanglement will collapse the wave function and destroy it. Faith in its existence keeps it together, doubt obliterates it. Poetic, isn’t it ?

                          

You see, this is why you begin to mistrust journalists. The passive sensationalism is, ironically blatant. I am referring to an article in the Indian Express .

Before I begin I’ll reproduce the article here….

China considered India ‘bottomless pit’ for foreign aid

Agencies Tags : Jawaharlal Nehru, Richard Nixon, Indira Gandhi

Posted: Sunday , Jan 24, 2010 at 1217 hrs

New Delhi:

While former Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru coined the famous slogan ‘Hindi Chini Bhai Bhai’, China considered him ‘discourteous’ and India to be ‘bottomless pit’ for foreign aid.

It also held the view that it was a ‘pity’ that late prime minister Indira Gandhi "has also taken as her legacy the philosophy of her father embodied in the book Discovery of India," which China believes revealed his idea of a great Indian empire encompassing Malaysia, Ceylon among others.

The comments were made by former Chinese Prime Minister Chou En Lai to former American President Richard Nixon, who famously called Gandhi a ‘bitch’ and a ‘witch’ while his National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger called Indians ‘bastards’.

The comments are now a part of the book ‘Nixon, Indira and India: Politics and Beyond’ written by a senior journalist Kalyani Shankar.

What this article is actually talking about, is a Cold-War-era conversation between a United States president and a Chinese Prime Minister, about India. India was all buddy-buddy with the Soviet Union at this time, much to the dismay of the US, and of course, China had already gone to war with India over territorial ambitions. In effect, these two political figures were talking about their counterparts in what they essentially considered to be a hostile country. It is rather tame language when talking about someone you think is your enemy, no?

Yet, this article (and that is it in its entirety) , provides only the juiciest tit-bits, without any context whatsoever – no doubt to rile up the sentiments of those Indians who read it upon seeing their leaders being insulted.

Of course, this is excellent promotion for the upcoming book, although if Mr.Shankar has a shred of decency as a political writer, he will want to give the journalist a piece of his mind, and I hope that includes some expletives.

                          

Disclaimer : The following is an excerpt from Salman Rushdie's novel "The Satanic Verses". This particular excerpt is , to my knowledge , in the public domain.

At the oasis of Yathrib the followers of the new faith of Submission found themselves landless, and therefore poor. For many years they financed themselves by acts of brigandage, attacking the rich camel-trains on their way to and from Jahilia.

Mahound had no time for scruples, Salman told Baal, no qualms about ends and means. The faithful lived by lawlessness, but in those years Mahound — or should one say the Archangel Gibreel? – should one say Al-Lah? – became obsessed by law. Amid the palm-trees of the oasis Gibreel appeared to the Prophet and found himself spouting rules, rules, rules, until the faithful could scarcely bear the prospect of any more revelation, Salman said, rules about every damn thing, if a man farts let him turn his face to the wind, a rule about which hand to use for the purpose of cleaning one's behind. It was as if no aspect of human existence was to be left unregulated, free.

The revelation – the "recitation" – told the faithful how much to eat, how deeply they should sleep, and which sexual positions had received divine sanction, so that they learned that sodomy and the missionary position were approved of by the archangel, whereas the forbidden postures included all those in which the female was on top. Gibreel further listed the permitted and forbidden subjects of conversation, and earmarked the parts of the body which could not be scratched no matter how unbearably they might itch. He vetoed the consumption of prawns, those bizarre other-worldly creatures which no member of the faithful had ever seen, and required animals to be killed slowly, by bleeding, so that by experiencing their deaths to the full they might arrive at an understanding of the meaning of their lives, for it is only at the moment of death that living creatures understand that life has been real, and not a sort of dream. And Gibreel the archangel specified the manner in which a man should be buried, and how his property should be divided, so that Salman the Persian got to wondering what manner of God this was that sounded so much like a businessman.

This was when he had the idea that destroyed his faith, because he recalled that of course Mahound himself had been a businessman, and a damned successful one at that, a person to whom organization and rules came naturally, so how excessively convenient it was that he should have come up with such a very businesslike archangel, who handed down the management decisions of this highly corporate, if non-corporeal, God.

After that Salman began to notice how useful and well timed the angel's revelations tended to be, so that when the faithful were disputing Mahound's views on any subject, from the possibility of space travel to the permanence of Hell, the angel would turn up with an answer, and he always supported Mahound, stating beyond any shadow of a doubt that it was impossible that a man should ever walk upon the moon, and being equally positive on the transient nature of damnation, even the most evil of doers would eventually be cleansed by hellfire and find their way into the perfumed gardens, Gulistan and Bostan. It would have been different, Salman complained to Baal, if Mahound took up his positions after receiving the revelation from Gibreel; but no, he just laid down the law and the angel would confirm it afterwards; so I began to get a bad smell in my nose, and I thought, this must be the odour of those fabled and legendary unclean creatures, what's their name, prawns.

The fishy smell began to obsess Salman, who was the most highly educated of Mahound's intimates owing to the superior educational system then on offer in Persia. On account of his scholastic advancement Salman was made Mahound's official scribe, so that it fell to him to write down the endlessly proliferating rules.

"All those revelations of convenience", he told Baal, "and the longer I did the job the worse it got. Anyway," Salman said near the bottom of the bottle, "finally I decided to test him."

"Little things at first. If Mahound recited a verse in which God was described as "all-hearing, all-knowing", I would write, "all-knowing, all-wise". Here's the point, Mahound did not notice the alterations. So there I was, actually writing the Book, or rewriting, anyway, polluting the word of God with my own profane language. But, good heavens, if my poor words could not be distinguished from the Revelation by God's own Messenger, then what did that mean? What did that say about the quality of the divine poetry?

Look, I swear, I was shaken to my soul. It's one thing to be a smart bastard and have half – suspicions about funny business, but it's quite another thing to find out that you're right. Listen, I changed my life for that man. I left my country, crossed the world, settled among people who thought me a slimy foreign coward for saving their, who never appreciated what I, but never mind that.

The truth is that what I expected when I made that first tiny change, "all-wise" instead of "all-hearing' – what I wanted -was to read it back to the Prophet, and he'd say, "What's the matter with you, Salman, are you going deaf? "And I'd say, "Oops, O God, bit of a slip, how could I", and correct myself.

But it didn't happen; and now I was writing the Revelation and nobody was noticing, and I didn't have the courage to own up. I was scared silly, I can tell you. Also, I was sadder than I have ever been. So I had to go on doing it. Maybe he'd just missed out once, I thought, anybody can make a mistake. So the next time I changed a bigger thing. He said "Christian", I wrote down "Jew".

He'd notice that, surely; how could he not? But when I read him the chapter he nodded and thanked me politely, and I went out of his tent with tears in my eyes. After that I knew my days in Yathrib were numbered; but I had to go on doing it. I had to. There is no bitterness like that of a man who finds out he has been believing in a ghost. I would fall, I knew, but he would fall with me. So I went on with my devilment, changing verses, until one day I read my lines to him and saw him frown and shake his head as if to clear his mind, and then nod his approval slowly, but with a little doubt. I knew I'd reached the edge, and that the next time I rewrote the Book he'd know everything. That night I lay awake, holding his fate in my hands as well as my own. If I allowed myself to be destroyed I could destroy him, too. I had to choose, on that awful night, whether I preferred death with revenge to life without anything. As you see, I chose, life. Before dawn I left Yathrib on my camel, and made my way, suffering numerous misadventures I shall not trouble to relate, back to Jahilia. And now Mahound is coming in triumph; so I shall lose my life after all. And his power has grown too great for me to unmake him now."

Baal asked, "Why are you sure he will kill you?"

Salman the Persian answered, "It's his Word against mine."

                          

Locale : Muehlbachweg 13, Rottach-Egern, Germany

                          

To everyone who is expecting a Google Wave Invite, this is a copy of the Invitiation Wave from my account.

As it clearly states, invites WILL NOT be sent immediately.

Sorry , folks who are waiting!

Oct 18

Invite others to Google Wave

Google Wave is more fun when you have others to wave with, so please nominate people you would like to add. Keep in mind that this is a preview so it could be a bit rocky at times.

Invitations will not be sent immediately. We have a lot of stamps to lick.

Happy waving!

0 0 Invitations left

Enter an email address

Add to invitation list

People you've nominated:

• devavr…com
• tommyleeh….com
• amarghai….com
• kaumud….com

                          

Sean Caroll proposes that science itself is an ‘empirical behavior practiced by humans’ . Of course, this means that science is plagued by at best disagreements within the community , and at worst , agitated controversies like the ‘religion’ issue.

In my personal opinion, the problem lies in the way science is projected to the public – it is projected like it is mathematics, like a conjoint twin of the blue-blooded mathematics, but destined to ‘get its hands dirty’. But then , consider this quip from (the) Einstein :

“As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.”

                                                                                                      Albert Einstein, "Geometry and Experience", January 27, 1921

You can imagine that this becomes a major peeve for science, which claims to be in the business of studying and revealing the workings of reality. I do understand that very important role that mathematics plays in making science tangible – but mathematics is a player of the abstract – numbers are ideas that are arranged in equations to reflect reality. In effect , calculus and arithmetic based mathematics is the ultimate simulation of reality.

Science , therefore, uses mathematics only as a tool. Yet, all too often it is dismissed by the populace as a dry, dispassionate subject- exacting, never completely applicable to reality, and working as it should only on a Professor’s blackboard. This view, whether valid or not, is more applicable to mathematics, and science suffers under the transferred epithet.

Science, I conclude then,  needs a new metaphor, and the only part of mathematics that lends an appropriate one is Probability theory.

Bear with me for a moment, and assume that reality (or more appropriately , reality as we understand it) is a collection of probability distributions on increasing orders of complexity and scale. Quite obviously, the most basic of these distributions are those of quantum mechanics – the Schroedinger equation and so on. At the other end of the scale , are the observed cosmic probability distributions – such as the chance of star formation, supernovae, spatial inflation (given the WMAP data) etc. Everything else, from ecology, sociology to music lies in between.

The job of science is to fill up the actual values that determine these distributions. It is apparent in this picture that nothing is impossible or possible – just very likely or unlikely. It is now left to the informed public to decide whether they are going to place their bets on what is a likely or something that has almost no chance of occurring.

This mental model of science provides two major advantages :

Firstly, it makes science overtly non-judgmental – as it should be. It doesn’t say walking on water , virgin births and resurrection from the dead is impossible – just something that isn’t very likely. In fact, it makes it just about as unlikely as thin air transforming into gold bullion. I said overtly earlier because in fact, it lumps together all the ‘unlikeliest , thereby accentuating the ridiculousness of belief in them. If you think walking on water is possible, then you must also believe that fish have developed civilization and are now (put your favorite mockery here) simply taking a break this millennium. Science as a probability function-finder is a way of enabling Stephen Jay Gould’s Magisteria, without causing science to lose it ‘power’ to say something about the world.

Secondly, it makes science more versatile and in many ways, a better representation of reality. Most theories in science, especially in biology, geology and cosmology provide ball-park figures, and rarely the precision of numbers available in physics. Considering a probabilistic spread of values provides a much better assessment of the theory’s power for explaining reality. Of course, even today science does use this premise, especially when applying statistical analysis. Statistics is a useful discipline and yet scientists sometimes think as of statistics is some sort of compromise.

“If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment.”

                                                                                            Ernest Rutherford

The reason, I think, is that scientists have let the mathematicians mislead them with the false glorification of a single , elegant equation that explains everything. Murray Gell-Mann even proposes that the elegant beauty of an equation is in some ways an indication of its correctness. That may be so, but from what we have learnt from every other field of science, is that at least such elegance is NOT scalable. Any set of rules that describes a living cell with its ~100,000 thousand or so different types of molecules does not exhibit the elegance of Maxwell’s equations , or general relativity. It possesses a different kind of beauty – the chaotic charm of a pulsating ménage, a Rube Goldberg machine that has found a purpose – to ensure its existence using the the very thermodynamic laws that is fighting to stay one step ahead of.

Beauty at varied scales Left : Maxwell’s equations – a complete description of all electromagnetic phenomenon Right : a genomic map of the simplest known organism Mycobacterium genitalium, indicating its various functional genetic elements.

With that in mind, in an era when science branches out into unknown territory as a matter of routine, there is a chance to alter its image in the public eye.  It begins with scientists giving up the glorification of elegance, and acceptance of the messy uncertainties whose existence is the only certainty in the complex, dynamic world we find ourselves in.

Perhaps then, and ironically so, by relaxing its own expectations of the precision of reality, and by distancing itself in ideology from its quantitative associate, science will befriend the masses and find the credibility it has lacked throughout history.

                          

And VW’s ad.

                          

1. Two things that should never be underestimated : serendipity and stupidity.

2. Napolean : “Only two things unite men – fear, and interest.”

3. There is always , yes , ALWAYS, a silver lining.

4. Leslie Orgel’s Second Rule : “Evolution is cleverer than you are.”

5. To win a war, you need : Israeli generals, British officers, Russian soldiers, Indian accountants, US money, German equipment, Japanese ideals and Italian enemies.

6. Most things are not defined by themselves – they are defined by their context.

7. Victory is not synonymous with success – Chanakya, in Arthaśāstra , ~300 B.C

8. “None are enslaved so hopelessly as those who believe themselves to be free.” – Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

9. The fallacy of democracy is the assumption that all individuals who have rights are capable of taking the optimal decision for their group.

10. You have to right to perform your actions. You are not entitled to the fruits of your actions. – Bhagavada Geeta, Ch.2, Pg. 47

I’ll be willing to modify this list with any suggestions you send forth in the comments.

                          

Dear Gen Kayani,

Sir, let me begin by recounting that old army quip that did the rounds in the immediate aftermath of World war II: To guarantee victory, an army should ideally have German generals, British officers, Indian soldiers, American equipment and Italian enemies.

A Pakistani soldier that I met in Iraq in 2004 lamented the fact that the Pakistani soldier in Kargil had been badly let down firstly by Nawaz Sharif and then by the Pakistani officers’ cadre. Pakistani soldiers led by Indian officers, , he believed, would be the most fearsome combination possible. Pakistani officers, he went on to say, were more into real estate, defence housing colonies and the like.

As I look at two photographs of surrender that lie before me, I can’t help recalling his words. The first is the celebrated event at Dhaka on Dec 16, 1971, which now adorns most Army messes in Delhi and Calcutta. The second, sir, is the video of a teenage girl being flogged by the Taliban in Swat — not far, I am sure, from one of your Army check posts.

The surrender by any Army is always a sad and humiliating event. Gen Niazi surrendered in Dhaka to a professional army that had outnumbered and outfought him. No Pakistani has been able to get over that humiliation, and 16th December is remembered as a black day by the Pakistani Army and the Pakistani state. But battles are won and lost – armies know this, and having learnt their lessons, they move on. But much more sadly, the video of the teenager being flogged represents an even more abject surrender by the Pakistani Army. The surrender in 1971, though humiliating, was not disgraceful.

This time around, sir, what happened on your watch was something no Army commander should have to live through. The girl could have been your own daughter, or mine. I have always maintained that the Pakistani Army, like its Indian counterpart, is a thoroughly professional outfit. It has fought valiantly in the three wars against India, and also accredited itself well in its UN missions abroad. It is, therefore, by no means a pushover. The instance of an Infantry unit, led by a lieutenant colonel, meekly laying down arms before 20-odd militants should have been an aberration. But this capitulation in Swat, that too so soon after your own visit to the area, is an assault on the sensibilities of any soldier.

What did you tell your soldiers? What great inspirational speech did you make that made your troops back off without a murmur? Sir, I have fought insurgency in Kashmir as well as the North-East, but despite the occasional losses suffered (as is bound to be the case in counter-insurgency operations), such total surrender is unthinkable.

I have been a signaller, and it beats me how my counterparts in your Signal Corps could not locate or even jam a normal FM radio station broadcasting on a fixed frequency at fixed timings. Is there more than meets the eye? I am told that it is difficult for your troops to “fight their own people.” But you never had that problem in East Pakistan in 1971, where the atrocities committed by your own troops are well documented in the Hamoodur Rahman Commission Report. Or is it that the Bengalis were never considered “your own” people, influenced as they were by the Hindus across the border? Or is that your troops are terrified by the ruthless barbarians of the Taliban?

Sir, it is imperative that we recognise our enemy without any delay. I use the word “our” advisedly – for the Taliban threat is not far from India’s borders. And the only force that can stop them from dragging Pakistan back into the Stone Age is the force that you command. In this historic moment, providence has placed a tremendous responsibility in your hands. Indeed, the fate of your nation, the future of humankind in the subcontinent rests with you. It doesn’t matter if it is “my war” or “your war” – it is a war that has to be won. A desperate Swati citizen’s desperate lament says it all – “Please drop an atom bomb on us and put us out of our misery!” Do not fail him, sir.

But in the gloom and the ignominy, the average Pakistani citizen has shown us that there is hope yet. The lawyers, the media, have all refused to buckle even under direct threats. It took the Taliban no less than 32 bullets to still the voice of a brave journalist. Yes, there is hope – but why don’t we hear the same language from you? Look to these brave hearts, sir – and maybe we shall see the tide turn. Our prayers are with you, and the hapless people of Swat.

The New York Times predicts that Pakistan will collapse in six months. Do you want to go down in history as the man who allowed that to happen?

* My reason for posting this is to let the fanatical Pakistan-haters all over India know how  seasoned Defense personnel communicate. Perhaps the example will bring some maturity to this crowd. Respect, even for the enemy , is paramount.