Ramanisblog

Tag: wikipedia

  • ‘I am being Brain Washed’

    I sometimes wonder whether I know anything at all,I mean about the fundamental daily activities.

    Tooth brush Manufacturers  tell me that my brushing practice is not correct.

    Tooth paste manufacturer’s advise me that I should have salt in my tooth paste.

    ( It is a different issue that the same manufacturers told me some time back that Salt in tooth paste was harmful to teeth.)

    I am scared of walking on the road lest some white coated gentleman would accost me with a gadget like a Pen Torch and take me to a weird apparatus to check ‘Germ Build Up’

    Another Doctor(All white coated men are Doctors) tell  me that if I eat, food particles would enter between teeth and I will get cavity.

    I never knew that washing hands would be such a serious affair!

    If I use Dettol or something similar to wash my hands, it would take an inordinate time of O>>>>ne Minute and I am advised to use new Lifebuoy.

    I am surprised at a visiting Doctor carrying Lifebuoy with him and dropping it the patient’s house!

    I thought I was taking bath in a proper way until I came across ads saying that I should use a particular soap in a particular way.

    I was unaware that a soap can prevent Ten infections!

    I never knew that washing Face was such a complex affair.

    It had to bleach, moisturize and improve skin tone.

    If I want to go out, I need to have my face fully covered or should apply a cream.

    I was taught that borrowing is a sin and Hocking a crime.

    Now if I don’t have a Credit Card or do not hock my jewels I am a misfit.

    If my child gets wet, it will lead to life threatening disease.

    I did not know that children grow taller, stronger and sharper by using a Food Drink.

    Nor a food drink increases your Stamina by three times.

    I am surprised that you need an absorbent to absorb Milk.

    How do I escape from this Brain washing day in Day out?

    Read On:

    While it’s pretty unlikely that you’re a target of deliberate brainwashing, it is likely that you’re subject to some of the common techniques associated with the less-than-ethical practice. Here are a few common methods you encounter on a regular basis and what you can do to avoid them.

    First things first, what is brainwashing exactly? Wikipedia offers a concise definition:

    Mind control (also known as brainwashing, coercive persuasion, mind abuse, thought control, or thought reform) refers to a process in which a group or individual “systematically uses unethically manipulative methods to persuade others to conform to the wishes of the manipulator(s), often to the detriment of the person being manipulated”.

    Basically, it’s a form of extreme manipulation. We often associate the practice with cults and don’t consider its presence in everyday life, yet the techniques used in brainwashing are frequently leveraged by advertisers, news networks, politicians, and others. Alex Long, writing for hacking blog Null Byte, provides an outline of some of the most common brainwashing techniques. Here are the most notable:

    • The manipulator offers you a number of choices, but the choices all lead to the same conclusion.
    • The same idea or phrase is frequently repeated to make sure it sticks in your brain.
    • Intense intelligence-dampening is performed by providing you with constant short snippets of information on various subjects. This trains you to have a short memory, makes the amount of information feel overwhelming, and the answers provided by the manipulator to be highly desired due to how overwhelmed you feel.
    • Emotional manipulation is used to put you in a heightened state, as this makes it harder for you to employ logic. Inducing fear and anger are among the most popular manipulated emotions.
    • When reading this list, you’re likely able to think of a few examples of these techniques. News channels and political parties often repeat a consistent message when they want to get their point across. Short snippets of information is also a common tactic on news networks. Advertisers love to offer choices that all lead to their product, and emotional manipulation is common in people you’ll encounter as well as in most forms of media—even seemingly (and sometimes actually) harmless mediums like film. These techniques are everywhere. They aren’t turning you into a zombie, but they are informing many of your choices. The good news is that you can avoid them if you’re proactive.

      How to Avoid Brainwashing Techniques

      Mind Control
      Mind Control (Photo credit: Conor Keller | fortysixtyphoto.com)

      Avoiding brainwashing techniques often involves avoiding the brainwashers themselves, but this is next to impossible. Taking advertising as an example, you can’t avoid them all and attempting to do so can be rather expensive if you still want to watch television and movies. Your best bet is to cut out what you can and, when you can’t, seek balance. Finding balance is often easiest by simply providing yourself with the information you need. All you need to do is the following:

       

      1. Identify the manipulative message you’ve received.
      2. Find an opposing message, whether it’s manipulative or not. Also attempt to find the most neutral and unbiased account of that same message.
      3. Compare your different sources and decide how you feel.

      Brainwashing, whether mild or extreme, is possible in a large part due to isolation. If you only hear the brainwashed message on a regular basis, and rarely (or never) expose yourself to alternatives, you’re going to be far more likely to accept what you hear without thinking. If you want to avoid the brainwashing techniques discussed in this post, your best bet is to surround yourself with a spectrum of information rather than simply settling for the message that makes you feel comfortable. After all, that’s often what the message is aiming to do.

      http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/2YK0Lt

  • அந்தரங்கம் ,ஒரேகோத்திர திருமணம்

    When we look at the lineage, all of us are descendants of  one pair.

    Adam and Eve, Dakshapparajapathi/Kasyapa and Thithi.

    Hence all of us happen to be brothers and sisters.

    So none can marry!

    At the same time ,one can not ignore the genetics behind Gotra( a system of lineage in Hinduism).

    Details are provided in the Link.

    The children born of same Gothra parents have a greater possibility of being born with Genetic defects.

    So, to prevent regrets later, it is better not to marry in the  same Gothra.

    Chromosome
    Chromosome (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

    ஒரே கோத்திரத்தைச் சேர்ந்தவர்கள் திருமணம் செய்து கொள்ளுவதில் வேறுபட்ட கருத்துக்கள் நிலவுகின்றன.

    எந்த மதத்தை எடுத்துக்கொண்டாலும் தலைமுறைகள் ஒரு கணவன் மனைவியிலிருந்து உருவாகிஉள்ளன .
    ஆதாம், ஏவாள் ,தக்ஷப்ப்ரஜாபதி,காச்யபர், திதி உதாரணங்கள் .
    அப்படிப்பார்க்கையில் அனைவரும் சஹோதர சஹோதரிகளாகிறோம்..
    அதே சமயம் மரபணு சார்ந்த உண்மைகளை ஒதுக்கவும் முடியாது.
    விளக்கத்திற்கு
    “Now we know even in modern Genetics that marriages between cousins will increase the risk of causing genetic disorders. That is because, say suppose there is a recessive dangerous gene in one person. What this means is that say a person is carrying a dangerous abnormality causing gene in one of his chromosome, but whose effect has been hidden in that person (or is not being expressed) because the corresponding gene in the pairing Chromosome is stronger and hence is preventing this abnormality causing gene from activating.

    Now there are fair chances that his offsprings will be carriers of these genes throughout successive generations. As long as they keep marrying outside his genetic imprint, there is a fair chance that the defective gene will remain inactive since others outside this person’s lineage most probably do not have that defective gene. Now if after 5-10 generations down the line say one of his descendants marries some other descendant who may be really far away cousins. But then there is a possibility that both of them are still carrying the defective gene, and in that case their children will definitely have the defective gene express itself and cause the genetic abnormality in them as both the Chromosomes in the pair have the defective genes. Hence, the marriages between cousins always have a chance of causing an otherwise recessive, defective genes to express themselves resulting in children with genetic abnormalities.

    So if the Vedic Rishis had allowed marriages within the same Gotras, then there were chances that the resulting male can be a victim of such defective gene expression, and any such gene expressions which took place in the 5% exposed area of the Y Chromosome would be fatal for the continuity of that Y Chromosome. Even after hundreds of generations there would still be chances of any defective genes being propagated within these successive generations, and marriage within the same Gotra would provide a golden opportunity for these genes to express themselves, there by causing the genetic abnormality in the offspring.

    And hence the ancient Vedic Rishis created the Gotra system where they barred marriage between a boy and a girl belonging to the same Gotra no matter how deep the lineage tree was, in a bid to prevent inbreeding and completely eliminate all recessive defective genes from the human DNA.

    http://www.hitxp.com/articles/veda/science-genetics-vedic-hindu-gotra-y-chromosome-male-lineage-extinction/

    எனவே எதிர் காலத்தில் மன உளைச்சலைத் தவிர்க்க ஒரே கோத்திரத்தைச் சேர்ந்தவர்கள் மணந்து கொள்ளாமல் இருப்பது நல்லது.

  • Model describes Web page popularity.

    Image representing Wikipedia as depicted in Cr...
    Image via CrunchBase

     

    Story:

    “We see that Internet behaves in unpredictable ways, with big shifts in attention causing changes which have statistical signatures like those seen in earthquakes and avalanches,” Jacob Ratkiewicz from Indiana University told PhysOrg.com.

    Ratkiewicz and his coauthors from Indiana University and the Institute for Scientific Interchange in Torino, Italy, have published their study on online popularity in a recent issue of . As they explain, online information that becomes popular has formidable power to impact opinions, culture, and policy, as well as earn higher advertising profits. Achieving online popularity is obviously highly desired for these reasons, but as previous studies have found, very few sites become tremendously popular.

    In the researchers’ analysis, the popularity of a article or Web page is expressed by the number of clicks to that page and the number of external links to that page. While previous studies have found that the popularity distribution of follows power-law behavior, it has been difficult to observe the growth in popularity of individual pages due to the lack of data with temporal information. Here, the researchers gathered the traffic data of millions of pages (3 million Wikipedia articles with a one-second time resolution during 2001-2007; 3 million Wikipedia articles with a one-hour time resolution during 2008-2010; and 3 million Web pages from Chile’s .cl domain with a one-year time resolution during 2002-2006). They obtained the Wikipedia data by mining the full edit history of every article and the Chilean Web page data using the country’s TODOCL search engine.

    Among their results, the researchers found that almost all pages experience a burst of popularity near the beginning of their lives. Then, some pages maintain a constant exponential growth, while many other pages experience intermittent bursts. Looking at these bursts more closely, the researchers found that their distribution follows a “heavy-tail” behavior, which is a common feature of critical systems. In a heavy-tail distribution, most of the items exhibit small values, but a few items exhibit very large values that dominate the overall volume of traffic. As the researchers noted, these bursts are different from those observed in news-driven events, where attention fades rapidly; instead, sequences of bursts occur for certain Web pages and these pages accumulate popularity.

    http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-10-web-page-popularity.html

     

    Related:

     

     

    AfrikaansAlbanianArabicBelarusianBulgarianCatalanChineseCroatianCzechDanishDetect languageDutchEnglishEstonianFilipinoFinnishFrenchGalicianGermanGreekHaitian Creole ALPHAHebrewHindiHungarianIcelandicIndonesianIrishItalianJapaneseKoreanLatvianLithuanianMacedonianMalayMalteseNorwegianPersianPolishPortugueseRomanianRussianSerbianSlovakSlovenianSpanishSwahiliSwedishThaiTurkishUkrainianVietnameseWelshYiddish⇄AfrikaansAlbanianArabicBelarusianBulgarianCatalanChineseCroatianCzechDanishDutchEnglishEstonianFilipinoFinnishFrenchGalicianGermanGreekHaitian Creole ALPHAHebrewHindiHungarianIcelandicIndonesianIrishItalianJapaneseKoreanLatvianLithuanianMacedonianMalayMalteseNorwegianPersianPolishPortugueseRomanianRussianSerbianSlovakSlovenianSpanishSwahiliSwedishThaiTurkishUkrainianVietnameseWelshYiddish

    Detect language » Hungarian

  • Climategate: the corruption of Wikipedia

    Revolting, to say the least.Could not have taken place without Wiki’s knowledge9?).
    By James Delingpole Politics Last updated: December 22nd, 2009
    241 Comments Comment on this article
    If you want to know the truth about Climategate, definitely don’t use Wikipedia. “Climatic Research Unit e-mail controversy”, is its preferred, mealy-mouthed euphemism to describe the greatest scientific scandal of the modern age. Not that you’d ever guess it was a scandal from the accompanying article. It reads more like a damage-limitation press release put out by concerned friends and sympathisers of the lying, cheating, data-rigging scientists
    Which funnily enough, is pretty much what it is. Even Wikipedia’s own moderators acknowledge that the entry has been hijacked, as this commentary by an “uninvolved editor” makes clear.
    Unfortunately, this naked bias and corruption has infected the supposedly neutral Wikipedia’s entire coverage of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory. And much of this, as Lawrence Solomon reports in the National Post, is the work of one man, a Cambridge-based scientist and Green Party activist named William Connolley.
    Connolley took control of all things climate in the most used information source the world has ever known – Wikipedia. Starting in February 2003, just when opposition to the claims of the band members were beginning to gel, Connolley set to work on the Wikipedia site. He rewrote Wikipedia’s articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug.11, the Medieval Warm Period. In October, he turned his attention to the hockey stick graph. He rewrote articles on the politics of global warming and on the scientists who were skeptical of the band. Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer, two of the world’s most distinguished climate scientists, were among his early targets, followed by others that the band especially hated, such as Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, authorities on the Medieval Warm Period.
    All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement.
    Connolley has supposedly been defrocked as a Wikipedia administrator. Or so Wikipedia claimed in its feeble, there’s-really-not-much-we-can-do response to anxious questions from one of Watts Up With That’s readers.
    In September 2009, the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee revoked Mr. Connolley’s administrator status after finding that he misused his administrative privileges while involved in a dispute unrelated to climate warming.
    If this is true, it doesn’t seem to have made much difference to his creative input on the Wikipedia’s entries. Here he is – unless its just someone with an identical name – busily sticking his oar in to entries on the Medieval Warm Period (again) and the deeply compromised, soon-to-be-leaving (let’s hope) IPCC head Dr Rajendra Pachauri. And here he is again just three days ago, removing a mention of Climategate from Michael Mann’s entry. And here is an example of one of his Wikipedia chums – name of Stephan Schulz – helping to cover up for him by ensuring that no mention of that embarrassing Lawrence Solomon article appears on Connolley’s Wikipedia entry. And here he is deleting criticism of himself.
    Connolley, it should also be noted, was one of the founder members of Real Climate – the friends-of-Michael-Mann propaganda outfit (aka “The Hockey Team”) which, in the guise of disinterested science, pumps out climate-fear-promoting hysteria on AGW and tries to discredit anyone who disagrees with the ManBearPig “consensus”.
    Here he is, for example, being bigged up in a 2006 email from Michael Mann:
    >> I’ve attached the piece in word format. Hyperlinks are still there,
    >> but not clickable in word format. I’ve already given it a good
    >> go-over w/ Gavin, Stefan, and William Connelley (our internal “peer
    >> review” process at RC), so I think its in pretty good shape. Let me
    >> know if any comments…
    >>
    and here are some of his associates:
    From: Phil Jones
    To: William M Connolley ,Caspar Ammann
    Subject: Figure 7.1c from the 1990 IPCC Report
    Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 13:38:40 +0000
    Cc: Tom Crowley ,”Michael E. Mann” , “raymond s. bradley” , Stefan Rahmstorf , Eric Steig ,gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov, rasmus.benestad@physics.org,garidel@marine.rutgers.edu, David Archer , “Raymond P.” ,k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, “Mitchell, John FB \(Chief Scientist\)” , “Jenkins, Geoff” , “Warrilow, David \(GA\)” , Tom Wigley ,mafb5@sussex.ac.uk, “Folland, Chris”
    Get that? The guy who has been writing Wikipedia’s entry on Climategate (plus 5,000 others relating to “Climate Change”) is the bosom buddy of the Climategate scientists.
    Nope, this isn’t a problem that is going to go away. Wikipedia may well be beyond redemption – as this useful resource site for Wiki-inaccuracies would seem to suggest. Like so many hippyish notions, Jimmy Wales’s idea of a free encyclopedia for everyone was a noble intention which has been cruelly and horribly abused by some very ugly people.
    Do you want to know just how ugly? I’ve been saving the worst till last. Here it is: William Connelley’s Wikipedia photograph.
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020515/climategate-the-corruption-of-wikipedia/