Lesson to learn

Apparently every graduate student goes through this once, but it doesn't make that any better.

We lost one of our data disks yesterday, and I had a lot of stuff on it. Now, fortunately, some stuff was backed up, but even so I lost about a months's work - and that too mostly code.

This is supposed to happen to all graduate students, this loss of data. This is why you're supposed to back stuff up. That should be the first lesson for anyone starting any kind of career based on data. Although, now that I think about it, its equally, in fact more so, frustrating to lose stuff like pictures.

We might be getting better quality in digital format, but digital really sucks. I mean if you have say film negatives, and you store them in a fire-proof, water-proof safe in about 20 feet of concrete, then short of a nuclear weapon, they are pretty much safe. But with digital, well... you could lose stuff any moment - and all you can say is well the data got corrupted. And dont even get me started on CD's!!

I sure as hell hope someone is working on this. I mean, lets say at some point in the future, we have removed all books and all data is stored electronically. Even if we keep about 1000 copies of all known data somwhere, unless and until this is continually upgraded by reading every single bit of information - eventually we will lose more than we can afford. There's a nice subject for a scifi novel.

Handy Links

By the way, here's a handy blog -
Windows eXPerience 64

And since I'm posting interesting links, here's another one
APOD : Astronomy Picture of the Day. Its very informative, and really fun to go through the links.

and another one of my favourite one's is this : Fourmilab. Note that this is NOT Fermilab where I work, this is a different thing altogether.

Regarding George Bush..

"Consider the irony: the Texan who was widely accused of invading Iraq because of oil is brought to his knees by petrol prices.

It is the Chevron version of Hamlet. "

Read the full article here.

On the Iran issue

Read the full article here
Says Texas Republican Representative Ron Paul,
Iran does not have a nuclear weapon and there's no evidence that she is working on one -- only conjecture.

If Iran had a nuclear weapon, why would this be different from Pakistan, India, and
North Korea having one? Why does Iran have less right to a defensive weapon than these other countries?

If Iran had a nuclear weapon, the odds of her initiating an attack against anybody-- which would guarantee her own annihilation-- are zero. And the same goes for the possibility she would place weapons in the hands of a non-state terrorist group.

Pakistan has spread nuclear technology throughout the world, and in particular to the North Koreans. They flaunt international restrictions on nuclear weapons. But we reward them just as we reward India.

We needlessly and foolishly threaten Iran even though they have no nuclear weapons. But listen to what a leading Israeli historian, Martin Van Creveld, had to say about this: "Obviously, we don't want Iran to have a nuclear weapon, and I don't know if they're developing them, but if they're not developing them, they're crazy."

There's been a lot of misinformation regarding Iran's nuclear program. This distortion of the truth has been used to pump up emotions in Congress to pass resolutions condemning her and promoting UN sanctions.

IAEA Director General Mohamed El Baradi has never reported any evidence of 'undeclared' sources or special nuclear material in Iran, or any diversion of nuclear material.

We demand that Iran prove it is not in violation of nuclear agreements, which is asking them impossibly to prove a negative. El Baradei states Iran is in compliance with the nuclear NPT required IAEA safeguard agreement.

We forget that the weapons we feared
Saddam Hussein had were supplied to him by the U.S., and we refused to believe UN inspectors and the
CIA that he no longer had them.

Likewise, Iran received her first nuclear reactor from us. Now we're hysterically wondering if someday she might decide to build a bomb in self interest.

Anti-Iran voices, beating the drums of confrontation, distort the agreement made in Paris and the desire of Iran to restart the enrichment process. Their suspension of the enrichment process was voluntary, and not a legal obligation. Iran has an absolute right under the NPT (nuclear proliferation treaty) to develop and use nuclear power for peaceful purposes, and this is now said to be an egregious violation of the NPT. It's the U.S. and her allies that are distorting and violating the NPT. Likewise our provision of nuclear materials to India is a clear violation of the NPT.

Noting that the same neoconservatives who steered the United States into the quagmire that is
Iraq now want to start a new preemptive war with Iran -- not because a fight in needed but in order to achieve the regime change they desire -- Paul says what ought to be the official line of all rational observers of the situation: "Hysterical fear of Iran is way out of proportion to reality."

The Texas Republican, who opposed the rush to war with Iraq in 2002 and remains a steadfast critic of the endeavor, also proposes the rational counter to neoconservative calls for a new war.

With a policy of containment, we stood down and won the Cold War against the Soviets and their 30,000 nuclear weapons and missiles. If you're looking for a real kook with a bomb to worry about, North Korea would be high on the list. Yet we negotiate with Kim Jong Il. Pakistan has nukes and was a close ally of the Taliban up until 9/11. Pakistan was never inspected by the IAEA as to their military capability. Yet we not only talk to her, we provide economic assistance-- though someday Musharraf may well be overthrown and a pro-al Qaeda government put in place. We have been nearly obsessed with talking about regime change in Iran, while ignoring Pakistan and North Korea. It makes no sense and it's a very costly and dangerous policy.

The conclusion we should derive from this is simple: It's in our best interest to pursue a foreign policy of non-intervention. A strict interpretation of the Constitution mandates it. The moral imperative of not imposing our will on others, no matter how well intentioned, is a powerful argument for minding our own business. The principle of self-determination should be respected. Strict non-intervention removes the incentives for foreign powers and corporate interests to influence our policies overseas. We can't afford the cost that intervention requires, whether through higher taxes or inflation. If the moral arguments against intervention don't suffice for some, the practical arguments should.

Intervention just doesn't work. It backfires and ultimately hurts American citizens both at home and abroad. Spreading ourselves too thin around the world actually diminishes our national security through a weakened military. As the superpower of the world, a constant interventionist policy is perceived as arrogant, and greatly undermines our ability to use diplomacy in a positive manner.

Conservatives, libertarians, constitutionalists, and many of today's liberals have all at one time or another endorsed a less interventionist foreign policy. There's no reason a coalition of these groups might not once again present the case for a pro-American, non-militant, non-interventionist foreign policy dealing with all nations. A policy of trade and peace, and a willingness to use diplomacy, is far superior to the foreign policy that has evolved over the past 60 years.

It's time for a change.

Talk about a free country!

For the whole article, go here BBC News

Plus, here's an additional tidbit : Texas executes more prisoners per capita than any other country/state in the world (or nearly more...)