We thought that Nazi ideology ended with Adolf Hitler. We were wrong. And its not only in Europe, but almost everywhere in world. Everyday we see leaders popping up from nowhere, citing differences based on race as reason for superioroty of the majority and come out sucessful in doing so. Being an Indian by birth, it was most important for me to understand this phenomenon in India.
Nazi ideology is encashed by politicians of all political parties here. Congress did that during 83 massacre of Sikhs, communists in Nandigram and BJP in Gujarat Riots. They create a volatile atmosphere of mistrust amongst residents and then all they have to do is to show a spark. Booom.
Most popular form of difference is religion. Its most popular media to fool a human. Why? Because it fills up the vaccum in thier life to such an extent that it becomes thier identity. All you have to do is encash that follishness by inducing fear. Gujarat riots are most recent examples of this act. But history is filled up with these examples. If one starts counting them, one could easily find events of "historical values" for RSS magazine and who knows, it may find its way to school textbooks soon.
The funny aspect of human evolution is that they learn to adapt to environment but cling to irrationality anyway. Rioters in any modern society are no different than killers of past. Masks changed. Labels changed. Irrationality remained same. And it retains the same strength as before. Irrationality has ruled and will rule the world.
Lets be more specific. Lets concentrate on riots in Gujarat which are recently discussed in Indian news paper after Chief minister Modi used them as an advertisement campaingn to encash mass stupidity to gain next term. Indianised Nazi ideology came in the form of fundamental hindtva which proved to be a sucessful weapon to come and stay in power in India's most developing state. Ruling party mobalised government police to secure thier agenda of making a history in state sponsored massacre as a token of love for Hinduism. Government troops ensured that maximum casulities (maximum score in terms of Hindu fundamentalsits) to minority community in the name of revenge. Revenge. Most popular means of inducing rage and directing it to inflict selective damage. And it worked well. For many days, Gujarat convered to Auschwitz concentration camp. The difference was that this time it was quick death. It was swift, organised and efficient way of exterminating maximum number of so-called enemies. All prisoners were alike. No difference was observed with respect to men, women and children. All were enemies. All were traitors. All were muslims. They say that muslims do the same when they get a chance. Its just the matter of chance.
Whats was the result in the end. Modi got pat at back by "his community". Got selected for the next term. And now he advertises the same to retain that position.
An atmosphere of hatred has been induced in the land of Gandhi. Modi sucessfully killed Gandhi and surprisingly got a big round of applause.
Why is he sucessful? Well, why not! He encashes the most useful political weapon: Hatred. It never fails. He divide and rule. This can be done easily in India. Its the only way to rule them consistently. Poeple have multiple fake identities. They divide themself based on race, religion, caste, subcaste sucessively. The sum total identity is so very confused and so volatile that they can be fooled anytime by anybody. What about those who dont support this ideology? They are the true minority. They die striking against reservations. The die at borders defending the nation. They die in silence.
Will this ever end? We all hope so. But we dont do anything. Hence it will not.
Howard Roark'sCourtroom Speech
From The Fountainhead, by Ayn Rand
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Thousands of years ago, the first man discovered how to make fire. He was probably burned at the stake he had taught his brothers to light. He was considered an evildoer who had dealt with a demon mankind dreaded. But thereafter men had fire to keep them warm, to cook their food, to light their caves. He had left them a gift they had not conceived and he had lifted dardness off the earth. Centuries later, the first man invented the wheel. He was probably torn on the rack he had taught his brothers to build. He was considered a transgressor who ventured into forbidden terrritory. But thereafter, men could travel past any horizon. He had left them a gift they had not conceived and he had opened the roads of the world. “That man, the unsubmissive and first, stands in the opening chapter of every legend mankind has recorded about its beginning. Prometheus was chained to a rock and torn by vultures—because he had stolen the fire of the gods. Adam was condemned to suffer—because he had eaten the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Whatever the legend, somewhere in the shadows of its memory mankind knew that its glory began with one and that that one paid for his courage. “Throughout the centuries there were men who took first steps down new roads armed with nothing but their own vision. Their goals differed, but they all had this in common: that the step was first, the road new, the vision unborrowed, and the response they received—hatred. The great creators—the thinkers, the artists, the scientists, the inventors—stood alone against the men of their time. Every great new thought was opposed. Every great new invention was denounced. The first motor was considered foolish. The airplane was considered impossible. The power loom was considered vicious. Anesthesia was considered sinful. But the men of unborrowed vision went ahead. They fought, they suffered and they paid. But they won. “No creator was prompted by a desire to serve his brothers, for his brothers rejected the gift he offered and that gift destroyed the slothful routine of their lives. His truth was his only motive. His own truth, and his own work to achieve it in his own way. A symphony, a book, an engine, a philosophy, an airplane or a building—that was his goal and his life. Not those who heard, read, operated, believed, flew or inhabited the thing he had created. The creation, not its users. The creation, not the benefits others derived from it. The creation which gave form to his truth. He held his truth above all things and against all men. “His vision, his strength, his courage came from his own spirit. A man's spirit, however, is his self. That entity which is his consciousness. To think, to feel, to judge, to act are functions of the ego. “The creators were not selfless. It is the whole secret of their power—that it was self-sufficient, self-motivated, self-generated. A first cause, a fount of energy, a life force, a Prime Mover. The creator served nothing and no one. He lived for himself. “And only by living for himself was he able to achieve the things which are the glory of mankind. Such is the nature of achievement. “Man cannot survive except through his mind. He comes on earth unarmed. His brain is his only weapon. Animals obtain food by force. Man has no claws, no fangs, no horns, no great strength of muscle. He must plant his food or hunt it. To plant, he needs a process of thought. To hunt, he needs weapons, and to make weapons—a process of thought. From this simplest necessity to the highest religious abstraction, from the wheel to the skyscraper, everything we are and everything we have comes from a single attribute of man—the function of his reasoning mind. “But the mind is an attribute of the individual. There is no such thing as a collective brain. There is no such thing as a collective thought. An agreement reached by a group of men is only a compromise or an average drawn upon many individual thoughts. It is a secondary consequence. The primary act—the process of reason—must be performed by each man alone. We can divide a meal among many men. We cannot digest it in a collective stomach. No man can use his lungs to breathe for another man. No man can use his brain to think for another. All the functions of body and spirit are private. They cannot be shared or transferred. “We inherit the products of the thought of other men. We inherit the wheel. We make a cart. The cart becomes an automobile. The automobile becomes an airplane. But all through the process what we receive from others is only the end product of their thinking. The moving force is the creative faculty which takes this product as material, uses it and originates the next step. This creative faculty cannot be given or received, shared or borrowed. It belongs to single, individual men. That which it creates is the property of the creator. Men learn from one another. But all learning is only the exchange of material. No man can give another the capacity to think. Yet that capacity is our only means of survival. “Nothing is given to man on earth. Everything he needs has to be produced. And here man faces his basic alternative: he can survive in only one of two ways—by the independent work of his own mind or as a parasite fed by the minds of others. The creator originates. The parasite borrows. The creator faces nature alone. The parasite faces nature through an intermediary. “The creator’s concern is the conquest of nature. The parasite’s concern is the conquest of men. “The creator lives for his work. He needs no other men. His primary goal is within himself. The parasite lives second-hand. He needs others. Others become his prime motive. “The basic need of the creator is independence. The reasoning mind cannot work under any form of compulsion. It cannot be curbed, sacrificed or subordinated to any consideration whatsoever. It demands total independence in function and in motive. To a creator, all relations with men are secondary. “The basic need of the second-hander is to secure his ties with men in order to be fed. He places relations first. He declares that man exists in order to serve others. He preaches altruism. “Altruism is the doctrine which demands that man live for others and place others above self. “No man can live for another. He cannot share his spirit just as he cannot share his body. But the second-hander has used altruism as a weapon of expoloitation and reversed the base of mankind’s moral principles. Men have been taught every precept that destroys the creator. Men have been taught dependence as a virtue. “The man who attemps to live for others is a dependent. He is a parasite in motive and makes parasites of those he serves. The relationship produces nothing but mutual corruption. It is impossible in concept. The nearest approach to it in reality—the man who lives to serve others—is the slave. If physical slavery is repulsive, how much more repulsive is the concept of servility of the spirit? The conquered slave has a vestige of honor. He has the merit of having resisted and of considering his condition evil. But the man who enslaves himself voluntarily in the name of love is the basest of creatures. He degrades the dignity of man and he degrades the conception of love. But this is the essence of altruism. “Men have been taught that the highest virtue is not to achieve, but to give. Yet one cannot give that which has not been created. Creation comes before distribution—or there will be nothing to distribute. The need of the creator comes before the need of any possible beneficiary. Yet we are taught to admire the second-hander who dispenses gifts he has not produced above the man who made the gifts possible. We praise an act of charity. We shrug at an act of achievement. “Men have been taught that their first concern is to relieve the sufferings of others. But suffering is a disease. Should one come upon it, one tries to give relief and assistance. To make that the highest test of virtue is to make suffering the most important part of life. Then man must wish to see others suffer—in order that he may be virtuous. Such is the nature of altruism. The creator is not concerned with disease, but with life. Yet the work of the creators has eliminated one form of disease after another, in man’s body and spirit, and brought more relief from suffering than any altruist could ever conceive. “Men have been taught that it is a virtue to agree with others. But the creator is the man who disagrees. Men have been taught that it is a virtue to swim with the current. But the creator is the man who goes against the current. Men have been taught that it is a virtue to stand together. But the creator is the man who stands alone. “Men have been taught that the ego is the synonym of evil, and selflessness the ideal of virtue. But the creator is the egotist in the absolute sense, and the selfless man is the one who does not think, feel, judge or act. These are functions of the self. “Here the basic reversal is most deadly. The issue has been perverted and man has been left no alternative—and no freedom. As poles of good and evil, he was offered two conceptions: egotism and altruism. Egotism was held to mean the sacrifice of others to self. Altruism—the sacrifice of self to others. This tied man irrevocably to other men and left him nothing but a choice of pain: his own pain borne for the sake of others or pain inflicted upon others for the sake of self. When it was added that man must find joy in self-immolation, the trap was closed. Man was forced to accept masochism as his ideal—under the threat that sadism was his only alternative. This was the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on mankind. “This was the device by which dependence and suffering were perpetuated as fundamentals of life. “The choice is not self-sacrifice or domination. The choice is independence or dependence. The code of the creator or the code of the second-hander. This is the basic issue. It rests upon the alternative of life or death. The code of the creator is built on the needs of the reasoning mind which allows man to survive. The code of the second-hander is built on the needs of a mind incapable of survival. All that which proceeds from man’s independent ego is good. All that which proceeds from man’s dependence upon men is evil. “The egotist is the absolute sense is not the man who sacrifices others. He is the man who stands above the need of using others in any manner. He does not function through them. He is not concerned with them in any primary matter. Not in his aim, not in his motive, not in his thinking, not in his desires, not in the source of his energy. He does not exist for any other man—and he asks no other man to exist for him. This is the only form of brotherhood and mutual respect possible between men. “Degrees of ability vary, but the basic principle remains the same: the degree of a man’s independence, initiative and personal love for his work determines his talent as a worker and his worth as a man. Independence is the only gauge of human virtue and value. What a man is and makes of himself; not what he has or hasn’t done for others. There is no substitute for personal dignity. There is no standard of personal dignity except independence. “In all proper relationships there is no sacrifice of anyone to anyone. An architect needs clients, but he does not subordinate his work to their wishes. They need him, but they do not order a house just to give him a commission. Men exchange their work by free, mutual consent to mutual advantage when their personal interests agree and they both desire the exchange. If they do not desire it, they are not forced to deal with each other. They seek further. This is the only possible form of relationship between equals. Anything else is a relation of slave to master, or victim to executioner. “No work is ever done collectively, by a majority decision. Every creative job is achieved under the guidance of a single individual thought. An architect requires a great many men to erect his building. But he does not ask them to vote on his design. They work together by free agreement and each is free in his proper function. An architect uses steel, glass, concrete, produced by others. But the materials remain just so much steel, glass and concrete until he touches them. What he does with them is his individual product and his individual property. This is the only pattern for proper co-operation among men. “The first right on earth is the right of the ego. Man’s first duty is to himself. His moral law is never to place his prime goal within the persons of others. His moral obligation is to do what he wishes, provided his wish does not depend primarily upon other men. This includes the whole sphere of his creative faculty, his thinking, his work. But it does not include the sphere of the gangster, the altruist and the dictator. “A man thinks and works alone. A man cannot rob, exploit or rule—alone. Robbery, exploitation and ruling presuppose victims. They imply dependence. They are the province of the second-hander. “Rulers of men are not egotists. They create nothing. They exist entirely through the persons of others. Their goal is in their subjects, in the activity of enslaving. They are as dependent as the beggar, the social worker and the bandit. The form of dependence does not matter. “But men were taught to regard second-handers—tyrants, emperors, dictators—as exponents of egotism. By this fraud they were made to destroy the ego, themselves and others. The purpose of the fraud was to destroy the creators. Or to harness them. Which is a synonym. “From the beginning of history, the two antagonists have stood face to face: the creator and the second-hander. When the first creator invented the wheel, the first second-hander responded. He invented altruism. “The creator—denied, opposed, persecuted, exploited—went on, moved forward and carried all humanity along on his energy. The second-hander contributed nothing to the process except the impediments. The contest has another name: the individual against the collective. “The ‘common good’ of a collective—a race, a class, a state—was the claim and justification of every tyranny ever established over men. Every major horror of history was committed in the name of an altruistic motive. Has any act of selfishness ever equaled the carnage perpetrated by disciples of altruism? Does the fault lie in men’s hypocrisy or in the nature of the principle? The most dreadful butchers were the most sincere. They believed in the perfect society reached through the guillotine and the firing squad. Nobody questioned their right to murder since they were murdering for an altruistic purpose. It was accepted that man must be sacrificed for other men. Actors change, but the course of the tragedy remains the same. A humanitarian who starts with declarations of love for mankind and ends with a sea of blood. It goes on and will go on so long as men believe that an action is good if it is unselfish. That permits the altruist to act and forces his victims to bear it. The leaders of collectivist movements ask nothing for themselves. But observe the results. “The only good which men can do to one another and the only statement of their proper relationship is—Hands off! “Now observe the results of a society built on the principle of individualism. This, our country. The noblest country in the history of men. The country of greatest achievement, greatest prosperity, greatest freedom. This country was not based on selfless service, sacrifice, renunciation or any precept of altruism. It was based on a man’s right to the pursuit of happiness. His own happiness. Not anyone else’s. A private, personal, selfish motive. Look at the results. Look into your own conscience. “It is an ancient conflict. Men have come close to the truth, but it was destroyed each time and one civilization fell after another. Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage’s whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men. “Now, in our age, collectivism, the rule of the second-hander and second-rater, the ancient monster, has broken loose and is running amuck. It has brought men to a level of intellectual indecency never equaled on earth. It has reached a scale of horror without precedent. It has poisoned every mind. It has swallowed most of Europe. It is engulfing our country. “I am an architect. I know what is to come by the principle on which it is built. We are approaching a world in which I cannot permit myself to live. “Now you know why I dynamited Cortlandt. “I designed Cortlandt. I gave it to you. I destroyed it. “I destroyed it because I did not choose to let it exist. It was a double monster. In form and in implication. I had to blast both. The form was mutilated by two second-handers who assumed the right to improve upon that which they had not made and could not equal. They were permitted to do it by the general implication that the altruistic purpose of the building superseded all rights and that I had no claim to stand against it. “I agreed to design Cortlandt for the purpose of seeing it erected as I dedigned it and for no other reason. That was the price I set for my work. I was not paid. “I do not blame Peter Keating. He was helpless. He had a contract with his employers. It was ignored. He had a promise that the structure he offered would be built as designed. The promise was broken. The love of a man for the integrity of his work and his right to preserve it are now considered a vague intangible and an inessential. You have heard the prosecutor say that. Why was the building disfigured? For no reason. Such acts never have any reason, unless it’s the vanity of some second-handers who feel they have a right to anyone’s property, spiritual or material. Who permitted them to do it? No particular man among the dozens in authority. No one cared to permit it or to stop it. No one was responsible. No one can be held to account. Such is the nature of all collective action. “I did not receive the payment I asked. But the owners of Cortlandt got what they needed from me. They wanted a scheme devised to build a structure as cheaply as possible. They found no one else who could do it to their satisfaction. I could and did. They took the benefit of my work and made me contribute it as a gift. But I am not an altruist. I do not contribute gifts of this nature. “It is said that I have destroyed the home of the destitute. It is forgotten that but for me the destitute could not have had this particular home. Those who were concerned with the poor had to come to me, who have never been concerned, in order to help the poor. It is believed that the poverty of the future tenants gave them the right to my work. That their need constituted a claim on my life. That it was my duty to contribute anything demanded of me. This is the second-hander’s credo now swallowing the world. “I came here to say that I do not recognize anyone’s right to one minute of my life. Nor to any part of my energy. Nor to any achievement of mine. No matter who makes the claim, how large their number or how great their need. “I wished to come here and say that I am a man who does not exist for others. “It had to be said. The world is perishing from an orgy of self-sacrificing. “I wished to come here and say that the integrity of a man’s creative work is of greater importance than any charitable endeavor. Those of you who do not understand this are the men who’re destroying the world. “I wished to come here and state my terms. I do not care to exist on any others. “I recognize no obligations toward men except one: to respect their freedom and to take no part in a slave society. To my country, I wish to give the ten years which I will spend in jail if my country exists no longer. I will spend them in memory and in gratitude for what my country has been. It will be my act of loyalty, my refusal to live or work in what has taken its place. “My act of loyalty to every creator who ever lived and was made to suffer by the force responsible for the Cortlandt I dynamited. To every tortured hour of loneliness, denial, frustration, abuse he was made to spend—and to the battles he won. To every creator whose name is known—and to every creator who lived, struggled and perished unrecognized before he could achieve. To every creator who was destroyed in body or in spirit. To Henry Cameron. To Steven Mallory. To a man who doesn’t want to be named, but who is sitting in this courtroom and knows that I am speaking of him.”
-------------------------------------------------------------------- These words has itched many for ages and will continue to do so...also it has given strength to few and will continue to so do also...its for you to decide which categorie you fall in...
It’s true that silicon industry has reached a dead end as they are facing problems in shortening the size of individual component in the electronic chip. When electronic chips emerged in markets around the world some 40 years ago, they replaced the bulky transistor tubes, which present generation may not even recall now. Since then, efforts have been made to increase the number of components on a single chip and it even reached upto 169 million in Pentium 4 processor. But further integrating more components on same area proves to be problematic now.
There are many factors which lead to the problem of integrating smaller sized components to a chip endlessly. One of the major problems is charge leakage. When two components come too close to each other, then electron can “tunnel” from one to other: resulting in unexpected erroneous functioning of the circuit designed. This starts to happen when one makes components in nanometer (a billionth of a meter) regime. Quantum phenomena like “tunneling effect” makes electrons to tunnel through the barrier if it is very thin and hence charge leaks out of the components to another unexpectedly. In such a case, behavior of the overall device cannot be controlled properly.
Another problem is the fabrication technology of components within nanometer size range. Continuous increase in density of components within an area of chip, has forced electronic engineers to fabricate smaller and smaller components. But with each step of reducing the size, fabrication technology becomes more complex and moreover it becomes difficult to keep up with rise in overall cost of fabrication. Generally, lithography techniques are employed for fabricating components of ultra small circuit in which electromagnetic radiations of particular wavelengths are exposed to particular parts of the material on the chip, which induces component formation. The limit of this method originates from the wavelength of electromagnetic radiation, as components cannot be smaller than that. This yields limiting problem as scientists have reduced the wavelengths up to Ultraviolet regime and now finding it difficult to further reduce it and still get same quality material as before. Moreover it should be mentioned that change in wavelength mostly require employing new materials and hence inducing burden of extra cost. These problems shows that silicon industry is facing a dead end now and it dearly needs new materials, fabricating technologies and new concepts for electronic circuits.
Apart from usual problems of lithography limit and charge leakage, one major problem is heat dissipation technologies. Each component generates heats when current flows through it. More components means more heat generation and this heat has to be taken out of the system before it melts the chip. Present heat sink materials and fan blowing technologies cannot handle this problem if one tries to go beyond a present number of components per square area.
All of these problems compel chip engineers to review the concepts of conventional electronics and adopt entirely new concepts. This has lead to many inventions since past few years. With the advent of nanotechnological research, semiconductor industry has learned that they can no longer rely on silicon as base material. There are other materials which perform better results in nanometer regime. Also, new fabrication technologies like self-assembly leads to cheaper and reliable fabrication within nanometer. New materials like a forest of carbon nanotubes act as better heat sinks. Nanowires and Nanotubes outperform most of conventional architectures for speed and load of charge transport. By tuning the sizes and shapes of nanomaterial, it can be made to act as an insulator, metal or semiconductor. This gives additional advantage of using only one material to fabricate all components, which is a great convenience for chip fabrication technologists. Conductive polymers open a whole new area of flexible electronics. Integrating magnetism and optics to electronics yields news devices based on magneto-electro-optical devices which present multifuctionality and multiple control mechanisms using magnetic fields, electricity and light.
Apart from improving the present semiconductor material and technology, scientists have been able to demonstrate some very different approaches to computing. One of them is called Spintronics where instead of charge; spin of electron shall be used to represent bits 0 and 1. Spin flipping consumes less energy and offers great switching speed which ultimately results in dual advantage in the form of lesser power consumption and higher computation speeds. Another technology is called Quantum Cellular Automata which provides the advantage of wireless communication between nanometer sized islands for computation. Many other architectures are also expected to open up soon. Now when humans face a dead end at silicon semiconductor technology, then they shall have to divert towards new materials and technologies.
Prosopagnosia (sometimes known as face blindness) is a strange disorder where a person looses the ability to recognize the face. So he/she cannot can no more identify his/her friends!
People tend to compromise on things for gaining "easy state of living"...avoiding confrontations...and they can give thousand arguments about its correctness in the name of adjustments and adaptations...but what they miss is the question "at what price?"...if price is "honor/integrity of self" then this compromise only loosens ones grip over self and hence one looses ones own respect and subsequently other's also...This compromise eats away the life and ends up in "hollow living" with no honor what so ever...thats the price for easy state of living...
most go for it but some don't...some don't buck in ever...society see them as enemies since they mirror to societie's impotence...but still these people have been in existence and one encounters them many-a-times...they inspire others to live thier life "freely"..."freedom" being their supreme virtue...avoiding easy state of living has its price but no price is bigger than dropping your values...its actually pays down heavy debts onto ones life and payment becomes lifelong in terms of loss of integrity, identity, creativity and individuality...
A civilization cannot be killed from outside, its dies from inside first...Its own inmates choose irrationality and make its path towards chaos...Irrationality of many kinds...and it's actually rationals who are to blame, since they fail to take control in their hands and let it die...
This is shown beautifully in the movie "Apolocalypto"...
Its collectivist ideas, which have taken a toll on health of a society each time, but still they are so dear to its inmates that they have started loving this cancer...they love this irrationality...they love it so much that they invent ever new excuses towards its support and given a clues about its impotence, they readily shrug it off...thats how the hollowness creeps into the system and it goes blank and death for a civilization is insured...
Being a researcher, the question of quality versus quantity has come up many time before me. Though i have been ale to sort it out in terms of quality, i see that most of the people buck in for quantity, however trash it is. They them self know that its trash but still they do it...this article is about study of that nature.
First and most obvious reason is to avoid confrontation. Going easy way. Living cool life. Smooth sailing. But AT WHAT COST. Thats the important factor. Cost is the quality of philosophy that man holds for his life. A person bucking in for quantity to avoid confrontation will never be able to produce anything useful but will only repeat the inventions of innovators and satisfy himself with his ignorant happiness. On the other hand, the quality maker will not get fame or other things but will get self-satisfaction which becomes the self-propelling force towards creativity and which aids him to develop "new" things and ideas.
Such is the nature of choice between quality and quantity.
much has been said in the above link but i would like to add some things about importance of philosophy to a man's life ingeneral. Poeple consider philosophy as a "heavy subject" and hence avoid discussion about it generally but they fail to understand that they use it every moment, especially when one has to decide. Philosophy defines a set of rules by which one drives his life. So these rules can change ones life drastically based on thier applications to different events in life. Hence they should claim supremem importance in life. Even if one does not want to discuss "technical philosophy", one should understand the basics of it and study his environment. Best thing about studying philosophy ois that you can start anytime and you dont need a pre-knowledge...
This is link for internet encyclopedia for philosophy which i found very useful for reference as its well linked to almost anything you can think upon...
There is a wonderful site www.nanohub.org which offers online simulation for anyone interested to test the laws of physics. It has some simulation related to nanotechnology also. All one need to do is to enrol to this site and atart using the imultion programs which run of internet instead of being downloaded and running on individual PCs.
I personally found many programms quite interesting.
The field of semiconductor electronics has brought up a revolution in the field of quantum computers. Present semiconductor technology can be easily integrated with the spintronic technology to provide much needed quantum computing devices.
The word spintonics is collection of two words: Spin and Electronics.
Conventional electronics uses charge of electrons to present and transmit information. For example if +5V represent state "1" and 0.5 V represent state "0" then we still need about 10^18 electrons to represent state 1 and almost nearly 10^17 electrons to represent state 2.
In spintronic devices, instead of charge, the intrinsic property called "spin" is used to represent and transfer information. Electron has a spin of +1/2 and -1/2 each of which can represent state "0" and "1" independently. The main advantage is that here individual electrons represent a state and hence processing becomes superfast and consumes very less energy.
Challenges in present technology for spintronics is that individual spins should be controlled precisely during representation and transfer of information. This can be acheived at very low temperatures in some material but not at room temeparatures which is the actual practical range of operation.
Spins can be read electrically, magneticlaly and optically and hence these provides spintonics with different classification of sintronic materials required. Further discussions will be given henceforth as this blog grows.
Now i do not wonder why poeple go down with thier principles, close thier eyes to logic. Its to seek so called "happiness" whose base is placed somewhere outside themself. With this faulty source, they naturally have to compromise on thier own self. Despite knowing the fact that compromise is death, they go for it in search of happiness. They define happiness to be something like "make others happy and u become happy". Whats faulty in this argument is the fact that base of whole structure is wrong. Its for "others" that "you" are doing things. To make "them" happy is to compromise on self. And this case is okay if "they" are just like you in which case there isnt a compromise. But the case where you see them different clearly and still go on pacifying them, its poisoning the true nature of the relationship. A relationship stands on pillars of truthfulness to self. Compromise betrays that nature and hance actually harms the relationship more thn it can strengthen it. Thus compromise ultimately poisons the relationship and brings death to it. "They" feel this poison soon after a compromise when one feels that the man/woman doing the compromise is bucking down. If he/she can buck down in these circumstances thn he/she can buck down in other circumstances. And hence he/she isnt relaiable man/woman. Loosing relaiability looses the trust which holds that relationship and hence it starts to corrode. In this process of corrosion, the person who has compromised on first hand, also feel betrayed since he/she thinks that my compromise isnt been given enough respect since the other persondo not trust me anymore. A vicious circle is being completed which ultimately leads to end of relationship.
So instead of compromises, relationships should be based on doing right things. Even if it means harming ur near and dear ones if they are different. This way you can preserve ur own individuality. Even if they get annoyed for your decisoons, deep inside they still know that you are correct for being youself. Deep inside they respect you and they know that you do not seek thier appreciation for self. All you stand for is right things. Things are not easy and difficult, they are only right or wrong.
