Holyy..Shhh...COW!!!

Just got time to update...well cudn't resist this unsolicited piece of crap...read it...quiet hilarious...:):)

HE IS THE COW. "The cow is a successful animal. Also he is 4 footed, And because he is female, he give milks, [ but will do so when he is got child.] He is same like-God, sacred to Hindus and useful to man. But he has got four legs together. Two are forward and two are afterwards. His whole body can be utilised for use. More so the milk. Milk comes from 4 taps attached to his basement. [ horses dont have any such attachment]

What can it do? Various ghee, butter, cream, curd, why and the condensed milk and so forth. Also he is useful to cobbler, watermans and mankind generally. His motion is slow only because he is of lazy species, Also his other motion.. gober] is much useful to trees, plants as well as for making flat cakes[like Pizza] , in hand and drying in the sun.

Cow is the only animal that extricates his feeding after eating. Then afterwards she chew with his teeth whom are situated in the inside of the mouth. He is incessantly in the meadows in the grass. His only attacking and defending organ is the horns, specially so when he is got child. This is done by knowing his head whereby he causes the weapons to be paralleled to the ground of the earth and instantly proceed with great velocity forwards. He has got tails also, situated in the backyard, but not like similar animals. It has hairs on the other end of the other side. This is done to frighten away the flies which alight on his cohesive body hereupon he gives hit with it.

The palms of his feet are soft unto the touch. So the grasses head is not crushed. At night time have poses by looking down on the ground and he shouts . His eyes and nose are like his other relatives. This is the cow.......!!

What's ur take???:)

Enter the Entrepreneur!!

You can ask me...who I am....and I will just nod my head.

A wannabe?? I guess, lot many among you will nod with me in agreement...well few may nudge the notion....So lets discuss the word that has smitten me of late...Enter…Entrepreneurship!!



Entrepreneurship is not just a means to innovation, envisioning the impossible, or discovering new methods of productivity. It is, perhaps more importantly, also a fundamental force for change in the world. Year after year, millions of lives are improved as a result of new innovations in information communication technologies (ICTs), the education system, and the world of commerce and politics, to mention a few fields.



Entrepreneurship is a process where one identifies opportunities, gathers resources, and exploits these opportunities through action. Not only is entrepreneurship a response to the changing economic/employment landscape, it is a means for young people to learn necessary social and transferable skills that future employers seek. A young “risk-taker” learns organizational, time management, leadership development, and interpersonal skills through the development and implementation of their ideas.



Moreover, entrepreneurship by young people positive impact on the high youth (17-24) employment rate by creating a “domino effect” where, innovation creates jobs, youth entrepreneurs hire youth, increase of competition by these fledgling companies have a positive effect on the market, young entrepreneurs may be more responsive and receptive to new opportunities and trends, seeing their ideas turning into a product/service leads to great self-satisfaction, worth and confidence.



With all of the above advantages to youth entrepreneurship, one would obviously ask why there exist few young entrepreneurs with exciting “start up” companies? The answer often thrown across is --lack of capital. They say, the lack of capital is the largest constrain on the young entrepreneur. Few financial institutions are willing to loan money to a young person armed with an exceptional idea and a copious amount talent alone. Note that this does not mean that private and public institutions should hand out money to any person who wants to start their own business. A more soft policy may have positive effect such as allowing private donations (that are tax deductible) to be channeled through a not-for-profit institutions who’s objective is to advocate youth entrepreneurship.



On a personal note, I feel that its not just the Lack of capital that holds the GenNext back, rather the lack of proper temperament and ideology is what culminates into that refrained mindset of ours.

I have closely watched people shooting themselves into the risky yet enthralling new world of self reliance, a whole new world of functioning.

So someday we will really see it well formulated career path along the lines of the so called existing ones….the hope remains!!!



To end it on a relevant….or rather not so relevant note…I would quote Mr. Anonymous on this who said:

“Entrepreneurship is the last refuge of the trouble making individual.”



P.S: The author had taken a long sabbatical from blogging due to very weird reasons and is happy to be back on the "Ever Lively Space"....May Lord bestow some peace of mind on the readers now;)

The Great Indian Working Class...!!!

Here goes an article published by Harward Business Review....worth a glance!!

When given the choice of whom to work with, people will pick one person over another for any number of reasons: the prestige of being associated with a star performer, for example, or the hope that spending time with a strategically placed superior will further their careers. But in most cases, people choose their work partners according to two criteria. One is competence at the job (Does Joe know what he's doing?). The other is likability (Is Joe enjoyable to work with?). Obviously, both things matter. Less obvious is how much they matter—and exactly how they matter.

To gain some insight into these questions, we studied four organizations selected to reflect a wide range of attributes—for-profit and nonprofit, large and small, North American and European. We asked people to indicate how often they had work-related interactions with every other person in the organization. We then asked them to rate all the other people in the company in terms of how much they personally liked each one and how well each did his or her job.

These two criteria—competence and likability—combine to produce four archetypes: the competent jerk, who knows a lot but is unpleasant to deal with; the lovable fool, who doesn't know much but is a delight to have around; the lovable star, who's both smart and likable; and the incompetent jerk, who…well, that's self-explanatory. These archetypes are caricatures, of course: Organizations usually—well, much of the time—weed out both the hopelessly incompetent and the socially clueless. Still, people in an organization can be roughly classified using a simple matrix.

Our research showed (not surprisingly) that, no matter what kind of organization we studied, everybody wanted to work with the lovable star, and nobody wanted to work with the incompetent jerk. Things got a lot more interesting, though, when people faced the choice between competent jerks and lovable fools.

Ask managers about this choice—and we've asked many of them, both as part of our research and in executive education programs we teach—and you'll often hear them say that when it comes to getting a job done, of course competence trumps likability. "I can defuse my antipathy toward the jerk if he's competent, but I can't train someone who's incompetent," says the CIO at a large engineering company. Or, in the words of a knowledge management executive in the IT department of a professional services firm: "I really care about the skills and expertise you bring to the table. If you're a nice person on top of that, that's simply a bonus."

But despite what such people might say about their preferences, the reverse turned out to be true in practice in the organizations we analyzed. Personal feelings played a more important role in forming work relationships—not friendships at work but job-oriented relationships—than is commonly acknowledged. They were even more important than evaluations of competence. In fact, feelings worked as a gating factor: We found that if someone is strongly disliked, it's almost irrelevant whether or not she is competent; people won't want to work with her anyway. By contrast, if someone is liked, his colleagues will seek out every little bit of competence he has to offer. And this tendency didn't exist only in extreme cases; it was true across the board. Generally speaking, a little extra likability goes a longer way than a little extra competence in making someone desirable to work with. [...]

Yet is such a choice unprofessional? Is it a mistake to steer clear of the competent jerk when we have a job to do? Sometimes, yes. We may forgo the opportunity to tap a competent jerk's knowledge and skills because we don't want to deal with his patronizing, brusque, or otherwise unpleasant attitude—which is arguably a modest price to pay for the valuable assistance he can provide. We may even shun the jerk simply to deny him the satisfaction of lording his knowledge over us.

Everybody wants to work with the lovable star, and nobody wants to work with the incompetent jerk.

But there are justifiable reasons to avoid the jerk. Sometimes it can be difficult to pry the needed information from him simply because he is a jerk. And knowledge often requires explanation to be useful—you might, for instance, want to brainstorm with someone or ask follow-up questions—and this kind of interaction may be difficult with a competent jerk. Furthermore, in order to learn, you often have to reveal your vulnerabilities, which also may be difficult with the competent jerk—especially if you are afraid of how this might affect your reputation in his eyes or in the eyes of others to whom he may reveal your limitations. By contrast, the lovable fool may be more likely to freely share whatever (albeit modest) information or skills he has and, without any intention of gaining an advantage, help others put them to use.
The likability bias: Pros and cons

Some people are liked pretty much universally. In other cases, likability is relative: One person's friend may be another one's jerk. This is because our positive feelings can result from people's inherent attributes or from the situations we find ourselves in with them. This distinction is important to keep in mind as we try to manage this tendency of people to favor likability over competence in their choice of work partners.

Social psychologists have long known that we like people who are similar to us; people we are familiar with; people who have reciprocal positive feelings about us; and people who are inherently attractive, either in their appearance or their personality—that is, they are considerate, cheerful, generous, and so on. Each of these sources of personal likability can contribute, for better or worse, to the formation of an informal network.

For Better. That we like people who are similar to us—for example, in their background, their beliefs, their interests, their personal style—is one of the most solidly documented findings in the social sciences. After all, these people make us feel good because they reaffirm the validity of our own characteristics and attitudes. But there's a business, as well as a psychological, benefit when similar people choose to work together: Their similar values, ways of thinking, and communication styles help projects flow smoothly and quickly.

Benefits also result when we work with people who aren't necessarily similar, but are familiar, to us. When you launch into a task with those you already know, you don't waste a lot of time figuring out what to expect from them or explaining what you mean every time you say something. In addition, because you are usually relatively comfortable with individuals you know, you're likely to be more accepting of their differences.

We also like to work with people who seem to like us. This can produce a virtuous circle in which everyone is more open to new ideas, more willing to help, and more trusting than would typically be the case. A similarly positive environment can be created if you work with someone who has an attractive personality—someone who is empathetic, for example, or generous. You know that you'll have liberal access to her intellectual resources, however abundant or modest they may be, and are likely to reciprocate by freely sharing your own knowledge.

And a person who is physically attractive? Well, in such a case, the job you do together can be, in some indefinable way, simply a bit more enjoyable than usual.

For Worse. One of the greatest drawbacks of choosing to work with similar people is the limited range of perspectives that a homogeneous group often brings to bear on a problem. A diverse collection of colleagues—whatever the tensions and misunderstandings that arise because of their differences—provides an array of perspectives that can lead to truly innovative approaches to accomplishing a task.

Even groups composed not of similar souls but merely of people who are very familiar with one another miss the chance to integrate the fresh perspective that new players bring to a project. Working with the same old colleagues can also dampen debate: People may hesitate to challenge or reject a bad idea put forward by someone they know and like.

A diverse collection of colleagues provides an array of perspectives that can lead to truly innovative approaches.

There is also an obvious downside when we gravitate toward people because they like us or because they are pleasant to work with. These individuals, however terrific they may be, aren't necessarily the ones most suited to tackling the task at hand. The required expertise or knowledge may lie elsewhere, in someone who in fact doesn't like us that much or isn't attractive.

One other danger of people working primarily with those they like: They may simply have a good time and get nothing done. An experienced venture capitalist recalls the case of a very capable manager who hired individuals based on his personal affinity with them. "His team had a great time going out for a beer, but the quality of their work was seriously compromised," says the dismayed investor. "If you keep hiring only people you like, you can kill a company."

The objective, therefore, is to leverage the power of liking while avoiding the negative consequences of people's "affect-based choice"—to use the psychological term—of work partners. Keep in mind that we're not talking here about formal work relationships: You work with your boss and your direct counterparts in other divisions whether you like them or not. We're talking only about people's choices of informal, though work-related, interactions. Even so, that doesn't preclude executives from doing some things that will positively affect those interactions and the often task-crucial informal networks that grow out of them.

Mr. Immortal……It’s ur lAsT dAy!!!

A word is a bud attempting to become a twig. How can one not dream while writing? It is the pen which dreams. The blank page gives the right to dream.

So here I go again typing at my weirdest best……thoughts which just pop out of my brain now and then…this time the very core of self induced boredom despite the day job!!

Was wondering what all humans tend to grow up believing.

We think we're immortal, don't we?

I mean, how many times has it been when you've gotten up in the morning and said to yourself - "Today's the last day of my life". Have you? Ever? (Please don't suggest I use Prozac. This is an intellectual conversation, not a humorous one!) Say you know for sure, today's going to be your last day. What would you do different?


Different…I said!!

Would you still hit that snooze button? Would you still plan your day ahead from the moment your eyes open? Would your brain keep goading you to get up while running down things to do for the day even before you opened your eyes? Would you?

Would you be always 30 minutes ahead inside your head until you reached your office desk? And then heave a sigh and switch on your computer and check your mail? Would you then get totally immersed in trying to resolve issues cropping up? Until about 10 in the morning when your brain says, "C'mon, let's take a coffee break"?

And then go through meetings acting knowledgeable when you knew they were a sheer waste of time? Would you then go through lunch talking about inconsequential things while fulfilling the most basic of human needs?

And then when it's late afternoon, would you start planning for the evening? What are the errands to run? What are the groceries to buy? Why not catch up on that movie you've been wanting to see? Would you go home and browse some more and switch on the TV?

And then, finally, when your head touches the pillow, what do you think? A good day? A bad day? What are the things to be done tomorrow?

Is this life?

Living, as it were, in the future, all the time? An automaton? Well worse. At least an automaton doesn't get frustrated!

So, my question is, if today is the last day of your life. What are you going to do different?

Smell the flowers? Feel the breeze? Tune in that rusty guitar?? Okay, okay, we've all done that, haven't we? Sometimes it's a birthday, sometimes it's the New Year's Day. Sometimes, the first day of a well deserved holiday. But these don't qualify.

How would you do the same things that you would do otherwise differently?

Would you wake in the morning and sleep for another half an hour without feeling guilty? Would you get to work late and say honestly, "I was having such a wonderful early morning, peaceful nap that I didn't want to give it up". Would you enjoy the first coffee of the day slowly and leisurely so that the feeling lasts the whole day? Would you eat lunch not just for filling your stomach but to cherish each morsel you put in your mouth? Would you walk out of office in the evening and look up and think "What a wonderful day I've had". Would you have an evening of love and laughter and no technology?

And when you put your head on your pillow, would you smile and say to yourself "I've had a great life. I can die peacefully now".

If today was my last day, I would do things differently, wouldn't I?

Wouldn't I?


To end up with the usual style of quoting some great thoughts....I wud add...

“Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon.”

11 takes on Truth...!!!

Truth...and Nothing but the truth!!!

And here is what i came across...diferent perspectives of TRUTH...Read On...

Abraham Lincoln: How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four; calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.

Rabindranath Tagore: We read the world wrong and say that it deceives us.

Noam Chomsky: It is the responsibility of intellectuals to speak the truth and expose lies.

Friedrich Nietzsche: And we should consider every day lost on which we have not danced at least once. And we should call every truth false which was not accompanied by at least one laugh.

Max Planck: It is not the possession of truth, but the success which attends the seeking after it, that enriches the seeker and brings happiness to him.

Mark Twain: Always tell the truth. That way, you don't have to remember what you said.

George Bernard Shaw: New opinions often appear first as jokes and fancies, then as blasphemies and treason, then as questions open to discussion, and finally as established truths.

Isaac Asimov: [W]hen people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.

Marcus Aurelius: If it is not right do not do it; if it is not true do not say it.

Galileo: All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them.

Buddha: Believe nothing just because a so-called wise person said it. Believe nothing just because a belief is generally held. Believe nothing just because it is said in ancient books. Believe nothing just because it is said to be of divine origin. Believe nothing just because someone else believes it. Believe only what you yourself test and judge to be true. [paraphrased]


But then i overheard someone...." Truth is beautiful, without doubt; but so are lies.”..and i cudn't stop wonderin'...!!!

The Case of a Missed Call that was Never made!!!

Well Shifts....shifts and more shifts...!!!
With me dwindling between the various time zones, keeping track of things is getting more and more difficult!!

Something unthinkable happened today - jus once.I missed out on pocketing my cellphone while stepping out of my home to catch the cab to office in the wee hours of morning.

Now don't get me wrong - I am not a mobile fanatic. Nor do I hate it the way some people seem to do. I find it an extremely useful tool (especially when you are locked out of your house and your flatmate is at his office and you don't have his mobile number in YOUR memory but only in the phone memory), though it might become an irritant at times. But there again the fault lies with the users, not the instrument or the service, isn't it?

Anyway, the crux of the matter is that I was without my phone for about an hour in the morning, and no one missed me! No missed calls, no sms'es waiting for a reply. I am still to fathom out its impact on my ego. It does seem that the world can go about its business for substantial length of time without missing me. Taking a detached view of it, it does seem that one of the sources of self-esteem can be the number of people who call you on your mobile. Coming from my measurement oriented world, I wonder whether I can design a dashboard on self-esteem through mobile usage. We can divide the calls in three categories - personal, professional, and third-party (credit cards etc.). The calls you make or the calls that are being returned won't count. The number of points for each type of call will vary by the time of the day - during office hours, personal calls will get a higher weightage than professional calls, and vice versa. Professional calls during dinner, weekends and holidays will be absolute chartbusters. Calls from bankers and stockbrokers will rate higher than calls from the grocery store (asking for payment). Calls from a dentist will bring in more points than from, say, a gastroenterologist. And calls from spouses will be more precious than those from lovers (unless of course, its a call from a lover AFTER your marriage). And number of years of marriage should definitely be a factor - a call from a year-old wife is not quite the same as that from a 5-year old one, isn't it?

So at the end of it all, we can have a score published for every mobile user - some index similar to, say, wealth or popularity. Wotsay! Of course, from my unpredictable experience today, I doubt I will be anywhere in the table at all.....need to start thinking of how to rig the system.

In the meanwhile...Did you folks checked upon ur cellphone all this while???:)

Art...Thou Shall Love It!!!

"There is no art without intoxication. But I mean a mad intoxication! Let reason teeter! Delirium! The highest degree of deliriumm! Plunged in burning dementia! Art is the most enrapturing orgy within man's reach.. Art must make you laugh a little and make you a little afraid. Anything as long as it doesn't bore."
Jean Dubuffet

Art---Defined in many possible ways...perceived and performed in numerous styles...themes....but the essence remains the same....
To write music with words,
To capture words with light,
To paint philosophy with the brush of your mind..
Art is a medium branched out to many more mediums which expresses the single medium.
Some of us use words, some of us use light, all to the same effect, to break through barriers to reach the single medium, to become one with art.
But the challenge is to trascend mediums and combine the unlikely, using Art to achieve Art.
Perhaps we could have a photo with a painted version of it, and a poem to go with it, with music at the background, and philosophy to explain it all.
Sounds powerful ain’t it? That’s Art.

Well captured is the essence of it in this quote--
"Art should astonish, transmute, transfix. One must work at the tissue between truth and paranoia." Brett Whiteley