I don’t know if Shah Rukh’s story has a motive of promoting his upcoming movie ‘My Name is Khan’ or if he was really a racial profiling victim. It’s just that, some very common name trigger a screening alert in the current security system. It looks like every Khan or Mohammed has to meet a representative before the boarding pass is printed and then follow a different line at the security check point to get frisked before you can even begin you walk towards the gate. I do understand the need for security and I am all for it only if was implemented in a sensible manner. You cannot screen every person with a Muslim name, nationality or a brown person with a beard. A big name like Shah Rukh khan should be stopped for security check there is no compromise but I don’t see the point in why he was denied a phone call or why he was made to wait for 2 hours instead of just getting his figure prints, retina scan and check his documents. This would take less has 15 minutes. Any person first has to go through a security check through a metal detector where you are required to take your shoes, jacket, belt and any material in your pockets off. They go through a Scanners followed by a random security check on people (generally brown) where you are frisked. I think people should not mind such security check even if the random pick from the crowd is generally a brown person. It’s the level of tolerance one should have or should make them self get used. It seems that this incident happened when Shah Rukh was coming to US.

One of the recent Incidents that was really ticked me off was frisking of our former President APJ Abdul Kalam in India before he boarded the flight. If former President Bill Clinton visits India then how would we welcome him? Would we frisk him or send government representatives to pick him up at the airport. The question is not about VIP cultures in eurpoe and Asia but dignity. We hold our former president with great respect and trusted him with representing the Nation as a president. When US President talks about dignity and mutual respect among nations isn’t this mistrust on Indian at the highest representative instead of helping him with security has to go thru extra security because he holds a Muslim name. This nation has just had is first Black president and so much fuss was created over him having a Muslim middle name. Tit for Tat shouldn’t be an answer to such incidents. This should go to highest authority in US and India should not bargain for a semi apologetic diplomatic answer but a reform on the screening process at the airports where not every Muslim has to stop and justify himself and prove that he is not a terrorist.

I had a recent travel incident at LA airport with Ale where we were to board a flight to LIT, the Kiosk allowed us to print Ale’s boarding pass and it won’t let me print mine even though both the tickets were purchased together. I was asked to meet a representative, so I walked up to a United Airline person asking him for help and she said her computer is down and I have to go and join the Manual Boarding line which I did. I had less than an hour for my flight to take off and I tried to talk to people at the airport if they can help me with my boarding and everyone simply denied to help with an attitude and the answer was always “This is all I could do to help” is to let me stand in the line and miss my flight even though I was there at the airport 2 hours before the flight departure. The flight boarding was at 3.30 and at 3.30 I was still behind 2 people waiting for my turn to get my boarding pass. Ale’s sister has to barge in and create some fuss for people to notice that I was really late. Now I did catch my flight after my name was announced at least a few times for the last call. That pissed me off. I was more than happy at smaller airports for the waiting but at LAX the inefficiencies and unwillingness to help are way too many to let go. All of this because I have Mohammed as my last name. This isn’t the first time this happened to me I have had to meet a representative for clearance almost every time I travelled.

I know I have nothing to do till I get back to my job but what’s happening to the world. A plane diverted coz a women was carrying a screw driver and what wrong with the solar system all of a sudden. Pluto still retains its status as a planet but under the category called plutons and the solar system is gonna have 12 planets, 3 more to the actual number. Xena sounds exciting but where did the other 2 planets come from. A lot of question boggle our mind for we have cleared Astronomy with an A grade. So answers to a lot of questions are here, of course online source .... Google news

Q: What is the origin of the word "planet"?

A: The word "planet" comes from the Greek word for "wanderer", meaning that planets were originally defined as objects that moved in the sky with respect to the background of fixed stars.

Q: Why is there a need for a new definition for the word "planet"?

A: Modern science provides much more knowledge than the simple fact that objects orbiting the Sun appear to move with respect to the background of fixed stars. For example, recent new discoveries have been made of objects in the outer regions of our Solar System that have sizes comparable to and larger than Pluto. (Noting that historically Pluto has been recognized as "the ninth planet.") Thus these discoveries have rightfully called into question whether or not they should be considered as new "planets."

Q: How did astronomers reach a consensus for a new definition of "planet"?

A: The world's astronomers, under the auspices of the International Astronomical Union, have had official deliberations on a new definition for the word "planet" for nearly two years. The results of these deliberations were channelled to a Planet Definition Committee comprising seven persons who were astronomers, writers, and historians with broad international representation. This group of seven convened in Paris in late June and early July 2006. They culminated the two year process by reaching a unanimous consensus for a proposed new definition of the word "planet."

Q: What new terms are proposed as official IAU definitions?

A: There are two new terms being proposed for use as official definitions of the IAU. The terms are: "planet" and "pluton".

Q: What is the proposed new definition of "planet"?

A: The new definition of "planet" recognizes and utilizes the capabilities of modern science. The new definition is based on the principle that we no longer need to rely on the simple definition from past millennia that an object is a "planet" if it moves against the background of fixed stars. Instead we can utilize our modern ability to measure the physical properties of an object to determine its true nature. An object is thus defined as a planet based on its intrinsic physical nature. Two conditions must be satisfied for an object to be called a "planet." First, the object must be in orbit around a star, while not being itself a star. Second, the object must be large enough (or more technically correct, massive enough) for its own gravity to pull it into a nearly spherical shape. The shape of objects with mass above 5 x 10 20 kg and diameter greater than 800 km would normally be determined by self-gravity, but all borderline cases would have to be established by observation.

Q: What is the exact wording of the official IAU proposed definition of "planet" in "Resolution 5 for GA-XXVI"?

A:

"A planet is a celestial body that (a) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (b) is in orbit around a star, and is neither a star nor a satellite of a planet."

Q: Does an object have to be in orbit around a star in order to be called a "planet"?

A: Yes.

Q: Does a body have to be perfectly spherical to be called a "planet"?

A: No. For example, the rotation of a body can slightly distort the shape so that it is not perfectly spherical. Earth, for example, has a slightly greater diameter measured at the equator than measured from pole to pole.

Q: Based on this new definition, how many planets are there in our Solar System?

A: There are currently 12. Eight are the classical planets Mercury through Neptune. Three are in a newly defined (and growing in number) category called "plutons", for which Pluto is the prototype. One is Ceres, which may be described as a dwarf planet.

Q: What are the 12 planets?

A: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Ceres, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, Charon and 2003 UB313 (provisional name).

Q: How are these 12 planets categorized?

A: There are eight "classical planets": Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. Ceres is a planet, but because it is smaller than Mercury, one may describe it as a "dwarf planet". A new category of planet is now defined: "plutons". Pluto, Charon, and 2003 UB313 fall into the growing category of planets called "plutons".

Q: What are the classical planets?

A: The classical planets are those recognized by sky watchers and astronomers starting from the beginning of human history until the year 1900 A.D. The classical planets are Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune. Note that the term "classical planet" is only a historical reference and not an IAU definition.

Q: What is a dwarf planet?

A: A dwarf planet is a term generally used to describe any planet that is smaller than Mercury. Note that the term "dwarf planet" is simply a descriptive category and not an IAU definition. Terms such as "terrestrial planets" and "giant planets" are additional examples of descriptive categories that are not IAU definitions.

Q: What is a "pluton"?

A: A pluton is a new category of planet now being defined by the IAU. A "pluton" is an object satisfying the technical (hydrostatic equilibrium shape in the presence of self-gravity) definition of "planet." Plutons are distinguished from classical planets in that they reside in orbits around the Sun that take longer than 200 years to complete (i.e. they orbit beyond Neptune). Plutons typically have orbits that are highly tilted with respect to the classical planets (technically referred to as a large orbital inclination). Plutons also typically have orbits that are far from being perfectly circular (technically referred to as having a large orbital eccentricity). All of these distinguishing characteristics for plutons are scientifically interesting in that they suggest a different origin from the classical planets.

Q: Where does the name "pluton" come from?

A: The name "pluton" comes from Pluto itself. Pluto is the first object discovered that is a large spherical body, and therefore a planet, orbiting beyond Neptune.

Q: Is a "pluton" a planet?

A: Yes.

Q: Is Pluto a "pluton"?

A: Yes.

Q: Is Pluto a planet?

A: Yes. In fact, Pluto's large companion named Charon is also large enough and massive enough to satisfy the definition of "planet". Because Pluto and Charon are gravitationally bound together, they are actually now considered to be a "double planet."

Q: Is Pluto a dwarf planet?

A: If one describes any planet smaller than Mercury as a "dwarf planet", then Pluto could be called a dwarf planet. Note that in terms of an IAU definition, Pluto is a "pluton." "Dwarf planet" is simply a descriptive category like "terrestrial planet" and "giant planet." None of these descriptive categories are formally defined by the IAU.

Q: What is a "double planet"?

A: A pair of objects, which each independently satisfy the definition of "planet" are considered a "double planet" if they orbit each other around a common point in space that is technically known as the "barycentre". In addition, the definition of "double planet" requires that this "barycentre" point must not be located within the interior of either body.

Q: What is a "satellite" of a planet?

A: For a body that is large enough (massive enough) to satisfy the definition of "planet", an object in orbit around the planet is called a "satellite" of the planet if the point that represents their common centre of gravity (called the "barycentre") is located inside the surface of the planet.

Q: The Earth's moon is spherical. Is the Moon now eligible to be called a "planet"?

A: No. The Moon is a satellite of the Earth. The reason the Moon is called a "satellite" instead of a "planet" is because the common centre of gravity between the Earth and Moon (called the "barycentre") resides below the surface of the Earth.

Q: Jupiter and Saturn, for example, have large spherical satellites in orbit around them. Are these large spherical satellites now to be called planets?

A: No. All of the large satellites of Jupiter (for example, Europa) and Saturn (for example, Titan) orbit around a common centre of gravity (called the "barycentre") that is deep inside of their massive planet. Regardless of the large size and shapes of these orbiting bodies, the location of the barycentre inside the massive planet is what defines large orbiting bodies such as Europa, Titan, etc. to be "satellites" rather than planets.

Q: Why is Pluto-Charon a "double planet" and not a "planet with a satellite"?

A: Both Pluto and Charon each are large enough (massive enough) to be spherical. Both bodies independently satisfy the definition of "planet". The reason they are called a "double planet" is that their common centre of gravity is a point that is located in free space outside the surface of Pluto. Because both conditions are met: each body is "planet-like" and each body orbits around a point in free space that is not inside one of them, the system qualifies to be called a "double planet."

Q: Pluto has at least two recently discovered additional satellites that are smaller than Charon. If these smaller satellites also orbit the "barycentre", does this make Pluto a "quadruple planet"?

A: No. The two newly discovered smaller bodies in orbit around Pluto are too small and not massive enough for their self-gravity to force them in to a spherical shape. Therefore neither of these bodies independently satisfies the definition of "planet." The fact that their size (mass) and shapes does not qualify them as planets implies that they must be called satellites, even though the center of gravity (called the "barycentre") about which they orbit is located outside the surface of Pluto.

Q: Can there be triple planets or quadruple planets?

A: Yes, but none are currently known.

Q: Is Ceres a planet?

A: Yes.

Q: Didn't Ceres used to be called an asteroid or minor planet?

A: Historically, Ceres was called a "planet" when it was first discovered (in 1801) orbiting in what is known as the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. Because 19 th century astronomers could not resolve the size and shape of Ceres, and because numerous other bodies were discovered in the same region, Ceres lost its planetary status. For more than a century, Ceres has been referred to as an asteroid or minor planet.

Q: Why is Ceres now being called a "planet"?

A: An object in orbit around a star is now being called a "planet" if it is large enough (or more technically, massive enough) for its own gravity to pull it into a nearly spherical shape. Recent Hubble Space Telescope images that resolve the size and shape of Ceres show it to be nearly spherical. More technically, Ceres is found to have a shape that is in a state of hydrostatic equilibrium under self-gravity. Therefore Ceres is a planet because it satisfies the IAU definition of "planet." [Published reference for shape of Ceres: P. Thomas et al. (2005), Nature 437, 224-227. Dr. Peter Thomas is at Cornell University.]

Q: Is Ceres a dwarf planet?

A: If one describes any planet smaller than Mercury as a "dwarf planet", then Ceres could be called a dwarf planet. Note that "dwarf planet" is simply a descriptive category like "terrestrial planet" and "giant planet." None of these descriptive categories are formally defined by the IAU.

Q: Is Ceres a "pluton"?

A: No.

Q: What is 2003 UB313?

A: "2003 UB313" is a provisional name given to a large object discovered in 2003 that resides in an orbit around the Sun beyond Neptune.

Q: Is 2003 UB313 a planet?

A: Yes.

Q: Why is 2003 UB313 a planet?

A: Recent Hubble Space Telescope images have resolved the size of 2003 UB313 showing it to be as large as, or larger than Pluto. Any object having this size, and any reasonable estimate of density, is understood to have sufficient mass that its own gravity will pull it into a nearly spherical shape determined by hydrostatic equilibrium. Therefore, 2003 UB313 is a planet because it satisfies the IAU definition of "planet." [Published reference: M. Brown et al. (2006). Astrophysical Journal643, L61-L63. Dr. Michael Brown is at the California Institute of Technology.]

Q: Will the new planet 2003 UB313 receive a name? When?

A: Yes. The International Astronomical Union has the official authority to assign names to objects in space. This object has been popularly called "Xena", but this is not an official IAU name. A decision and announcement of the new name are likely not to be made during the IAU General Assembly in Prague, but at a later time.

Q: Has the IAU ever named a planet?

A: No, so far not.

Q: Is 2003 UB313 a "pluton" ?

A: Yes.

Q: Is 2003 UB313 a dwarf planet?

A: If one describes any planet smaller than Mercury as a "dwarf planet", then 2003 UB313 could be called a dwarf planet. Note that "dwarf planet" is simply a descriptive category like "terrestrial planet" and "giant planet." None of these descriptive categories are formally defined by the IAU.

Q: What is an object called that is too small to be a "planet"?

A: All objects that orbit the Sun, which are too small (not massive enough) for their own gravity to pull them into a nearly spherical shape are now collectively referred to as "small Solar System bodies." This collection includes the category of objects we continue to call asteroids and comets. This collection also currently includes, near-Earth objects (NEOs), Mars- and Jupiter-Trojan asteroids, most Centaurs and most Trans-Neptunian Objects (TNOs). In the new system of IAU definitions, the term "minor planet" is no longer used.

Q: Is the term "minor planet" still to be used?

A: No. The term "minor planet" is no longer to be used for official IAU purposes. The term will be replaced by "small Solar System bodies."

Q: Why is the term "minor planet" being replaced by "small Solar System bodies"?

A: Under the new definition of "planet", nearly all objects currently called "minor planets" are not planets. For IAU purposes, a definition and name is needed that clearly distinguishes between objects that are officially recognized as planets and those that are not.

Q: For any newly discovered object, how will a decision be reached on whether or not to officially call it a "planet."

A: The decision on whether or not an object is officially a "planet" will be made by a review committee within the IAU. The review process will be an evaluation, based on the best available data, of whether or not the physical properties of the object satisfy the definition of "planet." It is likely that for many objects, a period of time of several years may be required in order for sufficient data to be gathered.

Q: Are there additional "planet" candidates currently being considered?

A: Yes.

Q: Does this mean there will be more than 12 planets in our Solar System?

A: Almost certainly yes.

Q: When will additional new planets likely be announced?

A: When the responsible committee has had time to work on the issues after the resolution has been voted upon. Most likely any further new planet announcements will not be made until after the General Assembly in Prague.

Q: How many more new planets are there likely to be?

A: Perhaps as many as a dozen or two new planets in the IAU category called "plutons" remain to be discovered. We estimate this number based on our understanding of the current discovery statistics. This understanding is subject to change as new data continue to be gathered.

Q: When is an object too large to be called a "planet"?

A: The new definitions proposed by the IAU seek only to define the lower boundary between an object that is a "planet" or a "small Solar System body." At this time there is no official IAU definition in place or proposed that defines the upper limit for when an object is, for example a "planet" or a "brown dwarf." This limit is generally thought to be about 13 times more massive than Jupiter, but is subject to discussion.

Q: Is the new definition for "planet" intended to apply also to objects discovered in orbit around other stars?

A: Yes.

Q: Are objects that have planetary sizes and masses, but which are free floating in space (and not orbit a star) officially "planets" by the IAU definition?

A: No. At this time there is no official IAU definition in place that addresses this class of objects.

Q: Is a "pluton" a dwarf planet?

A: If one describes any planet smaller than Mercury as a "dwarf planet", then any pluton smaller than Mercury could be called a dwarf planet. Note that "dwarf planet" is simply a descriptive category like "terrestrial planet" and "giant planet." None of these descriptive categories are formally defined by the IAU.

Q: What is the difference between a "pluton" and a "plutino"?

A: A "plutino" is a small body that has a similar orbit to Pluto, that is, it has the same 248 year orbital period as Pluto. Plutino is not an official IAU description. All currently known plutinos are too small to be planets. Plutinos are not plutons.

Q: Is Pluto the ninth planet?

A: Historically it was indeed the ninth planet to be discovered, but now Pluto is also known as the first pluton, with its moon Charon being the second pluton. The classical planets can be numbered by their distance from the Sun, and there is no change in their order. Plutons, on the other hand, may due to their high eccentricity change their relative distances from the Sun with time (and hence their order).

Q: In summary how will the Solar System look if the Resolution is passed?

A: If the Resolution is successfully passed, there will be 12 currently known planets in our Solar System.

I was traveling with my family to see my brother’s college near Chennai. We hired a car coz our car is small and one of my moms friend was accompanying us. We crossed Andhra Pradesh and entered Tamil Nadu. A cop stopped us and asked for the permit, upon presenting it he asked for Rs.50 (Bribe, otherwise he would make us wait in the name of checking and patrol for hours) we bribed him coz it wasn’t a big amount. We traveled few more miles and another cop stopped as and he demanded for Rs.20 and we had to pay again coz up on questioning we would get late and miss our appointment in the college.

Corruption is not new in India; it is there since the days of East India Company. The problem is with in the system. Even the people in the highest rank don’t stand as an example. The biggest problem to sort the system is population. I will limit myself to the road system today. With single roads in most of India and with 100 cr. population and most of the cities and town not properly engineered it becomes really difficult to sort things. Till today the line “Rich getting rich and poor getting poorer” stands true. Another problem that is very closely associated with population is education. Today most of the state governments are trying to graduate more people to pass 10^th standards just to improve the state education statistics. A strict and proper system is necessary in education where children should understand what they read instead of just mugging up things till the examination. Another big problem that India faces are the superstitious believes and cultural differences. The more people talk about it the more they fight.

It’s easy to write saying we have to automate most of the systems like how other developed countries like US and other European countries have to avoid corruption. Being in and feeling the country for so many years, automation or privatization is not the solution. It needs a lot of planning and expert opinion from already successful systems.

I am back in US and I am staying with Vishnu in Albany. The journey was good but I guess I have a jet lag or else I won’t be writing this blog after a 10 hour sleep at 4.20 am.

My blog is blocked in Dubai. I am not sure if the whole of MSN spaces are blocked but when you visit www.waseems.com you will get a message saying “Sorry this site has been blocked by the government of U.A.E for blah blah blah reasons.” My articles didn’t have any strong statements against Dubai or its cultural practice, I just wrote about my experiences in Dubai. So I guess the whole of MSN spaces is blocked. My article about Dubai did mention about freedom of expression, here is an example. Even in India many of the blogs were blocked during the serial bombing in Mumbai and the government expected people to write things which wouldn’t have been appropriate during that time. The rules of the web in India clearly states a ban on sites which hurt religious beliefs or give raise to violence. The Media out cry was also justified. Why do we have 2 different set of rules for the same person in the same country. You have Freedom of speech in public and in Media and you don’t have the same over the internet (blogs).

I was reading an article on languages, thought I should post the link for my blog reader.

Language families and languages  

http://www.answers.com/topic/language-family

ISO 639

http://www.answers.com/topic/iso-639

List of languages by writing system  

http://www.answers.com/topic/list-of-languages-by-writing-system

List of languages by number of native speakers

http://www.answers.com/topic/list-of-languages-by-number-of-native-speakers

We have always found it exciting to just untie the strings of a bikini, but never thought of the origin and the design idea of the word bikini and its history. So today I was browsing in my free time and learnt this about bikini. Next time anyone of you who might be remove the strings, I am sure in that excitement no one would remember this article LOL!!!

 http://www.bikiniatoll.com/

 The name Bikini is from the Marshallese language, spoken by about 30,000 people in the Marshall Islands. It belongs to the Micronesian subgroup of Eastern Malayo-Polynesian. No other words from Marshallese have made their way into present-day English.

 Four days after an atomic bomb exploded on little Bikini Atoll in the remote Pacific Ocean, the little bikini exploded into the French language and then into English. On July 5, 1946, Louis Reard revealed to the fashion world of Paris a shockingly skimpy swimsuit he had designed, consisting merely of four triangles of material strategically placed on the female body and held in place by thin straps. No decent woman would think of wearing one; Reard couldn't get any fashion models in town to show it off. But he was able to recruit a nude dancer from the Casino de Paris to pose in the garment, and the rest was front-page history throughout the civilized world.

The French couturier called his sensation a bikini, shamelessly appropriating the name of a place half a world away that had just been the site of an equally sensational news event: the first peacetime explosion of a nuclear weapon. That event was the first of twenty-three American nuclear tests that would extend more than a decade, including a fifteen-megaton H-bomb explosion on March 1, 1954. The tests contaminated Bikini with so much radiation that the survivors and descendants of the 167 pre-bomb inhabitants are still exiles, having been shuttled from island to island while the cleanup of their homeland continues.

In recent years, the term monokini has come into use for topless bathing by women: where the bikini has two parts, the monokini is the lower part. Where monokinis are in use, the word bikini may jokingly refer to a two-piece outfit consisting of a monokini and a sun hat. The term was coined by Rudi Gernreich.

The tankini is a swimsuit combining a tank top and a bikini bottom. A string bikini is a more revealing alternative style where both top and bottom are reduced to triangles of cloth connected by strings.

The lower part of the bikini was further reduced in size in the 1970s to the Brazilian thong, where the back of the suit is so thin that it disappears into the buttocks. Recently bikinis have been getting smaller. This trend started with the top piece, but after shrinking the top so much that it barely covers the nipples, swimsuit manufacturers have moved on to reducing the size of the bottom piece. One can see the trend toward reduction in the following styles: slingshot, mini, teardrop, minimini, micro, and, what could be called a double g-string, the minimicro.

First Bikini Ever

Have you ever had a conversation where you are talking to someone that you least thought you would be talking to about something personal and then all of a sudden you realize that your past assumptions about someone actually was wrong and you feel stupid to let a relationship go just like that based on a wrong prejudice.

Misunderstanding and misinformation are so closely coupled that in most of the situations misunderstanding are due to misinformation. Having said this one has to be very careful about what one says to other about certain things that could be reused in future. Sometimes in a harmless way we unintentionally misinform about stuff in a humorous way or fun. Sometimes this fun could create so much of misunderstanding that people have tough time to recover from it.

It is funny to learn that if people (lovers) breakup they don’t want to forget about each other and never meet in life. It’s very much not practical to be friends after a break up, may be years of not seeing each other would help things to avoid a situation when people bump into each other, also it needs a good breakup conversation else it would be like scratching on the wound every time you see the other. Eventually they actually want to be informed about each other thru friends or some other sources. But in case of women they want to know the information first hand by keeping in touch. Of course they end up hurting each other either getting back into the relationship or by just hanging out by not letting the other get over it. A very good saying was ‘The best revenge is to live well’. After a fight both of them would be willing to let the other know that they are successful. The other simply tries to find reasons to show how easy life has been to the guy who is successful.

Naming a women as not a ‘home material’ is difficult……coz she will come up with a lot of exceptions. Also never give a woman a hand in a relationship only then the complications gets complicated lol.