06 April 2012

250 Drivers for Delhi Police Were Hired With Fake Licences

New Delhi, Apr 6 : Around 250 people hired by Delhi Police as drivers last year used fake or forged for securing the job, an investigation has revealed. The police have filed five cases and are in and are in the process of registering more First Information Reports (FIRs) as investigations are being carried on, a senior police official said.

In one case, the applicant allegedly forged the licence of a woman in Manipur. Delhi Police had issued advertisements to fill up 676 vacancies of drivers in the rank of Constables in February 2009.

"We provisionally selected 676 drivers subject to verification of their driving licences. However, we found that 250 of them have submitted fake or forged documents. Five cases have been registered and may be, some more will be filed," the official said.
250 drivers for Delhi Police were hired with fake licences
However, he claimed, that they had not joined duty as the verification process was on. "Normally every year during recruitment, we find four to five cases. But in this case, the number is very high," he said.

In the case of Hari Om, the official claimed, he submitted a heavy driving licence from Jammu Kashmir having its validity till December 2014 but during verification it came to light that it was issued in the name of one Nazir Ahmed Kaloo for light vehicles and motorcycles.

Similarly, Deswal allegedly submitted a heavy driving licence issued from Haryana's Gurgaon but an investigation showed that the document was actually issued in Bokaro in Jharkhand.

Jat allegedly produced a licence from Jalandhar in Punjab which was valid till October 2007 only. Further, it was noted that the licence was renewed in Meerut; however, the authorities there denied this.

Lalit Kumar allegedly submitted his driving licence which was actually issued in the name of one Sunil Saxena in Bulandshahr. The document allegedly given by Kumar also showed that the licence was renewed in Firozabad but it was discovered to be false.

The official said Sanjeet Kumar had submitted heavy driving licence issued from Imphal West with validity upto October 2009 but he claimed the verification in Manipur showed that the licence had been forged.
"A show cause notice for cancellation of candidature was served upon him. He submitted a reply pleading that his driving licence is genuine and it should again be verified by the department.

"Accordingly DCP (Crime) was requested to get the verification again by deputing a responsible officer.
The verification report revealed that the driving licence was valid for driving light vehicles with effect from October 2005," the official said.

Since two contradictory reports came, the official said, Special Branch was asked to re-verify the licence.
In its report submitted this February, the Special Branch claimed that the licence was issued in the name of one Geetabli Devi and it was for light motor vehicles.

According to investigations, some of them who submitted the licences were not even aware that the licences were forged as they had paid money to agents but were duped.
05 April 2012

Bru Repatriation To Mizoram Starts April 26: Chidambaram

Aizawl, Apr 5 : The long-awaited repatriation of 36,000 tribal refugees, who have been staying for the past 15 years in camps in Tripura after being displaced from their villages in Mizoram, would resume April 26, union Home Minister P. Chidambaram said here Thursday.

“The Mizoram government has identified 669 families, comprising around 3,350 refugees, to be repatriated between April 26 and May 15,” the home minister told reporters.

He said: “Both the chief ministers of Mizoram and Tripura are committed to the repatriation process. The refugees would have to leave the camps in Tripura and come back to their original villages in Mizoram as a part of the repatriation process.”

Chidambaram warned against any attempt to disrupt the process.

Chidambaram, who arrived here Wednesday for discussions on resuming the repatriation of refugees, held meetings with Mizoram Chief Minister Lal Thanhawla, senior officials and Reang tribal leaders to finalise the modalities for repatriation of the migrants.

Accompanied by senior officials including the home ministry’s joint secretary (internal security) Dharmendra Sharma and Border Security Force special director general Arvind Ranjan, the home minister visited Tuipuibari, Damdiai and other Reang tribal-dominated villages in Mamit district in western Mizoram Thursday to see for himself the rehabilitation of Reangs.

Following ethnic tensions after killing of a Mizo forest official in Mizoram, over 41,000 Reang tribal refugees - locally called Bru - had taken shelter in six camps in north Tripura’s Kanchanpur sub-division in October 1997.

A total of 701 tribal families - comprising about 3,585 men, women and children - were sent back last year.

The union home minister also said that 83 Mizo families from Sakhan Hills in Tripura who were affected would also be provided compensation as agreed.

The Mizoram government has been insisting that a rehabilitation package be provided to 83 Mizo families who, according to the state government, had been evicted by the Reang tribals from north Tripura in 1983.

Mizoram’ major NGOs and political parties, including the influential Young Mizo Association (YMA), in a memorandum to the union home minister demanded that the 1995 electoral roll be the basis for determining bonafide residents of Mizoram from among the refugees lodged in Tripura camps.

“Only names of those refugees enlisted in the 1995 electoral rolls of Mizoram and their descendants be repatriated to their villages. This is because large number of Reang tribals from neighbouring states and adjoining Bangladesh could have infiltrated into the refugees’ camps during the past 12 years,” the memorandum said.

On the contrary, the Reang tribals strongly opposed the demand of considering 1995 as the cut-off year for the repatriation of refugees.

The refugees, lodged in six camps in northern Tripura, 180 km north of Agartala, have also organised a massive protest rally Wednesday and submitted a memorandum to the union home minister through the Dasda block development officer in north Tripura.

“All the 36,000 refugees are inhabitants of Mizoram. The Mizo political parties and NGOs are trying to upset the repatriation process by making a new issue of considering 1995 as the cut-off year for the repatriation,” Mizoram Bru Displaced People’s Forum (MBDPF) President A. Sawibunga told IANS by phone from north Tripura.

Chidamabarm had visited Tripura refugee camps, held meetings with the refugee leaders, and Mizoram and Tripura government officials at Kanchanpur in northern Tripura Feb 18.

He also held a meeting with Tripura Chief Minister Manik Sarkar, who had requested Chidambaram to take all steps to repatriate the refugees to their homes in Mizoram.

“The long-awaited repatriation of the Reang refugees had resumed April 12 last year, but the process was stopped as most refugees were unwilling to return to their homes without a written assurance from the Mizoram government,” a Tripura government official said in Agartala.

Uncertainty still prevails over whether all the migrants in Tripura would return home, the official added.

Why Men Can't Stop Looking At Women


Why men can't – and shouldn't – stop staring at women
Before we discuss why it is men can't and shouldn't stop looking at women in the street, I'd like to explain about the girl in the miniskirt on the bicycle.

It was the first of the warm spring days that inflated Toronto this week. I was on my way to work on my bicycle. Two blocks from my house, I turned right and found myself 10 feet behind a young woman.
I use the word “behind” hesitantly.

She might have been 20. I am 58. She had long blond hair, and was wearing a short putty-coloured jacket, nude hose – I didn't think anyone wore nude hose any more – and a white miniskirt, trim but straining, tucked primly beneath her.

My first sight of her felt like a light blow to the chest. Her body held my interest, but so did her decision to wear a miniskirt on a bike, along with her youth, her loveliness, even the fleetingness of the six blocks I kept her company – she turned right, and she was gone. We owed each other nothing.

The inevitable backwash of guilt arrived, as all men know it does. I have a daughter her age. I am married but spent several minutes gazing at a pretty girl's backside. I could hear the charges: objectifier, perv, pig, man.

But it was such a beautiful day. And so I decided to spend the rest of it cruising the city, investigating the famous male gaze, to find out just how ashamed we lads ought to feel. These days, with women charging so fast past us, we're happy to feel anything.

***
Details that catch my attention: lively calves, French blue puff skirts with white polka dots, red shoes, dark skin, olive skin, pale skin, lips (various shapes), curly hair (to my surprise). A pretty girl with too much bottom squeezed into her yoga pants – and, mysteriously, twice as sexy for the effort. A slim blond in enormous sunglasses carrying a banana peel as if it were a memo. An expensively dressed and tanned woman climbs out of a taxi, so vivacious I panic and can't look at her. Slim girls, curvy girls; signs of health, hints of quiet style. Coloured headbands. A rollerblader in white short shorts does nothing for me: Her look is the sexual equivalent of shopping at Wal-Mart.

But each woman makes you think, parse her appeal. The busty brunette in her 20s is wearing a rich emerald-green ruffled blouse, but it's sleeveless and obviously not warm enough to wear outside. Is she a bad planner? Would she be a sloppy mate?

I ask a woman sitting in an outdoor café if she minds being looked at by men. Her name is Ali – a 26-year-old student with an Italian boyfriend who looks at everyone. That used to bother her but doesn't any more. “Just looking, I don't think it's offensive. But I think it's offensive if there's comments.”
Every woman I speak to says the same thing, without exception. So why does girl-watching have such a terrible reputation? Maybe because it's an act of rebellion.

***
X meets me for lunch at Ki, a downtown sushi restaurant frequented by brokers and lawyers. A big-time lawyer married to the same woman for three decades, he's father to three children – the opposite of a player. But he, too, spends hours gazing at women. He claims he spots at least two stunners a day. We've been discussing the girl on the bicycle.

“I don't get this complaint that you can't look at an attractive woman who's the same age as your 20-year-old daughter,” X says.

I'm having a hard time concentrating: Ki's waitresses are brain-stopping. Cleavage seems to be the prix fixe. One of them catches me looking at her, and then catches me looking sheepishly away, my store of hope fading the way a car battery dies. But a little bit of shame is good: you can't take your gandering for granted.
“It's because you could be her father,” I finally manage to say.

“Yeah,” X replies. “But you're not.”
He pauses. “I read that 26 is the peak of a woman's sexual attractiveness. I've got a daughter who's 26 – so I can't find someone that age attractive? That strikes me as a creepy argument. Women might not credit that a man can look at someone of that age without lust, but as the father of someone that age, I can.”
X believes men look at attractive women because attractiveness means the women are healthy, an evolutionary advantage.
“That's still seems unfair to the less attractive,” I point out.
“And it bites women a lot harder than it bites men. I'm conscious of it being unfair. But there's nothing I can do about it.”
“We could stop looking.”
“Would that help anything?”
“That's not an answer. Could you stop looking?”
“You'd have to pretty much turn out the lights.”
The trick is to look and keep what you see to yourself.
***
There are people sunning themselves all over downtown Toronto, glades of flesh and sunglasses. Ninety per cent of them are women. It's not as if they're hiding.
On the co-ed-strewn quad of Victoria College at the University of Toronto, I run into K, a businesswoman I know. She's here studying for a night course. She just turned 50, and is still attractive. But she admits looks from men are rarer. “Leering hasn't happened in years,” she adds wistfully. Visiting Italy 20 years ago with friends, “we were furious that the Italian men pinched your bum. When we went back, in our early 40s, we were furious that no one was pinching our bums.” This makes me as sad as it seems to make her.
She points out there is a difference between a look and a leer and disagrees with X's rule that eye contact with a passing woman can last no more than one second.
“Well, I'd say two or three seconds. A lingering look, especially if it's from an Adonis –that's, oooh. And you never see them again. A passing encounter. Or a bus encounter, glances and sidelong looks until one of you gets off the bus? That's the best.”
The first time she stepped out of the library this morning into the quad of semi-clad women, “I thought to myself, oh my god, do you remember what it was like to be able to expose your legs? It wasn't even sexual. But it was liberating.”
This is another thing that made the girl on the bike so appealing: she was free. It would be nice if we all were. Y, a 35-year-old married friend who still flicks his gaze at passing women the way other people flip channels, blames our national earnestness. “The problem for us as men is that we're in the wrong culture, and we're men at the wrong time. We're not a culture that empowers men with casual sensuality.”
He holds up his BlackBerry. “I don't see what's wrong with it. In a world where, thanks to this thing, I am only two clicks away from double penetration and other forms of pornographic nastiness, the act of merely looking at a girl who is naturally pretty – I mean, we should celebrate that.”
***
It's nearly dinnertime when I make my last stop at L'Espresso, an Italian café near my house. Even here, on a quiet patio at the end of the day, I can see five women I want to look at. It's almost, but not quite, exhausting.
Then I notice W and Z at the patio's corner table – the best view in the place. Both men are in their early 60s, both married. They're surprisingly keen to discuss the male gaze.
“Yes, I look at girls still, incessantly and unavoidably,” says W, the taller of the two. He still has a full mane of tossed-back hair. “And it's one of my greatest pleasures in life.”
“I concur,” Z says. Z is shorter, less ephemeral. “But I look and gaze at all women in the street, whether they're beauties or not. They're all interesting. And different men gaze at different women.”
“And what goes through your mind when you look at them?” I ask. “Do you think, would I sleep with her, and what does that say about me?”
“Yes, there is a question,” Z says, “but for me the question as I look at them is a little more modest: Would they sleep with me?”
“Beautiful women are like flowers,” W interjects. “They turn to the sun. But if they don't receive a certain amount of attention, they wither.” The simile has an 18th-century feel, like the conversation: It's about manners, after all, which are always most complicated in times of equality.
“I concur again,” Z says. “The most attractive women expect an attentive gaze that doesn't imply anything other than someone saying, ‘You're attractive enough to gaze at.' And the most rewarding thing is if that gaze is returned.”
“What does a returned glance imply?” I ask.
“It implies, as they say in the New York State lottery: You never know.”
I'm about to leave when Z tosses me a last thought. “Some women assume the male gaze is sinful and hurtful and evil, that men can never look at women in a different way. But that's not what the gaze is about. Because a sophisticated man would not hesitate to gaze, and then he might be filled with regret and loss, and therefore gain self-knowledge.”
Longing makes us sad, but at least it proves we're still alive. Which is why men like spring so much, for the short time it lasts.
Ian Brown is a Globe and Mail feature writer.

Captive Virgins, Polygamy, Sex Slaves: What Marriage Would Look Like if We Followed The Bible Literally

How many so-called Biblical literalists have actually read the whole Bible? Let's see what God really has to say about marriage.
 
 
Traditionally, Republicans tend to run on a platform of God, guns and gays. This time, it’s God, gyne-policy and gays – a set of urgent priorities straight from the mouths of conservative bishops and evangelists who call themselves Bible believers.

There’s no way to understand politics anywhere without understanding religion, but to an outsider American Christianity -- and so American politics -- can seem almost incomprehensible. Over the last 2,000 years, Christians have quarreled themselves into 30,000 different denominations. On top of that, American Christianity, like American culture more broadly, tends to flout hierarchy and authority, which means that a sizeable number of American Christians consider themselves “nondenominational."

The ever faster splintering of denominations and non-denominations, from crystal cathedrals to house churches gives a particularly elevated status to the Bible, which is why, along with the Catholic bishops and charismatic preachers we find the Good Book in the middle of our public policy debates. “Bible-believing” Christians, also called “biblical literalists,” believe the Bible is the literally perfect word of God, essentially dictated by God to the writers. Thanks to the determined work of historical revisionists like David Barton, many of them also believe (very, very wrongly) that America’s Constitution and legal system also were founded on principles and laws drawn from the Bible.

Not all Christians share this view. Biblical literalists are at the opposite end of the theological spectrum from modernist Christians, who see the Bible as the record of our imperfect spiritual ancestors who struggled to understand what is good and what is God and how to live in moral community with each other.
A Christian’s view of the Bible often dictates social and moral priorities, which brings us back to the current political context. The Catholic bishops are well organized and so, under the banner of "religious freedom" (for institutions, not women), they have lead the charge against women's reproductive rights. But they have been able to limit contraceptive and abortion access in this country for decades only because FEB (fundamentalist/evangelical/born-again) Bible-believing Christians rally to the cause. In my home state of Washington, conservative Catholics and Bible believers rallied by the hundreds this week to protest against universal contraceptive coverage. As I write they are gathering signatures to reverse our historic gay marriage legislation.

Even though divorce and teen pregnancy rates are lower in more secular parts of the country, Bible believers see both as problems caused primarily by America’s loss of faith. To hear them tell it, from the time of America’s founding until the 1970s (when gays, atheists and bra-less women began tearing down the social order) this country prospered because we attended church and lived as God commanded, and our courts protected the righteous institution of biblical marriage. Now gay marriage laws are creeping across the nation, threatening the last shreds of our moral fabric.

Let me tell you a secret about Bible believers that I know because I was one. Most of them don’t read their Bibles. If they did, they would know that the biblical model of sex and marriage has little to do with the one they so loudly defend. Stories depicted in the Bible include rape, incest, master-slave sexual relations, captive virgins, and more. Now, just because a story is told in the Bible doesn’t mean it is intended as a model for devout behavior. Other factors have to be considered, like whether God commands or forbids the behavior, if the behavior is punished, and if Jesus subsequently indicates the rules have changed, come the New Testament.

Through this lens, you find that the God of the Bible still endorses polygamy and sexual slavery and coerced marriage of young virgins along with monogamy. In fact, he endorses all three to the point of providing detailed regulations. Based on stories of sex and marriage that God rewards and appears to approve one might add incest to the mix. Nowhere does the Bible say, “Don’t have sex with someone who doesn’t want to have sex with you.”
Furthermore, none of the norms that are endorsed and regulated in the Old Testament law – polygamy, sexual slavery, coerced marriage of young girls—are revised, reversed, or condemned by Jesus. In fact, the writer of Matthew puts these words in the mouth of Jesus:
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke or a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law [the Old Testament] until everything is accomplished. (Matthew 5:17-18)  
The Law of which Jesus speaks is the Law of Moses, or the Torah, and anyone who claims the Bible as the perfect word of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God should have the decency to read it carefully—and then keep going.
Polygamy is a norm in the Old Testament and accepted in the New Testament. Biblicalpolygamy.com has pages dedicated to 40 biblical figure,s each of whom had multiple wives. The list includes patriarchs like Abraham and Isaac. King David, the first king of Israel may have limited himself to eight wives, but his son Solomon, reputed to be the wisest man who ever lived had 700 wives and 300 concubines! (1 Kings 11)
Concubines are sex slaves, and the Bible gives instructions on acquisition of several types of sex slaves, although the line between biblical marriage and sexual slavery is blurry. A Hebrew man might, for example, sell his daughter to another Hebrew, who then has certain obligations to her once she is used. For example, he can’t then sell her to a foreigner. Alternately a man might see a virgin war captive that he wants for himself.

In the book of Numbers (31:18) God’s servant commands the Israelites to kill all of the used Midianite women who have been captured in war, and all of the boy children, but to keep all of the virgin girls for themselves. The Law of Moses spells out a purification ritual to prepare a captive virgin for life as a concubine. It requires her owner to shave her head and trim her nails and give her a month to mourn her parents before the first sex act (Deuteronomy 21:10-14). A Hebrew girl who is raped can be sold to her rapist for 50 shekels, or about $580 (Deuteronomy 22:28-29). He must then keep her as one of his wives for as long as she lives.

A man might acquire multiple wives whether he wanted them or not if his brother died. In fact, if a brother dies with no children, it becomes a duty to impregnate his wife. In the book of Genesis, Onan is struck dead by God because he fails to fulfill this duty – preferring to spill his seed on the ground rather than providing offspring for his brother (Genesis 38:8-10). A New Testament story shows that the tradition has survived. Jesus is a rabbi, and a group of scholars called Sadducees try to test his knowledge of Hebrew Law by asking him this question:
Teacher,” they said, “Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and raise up offspring for him. Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother. The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh. Finally, the woman died. Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?” (Matthew 22:24-28).
Jesus is too clever for them and points out that in Heaven, that place of perfect bliss, there is no marriage.
Having a brother act as a sperm donor isn’t the only biblical solution to lack of offspring.  The patriarch Abraham is married to his half-sister Sarah, but the two are childless for the first 75 years or so of their marriage. Frustrated, Sarah finally says, “The LORD has kept me from having children. Go, sleep with my slave; perhaps I can build a family through her." Her slave, Hagar, becomes pregnant, and then later Sarah does too and the story gets complicated (Genesis 16).  But that doesn’t stop Abraham’s grandson Jacob from participating in a competition, in which his two wives repeatedly send in their slaves to get pregnant by him, each trying to get more sons than the other. (Genesis 19:15-30)
These stories might be irrelevant to the question of biblical marriage were it not that Bible believers keep telling us that God punishes people when he dislikes their sexual behavior. He disliked the behavior of New Orleans gays so much, according to Pat Robertson, that he sent a hurricane to drown the whole city – kind of like Noah’s flood. And yet, according to the Bible story, both Abraham and Jacob were particularly beloved and blessed by God. 
The point is that marriage has changed tremendously since the Iron Age when the Bible was written. For centuries, concubines and polygamy were debated by Christian leaders – accepted by some and rejected by others. The nuclear family model so prized by America’s fundamentalist Christians emerged from the interplay between Christianity and European cultures including the monogamous tradition of the Roman Empire. As humanity’s moral consciousness has evolved, coerced sex has become less acceptable even within marriage while intertribal and interracial marriage has grown in acceptance. Today even devout Bible believers oppose sexual slavery. Marriage, increasingly, is a commitment of love, freely given. Gay marriage is simply a part of this broader conversation, and opposition on the part of Bible believers has little to do with biblical monogamy.
Since many Christians haven’t read the whole Bible, most “Bible believers” are not, as they like to claim, actually Bible believers. Bible believers, even those who think themselves “nondenominational,” almost all follow some theological tradition that tells them which parts of the Bible to follow and how. Yes, sometimes even decent people do get sucked into a sort of text worship that I call bibliolatry, and Bible worship can make a person’s moral priorities as archaic and cruel as those of the Iron Age tribesmen who wrote the texts. (I once listened, horrified, while a sweet, elderly pair of Jehovah’s Witnesses rationalized the Old Testament slaughter of children with the same words Nazis used to justify the slaughter of Jewish babies.)
But many who call themselves Bible believers are simply, congenitally conservative – meaning change-resistant. It is not the Bible they worship so much as the status quo, which they justify by invoking ancient texts. Gay marriage will come, as will reproductive rights, and these Bible believers will adapt to the change as they have others: reluctantly, slowly and with angry protests, but in the end accepting it, and perhaps even insisting that it was God’s will all along.
Valerie Tarico is a psychologist and writer in Seattle, Washington and the founder of Wisdom Commons. She is the author of "Trusting Doubt: A Former Evangelical Looks at Old Beliefs in a New Light" and "Deas and Other Imaginings." Her articles can be found at Awaypoint.Wordpress.com.

Will The Social Web Kill Google?

Is the social web an asteroid for the Google dinosaur?

By Andrew Keen

Google launched last year its own social networking site, Google +, as part of efforts to keep up with Facebook.
Google launched last year its own social networking site, Google +, as part of efforts to keep up with Facebook.
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • Social media and government challenge Google's internet dominance of internet economy
  • Google is relentless about its desire to make itself the center of the new social world
  • Keen: Google is trying too hard to transform itself into a social company
  • Keen: 2012 will be remembered as the year when Google's fortunes began to wane
Editor's note: Andrew Keen is a British-American entrepreneur and professional skeptic. He is the author of "The Cult of the Amateur," and the upcoming (June 2012) "Digital Vertigo." This is the latest in a series of commentaries for CNN looking at how internet trends are influencing social culture. Follow @ajkeen on Twitter.
For all the creative destruction that the Internet has wrought over the last decade, there has been one constant: Google's remarkable dominance of the internet economy.

In a "Web 2.0" world dominated by search and by the link, Google and its artificial algorithm have reigned supreme ever since the company's much vaunted IPO in August, 2004.
But now, as we go from a Web 2.0 to a Web 3.0 economy, even the once invulnerable Google might be in trouble.
Yes, for the first time in a decade, Google's global dominance of the Internet economy appears in jeopardy. This challenge to Google is twofold -- from both the market and from the government.
Andrew Keen
Andrew Keen
The market threat comes from the increasing ubiquity of social media. The link economy is being replaced by the "like" economy in a Web 3.0 world described by LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman as "real identities generating massive amounts of data."
And the rise of social media with its avalanche of personal data is, of course, being primarily driven by Facebook, the locomotive of the like economy, with its near billion members and its expected $100 billion IPO later this year.
The dramatic shift from traditional search to social media was underlined last week in a speech by Tanya Corduroy the London Guardian's director for digital development. Eighteen months ago, Corduroy revealed, search made up 40% of the Guardian's traffic and social only made up 2%. Last month, however, she acknowledged a "seismic shift" in the Guardian's referral traffic, with Facebook driving more traffic than Google and making up more than 30% of the newspaper's referrals.
Of course, Google hasn't stood still in the face of the Facebook tsunami. First there were the social products Buzz and Wave, both of which were embarrassing failures. And then last year, Google launched the "quasi Facebook competitor" Google +, a product that one ex Google employee believes has "ruined the company" by trying to transform all Google products into social services. Indeed, Google has even launched a new search product called Search Plus Your World (SPYW), perhaps the company's most "radical" move in its history, which determines search results according to social rather than algorithmic criteria.
While the jury is still out on the success of Google +, with data showing that users spent an average of only 3.3 minutes on the network last month, there is no doubt that Google is relentless about its desire to make itself the center of Web 3.0's social world. Larry Page, Google's new CEO, has even tied 25% of all bonuses to the success of the company's social strategy.
Indeed, the problem might be that Google is trying too hard to transform itself into a social company.

Google's announcement in late January, that it intended to consolidate personal data across its different products and services -- from Gmail to YouTube to Google + to SPYW to Google maps to traditional search - had one concerned technology writer suggest that Google will now know more about us than our wives.
And while senior Google executives like Google + supremo Vic Gundotra promise that they won't break users' trust, more and more pundits fear that Google's obsession with keeping up with Facebook is making a mockery of its "Do No Evil" corporate mantra.
In my view, Google is no more or less evil than a multi-national bank or oil company. But there is good reason to fear the company's insatiable appetite for our personal data in today's Web 3.0 world. That's because Google's business model remains primarily the sale of advertising around its free consumer products. Thus, Google's desire to intimately know us is primarily driven by its core business objective of -- one way or the other - selling that knowledge to advertisers.

This threat was laid out chillingly by the Center for Digital Democracy in a complaint about its new privacy policy to the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC): "In particular, Google fails to inform its users that the new privacy regime is based on its own business imperatives: To address competition from Facebook, to grow its capacity to finely profile and target through audience buying; to collect, integrate, and utilize a user's information in order to expand its social media, social search, and mobile marketing activities ..."
Governments around the world are, however, waking up to this threat. A number of U.S. lawmakers, for example, questioned the impact of this new policy on users' privacy.
While earlier this week, the FTC published a 57-page report of privacy recommendations which included the addition of a "do not track" system intended to give us more control over our online data. And last month, the White House proposed its own "Privacy bill of rights" that depends on voluntary commitments by both Google and Facebook.
But Google, driven by its Facebook envy, is in no mood to voluntarily commit to protecting our privacy. In spite of overt U.S. and European government pressure not to implement a policy that consolidates all our personal data across the company's many products and services, Google did indeed, on March 1, unilaterally move ahead with this controversial new privacy policy.
And herein, I suspect, lies Google's greatest vulnerability. Late last month, France's data protection authority, the Commission Nationale de l'Information et des Libertes (CNIL) wrote to Larry Page warning him that Google's new privacy policy might be unlawful in the EU. The CNIL letter was strongly supported by EU Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding, who also requested that Google delayed the implementation of the policy.
Next month, European Union regulators, led by Competition Commissioner Joaquin Almunia, will announce their plans for pursuing an antitrust investigation into Google's broad business practices, particularly accusations by a number of companies including Microsoft, Travelocity, Expedia and Kayak that it has abused its dominant position in search.
Given all the controversy surrounding the company's new privacy policy, don't be surprised if this contributes to Almunia formalizing the antitrust charges against Google.
I suspect that 2012 will be remembered as the year when Google's fortunes began to wane. The company won't disappear, of course. But with an inexperienced new CEO, a badly botched new privacy policy, a marked decline in public trust and a looming EU antitrust investigation, it is hard to see Google dominating today's Web 3.0 world from the same unchallenged position as it once controlled the Web 2.0 economy.

Do Shaken Or Stirred Cocktails Make You Drunken?

By Brent Rose 

Shaken or Stirred: Which Gets You Drunker? A Scientific Exploration

Some bartenders have a chip on their shoulders when it comes cocktails. Shaking waters it down, they say. Stirring is better. James Bond is a pussy.
We wondered—what's the scientific difference? Does one way or the other produce a pour that's more warm or watery? Do the fluid dynamics in the darkness of a shaker lead to other intangibles that make our favorite drinks so delicious? Prepare to have your faith shaken, because we have reached some stirring conclusions.

It's Friday afternoon, you've made it through the long week, and it's time for Happy Hour.

The Question

What inebriates better: a cocktail that is shaken or stirred?

The Methodology

We've seen subjective tests of the shaken vs. stirred debate before—the Mythbusters confirmed that you can taste the difference. But is that due to temperature, alcohol by volume (ABV), or something else? What about all those ice chips you see in a shaken drink—do they matter?

We began the test by measuring all the ingredients by weight, starting with the ice. Different sized ice cubes have larger or smaller surface areas, and thus melt differently. So we made 14 identical ice cubes in the same tray, each using exactly 25 grams of water.

For the alcohol, I measured out 70 grams of terrible, cheap, 80-proof vodka (40 percent ABV). A digital thermometer indicated the vodka's temperature to be 73 degrees Fahrenheit.

To calculate the contents of the shaken and stirred samples, we used a digital scale to measure how much water weight the solution gained, and a distilling hydrometer—called a Proof and Tralle Hydrometer—to measure proof. This thing is pretty cool: It floats in a vial of liquid, with preset levels corresponding to the solution's ABV. We tested the hydrometer's accuracy by checking still water, then uncut Georgi vodka, and it dialed up dead-on measurements of 0 proof and 80 proof, respectively. Excellent.

The Experiment

To create solution A, our shaken sample, we poured 70 grams of vodka (just under 2.5 fluid ounces) into a standard metal cocktail shaker. We added five 25 gram ice cubes all at once, slammed on the lid and shook the hell out of it for a stopwatch-timed 30 seconds. We immediately strained the drink into a dry, room temperature glass and inserted a digital thermometer. We set the drink aside, covered it, and allowed it to get back to room temperature for an accurate hydrometer reading. Then, to the scale for a weight check. To make the stirred solution B, we repeated the previous steps—70 grams of vodka, five 25 gram ice cubes—and then gently but thoroughly stirred with a long spoon for 30 seconds. The drink was strained into a separate, identical glass, then checked for temperature, proof, and weight.

The Results

• Temperature: This was the first dramatic difference. The shaken drink dropped down to a frosty 29 degrees F, whereas the stirred cocktail measured only 38.1 degrees. The ice cubes couldn't have transferred all that heat without melting and therefore diluting the solution. Time for a weigh-in.

• Weight: Both solutions started at exactly 70 grams of pure vodka. After stirring the liquor with the ice cubes, solution B gained 16 grams of water weight, coming in at 86 grams. That sounds significant, until it is compared to the weight of shaken solution A: 116 grams! It gained a whopping 46 grams—more than half its original weight—from trace amounts water knocked off of the ice cubes.

• Proof: Now, for the hydrometer—the moment of truth. Once both solutions had reached a temperature of exactly 72.4 degrees F, I tested them, twirling the hydrometer to free any lingering bubbles. The stirred drink had dropped down from 80 proof to a count of 60, or 30 percent ABV. Now, listen to this: The shaken drink's purity had plummeted, with the hydrometer hovering between the lines marking 45 and 46 proof—around 23-percent ABV. In other words, shaking just ice and alcohol can cut a spirit's potency nearly in half, and which dilutes a drink 1.75 times more than stirring it does.

We cross-checked this with the amount of water weight gained, and it adds up. According to the weight, the stirred Solution A is now 32.6-percent ABV (65.2 proof) and the the shaken Solution B is now 24.1-percent ABV (48.2 proof). In other words we're within a two percent margin of error, which ain't bad at all.

I passed the glasses around the office for a subjective taste test, and everyone agreed that the stirred drink tasted much stronger. And this crowd knows what a cup of lukewarm Georgi is supposed to taste like. So there you have it.

So should I shake or should I stir?

Economical drinkers usually want the most booze for the buck, so it would seem stirring is the way to go. Savvy readers may remember that last week's Happy Hour on booze myths stated that diluted drinks actually get you drunk faster than straight drinks. But a martini glass is only so big. In bars, what doesn't fit into a glass gets poured out. A 4-ounce martini that's 30 percent water simply has less vodka in it than a 4-ounce martini that's 15 percent water. So forget James Bond and his "shaken, not stirred" mantra. He was probably just pacing himself so he could fight/screw someone in the next scene.

But there is a time to shake a drink. Most bartenders go by this general rule: Cocktails that have juice, dairy, or egg whites should be shaken. Shaking aerates these cocktails in a pleasing way, creating a nice frothy effect. It's almost like making a meringue. In contrast, cocktails that only use spirits—such as martinis and Manhattans—should be stirred. A stirred Manhattan is strong, clear, and beautiful. Have you ever seen a shaken Manhattan? It looks like sewage.

Of course, there's no accounting for personal taste. Some people will ignore this hard-earned data. Barbarians.

Check back next Friday afternoon to see new variables plugged into our favorite equation:
Booze + Science = Happy Hour.

Mary Kom gears up for road to London Olympics

M.C. Mary Kom. File photo After clinching an unprecedented five world titles, M.C. Mary Kom will make a bid for a berth in the Olympics as she spearheads the country’s 10—strong squad at the World Championships in Qinhuangdao, China – women’s boxing’s first and only qualifying event before its historic debut at the London Games.

After a two—day trial at the National Institute of Sports in Patiala, the Indian women’s team for the mega—event from May 9 to 20 was announced on Wednesday, with the country fielding boxers in all the three weight categories in which women pugilists will make their Olympic debut (51kg, 60kg and 75kg).
In the 51kg, it is the ever—reliable Mary Kom, who has dominated the World Championships with five gold medals, and is on a high after clinching the Asian Championship title just a few days ago.
The 29—year—old mother of two from Manipur would be without doubt India’s best bet for getting an Olympic slot given her unmatched international feats, which brought her the name ‘Magnificent Mary’.
The 60kg division features L Sarita Devi, another veteran who has two World Championship gold medals under her belt besides four Asian titles. The 75kg division has Pooja Rani, who had notched up a bronze medal at the recent Asian Championships.
“We have selected a strong team and hopefully we will get good results at the World Championships.

All three Olympic categories have very strong contenders in our team who have been good international performers. They were selected after elaborate trials and I am sure they will deliver,” Indian Boxing Federation Secretary General P K Muralidharan Raja told PTI.
03 April 2012

Helpdesk For Northeast Students at Delhi University

New Delhi, Apr 3 : Northeastern students applying to various colleges under Delhi University (DU) in the coming June-July academic session will have a helpline number, a helpdesk and a joint coordination committee catering to their admission queries and needs.

The National Students' Union of India (NSUI) gave this information on Monday at a press conference. NSUI, which is the students' wing of the Indian National Conference, also spoke about proposals to be placed before the chief minister and the education minister.

At a meeting held in Delhi last month, which was attended by DU president Ajay Shikara, a representative of the state government and two non-political students' associations, NSUI submitted some proposals of initiatives catering to the needs of students from the northeast that were accepted by the president of DU.

A helpdesk will also be made available to give students easy access to information regarding admissions. The helpdesk will be made available at both the north and south campuses of DU, and is expected to help students travelling to Delhi for the first time.

NSUI also highlighted the security problem faced by students from the region at the meeting, prompting a proposal and a discussion on forming a coordination committee with Delhi Police.

"Last month at the meeting, we made a number of proposals, some of which were accepted by the president of DU. These will be implemented in the coming academic sessions and will help students from the region. We had asked the state government to include some provisions for setting up of institutes imparting vocational and skill development and they agreed to set up 21 such colleges in the budget," said Partho Pratim Bora, president, Assam NSUI.

NSUI at the press conference asked the state government to ensure free admission for disabled and BPL students to degree courses. NSUI also made an appeal to the ASEB not to cut of electric supply in the evening so the study time of students is not hampered. They will be submit memorandums on both these pleas.

The students' wing also came down heavily on Seba for causing serious inconveniences for students during the matric examination. It put forward proposals to start an anti-ragging helpline, open one UPSC coaching centre in Delhi and one in Guwahati for northeastern students, and two state transport busses especially for Gauhati University students.