Isn't it true that we all carry our mobile phones with hundreds of names/numbers stored in its memory but yet nobody, other than ourselves, know which of these numbers belong to our near and dear ones?
Let us for a moment create a scenario wherein we are involved in an accident or had a heart attack and the people attending us get hold of our mobile phone but don't know which number to call to inform our family members. Yes, there are hundreds of numbers stored but which one is the contact person in case of an emergency?
For this reason, we must have one or more telephone numbers stored under the name ICE (In case of Emergency) in our mobile phones.
Recently, the concept of "ICE" is catching up quickly. It is simple, an important method of contact during emergency situations.
As cell phones are carried by majority of the population, all you need to do is store the number of a contact person or person who should be contacted at during emergency as ICE" (meaning In Case of Emergency).
The idea was thought up by a paramedic who found that when they went to the scenes of accidents, there were always mobile phones with patients, but they didn't know which number to call.
He therefore thought that it would be a good idea if there was a nationally recognized name for this purpose.
Following a disaster in London , the East Anglican Ambulance Service has launched a national "In case of Emergency (ICE)" campaign.
In an emergency situation, Emergency Service personnel and hospital staff would then be able to quickly contact your next of kin, by simply dialing the number stored as "ICE".
It really could save your life, or put a loved one's mind at rest.
For more than one contact name simply enter ICE1, ICE2 and ICE3 etc.
A great idea that will make a difference!
Let's spread the concept of ICE by storing an ICE number in our mobile phones today!
Wednesday, June 6, 2007
Love & Marriage
A student asks a teacher, "What is love?" The teacher said, "in order to answer your question, go to the padi field and choose the biggest padi and come back. But the rule is: you can go through them only once and cannot turn back to pick."
The student went to the field, go thru first row, he saw one big padi, but he wonders....may be there is a bigger one later. Then he saw another bigger one... but may be there is a even bigger one waiting for him.
Later, when he finished more than half of the padi field, he start to realize that the padi is not as big as the previous one he saw, he know he has missed the biggest one, and he regretted !!!! So, he ended up went back to the teacher with empty hand.
The teacher told him, "...this is love... you keep looking for a better one, but when later you realize, you have already miss the person...."
"What is marriage then?" the student asked.
The teacher said, "in order to answer your question, go to the corn field and choose the biggest corn and come back. But the rule is: you can go through them only once and cannot turn back to pick."
The student went to the corn field, this time he is careful not to repeat the previous mistake, when he reach the middle of the field, he has picked one medium corn that he feel satisfy, and come back to the teacher.
The teacher told him, "this time you bring back a corn.... you look for one that is just nice, and you have faith and believe this is the best one you get.... this is marriage."
The student went to the field, go thru first row, he saw one big padi, but he wonders....may be there is a bigger one later. Then he saw another bigger one... but may be there is a even bigger one waiting for him.
Later, when he finished more than half of the padi field, he start to realize that the padi is not as big as the previous one he saw, he know he has missed the biggest one, and he regretted !!!! So, he ended up went back to the teacher with empty hand.
The teacher told him, "...this is love... you keep looking for a better one, but when later you realize, you have already miss the person...."
"What is marriage then?" the student asked.
The teacher said, "in order to answer your question, go to the corn field and choose the biggest corn and come back. But the rule is: you can go through them only once and cannot turn back to pick."
The student went to the corn field, this time he is careful not to repeat the previous mistake, when he reach the middle of the field, he has picked one medium corn that he feel satisfy, and come back to the teacher.
The teacher told him, "this time you bring back a corn.... you look for one that is just nice, and you have faith and believe this is the best one you get.... this is marriage."
Women Rights
Something for us to know.....
I was talking with a lawyer friend of mine. We were discussing the law and women rights. She told me about this incident - a young girl was raped by a man posing as a plain clothes officer; he asked her to come to the police station when she and her male friend didn't have a driver`s license to show. He sent the boy off to get his license and asked the girl to accompany him to the police station. Took her instead to an isolated area where the horrendous crime was committed.
Infact, the law clearly states that between 6 pm and 6am , a woman has the right to REFUSE to go to the Police Station, even if an arrest warrant has been issued against her. It is a procedural issue that a woman can be arrested between 6pm and 6 am , ONLY if she is arrested by a woman officer and taken to an ALL WOMEN police station. And if she is arrested by a male officer, it has to be proven that a woman officer was on duty at the time of arrest.
It is good for us to know our rights. To what extent it comes of use remains to be seen in any situation. But as they say, knowledge is power.
Just thought I`d share this with you.
I was talking with a lawyer friend of mine. We were discussing the law and women rights. She told me about this incident - a young girl was raped by a man posing as a plain clothes officer; he asked her to come to the police station when she and her male friend didn't have a driver`s license to show. He sent the boy off to get his license and asked the girl to accompany him to the police station. Took her instead to an isolated area where the horrendous crime was committed.
Infact, the law clearly states that between 6 pm and 6am , a woman has the right to REFUSE to go to the Police Station, even if an arrest warrant has been issued against her. It is a procedural issue that a woman can be arrested between 6pm and 6 am , ONLY if she is arrested by a woman officer and taken to an ALL WOMEN police station. And if she is arrested by a male officer, it has to be proven that a woman officer was on duty at the time of arrest.
It is good for us to know our rights. To what extent it comes of use remains to be seen in any situation. But as they say, knowledge is power.
Just thought I`d share this with you.
Monday, May 14, 2007
Is Population Control Really Necessary?
A growing population means increasing pressures on essential resources, tightening environmental constraints and widespread poverty. The widening gap between the rich and the poor is creating extreme inequalities in access to, and control of, resources, including knowledge and opportunity.
Population is the only non-depleting resource and a parameter of a country's development. In counties where the factors contributing to population growth far outweigh the factors for development, population is no longer a resource but a burden to society. A growing population is a serious impediment to development efforts.
A couple of centuries ago, large families were the fashion. Mothers wanted to bear as many children -- preferably sons – as possible. The reason was an economic one. Many hands were needed to work on the farms. The more hands one has, the more profitable the farm. There was also another reason for the desirability of large families. The infant mortality rate was rather high and also, not many people lived to ripe old ages as they do today. In many countries the maximum life expectancy was less than thirty years.
In present times, both the above reasons for large families have been removed. Modern medicine ensures, at least in the more developed countries, that the infant mortality rate is low. Fewer children die and most of them live to become adults. For the adults too the life expectancy is high. With better living conditions and health care, many men and women today live well past sixty years. All this simply implies that the population of the world keeps increasing rapidly whereas the resources keep decreasing all the time.
The incentives that are directly and indirectly relevant to parents wanting to have or not to have children are examined along with effective techniques for persuading parents to limit family size. It is essential to determine parent attitudes toward having too many children and to find practical ways of changing these attitudes in the direction of population control.
Scientists warn us repeatedly that there is a time of severe food shortage on the horizon. Food production is increasing very slowly compared to the rapid increase in population. It is feared that there will come a time when there may not be enough food for the survival of the masses.
The question may be asked if it would be possible to have more food production. Unfortunately, this releases another serious problem. To increase food production, farming land has to be increased. This means the destruction of precious forests. This is an extreme sacrifice as it causes terrible harm like the greenhouse effect and the El Nino affect, which is already creating a huge havoc with the world’s weather.
To prevent grave environmental problems, we have to stop destroying nature. If we do not create more food, then the market forces will cause food prices to rise – perhaps to really unrealistic heights. This would result in less food being available to more and more people. This will unleash another series of health problems. Countries which have food shortage problems will have to adopt all sorts of means to feed the people. This may include war and a return to the cave-dweller days of the survival of the fittest.
Surely all the problems must be prevented from ever rising. In any country, rapid population growth places a strain on the available resources. Clearly it would be almost impossible to solve them once they begin to make their effect felt. The most practical way of preventing the problems from ever rising seems to be population control. Hence population control is essential for the continued survival of the human race.
Population is the only non-depleting resource and a parameter of a country's development. In counties where the factors contributing to population growth far outweigh the factors for development, population is no longer a resource but a burden to society. A growing population is a serious impediment to development efforts.
A couple of centuries ago, large families were the fashion. Mothers wanted to bear as many children -- preferably sons – as possible. The reason was an economic one. Many hands were needed to work on the farms. The more hands one has, the more profitable the farm. There was also another reason for the desirability of large families. The infant mortality rate was rather high and also, not many people lived to ripe old ages as they do today. In many countries the maximum life expectancy was less than thirty years.
In present times, both the above reasons for large families have been removed. Modern medicine ensures, at least in the more developed countries, that the infant mortality rate is low. Fewer children die and most of them live to become adults. For the adults too the life expectancy is high. With better living conditions and health care, many men and women today live well past sixty years. All this simply implies that the population of the world keeps increasing rapidly whereas the resources keep decreasing all the time.
The incentives that are directly and indirectly relevant to parents wanting to have or not to have children are examined along with effective techniques for persuading parents to limit family size. It is essential to determine parent attitudes toward having too many children and to find practical ways of changing these attitudes in the direction of population control.
Scientists warn us repeatedly that there is a time of severe food shortage on the horizon. Food production is increasing very slowly compared to the rapid increase in population. It is feared that there will come a time when there may not be enough food for the survival of the masses.
The question may be asked if it would be possible to have more food production. Unfortunately, this releases another serious problem. To increase food production, farming land has to be increased. This means the destruction of precious forests. This is an extreme sacrifice as it causes terrible harm like the greenhouse effect and the El Nino affect, which is already creating a huge havoc with the world’s weather.
To prevent grave environmental problems, we have to stop destroying nature. If we do not create more food, then the market forces will cause food prices to rise – perhaps to really unrealistic heights. This would result in less food being available to more and more people. This will unleash another series of health problems. Countries which have food shortage problems will have to adopt all sorts of means to feed the people. This may include war and a return to the cave-dweller days of the survival of the fittest.
Surely all the problems must be prevented from ever rising. In any country, rapid population growth places a strain on the available resources. Clearly it would be almost impossible to solve them once they begin to make their effect felt. The most practical way of preventing the problems from ever rising seems to be population control. Hence population control is essential for the continued survival of the human race.
Is War Ever Justified?
To those of us who are horrified by war, it is easy to say at once that war is never justified and disagree totally with the question. However, a little thought will lead us to conclude that there are at least a few instances that a country is justified in going to war. In other words, war can be just under certain circumstances.
First of all, we see that countries are often forced to go to war to defend them. A defensive war certainly seems justified. Quite often in history we see examples of countries which are threatened or even attacked by more aggressive neighbours. In these instances it is certainly justified to go to war. In 1991, Kuwait was attacked by Iraq. This was clearly an act of aggression and it is impossible to believe that the Iraqis had any justifiable reason. The Kuwaitis were forced to defend themselves because of the total unprepared-ness of their armed forces they had to depend on the help of other countries. However, a more recent example is one where the US attacked Iraq, on the sole bases that the US ‘presumed’ that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. After completely ruining the country and its regime, moreover throwing the Iraqi ruler Saddam Hussain behind bars was an unjustifiable war. Till this day, the weapons of mass destruction, the reason for war, have yet to be found.
Though it is easy to agree that self defence is a justification for war, it is difficult to define at which stage a country should begin to defend itself. An example is again the Iraq-Kuwait war. Kuwait did little to defend itself even when war seemed imminent. Would it have been justified in attacking first if it was sure that it was going to be attacked? In such a case since Iraq had not attacked first, if Kuwait attacked would it not have been the aggressor? Even though Kuwait would have fought for survival, would its attack have been justified? Here it is difficult to decide. We are forced to the conclusion that a country is justified in defending itself when an attack is imminent even if the attack has not taken place.
History records other justifications for countries to go to war. In the Indo-Pak subcontinent history, India went to war to save the Bangladeshi’s from genocide when Pakistan attacked and about systematically annihilating the population. In this instance, the world supported India’s actions. Clearly this is just a war. From this we can conclude that a country is justified in attacking another in order to the people from a third country from being massacred. But when talking about defending your country against an imminent attack by another, then a fairly recent example, where the US bombed Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks, was that a justifiable war? Bombarding a barren land in search of one terrorist (Osama Bin Laden) and eradicating their regime no matter who tyrannical it was to its people? Was that justified?
Yet another reason to consider would be in the event of a famine or other natural disasters. Assume a situation when a country faces severe famine or drought whereas a neighbouring country has abundance. In such an instance the country faced with the disaster would be justified in attacking and seizing for itself some of the abundance of its neighbour. It would make no sense for a population to die out when it can save itself. In such an instance what would not be justified is if the country attacks a country which has barely enough for its own population.
Hence we see that even though most of us abhor war, there are situations when war is justified as well as unjustified, purely depending on the circumstances.
First of all, we see that countries are often forced to go to war to defend them. A defensive war certainly seems justified. Quite often in history we see examples of countries which are threatened or even attacked by more aggressive neighbours. In these instances it is certainly justified to go to war. In 1991, Kuwait was attacked by Iraq. This was clearly an act of aggression and it is impossible to believe that the Iraqis had any justifiable reason. The Kuwaitis were forced to defend themselves because of the total unprepared-ness of their armed forces they had to depend on the help of other countries. However, a more recent example is one where the US attacked Iraq, on the sole bases that the US ‘presumed’ that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. After completely ruining the country and its regime, moreover throwing the Iraqi ruler Saddam Hussain behind bars was an unjustifiable war. Till this day, the weapons of mass destruction, the reason for war, have yet to be found.
Though it is easy to agree that self defence is a justification for war, it is difficult to define at which stage a country should begin to defend itself. An example is again the Iraq-Kuwait war. Kuwait did little to defend itself even when war seemed imminent. Would it have been justified in attacking first if it was sure that it was going to be attacked? In such a case since Iraq had not attacked first, if Kuwait attacked would it not have been the aggressor? Even though Kuwait would have fought for survival, would its attack have been justified? Here it is difficult to decide. We are forced to the conclusion that a country is justified in defending itself when an attack is imminent even if the attack has not taken place.
History records other justifications for countries to go to war. In the Indo-Pak subcontinent history, India went to war to save the Bangladeshi’s from genocide when Pakistan attacked and about systematically annihilating the population. In this instance, the world supported India’s actions. Clearly this is just a war. From this we can conclude that a country is justified in attacking another in order to the people from a third country from being massacred. But when talking about defending your country against an imminent attack by another, then a fairly recent example, where the US bombed Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks, was that a justifiable war? Bombarding a barren land in search of one terrorist (Osama Bin Laden) and eradicating their regime no matter who tyrannical it was to its people? Was that justified?
Yet another reason to consider would be in the event of a famine or other natural disasters. Assume a situation when a country faces severe famine or drought whereas a neighbouring country has abundance. In such an instance the country faced with the disaster would be justified in attacking and seizing for itself some of the abundance of its neighbour. It would make no sense for a population to die out when it can save itself. In such an instance what would not be justified is if the country attacks a country which has barely enough for its own population.
Hence we see that even though most of us abhor war, there are situations when war is justified as well as unjustified, purely depending on the circumstances.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)