2. How can we defend Lord Krishna having many wives?

3. How can we defend Lord Krishna to have affair with Radha who was already married?

4. How can we defend Ram taking Agni-pariksha for Sita and not taking it himself ?

5. How can we say “No” to a child begging for a rupee at the cross roads?

6. How can we say “We have to bribe in India”, if we believe in Dharma?

7. Where is Atma? What is it? Who has it? How to find it? And what is Parmatma and Jeev?

8. We are going to have rebirths? Where? Why? Who decides?

9. Ramayana and Mahabharata has actually happened? Why such big wars which sacrificed many-many innocent soldiers for resolving disputes of respective Royal families?

10. How come planets orbiting thousands and millions kms away affect us?

11. Are there ghosts? Why cannot they join our society and we give them voting rights – at least to good ones?

12. Why a person with money is respected very much, at least in person, regardless of means of earning it in our religious society (and poor guys never get real respect)?

13. We thank god in our prayers. Why do not we thank (at least few prominent ones) scientists, researchers, doctors, engineers etc in our prayers?

Outside View Point (OVP):
Everything has external view to its environment. When a thing is described with less focus on its internals, that is OVP.

Inside View Point (IVP):
Everything is internally composed of other things. When a thing is described with more focus on its internals and less focus on its externals, that is IVP.

Also, internals of a thing are things too. So, internal things have their own IVP and OVP.
Here are some examples. Note that decision, if a statement is IVP or OVP, is subjective.
Following are my views on few statements as a layman car user, based on my intellect and knowledge.

A car has a red color: OVP
A car has an MPFI engine and is 4WD vehicle: IVP
A car has engine made with special aluminum alloy: IVP
A car is saleable thing: OVP
A car needs maintenance every 10000 kms: OVP
A car turns left when you turn steering wheel counter clockwise: OVP
A car needs proper suspension: IVP
A car must not jump too much during ride on normal road: OVP
A car has factory-installed locking differentials use a computer-controlled multi-plate clutch or viscous coupling unit to join the shafts: IVP

It is very important that IVP and OVP are understood enough to clearly describe a thing. How much details are enough for IVP or OVP is usually context sensitive. These two views are important because you can always use them fruitfully in some way. They are more important because our brains are programmed to use them.

Usually, we tend to use either IVP or OVP. Once we are biased about one, we become blind toward the other. Each thing is a unity in itself even if externally only few characteristics are manifested and internally it is made of multiple things. Being blind towards either IVP or OVP renders description of a thing incomplete.

Most of the times, thing to be described, is not trivial. So it is very normal to further partition within both IVP and OVP. It is normal to create team, with each person focusing on subset of such partitions. For big thing, there may be need for team of team of teams. Note that each partition has its own IVP and OVP.

IVP focuses more onto these: analysis, structure, architecture, design, utility, technicality, how & why
IVP usually have more amounts of details. To grasp IVP, you need good left brain.
OVP focuses more onto these: intuition, judgment, aesthetics, surface view, what & where
OVP usually have comparatively less amount of details. To grasp OVP, you need good right brain.

In nutshell, you need to know enough of IVP and OVP of a thing to ‘know’ it. That will be more complete knowledge!

PS: All these apply to software and its artifacts very well!

Software design is creative process. Design involves significant mental efforts towards creating new ideas or using existing ones for a purpose. Software does not exist before you design it. You, as a designer, play a role of The God. You make decisions about structure and behaviour of software-to-be-constructed.

Design is more of an invention and less of a discovery. As a creator, you may take guidance from other experienced creators or knowledge-base, but you must never forget that your design is primarily your creation and it is up to you to make final decisions about it during specific project, and be accountable for it as a designer.

And design is done, by definition, before construction. Note that design may be for a system, for a subsystem, for a component, for a class, for a method or for any other element. Sometimes you first construct software, then learn from software construction and then design a better one. Still, this better design will be meaningful only if it is implemented. In the most basic sense, designs are created for implementations. That is where painters are luckier than building architect. Both draw pictures of some sort. But architect’s drawing is called design as it is intended to be implemented. This essential property of design that, it is intended to be implemented, is called feasibility of design. Every design must be feasible to sufficient degree.

Any design can be subjectively judged for quality from judgement of how easily design can be implemented in a context. Obviously, judge’s skill and knowledge about both construction and design comes into picture. This make design evaluation two-folds.

1. Design must be fit for purpose sufficiently in a context or in other words, design must be sufficiently easy (ignore inherent complexities) to use for constuction for a context.
2. Design’s quality attributes may easily become subjective in practical situation of a specific project.

Overall, design is very context-sensitive activity. If you do not understand context of design, then you may end up taking inappropriate design decisions. Let us try to see what kind of contextual information you need to do good design.

Purpose: If you are not purposeful, either you will come up with design which will not serve its purpose or design will not allow constructors to produce software with proper quality attributes. Without purpose, you will not have any yardstick to measure success of design. This usually means your clarity about software developement lifecycle objectives.

Business: Beyond knowing verticals, you should be clear about your customer’s business and his expectations in context of a specific project.

Design Tools and Processes: Beyond knowing modelling platform e.g. UML & tools in combination with methodologies e.g. OOAD, you need to know contextual application to specific project after tweaking generic ideas.

Construction Platform: If you do not have good contextual information about construction platform, you may end up doing less feasible design.

Organization Platform: You will work for yourself or somebody else. Make sure you know ways of working within your organization or your project team or your immediate-colleagues team in such a way that your personal context is aligned with organizational context.

Any other project specific contextual information: This one is toughest, and this is what makes each project unique. This is where your creativity, communication and analytical abilities are tested. No matter what, each project has this and you have to unconver this context.

Summary in nutshell: Design is a contexual process.

You can utilize guidance from articles, knowledgebase, best practices, patterns, frameworks, consltants etc but finally, you have to apply all guidance according to your understanding of your context as a designer. You do not have to apply all generic things as they are. In a hindsight, you must have kept your brain on while you have applied generic ideas to your specific project!

Normative abnormality
We go by ‘Nothing is normal as nothing is perfect.’
Only perfect is 100% normal. Farther you are from ideal, more abnormal you are.
Clinical abnormality
When things are beyond certain level of irrationality, bizarreness, poor adapatation, unorganization, ineffectiveness.
Cultural abnormality
When things not considered ‘normal’ by a culture.
Statistical abnormality
This one is based on idea of normal distribution or bell curve. In mathematical normal distribution, 97% data points are within 30% difference from average value. So, if average is 100 for some data set, anything less than 70 and more than 130 should be abnormal. Farther away you are from average, more abnormal you are.
Subjective abnormality
People like (based on some criteria selected by me) me are more normal. People different from me are abnormal. I select criteria of abnormality.

S1: “People, who do not work on anything, think that nothing is impossible.”
Makes sense?

S2: “People, who do not work on anything, think that everything is impossible.”
Makes sense?

It may seem like S1 and S2 are complementary and that means only one should make sense.
Think more annd you will realize that it is not so!

Hints:
* S1 can be taken to mean that people, who do not do things themselves, can easily think that something impossible is really possible to do when that thing is supposed to be done by others.

* S2 can be taken to mean that people, who do not do things themselves, think that everything is impossible beacuse that is the reason they do not do things in the first place.

* Or read S3.
S3: “People, who do not work on anything, think that something is impossible.”

* What do you mean by ‘people’: all persons? some persons? Specific type of persons? ‘people’ in S1 is same as ‘people’ in S2?

Have fun thinking…

Here are indications:
(For logicians, following are sufficient and necessary.)

1. Person believes in Something.
2. P has justification for belief.
3. Something is true.
4. Belief and truth are not accidental.

Have fun thinking about this!

1. We are talking about throwing coin up then it comes back. We catch it or let it hit ground and get settled. We are NOT talking about throwing coin sideways. We are NOT talking about throwing coin straight into sandy ground in a way that it does not roll and will have head up.
2. We are talking about throwing coin near a large body with enough gravitational force so that coin actually comes back with enough speed to hit the solid ground and roll. If you throw coin in outer space void of enough gravity, it will not come back.
3. We are NOT talking about ground which is sandy (not solid), where coin can even stand submerged in sand.
4. We are also assuming that we will decide when coin comes at rest within reasonable period of time. Once coin settles, we do not wait till next tsunami to arrive to change position of coin.
5. We are talking about fair coin. Coin is designed in a way that no side is favored to drop up. Is it possible to manufacture such a coin? Not today.
6. We think that GOD (I do not know what ‘GOD’ means) is fair and does not favor any side to drop up.

Put your comments if you can make this list longer…

Have fun.

Q: If you do not really do addition operation, does 1+1 still becomes 2?
A: It is irrelevant.
(Does 1+1=2 imply any timeline?)

Q: If god made world, who made god?
A: World

Q: If you do not invent a concept, does it exist?
A: If nobody has invented it, then it does not exist in our knowledge domain.
(Do concepts exist in themselves?)

Q: If you do not discover a piece of land, does it exist?
A: If nobody has discovered it, then it does not exist in our knowledge domain.
(Are physical existance and logical existance different?)

Q: If you do not know Mia living in Sanfransisco, does she exist?
A: If you do not know it, then she does not exist in your knowledge domain.
(Sometime Q contains information which makes Q itself absurd.)