Laws of software programming :-)

Any given program, when running, is obsolete.

Any given program costs more and takes longer.

If a program is useful, it will have to be changed.

If a program is useless, it will have to be documented.

Any program will expand to fill available memory.

The value of a program is proportional to the weight of its output.

Program complexity grows until it exceeds the capabilities of the programmer who must maintain it.

Any non-trivial program contains at least one bug.

Undetectable errors are infinite in variety, in contrast to detectable errors, which by definition are limited.

Adding manpower to a late software project makes it later.

Lubarsky's Law of Cybernetic Entomology: There's always one more bug.

Shaw's Principle: Build a system that even a fool can use, and only a fool will want
to use it.

Woltman's Law: Never program and drink beer at the same time.

Gallois' Revelation: If you put tomfoolery into a computer, nothing comes out but tomfoolery. But this tomfoolery, having passed through a very expensive machine, is somehow enobled, and no one dares to criticize it.

Check on American Intelligence :-)

While visiting England, George Bush is invited to tea with the
Queen. He asks her what her leadership philosophy is. She says that
it is to surround herself with intelligent people. He asks how she
knows if they're intelligent. "I do so by asking them the right
questions," says the Queen.

" Allow me to demonstrate." She phones Tony Blair and says, "Mr.
Prime Minister. Please answer this question: Your mother has a
child, and your father has a child, and this child is not your
brother or sister. Who is it?"

Tony Blair responds, "It's me, Your Highness."

"Correct! Thank you and good-bye sir," says the Queen. She hangs up
and says, "Did you get that, Mr. Bush?"

"Yes Your Highness. Thanks a lot. I'll definitely be using that!"

Upon returning to Washington, he decides he'd better put the
Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to the test. He
summons Jesse Helms to the White House and says, "Senator Helms, I
wonder if you can answer a question for me."

"Why, of course, Mr. President. What's on your mind?"

"Uhh, your mother has a child, and your father has a child, and this
child is not your brother or your sister. Who is it?"

Helms hems and haws and finally asks, "Can I think about it and get
back to you?"

Bush agrees, and Helms leaves. Helms immediately calls a meeting of
other senior Republican senators, and they puzzle over the question
for
several hours, but nobody can come up with an answer. Finally, in
desperation, Helms calls Colin Powell at the State Department and
explains his problem.

"Now look here, son, your mother has a child, and your father has a
child, and this child is not your brother or your sister. Who is
it?"
Powell answers immediately, "It's me, of course, you dumb cracker."

Much relieved, Helms rushes back to the White House and exclaims, "I
know the answer now Mr. President. It's Colin Powell!"

And Bush replies with condescending disgust, "Wrong, you dumb
ass, it's Tony Blair !!"

A Friend

2day nothing much happend than a tiring work.. still one fren gonna have a farewell day and felt so much about friends and sent this...

Around the corner I have a friend,
In this great city that has no end,
Yet the days go by and weeks rush on,
And before I know it, a year is gone.
And I never see my old friends face,
For life is a swift and terrible race,
He knows I like him just as well,
As in the days when I rang his bell.
And he rang mine if, we were younger then,
And now we are busy, tired men.
Tired of playing a foolish game,
Tired of trying to make a name.
"Tomorrow" I say! "I will call on Jim"
"Just to show that I'm thinking of him."
But tomorrow comes and tomorrow goes,
And distance between us grows and grows.
Around the corner! yet miles away,
"Here's a telegram sir" "Jim died today."
And that's what we get and deserve in the end.
Around the corner, a vanished friend.
Remember to always say what you mean.
If you love or like someone, tell them.
Don't be afraid to express yourself. Reach out and
tell someone what they mean to you. Because when
you decide that it is the right time it might be too late.
Seize the day. Never have regrets. And most
importantly, stay close to your friends and family, for they have
helped make you the person that you are today.

Getting inside "Love"

I found this when one of my fren asked what is "Love".. I found this interesting so its here in my blog...

Love For Needs...

The power of attraction which we call love is expressed on many levels and in countless ways. The most basic level is that of need. We often use the word love when we really mean, "need".

We say, "I love you." But, if we analyze ourselves deeply, we will realize learn we really mean, "I need you." This is the basic message of most love songs. They lament with sadness, pain, agony and cry out "you left me, I cannot live without you. I need you."

This is not the highest form of love. It is love mixed with need, attachment and addiction. If it were pure love and the other was happier by leaving us or even happier with someone else, we would be happy for him or her, not full of sadness for ourselves. Loving others means wanting them to be happy, healthy and successful in the ways that they are guided to be.

Love does not create the pain we feel when someone leaves us or rejects us. That pain is generated by our dependency upon that person for our security, pleasure or affirmation.

Needs and attachments create fear, pain and suffering.

Love creates happiness, fulfillment and the experience of our True Selves.


Needing Those Who Make Us Feel Secure

We look to others for security. We might seek security from our parents, spouses, siblings, children, employers, friends, ministers, spiritual teachers or others.

We do feel love toward these beings, but often that love is based on the fact that they offer us a sense of security. If they start behaving in ways that obstruct our feelings of security or if they decide to leave or ignore us, will we still love them?

If our employer fires us, will we still love him or her? If our parents throw us out onto the street, will we still love them? Or is our love tightly woven with the need for security?

If as parents we dream that our children will become economically well off and socially accepted professionals, will we love them the same if they become street artists, beggars or anarchists? Some parents will be able to; others will not.

The basic question is whether or not our feelings of love are steady and consistent regardless of the various changing behaviors of those we "love". In each case where we perceive our heart closing, we need to discover what we fear in that situation. What might we believe is in danger? Most frequently we lose our love when we fear that our security, self-worth, freedom or pleasure are in danger.

Only when we have realized total inner security, perhaps based on an inner spiritual awakening or on our faith in the Divine, will we be able to love without security attachments.

Only when we know that we can live without others can we really love them steadily.

Society has caused us to completely confuse this matter. We believe that if we love others, then we must be totally dependent on them and should fear that our world would fall apart if something happens to them. This is insecurity.

This is a lack of awareness of our inner spiritual nature and our ability to deal with life. It has nothing to do with love.

Perhaps this is why the Apostle John wrote, "Where there is perfect love, there can be no fear".


Needing Others for Pleasure

Let us examine how our needs for pleasure and affirmation can limit and distort our experience of love.

We create relationships that give us pleasure and affirmation as well as security. We may be dependent upon the other for money, shelter, sex, travel, clothing, encouragement, compliments, humor, tasty food, a clean house, comforts, or even his or her beauty.

Yet, if he or she stops providing these for us, or decides to provide them for someone else, do we continue loving that person or do we feel hurt, disillusioned, and overcome with feelings of injustice, anger and perhaps revenge?

The condition here is that "I love as long as you provide me pleasure, happiness or excitement. If you stop, my feelings change." It is conditional love.

Needing Others for Affirmation

We may also depend on someone for affirmation. This may take various forms.

1. We are affirmed when others obey us. "You listen to me and do what I say. I can control you. That makes me feel powerful and worthy. If, however, you stop doing whatever I say, I will stop feeling love and unity with you."

This becomes a problem for parents when their children move into adolescence. This can also occur between spouses. In many countries a wife might be suppressed at first, and thus, the husband feels powerful and affirmed. If, however, she begins to think and act for herself, he begins to panic and can become angry and sometimes aggressive. The roles may also be reversed where the woman controls and feels affirmed.

2. We also feel affirmation when someone needs us or is dependent on us. This could occur between parent and child, teacher and student, friends, or between the "savior" and the "needy."

In these cases, the "needed" feels affirmed by and perhaps superior to the "needy". This is one aspect of codependency. Some of us find meaning in life because someone needs us or depends on us. If however, the other doesn't want to be the child, the student or the needy one anymore, do we feel the same attraction and love? If not, our love is mixed with our need to be "needed".

In such a case, we need to give, offer, and sacrifice in order to feel useful, worthy or boost our self-image. If this is the case, then all that we offer in these situations, all our sacrifices, are actually for ourselves and not for the others.

That does not negate the fact that others may actually need us, or that we also simultaneously have feelings of altruistic love. We are often motivated by two or three motives simultaneously

3. A third aspect of this attraction for affirmation is the situation in which we "love" those "who affirm our rightness", either verbally by telling us we are right, or simply by belonging to the same social, political, religious or spiritual group and thus embrace a similar belief system.

"I love you because you agree with me, you are like me, you affirm me". If they change beliefs and convert to another political party, religion, or spiritual group, will we feel the same closeness and "love?" Perhaps yes, perhaps no.

A fourth aspect of this affirmation principle is infatuation - called "Eros" (in Greek "erotas") or "falling in love". In this case there is a mutual (occasionally only one-sided) infatuation on the physical, sexual, emotional and sometimes mental level. This is a special attraction between two persons who excite, bring joy to and stimulate each other positively. This positive stimulation often has to do with the needs for security, pleasure and affirmation.

This intensity of these feelings seldom lasts more than a few years. The couple then has the possibility of transforming their "Eros" into a steady form of unconditional love, or facing the sadness of conflict and / or separation. Sooner or later, we will come face to face with the other's various negative aspects, and if we cannot love them as they are, the relationship suffers.

So Where the love is...

Until we are able to love unconditionally, we will be unhappy, insecure and frequently in conflict with those around us. We will be able to do this only when we have matured sufficiently so as to experience inner security, inner satisfaction, inner freedom and a steady feeling of self-worth.

In other words, we can love purely only those who we do not need.

When we need others, we cannot love them unconditionally. This might be difficult to comprehend at first, but deep thought and observation will prove it to be true. Being able to love without conditions is a basic prerequisite for both a happy life and spiritual evolution.

Now I'm here and history is vindicated

Something interesting thought i heard from a fren 2day.. Its from the comics "Calvin and Hobbes". nyway.. Check out the conversation here...

Calvin: I've been thinking, Hobbes.

Hobbes: On a weekend?

Calvin: Well, it wasn't on purpose. I believe history is a force. Its unalterable tide sweeps all people and institutions along in its unrelenting path. Everyone and everything serves history's single purpose.

Hobbes: And what is that purpose?

Calvin: To produce me, of course. I'm the end result of history.

Hobbes: You?

Calvin: Think of it, thousands of generations lived and died to produce my exact specific parents, whose only reason for being, obviously, was me. All history up to this point has been spent preparing the world for my presence.

Hobbes: Hmm! Four-and-a-half billion years probably wasn't long enough.

Calvin: Now I'm here and history is vindicated.

Hobbes: So now that history has brought you, what are you going to do?

Peter Principle

"..in evolution systems tend to develop up to the limit of their adaptive competence.."


The Peter Principle was first introduced by L. Peter in a humoristic book (of the same title) describing the pitfalls of bureaucratic organization. The original principle states that in a hierarchically structured administration, people tend to be promoted up to their "level of incompetence". The principle is based on the observation that in such an organization new employees typically start in the lower ranks, but when they prove to be competent in the task to which they are assigned, they get promoted to a higher rank. This process of climbing up the hierarchical ladder can go on indefinitely, until the employee reaches a position where he or she is no longer competent. At that moment the process typically stops, since the established rules of bureacracies make that it is very difficult to "demote" someone to a lower rank, even if that person would be much better fitted and more happy in that lower position. The net result is that most of the higher levels of a bureaucracy will be filled by incompetent people, who got there because they were quite good at doing a different (and usually, but not always, easier) task than the one they are expected to do.

The evolutionary generalization of the principle is less pessimistic in its implications, since evolution lacks the bureaucratic inertia that pushes and maintains people in an unfit position. But what will certainly remain is that systems confronted by evolutionary problems will quickly tackle the easy ones, but tend to get stuck in the difficult ones. The better (more fit, smarter, more competent, more adaptive) a system is, the more quickly it will solve all the easy problems, but the more difficult the problem will be it finally gets stuck in. Getting stuck here does not mean "being unfit", it just means having reached the limit of one's competence, and thus having great difficulty advancing further. This explains why even the most complex and adaptive species (such as ourselves, humans) are always still "struggling for survival" in their niches as energetically as are the most primitive organisms such as bacteria. If ever a species would get control over all its evolutionary problems, then the "Red Queen Principle" would make sure that new, more complex problems would arise, so that the species would continue to balance on the border of its domain of incompetence

In conclusion, the generalized Peter principle states that in evolution systems tend to develop up to the limit of their adaptive competence.

The Red Queen Principle

"..for an evolutionary system, continuing development is needed just in order to maintain its fitness relative to the systems it is co-evolving with.."

Since every improvement in one species will lead to a selective advantage for that species, variation will normally continuously lead to increases in fitness in one species or another. However, since in general different species are coevolving, improvement in one species implies that it will get a competitive advantage on the other species, and thus be able to capture a larger share of the resources available to all. This means that fitness increase in one evolutionary system will tend to lead to fitness decrease in another system. The only way that a species involved in a competition can maintain its fitness relative to the others is by in turn improving its design.

The most obvious example of this effect are the "arms races" between predators and prey, where the only way predators can compensate for a better defense by the prey (e.g. rabbits running faster) is by developing a better offense (e.g. foxes running faster). In this case we might consider the relative improvements (running faster) to be also absolute improvements in fitness.

However, the example of trees shows that in some cases the net effect of an "arms race" may also be an absolute decrease in fitness. Trees in a forest are normally competing for access to sunlight. If one tree grows a little bit taller than its neighbours it can capture part of their sunlight. This forces the other trees in turn to grow taller, in order not to be overshadowed. The net effect is that all trees tend to become taller and taller, yet still gather on average just the same amount of sunlight, while spending much more resources in order to sustain their increased height. This is an example of the problem of suboptimization: optimizing access to sunlight for each individual tree does not lead to optimal performance for the forest as a whole.

In sum, in a competitive world, relative progress ("running") is necessary just for maintenance ("staying put").

Murphy's Laws

hear out laws from Murphy...

Murphy's First Law: Nothing is as easy as it looks.

Murphy's Second Law: Everything takes longer than you think.

Murphy's Third Law: In any field of scientific endeavor, anything that can go wrong will go wrong.

Murphy's Fourth Law: If there is a possibility of several things going wrong, the one that will cause the most damage will be the one to go wrong.

Murphy's Fifth Law: If anything just cannot go wrong, it will anyway.

Murphy's Sixth Law: If you perceive that there are four possible ways in which a procedure can go wrong and circumvent these, then a fifth way, unprepared for, will promptly develop.

Murphy's Seventh Law: Left to themselves, things tend to go from bad to worse.

Murphy's Military Laws: 1. No battle plan ever survives contact with the enemy.

Murphy's Military Laws: 2. The problem with taking the easy way out is that the enemy has already mined it.

Murphy's Military Laws: 3. The further you are in advance of your own positions, the more likely your artillery will shoot short.

Murphy's Military Laws: 4. If your advance is going well, you are walking into an ambush.

Murphy's Military Laws: 5. The only thing more accurate than incoming enemy fire is incoming friendly fire.

Murphy's Military Laws: 6. There is nothing more satisfying than having someone take a shot at you, and miss.

O'Toole's commentary on murphy's law: Murphy was an optimist.


Lets hear from others too...

(Douglas) Hofstadter's law: Any computer project will take twice as long as you think it will even when you take into account Hofstadter's law.
Manly's Maxim: Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence. Cannon's Comment:If you tell the boss you were late for work because you had a flat tire, the next morning you will have a flat tire.
Quantized Revision of Murphy's Law: Everything goes wrong all at once.
O'Toole's Commentary: Murphy was an optimist.
Finagle's First Law: If an experiment works, something has gone wrong.
Gumperson's Law: The probability of anything happening is in inverse ratio to its desirability.
Non-Reciprocal Law of Expectations: "Negative expectations yield negative results.
Positive expectations yield negative results."
Lewis' Law: No matter how long or hard you shop for an item, after you've bought it, it will be on sale somewhere cheaper.
The Airplane Law: When the plane you are on is late, the plane you want to transfer to is on time.
Etorre's Observation: The other line moves faster.
Lubarsky's Law of Cybernetic Entomology: There's always one more bug.
Shaw's Principle: Build a system that even a fool can use, and only a fool will want to use it.
Law of Selective Gravity: An object will fall so as to do the most damage.
Sattinger's Law It works better if you plug it in.
Lowery's Law: If it jams - force it. If it breaks, it needed replacing anyway.
Schmidt's Law: If you mess with a thing long enough, it'll break.
Anthony's Law of Force Don't force it - get a bigger hammer.
Cahn's Axiom: When all else fails, read the instructions.
Maier's Law: If the facts do not conform to the theory, they must be disposed of.
Peer's Law: The solution to the problem changes the problem.
Anonymous Help a man when he is in trouble and he will remember you when he is in trouble again.
Anonymous Don't get mad, get even.
Knight's Law: Life is what happens to you while you are making other plans.
Benchley's Law of Distinction: There are two kinds of people in the world, those who believe there are two kinds of people in the world and those who don't.
Harver's Law: A drunken man's words are a sober man's thoughts.
Schmidt's Observation: All things being equal, a fat person uses more soap than a thin person.
Rule of Accuracy: When working towards the solution of a problem, it always helps if you know the answer.
Anonymous Inside every small problem is a large problem struggling to get out.
Wyszowski's Law: No experiment is reproducible.
Fett's Law: Never replicate a successful experiment.
Anonymous Spend sufficient time confirming the need and the need will disappear.
Zymurgy's Law of Volunteer Labour: People are always available for work in the past tense.
Clarke's First Law: When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
Segal's Law: A man with a watch knows what time it is. A man with two watches is never sure.
Weinberg's Second Law: If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, the first woodpecker to come along would destroy civilization.
Cole's Axiom: The sum of the intelligence on the planet is a constant; the population is growing.
Vique's Law: A man without a religion is like a fish without a bicycle.
Jone's Motto: Friends come and go but enemies accumulate.
The ultimate Law: All general statements are false.
The Unspeakable Law: As soon as you mention something; If it is good, it goes away. If it is bad, it happens.
The Whispered Rule: People will believe anything if you whisper it.
The First Law of Wing Walking: Never let hold of what you've got until you've got hold of something else.
Farnsdick's corollary: After things have gone from bad to worse, the cycle will repeat itself.
Law of Revelation: The hidden flaw never remains hidden.
Langsam's Law: Everything depends.
First Postulate of Isomurphism: Things equal to nothing else are equal to each other.
Witten's Law: Whenever you cut your fingernails, you will find a need for them an hour later.
Perkin's postulate: The bigger they are, the harder they hit.
Stewart's Law of Retroaction: It is easier to get forgiveness than permission.
MacDonald's Second Law: Consultants are mystical people who ask a company for a number and give it back to them.
Anonymous To err is human, but to really foul things up requires a computer.
Horngren's Observation: (generalized) The real world is a special case.
Gold's Law: If the shoe fits, it's ugly.
Woltman's Law: Never program and drink beer at the same time.
Allen's Law: Almost anything is easier to get into than out of.
Allen's Axiom: When all else fails, follow instructions.
Berra's Law: You can observe a lot just by watching.
Gerrold's Laws of Infernal Dynamics: 1. An object in motion will be heading in the wrong direction. 2. An object at rest will be in the wrong place.
Sevareid's Law: The chief cause of problems is solutions.
Peer's Law: The solution to the problem changes the problem.
Lyall's Fundamental Observation: The most important leg of a three legged stool is the one that's missing.
Klipstein's Observation: Any product cut to length will be too short.
Sueker's Note: If you need n items of anything, you will have n - 1 in stock.
de la Lastra's Law: After the last of 16 mounting screws has been removed from an access cover, it will be discovered that the wrong access cover has been removed.
Anonymous Design flaws travel in groups.
Gerrold's Fundamental Truth: It's a good thing money can't buy happiness. We couldn't stand the commercials.
H. L. Menchen Whenever you hear a man speak of his love for his country, it is a sure sign he expects to be paid for it.