Madras or Chennai?

Out of the many stories that come out as reasons for the name of my city, the following seemed to be interesting for Madras.

1. It is believed that the original Portuguese name is Madre de Sois, named after a Portuguese high authority who was one among the early settlers in 1500.

2. The British seemed to have obtained the land for building Fort St George from a fisherman named Madras, on whose honor they named the city that developed around the fort.

The reason for Chennai seems to be as follows.

1. Named after Chennappa Naayakkar, who sold the land to the British.

2. Chennai was loosely the name used to represent the old towns of Triplicane and Mylapore.
Whatever it may be, the truth has been established in literature that Chennai is a Telugu word and Madras is a Portuguese derived word. But the current politicians are keen to establish that Chennai is the Tamil word and Madras as the English word. Ok back to the old story. The town that grew around the fort, north of the Cooum River, was popularly called Madrasa pattinam. (Pattinam means seashore town in Tamil). And the region to the south of the Cooum River (Triplicane and Mylapore) was called Chennai. But soon these two were linked by roads and bridges and it virtually became one town.
The British preferred to use the name Madras and still there were people who preferred the name Chennai. This same heritage has lasted till today and they have been fighting for changing the name with foolish arguments. My person opinion is in favor of Madras. It has been a long established name and they could have at least left it for this simple reason.

Why evolution is called a theory and not a law?

A law is a statement; a theory is a description/explanation. To have a "law of evolution" somebody needs to come up with a nice, succinct statement describing a universal law that explains evolution, maybe in mathematical form. Right now, we just have to do with an explanation on how evolution occurs. Also, scientific laws are usually found in the physical sciences, simply because these laws are fundamental and universal. In biology, having laws become difficult because everything that happens in biology happens due to physical processes that obey the physical laws. Laws are fundamental rules of nature that can never be violated no matter whatever methods we device to do so, one of the example is law of conservation of energy/matter. 2nd example is 2nd law of thermodynamics, Remember the futile efforts of people who pursued the idea of perpetual motion, and the so called Maxwell’s demon experiment. And some times no theories can explain the whys behind the laws. On the other hand a hypothesis is an effort to explain the whys behind a phenomena and later it will be promoted to a theory if it is fittest enough obtain sufficient proofs (The survival of the fittest). Here the evolution is a theory because it is an effort to explain the whys and how’s behind the origin of different species on earth and it has got some proofs to support the idea. It is not a law because it is not something that can never be violated. Some one with sufficient knowledge can artificially manipulate the selection process or create some changes in the genetic structure to create another species or a subspecies.

Why is that the women always outnumber men in sex ratio?

Women tend to have a lower mortality rate at every age. In the womb, male fetuses have a higher mortality rate (males are conceived at a ratio of about 124 males/100 females, but by birth, the ratio is only 105 males/100 females). Among the smallest premature babies (those under 2 pounds), females have a higher survival rate. If one does not consider the many women who die while giving birth or in pregnancy, or infanticide, the female human life expectancy is considerably higher than those of men. The reasons for this are not entirely certain. Traditional arguments tend to favor socio-environmental factors: men, on average, consume more tobacco, alcohol and drugs than females in most societies and are more likely to die from some associated diseases such as lung cancer, tuberculosis and cirrhosis of the liver. Men are more likely to die from injuries, whether unintentional (automotive accidents, etc.), or intentional (suicide, violence, war). However, such arguments are not entirely satisfactory, even if the statistics are corrected for known socio-environmental effects on mortality; females still have longer life expectancy. In my perspective, Women, whose reproductive cycle tends to result in regular blood loss, are better-able to cope with blood loss and trauma.

Are Condoms really effective in preventing the spread of sexually transmitted diseases?

The simple fact of the matter is that even condom manufacturers state that condoms are not an effective method of disease prevention (especially viral diseases) and were never meant to be. In fact, a leading condom manufacturer engaged in a study several years ago along these lines. They found several hundred people infected with Herpes who had partners who were not infected and engaged in sex exclusively with condoms. The findings? All the uninfected partners eventually contracted Herpes showing that (in the case of viral infections) condoms allow a 100% eventual transmission rate. Now it can be assumed that industry studies will have some bias (such as tobacco companies proving there is no link between smoking and lung cancer), but when an industry releases the results of a study that are contradictory to the best interest of the industry that should tell you something. Proponents of condom distribution claim that while use of condoms may not be an effective form of disease control, "It's better than nothing." The problem is the presentation itself. When you assert that condoms are an effective means of disease prevention and make them freely available, people who believe you are going to see condoms as a means to engage in activity they otherwise wouldn't have. This means that condom distribution along with the false assurance that they will prevent the contraction of HIV/AIDS is actually worse than nothing because it will lead to people engaging in activities they normally wouldn't have due to fear of contracting HIV/AIDS.

Freud is Eternal

Freud's theory mainly emphasizes on the unconscious drive that pushes us to do or not to do something. These unconscious drives contains mainly of hidden motives, various urges which stem out of their in congruencies with the social world, other frustrations etc. In today’s world everything is becoming more and more complex and people have more complex personalities than one could have ever imagined before. Having such a complex personality gives rise to many hidden urges, drives that somehow remain unfulfilled resulting into frustration and conflict. So in such a situation, Freud’s concept of unconscious mind will not only help one to identify the cause of their frustration, it will also help people understand their dreams, thoughts, ideas, wishes that are unacceptable to the society but their libido can be canalized into more appropriate ways. There was no man as great as Sigmund Freud. Hats off to this man. Freud's is a landmark theory and will always be taught to the generations to come. He will live for ever!! Freud's is a theory that none can by pass! One either agrees or disagrees and moves on! Civilization is in the process of continual change, many a taboos of yesteryears are now accepted without qualms, not much of the hush about sex persists, but then newer taboos n newer repressions will take its place, and as long as the dual nature of human mind stays, id, ego and super ego, Freud will live, not for his greatness, but for the changelessness of changeability.

Chennai-Only city that has retained its culture

I think we have the right balance between being liberal and assertive when it comes to our language and culture. In every so-called Metro city in India, except Chennai, we have let the North Indians practically impose their culture and language. Mumbai is now fighting for a Marati identity, but I think they are too late, and the fight has also taken a bad shape because of misguided politicians. Bangalore is going to be the next city to lose its cultural and linguistic identity. It is really good that we have so far maintained a Tamil identity, and we should not give it up at any cost. If North Indians really think India is one county, they should check how many of them care to learn Tamil, or any South Indian language for that matter. We agree that a larger number of people in India speak Hindi as compared to Tamil, but that by itself it not a valid argument for imposing Hindi as the only national language. Crows are more common than peacock. Why not make crow the national bird? Tamil is one of the few classical languages which have survived in India though various ages. We are required to learn English for the purpose of International communication. So, why should we be forced to learn and use Hindi? If we go and settle in North India, we will learn Hindi. If a North Indian plans to settle in Chennai, let him/her learn Tamil. If they are just visiting Chennai, let them use English, and I am sure any visitor to Chennai will get the information they need even if they speak in English. We don't want Chennai to lose its identity just like Mumbai did, or Bangalore is doing. Given the way Bangalore has accepted the Hindi influence, I think after some time, Kannada will be heard in Bangalore only in the legislature and political meetings! Chennai should and will remain a Tamil-speaking city. Everyone is welcome to come and contribute to Chennai's development by they can settle here only if they accept our linguistic and cultural attitudes.

Chennai or Bangalore – Which is a better place?

I think the British planned Chennai to be a center of trade and commerce, and Bangalore to be a holiday home. Though far from perfect, development in Chennai took place as per the initial plan. The old suburban lines along with the new MRTS continue to provide reliable transport for the people of Chennai. Bangalore became the IT capital of India before anyone could understand what was happening to the city. Politicians wanted to get commission for the development that happened in spite of their presence there. Politicians got their commissions, and people got potholes on the roads. Chennai is not perfect. There is corruption everywhere. However, Chennai is way better than Bangalore. Chennai is a great city by design; Bangalore has accidentally become IT capital of India, and will retain its status only if either the government develops it properly, or if it hands it over to a good private authority that can develop it. I really don't know what is going to happen as each minister is just waiting to topple the other, and no one is concerned about any part of the city expects the chair he sits on. Honestly, I must say, there is great potential for development in both cities. 1.Bangalore is polluted/Chennai is less polluted, 2.Bangalore roads are screwed up/ Chennai roads are better 3.Bangalore traffic is a nightmare/ Chennai traffic is bearable. 4.Bangalore has lost its cultural identity/Chennai is known by its cultural identity 5.Bangalore infrastructure is terrible/ Chennai has a far superior infrastructure 6.Bangalore has Kempa Gowda, Dravid, Kumble, Viswanath, Narayanamurthy, Azim Premji, Kiran Mazumdar,Yousef Arakkal, Nandan Nilekani(A good engineer, 3 sportsmen who are all cricketers, and rest are businessmen)/Chennai has Abdul Kalam, Chidambaram, AR Rahman, Viswanathan Anand, Joshna Chinappa, Rajaji, Bharathiar, MS Subbulakshmi, Ram ,Sir Cv Raman, Chandralekha, Srikant, Venkatraghavan, Maniratnam, Kamalhassan, MGR etc the list can go on and look at the spectrum from which the people who have made it from chennai. 7. Bangalore without soft ware is dead ware/ Chennai has more than software and not last but not the least we have the MARINA BEACH, ELLIOTS BEACH. Hence I arrest my case.