rohitj's domain

I know that not every time can one take the right step. For example, there shouldn’t be racism, yet lot of minority people are given extra attention. But is it always required to think of consequences even when you are doing right thing? And if you don’t take that right step to avoid some consequences, don’t you bring other?

In America, these days, a new issue is being discussed. Obama changing rules to provide better insurance to people. Which pretty much means that doctors will have more patients. An advertisement said that since number of doctors are not going to change, this will harm people who need special medical attention. It doesn’t make sense to me. Yes, those who are already using medical services may have to wait, but what about those others who so far were not able to use medical services? Just because there are not enough doctors doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be more patients. The first problem in hand is that there are people who need medical services but are not able to get that. Make arrangements to do so. And if the shortage of doctors creates problem, deal with it. Thats what I feel. The right step is to let everyone (who needs it) to use medical services. And its consequence might be that there will be shortage of doctors. On the other hand if you don’t do that, there will be people who were not using services (even though they needed it) and will not be using it in future as well.
I am glad my research is about probability. Because this world sure doesn’t have certain answers

Author : Manu Bansal
Copied from his IM status message, with permission.

Who comes, who goes
Why, where, nobody knows.
But the corridors,
they itch my nose,
the gap I close.

The desks are full,
the stacks are high,
lo and behold,
its pizza time!

I eat a slice, I fill some more,
why free food, nobody knows
back at work, I wonder still,
but on my cup, Microsoft grows!!

Reminds me of last 2 semesters at IITK. But I guess PhD aspirants working in labs day n’ night might relate to this better.