oh well, this happened in last week of july. that interview that is. And let me tell you, after that I actually realized how journalists can twist facts to their likings to just make the write-up look more interesting and masalaa.

I mean, in the interview, the female journalist for a Sunday- DNA, Page 3, I remember I have said those words which are written in the article, though she might have just eaten words out from the sentences and within the context, they started meaning something else altogether.

Like in the first few lines, when its written that I left my career to be a Film-maker. She absolutely missed on the point. All I had said was that I had taken some time off from my work to take a part in this project called “Sigma51″.

Lets move to the part where she has implied in the second para, that I got bored of still photography so moved into film making. That’s one thing even my father wouldn’t believe. My first love would always be Photography First and then anything else. All i had said was, Through photography I developed my interest in film making, and she twisted it to sound like I got bored of photography.

The funny this is yet to come. Where she has described about one incident I faced while making movie, a few words changed and now it means exactly opposite to what I meant it to be! When she asked me about an incident that i remember which was best or worst. I decided to tell her a best incident, which was like , Me and my unit had a shoot at 2 am on the road for a fiction horror short film, and we were shooting there. Now out of the blue, there were two policemen who came on bike and interrupted. All they did was to ask some questions, and after they got satisfactory answers, they actually stayed till the end of the shoot, to actually help us out with it, to save us from notorious onlookers who might try to create problems in night shoots. they took care of it! now what she did, you can read that in coverage. “policemen” became “policevan” and then the fact that they helped, came out like they ‘interferred and gave us problem’

phew! There is more.. but well, am just tired to point it out now!
journalists, can’t help their ‘masala’ brains to make this simple interview terrible.
or just may be its not the general problem of journalists, its was in specific her, who was probably slow at understanding my words.

may be, may be not!

In this year 2008, she has been the biggest present we have all got. She is so so cute!

I love her a lot!

I was lying in bed last night, wondering how the Monty Hall paradox can be explained well, and figured it could only happen if i change my perception a bit.

What is the Monty Hall problem? well he is a game show host.. of the show called “Deal or No Deal” .. [the copy of it is made in indian TV as well.. i dnt remember the name of the game, but Aman Verma was the host as far as i remember] Anyway, back to the problem,

Consider three doors. Behind one is a car, and behind two others are goats. You are asked to choose one door – if it’s the one with the car, you win. otherwise, you lose.

you choose one car. Then Monty (the gameshow host) opens one of the other doors to show a goat behind it. You are given the chance to change your choice of door to the other closed one – should you?

The answer is Yes. the /intuitive/ answer is that there is a 50% chance either way, but mathematically, there is actually a 66% chance.

Took me a good few minutes to figure out how to verify it. I kept thinking of it as “there is a 33% chance of me picking the right one. door opens. I now have… 50%?”. Couldn’t seem to make the leap for some reason.

That was a result of wrong perception – you need to think of it from the point of view of what is /not/ the right door.

1. choose one door. the chance of the car being behind one of the other doors is 66%.
2. one of the other doors opens. the chance is still 66%!.
3. You now have two closed doors. the door you /did not originally choose/ has a higher chance than the one you did choose, so you should switch.

well.. wikipedia explains it much better than me.. so here is the link..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem.

The interesting fact is, it actually makes me question the perception norms.
does it to you?