In a stunning turn of events, Freida Pinto, the stylish lead actress of Slumdog Millionaire has been found hiding a secret husband whom she married in her free time. Ms. Pinto, in her defense, has sent out a photograph of said husband through her publicist. Globally, fans heaved a sigh of quick and forgiving relief, the common opinion being, who wouldn’t hide him?
Just so that you know, Author wishes her all the luck and isn’t even mildly perturbed by her shenanigans, he never really found her hot enough. :-P
Also, just so that you know, the guy in the photograph is not the author, even though there is eerie resemblance. He now feels stupid about a couple of things mentioned in the first paragraph.
***
Moving on, researchers at Princeton University have used modern brain scanning apparatus and an obscene quantity of free time to conclude that men are more likely to look at women as objects if they view sexy pictures beforehand. Such images they claim; turn women from people to interact with to object to be acted upon.
The obvious corollary they further added, sexier the picture more the objectivising.
Now men the world over are appalled. Our integrity has been questioned; the respect we give to bikini clad women is under doubt.
Such is our collective disgust and so aghast are left we, that it is our decision to not make any formal comment on this frivolous experiment that uses ambiguous terms like ‘more likely’ and cheap phrases like ‘sexy pictures.’
But author, having somehow, out of sheer luck, a lot of free time at work today, decided to construct an argument against such a baseless assertion.
The aforementioned scientists are not a collection of Nobel laureates, they haven’t discovered each a unique galaxy, nor have they a solution to the deepening financial crisis or world poverty.
Their last piece of earth shattering research, for which they traveled across the globe, on tax payer money, apparently to get an unbiased sample set, was to effectively prove that dogs are, more likely, to yawn in the presence of a yawning owner.
I think the discerning followers of slowtumblinglife needn’t be given more proof of the utter irrelevance of such a theory.
***
Do you know that Facebook has 175 million users? That if it was a country it would get a permanent seat in the UN Security Council? (Uh Indians, sorry to be the one to break this news to us, but size alone doesn’t matter. You have to be cool in other ways too, like have a lot of money and all. Just like to be taken seriously at the WTO you have to control more than 2% of World Trade.)
Do you know that it’s growing at the rate of 5 million users per month? That this would make it the fastest growing state in India? That 800 million photographs are uploaded every month? That 2105 million status updates, 7987 million wall posts, 675,000 new groups, and countless stupid pokes are made every month?
Now of course, all this happens publicly, and people actually spend their free time collecting friends to show off, getting a life only so that they will have pictures to put up and joining groups trying to get a life. Yes! It’s a complicated chain that feeds on itself.
Anyway, people are secure doing all this, because they control their privacy settings and have their own secret passwords. (People believe anything, they are cute that way.)
So anyway, facebook decided a few days ago that it would store all this information permanently. Like even after you delete your account and all.
And this just made everyone mad. From Arkansas to Asansol. From Aaj Tak to CNN. The Aaj Tak guys of course showed stock images of Orkut, and Anderson Cooper, who is a real life Benjamin Button, looked fake-distressed.
But I don’t get it, I mean people who had been bringing down facebook servers in their free time with minute to minute photographs of their weddings, their kid’s first step, last diaper, third word, their trip to the front lawn are now protesting??! All the information they willingly put up there, which was anyway on public display, is now infringing their privacy?
People will protest anything. Without thinking about it. They will just make a big deal of anything. I mean if you see the discussions on this, people talk about it like it’s the end of the world.
***
In his free time Michael Phelps smokes a Bong, which is fine by me. Also he has surely not had a lot of free time, to make real friends. The kind that wouldn’t click him doing something that could take away all his medals.
So anyway, I’m done with my free time here, also done using italics. I mean that’s the thing with it, right? The moment you do something about your free time, it’s gone.
***
If this statement is true, then this was a great post. (Hint: Think about it.)
Just so that you know, Author wishes her all the luck and isn’t even mildly perturbed by her shenanigans, he never really found her hot enough. :-P
Also, just so that you know, the guy in the photograph is not the author, even though there is eerie resemblance. He now feels stupid about a couple of things mentioned in the first paragraph.
***
Moving on, researchers at Princeton University have used modern brain scanning apparatus and an obscene quantity of free time to conclude that men are more likely to look at women as objects if they view sexy pictures beforehand. Such images they claim; turn women from people to interact with to object to be acted upon.
The obvious corollary they further added, sexier the picture more the objectivising.
Now men the world over are appalled. Our integrity has been questioned; the respect we give to bikini clad women is under doubt.
Such is our collective disgust and so aghast are left we, that it is our decision to not make any formal comment on this frivolous experiment that uses ambiguous terms like ‘more likely’ and cheap phrases like ‘sexy pictures.’
But author, having somehow, out of sheer luck, a lot of free time at work today, decided to construct an argument against such a baseless assertion.
The aforementioned scientists are not a collection of Nobel laureates, they haven’t discovered each a unique galaxy, nor have they a solution to the deepening financial crisis or world poverty.
Their last piece of earth shattering research, for which they traveled across the globe, on tax payer money, apparently to get an unbiased sample set, was to effectively prove that dogs are, more likely, to yawn in the presence of a yawning owner.
I think the discerning followers of slowtumblinglife needn’t be given more proof of the utter irrelevance of such a theory.
***
Do you know that Facebook has 175 million users? That if it was a country it would get a permanent seat in the UN Security Council? (Uh Indians, sorry to be the one to break this news to us, but size alone doesn’t matter. You have to be cool in other ways too, like have a lot of money and all. Just like to be taken seriously at the WTO you have to control more than 2% of World Trade.)
Do you know that it’s growing at the rate of 5 million users per month? That this would make it the fastest growing state in India? That 800 million photographs are uploaded every month? That 2105 million status updates, 7987 million wall posts, 675,000 new groups, and countless stupid pokes are made every month?
Now of course, all this happens publicly, and people actually spend their free time collecting friends to show off, getting a life only so that they will have pictures to put up and joining groups trying to get a life. Yes! It’s a complicated chain that feeds on itself.
Anyway, people are secure doing all this, because they control their privacy settings and have their own secret passwords. (People believe anything, they are cute that way.)
So anyway, facebook decided a few days ago that it would store all this information permanently. Like even after you delete your account and all.
And this just made everyone mad. From Arkansas to Asansol. From Aaj Tak to CNN. The Aaj Tak guys of course showed stock images of Orkut, and Anderson Cooper, who is a real life Benjamin Button, looked fake-distressed.
But I don’t get it, I mean people who had been bringing down facebook servers in their free time with minute to minute photographs of their weddings, their kid’s first step, last diaper, third word, their trip to the front lawn are now protesting??! All the information they willingly put up there, which was anyway on public display, is now infringing their privacy?
People will protest anything. Without thinking about it. They will just make a big deal of anything. I mean if you see the discussions on this, people talk about it like it’s the end of the world.
***
In his free time Michael Phelps smokes a Bong, which is fine by me. Also he has surely not had a lot of free time, to make real friends. The kind that wouldn’t click him doing something that could take away all his medals.
So anyway, I’m done with my free time here, also done using italics. I mean that’s the thing with it, right? The moment you do something about your free time, it’s gone.
***
If this statement is true, then this was a great post. (Hint: Think about it.)
Posts
15 comments:
Nikku Boy
Good post. Like the way you took pinto's case , even though it was for few lines. The manner in which everyone is going nuts over that movie, makes me feel like a dog seeking as(y)lum in Nagaland :P
Ya man.. People have taken this Slumdog thing too far.. And Pinto too.
I told you the story about the dogs and Nagaland??
how does one go about becoming a "blog of note"? does it involve some sort of plebiscite?
i hereby nominate slowtumblinglife and caste the first official vote..
best,
Anon. (hint: think warm, yellow and glowy)
p.s. there is no resemblance, eerie or otherwise.. the nose comes close..
but not close enough.. hee hee..
aaah.. being not a man of small ambition, i have done serious research in the How-To-Be-A-Blog-of-Note realm.
Well my findings are somewhat disheartening - as it turns out your blog has to be exclusively about, or a combination of the following -
1. Barrack Obama
2. Michelle Obama
3. World Peace
4. Science and Technology
5. Israel and Co.
6. Saving Trees
7. Conversations with God
Now, I do recollect speaking of most of the above at some point or the other. I am planning a post that covers all of the above in one sweeping creative masterstroke..
Till, then your nominations could come in handy!
Also, did you find yourself making yawn noises looking at that picture? I did.. I even yawned.. Guess the theorem works both ways..
Nice blog!
About the facebook thing .. its only public to the people on your friends list.. and storing other people's content who are using your site as a medium to navigate the ocean to get in touch with near and dear ones doesn't automatically give you authority as the network provider to claim ownership of the material.
Anyway they are withdrawing the changes they made by undoing their removal of the clause stating that users had the right to remove their information whenever they so wished.
The flip side probably is that maybe facebook isn't going to be as 'free' the near future, like every other adult site which is going paid. Looks like a soft subscription fee to me, in order to get people to start contributing in cash or kind. There are no free lunches in life, whether offline or online.
Thank you!! And who is it?
Oh, about the facebook thing, yes i get what you are saying. but i don't think that facebook would randomely share material. and even if they did, so what?
that's my humble opinion! and let me tell you i dont feel too strongly about it. :)
i was just using my free time, to say that people protest things more rigorously than they probably should.. don't you think?
see you around..
"The way they stand now, Facebook's terms of service claim that the company does not have ownership over content, yet that it does have "an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (to)...use, copy, publish, stream, store, retain, publicly perform or display, transmit, scan, reformat, modify, edit, frame, translate, excerpt, adapt, create derivative works, and distribute" material as long as it doesn't violate the privacy preferences set by the user."
Its all about the right privacy! But then who knows ;)
ya.. when it sounds like that it does seem devious and everything... grrr...
Stupid Facebook. Lucky I didnt put up ALL my pictures. (err i have three, ALL is 9, BUT STILL!!!!)
Well they could sell scandalous user photos to the national enquirer incase the particular user ran for elected office , given his settings weren't set to private. :D
Where's the quote function, sinha? That's one thing you need to incorporate in the script to make the blog come to life!
Puri here
p.s Can i register?
aah.. now if said elected office had an elicit past, full of potentially disgraceful events like photographs with four naked blondes (disgraceful only from an election POV) then.. well so be it..
anyway, this has dragged on for too long.. to hell with facebook..
what's a quote function?
and register to what?
Ok i understood how to post with my name. Quote function is when i want to reply to someone's post then i could quote whatever he is saying so the context is understood. You never know what proportions your blog might assume and since i understand that you are not a man of small ambition the idea might just as well be worth it!
Keep up the good work man. I have your back! :)
aah.. that you mean! worry not dear friend.. next weekend shall be consumed figuring the requisite technology for the same..
and so glad you liked this.
:)
Arre slowtumblinglife...the moment I start doing anything, I come across someone who is a helluva lot good at it!!! I started blogging, and now I land at your blog. Even the look and feel is so posh and all man! Me feel like a slumdog walking on an Oscar carpet only.
le rahe ho kya??
come often.. :)
Post a Comment