What is desired salary?

The most critical question you’d ever face in any interview is what is your desired compensation? Or what is your desired salary? Many candidates often confuse here and could not reply in style as their employer expected. So, don’t be confused, and keep calm, and tone down when HR brings up with this question. Some HR people ask the salary requirement to be mention on the CV.

So, in some cases, you must realize that the employer is always busy, and they wanted the information along with a resume in order to decide to conduct the interview or not. They wanted the information as easily as possible to look at the criteria of the vacant jobs. Also, if you see a position in any organization, then look around in to see anyone who helps you forward your resume to HR.

Hence, whenever you send your resume, you must proper the formatting of your CV along with the desired compensation in the cover letter. Moreover, you can leave the salary column as “Negotiable” instead of providing a number. You should mention a realistic package so, you don’t waste your time and employer time. Also, you can mention in the cover letter regarding the desired compensation is negotiable and will be discussed in the interview. Always keep research the vacant position in the market across the board.

If you are giving an interview than wait until you realize the company is interested in offering you a job position. It is not beneficial in any case to put the desired salary on job applications. Because, if you put unrealistic numbers, then eventually your CV will dumb in the HR file.

However, the employer does not know you, so if you mention negotiable in CV, they will call you for a job interview. In the live conservation, if you did well in interview answers, then that’s the time to put your demand and they might likely to stretch their budget.

Moreover, if you mention desired compensation too low, then it will shake your image to call for an interview. Maybe you have mentioned a random figure on the job application, and after a successful interview, you realize the job is well paying off as compared to your numbers. Therefore, it would be a big loss, which takes many years to heal up. But never forget to keep concentrate on their job, your abilities relate to the job requirements.

The major object of this strategy is too lucrative HR hoping that they will identify your intelligence by not wanting to disclose your expected salary and history. The reputed companies respect the candidate’s decision and proceed to scrutinize your academic and professional qualifications and relevant experience for the position. They will later bring up the question of the interview.

So, keeping all the above facts, in my opinion, you should mark the desired compensation as “Negotiable”. You need to be smart enough to handle this critical question case to case basis. Also, you can put pressure on the interviewer to answer this question in this style – right now I’m focused on the best fitting job for my career and don’t have a specific compensation target in mind.

This answer will push back the interviewer and keep continuing for the desired compensation. Further, you can tell him the last salary you were drawing from the current organization. Do not lie for your current pay or even previous pay. When an employer decides to offer the job to you, then you put your desired compensation and bounces, and they will likely meet your demand.

Hence, after the interview, take a breath and relax, and wait as your dream career takes off with your desired salary in place! We are hoping you will find your dream job in much faster with our expert tips.

CORRUPTION IS A CURSE

Corruption is a curse in India and amongst Muslims, especially the so-called educated and intelligentsia. Unfortunately, it is this class that is selfish and morally and intellectually corrupt. No doubt this disease is common, but amongst this particular class of Muslims, it is rampant. - M.A. Jinnah to Ispahani, 6 May 1945

DEMOCRACY, EQUALITY AND LIBERTY-A MUSLIM BELIEF

Democracy is in the blood of Musalmans, who look upon complete equality of manhood (mankind) [and] believe in fraternity, equality, and liberty.

ADVICE TO STUDENTS

As young friends, students who are present here, let me tell you as one who has always had love and affection for you, who have served you for ten years faithfully and loyally, let me give you this word of warning: you will be making the greatest mistake if you allow yourself to be exploited by one political party or another Your main occupation should be—in fairness to yourself, in fairness to your parents, in fairness to the State—to devote your attention to your studies.

Address, Public Meeting, Dacca, 21 March 1948.

A DEMOCRATIC AND ISLAMIC CONSTITUTION FOR PAKISTAN

The constitution of Pakistan has yet to be framed by the Pakistan Constituent Assembly. I do not know what the ultimate shape of this constitution is going to be, but I am sure that it will be of a democratic type, embodying the essential principles of Islam. Today, they are as applicable in actual life as they were 1,300 years ago.

Islam and its idealism have taught us democracy. It has taught equality of men,

justice and fair play to everybody. We are the inheritors of these glorious traditions as framers of the future constitution of Pakistan. In any case, Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic State-to is ruled by priests with a divine mission. We have many non-Muslims-Hindus, Christians, and Parsis but they are all Pakistanis. They will enjoy the same rights and privileges as any other citizens and will play their rightful part in the affairs of Pakistan.

- Broadcast to the people of the USA, February 1948

Sad Quotes About Life

Sometimes you feel very alone and depressed about life. Nothing is positive in your life, everything is going in the wrong way. At that time, many people look for sad quotes about life to interpret their depressed feelings. No doubt everyone has difficult times in life, but some are bit tougher and longer. Either feeling pressure of loss of a loved one, or any financial crisis. In that situation, you must instigate yourself and start feeling better. Don’t worry feeling sad is part of life. Keep in mind, that suffering is sometimes gifted is hidden mercy. Shine like a star, not a sunset. The Sadness is a deep well, where you will drown, and come out with strong will power. Don’t dip in sadness sea, it will ruin your quality of life.

1.“A million words would not bring you back, I know because I tried, neither would a                           million tears, I know because I cried”. – Unknown

2. “You’re sad because you’re afraid of reality”. - Maxime Lagacé

3.       “Things change. And friends leave. Life doesn't stop for anybody”. - Stephen Chbosky

4.       “Crying is all right in its way while it lasts. But you must stop sooner or later, and then you still have to decide what to do”. - C.S. Lewis

5.       “Sadness flies away on the wings of time”. - Jean de La Fontaine

6.       “Breathing is hard. When you cry so much, it makes you realize that breathing is hard”. - David Levithan

7.       “You cannot protect yourself from sadness without protecting yourself from happiness”. - Jonathan Safran Foer

8.       “Tears come from the heart and not from the brain”. – Leonardo da Vinci

9.       “Turn your wounds into wisdom”. - Oprah Winfrey

10.   “The colder the winter, the warmer the spring. The deeper the sorrow, the more our hearts sing”. - Bambi

11.   “What brings us to tears, will lead us to grace. Our pain is never wasted”. - Bob Goff

12.   “Pain is inevitable. Suffering is optional”. - M. Kathleen Casey

13.   “To have felt too much is to end in feeling nothing”. - Dorothy Thompson

14.   “It’s sad when someone you know becomes someone you knew”. - Henry Rollins

15.   “People keep telling me that life goes on, but to me that’s the saddest part”. – Unknown

16.   “It's sad when someone you know becomes someone you knew”. - Henry Rollins

17.   “A long life makes acquaintance with a thousand ills”. - Publius Syrus

18.   “One thing you can’t hide — is when you’re crippled inside”. - John Lennon

19.   “The good life is not one immune to sadness but one in which suffering contributes to our development”. - Alain de Botton

20.   “It will never rain roses: when we want to have more roses, we must plant more roses”. - George Eliot

21.   “Life's under no obligation to give us what we expect”. - Margaret Mitchell

22.   “Sometimes you've got to be able to listen to yourself and be okay with no one else understanding”. – Unknown

23.   “The perfected future never arrives. Life is full of seemingly endless trouble, and then life ends. Find peace in the imperfect present”. - The Stoic Emperor

24.   “One thing you can't hide — is when you're crippled inside”. - John Lennon

25.   “Two possibilities exist: either we are alone in the Universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying”. - Arthur C. Clarke

26.   “Sometimes it takes sadness to know happiness, noise to appreciate silence and absence to value presence”. - Unknown

27.   “Heavy hearts, like heavy clouds in the sky, are best relieved by the letting of a little water”. - Christopher Morley

28.   “Death is not the greatest loss in life. The greatest loss is what dies inside us while we live”. - Norman Cousins

29.   “The human condition is a good one in that no one is unhappy except by his own fault”. - Seneca

30.   “There are moments when all anxiety and stated toil are becalmed in the infinite leisure and repose of nature. – Henry David Thoreau

31.   “Never be afraid of tears. Tear-filled eyes can see the truth. Tear-filled eyes are capable of seeing the beauty of life”. – Osho

32.   “There are two medicines for all ills: time and silence”. - Alexander Dumas

33.   “Let there be sunshine, let there be rain, let the broken-hearted love again”. - Bruce Springsteen

34.   “All man’s miseries stem from his inability to sit quietly in a room and do nothing”. - Blaise Pascal

35.   “Be patient where you sit in the dark. The dawn is coming”. - Rumi

Tighten Up or Let Go

“Some of us think to hold on makes us strong, but sometimes it is letting go”.

HERMANN HESSE

Your Body and Your mind constitute a single, unified system. Anything that affects one component of the system usually affects the other as well. Every emotional or psychological state has an impact on our physical being for better and for worse.

This means that if you are experiencing tension in the throat. So, it is usually a sign of emotional stress; and letting go of the tension releasing the physical pressure may alleviate the emotional stress. Clenched jaws are often a sign of deep-seated anger (of which we may not even be aware).

Simply relaxing the the tension of the jaw can assistance in release some of the anger. To let go of the physical tension be it in forehead, jaw, throat, shoulders, belly, or back you can shift the focus to that part of the body, breathe into it, and release it.

You can even utter to yourself in silence to let go as you relieve yourself of the tension and strain, and gently sink into calmness and tranquility. Patricia Walden a renowned yoga teacher, says that the most important part of a yoga practice is the end, when practitioners lie down flat on their back, hands to their side resting on the floor, legs straight and comfortably relaxed.

This pose, called sivasana (corpse), is about yielding to the force of gravity and allowing the floor to support us. We let go of the tension and release the pressure in every part of our body. Through this we can also release the psychological tension we may be holding on to.

Moreover, Sivasana rarely fails to induce a sense of calm and relaxation. However, its value goes beyond the immediate sensation. Because as the calm it brings us is transportable. Once we are familiar with the feeling of relaxation, we can replicate it in other areas of our life.

And the more we enter this state in the controlled environment on the yoga mat, a bed, or the floor the more easily we can experience it in other situations. Those who have practiced this form of relaxation is able to experience the same sense of calm, in almost any place and at almost any time, simply by telling themselves to let go.

Wherever you are, whether in a work meeting, sitting with your partner, holding your child, or writing a report. You can relax any part of your body that feels tight, release any tension that you may be holding on to. And because mind and body are one, by becoming aware of your body. And by learning to let go of the tension that it holds within it, your whole becoming calmer and more serene.

20 Best Bill Gates Quotes

Everyone knows about Bill Gates. He is an inspiring and motivational personality in the modern world. He was born on 28 October 1955 in Seattle, Washington. He is co-founder and pioneer of Microsoft Corporation with former classmate Paul Allen.  Some of his quotes are extremely popular on the internet.

He is one of the tops 10 richest person in the world has a kind heart. He is wealthy and successful, but his aim is to make a world a better place. He donated almost half of his wealth in a social cause, health, and education development. After he decided to step down as chairman of Microsoft in 2014, Bill Gates has continued his keen interest in philanthropy and other projects. Here we suggest you read Bill Gates Quotes carefully and re-alive your life motivation.

1)   I’ll always choose a lazy person to do a difficult job because he will find an easy way to do it.

2)   I believe that if you show people the problems and you show them the solutions they will be moved to act.

3)   I am a great believer that any tool that enhances communication has profound effects in terms of how people can learn from each other and how they can achieve the kind of freedoms that they’re interested in.

4)   Success is a lousy teacher. It seduces smart people into thinking they can’t lose.

5)   Power not comes from knowledge kept but from knowledge shared.

6)   Patience is a key element of success.

7)   To win big, you sometimes need to take big risks.

8)   If you think, your teacher is tough, wait till you get a boss. He doesn’t have tenure.

9)   If you born poor, it’s not your mistake, but if you die poor, it’s your mistake.

10) I failed in some subjects in exam, but my friend passed in all. Now he is an engineer in Microsoft and I’m the owner of Microsoft.

11) Don’t compare yourself with anyone in this world, if you do so, you are insulting yourself.

12) It is fine to celebrate success, but it is more important to heed the lessons of failure.

13) At Microsoft there are lot of brilliant ideas, but the image is that they all come from the top. I’m afraid that’s not quite right.

14) I studied everything but never topped, but today the toppers of the best universities are my employees.

15) If your business is not on the internet, then your business will be out of business.

16) As we look ahead into the next century, leaders will be those who empower others.

17) I really had a lot of dreams when I was a kid, and I think a great deal of that grew out of the fact that I had a chance.

18) Surround yourself with people who challenge you, teach you and push you to be your best self.

19) Your most unhappy customers are your greatest source of learning.

20) When a country has the skill and self-confidence to take action against its biggest problems, it makes outsiders eager to be a part of it.

We’re sure, after reading Bill Gates Quotes, you must feel different energy to become a successful person. Every successful person hides many pains in their success. So, we believe that you can do anything if you have a will?

Read More – What is Life Efficiency? / The Great Sphinx in Egypt

What is Life Efficiency?

What is Life Efficiency? We now have a scientific overview of how an ecosystem works. Green plants share out the space available to the ecosystem among themselves and on professional lines. Each kind of plant has a separate niche, specializing in living on good soil or bad, being early in the season or late, being big or little. And these green plants trap some of the energy of the sun to make fuel. Some of this fuel they use, some are taken by animals, much goes to rot.

The fuel taken by the animals at the bottom of the Eltonian pyramid is mostly burned up by the herbivores themselves, but a portion is taken by their predators, and so on for one or two more links up the food chains. At each level in the pyramid, there are many species of animals, the numbers of each being set by its chosen profession or niche. All the animals and plants use much of their fuel to make as many babies as possible, and many of these babies are used as fuel by other animals.

Every animal and plant in this ecosystem have an appointed place defined both by its level in the pyramid and by its niche. All these living things are tied together in a great web of eating and being eaten, and an ecosystem is a complex community of energy-consumers, all straining to get the most and do their best with it. The result of all these individual efforts is the self-perpetuating mechanism of nature at which we wonder.

But how good is that mechanism really? It certainly works, and it undoubtedly is long-lasting, but is it efficient? This question has more than academic interests because the future of our human population depends on the fuel-gathering efficiencies of ecosystems. So, we ask whether the plants and animals of wild ecosystems are efficient converters of energy, and whether the agricultural ecosystems on which we depend are better or worse than the wild ones.

Once we know the answers to these questions, we want to know what sets the limits to efficiency and whether we can do anything to improve upon whatever it is. We first look at the plants, because they perform the most important task of subverting the sun to make fuel and ask how efficient they are as factories of fuel.

The plants that now exist must be “fit” plants, they must be able to leave more offspring than have plants that might have been, which in turn means that they must be able to win more food than could the might have been which means that they must be more efficient at trapping the sun than were the might-have-been. Thus, a Darwinian ecologist expects all plants to be superbly efficient.

We see that the green receptors and transducers of energy that we call “leaves” are indeed stacked up on the face of the earth in the formidable array. So far so good. But we expect the chemistry and thermodynamics of those green transducers to be as efficient as the leaves are abundant.

We hear engineers talk about the efficiency of automobiles or steam engines, by which they mean how much of the energy supplied as fuel is converted to useful work. They often talk of efficiencies of 20 or 30 percent. With these thoughts, we turn to the practical measurements of what plants and animals can really do.

The efficiency of plants were first determined by a fine piece of armchair scholarship. It was done by Nelson Transeau in an office of an old building of The Ohio State University in Columbus when he was seeking material for a presidential address to the local academy of sciences.

The plant on which this scholar mused was the humble com plant, so suitable for armchair scholarship because anything measurable about com can be found out from the library. No one had thought before how to measure its efficiency, but they had measured everything an ingenious man might need to calculate it.

A crop of com begins with the bare, ploughed ground, a place of zero production, zero efficiencies. The corn then grows, zealously defended by the farmer from browsing animals and pests, until maturity. During the intervening weeks, the com plants have been receiving sunlight and converting it first to sugar, then to all the other ingredients of the plant’s structure.

Every calorie these com plants trapped had one of two possible fates: either it was burned by the plant itself to do the work of growing and living or it was still there at harvest time, dormant as potential energy in that standing crop. Com plants have been weighed often enough, and an agricultural handbook readily gives average figures for the yield of grain, leaves, stem, roots, everything.

Also known is how many calories are in a gram of grain, leaves, roots and the rest; just as the number of calories in a gram of sugar or ice cream is known. So, one can add up the calories in a field of corn. Finding out how many calories the plants have burned during their lives is trickier, but, as we shall see, this can be discovered too.

Transeau mused about an acre of land in the state of Illinois, a good place to begin because someone had measured how many calories came onto the land of that state from the sun on a typical summer’s day. A nice crop of good corn growing on that acre would constitute a population of ten thousand plants. These grew from germination to harvest, as it happened, in exactly one hundred days.

Now it was necessary only to go to the handbooks to find out how much poundage was represented by ten thousand well-grown com plants. Transeau did this, then did a little calculation to convert all the cellulose, protein, and other chemicals they represented back into the sugar from which they had originally been made. In his mind’s eye, Transeau saw not a field of ten thousand yellowing, rustling plants but a beautiful pile of glistening white sugar. The sugar weighed 6,678 kilograms.

Now Transeau needed only to know how much sugar these ten thousand plants had burned in their hundred days of life, and his own notebooks gave him this figure. Transeau had pioneered the measurement of breathing in plants, and by the time of that presidential address of 1926 he had all the figures he needed. These had come from com plants that Transeau had grown in glass chambers to which he could control the air supply.

He measured the carbon dioxide going into the chambers and the carbon dioxide coming out. In total darkness his experimental plants would respire as an animal does, burning sugar to give them calories for work, disposing of the combustion gases into the air.

The excess carbon dioxide coming out of the glass chambers was thus a measure of the combustion, a measure of sugar burned. Transeau’s notebooks told him how much sugar typical com plants of varying ages would bum in a day.

It was simple now to work out how much sugar would have been burned by ten thousand plants in one hundred days, and soon Transeau could see a second glistening white pile beside the first, a pile of sugar the plants had first made and then burned. This the second pile weighed 2,045 kilograms, so the two piles combined weighed 8,723 kilograms.

This was all the sugar made by the cornfield that summer. Now the end was in sight. 8,723 kilograms of the sugar glucose represents 33,000,000 calories, but the man who had measured the sun streaming onto Illinois had found that one acre in a hundred days of summer received 2,043,000,000 calories, more than fifty times as much.

If you put one of these figures over the other and multiply by a hundred you get Transeau’s the result, which was that corn plants, on prime land in Illinois, where they were given every care and attention, were only 1.6 percent efficient.

And so, to our amazement we find, not the 20 or 30 percent efficiency of a steam engine, not some super efficiency suggested by ideas of survival of the fittest or the marvelous workings of nature, but a miserable 1.6. Could the scholar in his armchair have got his sums wrong? People have made all Transeau’s suggested measurements on real crops, not only com but other high-yielding plants such as sugar beets, and they have come up with the same general answer: about 2 percent.

They also measured the rates of sugar production in photosynthesis more directly, by monitoring the flow of raw materials and waste products to and from the plants, and numerous studies have confirmed the estimates from crops. Our rich productive crops on rich productive soil are only 2 percent efficient.

Perhaps there is something wrong with agriculture. Perhaps it is only planted, grown in unnatural conditions that are so abysmally inefficient. But there is no escape this way either. It is harder to measure the efficiency of wild plants than of crops, but it can be done.

You cannot harvest a field of wild plants all the same age, as you can with com plants, but it has proved to be not beyond the wit of computer-minded man to make samples and calculate the potential wild crop. We now know that wild plants do about as well as tame plants. A very rough figure of 2 percent describes the efficiency of them all when they grow in very favorable circumstances.

Most wild plants achieve nothing like the 2 percent of agriculture because they do not have it so good. So, it is ours to reason why. What curious circumstance prevents 98 percent of the sun’s energy from getting into the living things staked out to wait for it in such an eager array?

What we know of these things has been told us by laboratory people. A plant is grown in a glass chamber, with rigid controls on all the conditions of its life so that it is comfortable and not disturbed; like a baby in an incubator. The breathing of the plant is monitored by measuring the gases it takes and gives to its chamber.

When it is busy converting energy by making sugar from carbon dioxide and water, it releases the oxygen that sensors can detect; when it is respiring in the dark it releases carbon dioxide. You can do wet chemistry on samples; you can make a plant use a radioisotope of carbon then measure activities, or you can wire the container to the fine expensive electronics of a modem analyst’s laboratory.

But, whatever way the measurements are taken, one can infer the rate at which the laboratory plant makes the sugar “glucose,” and hence the rate at which it fixes energy. Using a water-plant, such as a tiny green alga, makes things easier because the water simplifies the chemistry. Then you shine lights of known intensity into its glass incubator, recording precisely what it does.

First startling discovery is that half the kinds of light shone on the plant have no apparent effect on its chemistry. Half the total energy of sunlight is in the red end of the spectrum; what we call infrared light. We cannot see this light, but it floods down on us as warm rays, of low intensity it is true, but together adding up to half the energy getting to us from the sun. If red lamps are shone on the plant in its water bath, the chemistry of the water does not change. Plants cannot trap the energy of the far-red wavelengths any more than we can see them. Plants use only “visible” light.

We have obviously found one of the reasons for the inefficiency of plants, but we give a Darwinian biologist a curious question to answer while we are at it. Why should plants be made like people’s eyes so that they only make use of “visible” light? Plants must operate according to the rules of our Darwinian game, striving to wrest the largest possible number of calories from their surroundings so that they can turn them into babies.

They have been refined by natural selection to do this for a few thousand million years and should be very good at it. And yet they seem incapable of using half the energy pouring down on them. When this discovery was first made, an ingenious idea was put forward to explain it.

Plants, it was noted, had all first evolved in the sea, and red light does not penetrate very far through water but is rapidly absorbed. Any skin diver knows that everything looks blue down below the surface. A plant growing in an underwater place never has the redder rays shining on it and must do all its work of living with the bluer half of the spectrum.

So, it was argued, the ancestors of all plants evolved to be able to use only the energetic rays that penetrate water, essentially the visible light. Plants, however, have now lived on the land for several hundred million years, and it is very difficult for a biologist to believe that in all that time they could not adapt to this new brighter world with its red light. Fortunately for our peace of mind, modem physical chemists have come up with a better explanation.

The process of fixing energy (what we call “photo-synthesis,) involves violent disturbance to electrons as they spin in their orbits around atoms, and it takes a fierce pulse of energy to do this. The radiations of visible light are intense enough to fix energy, but the radiations of the red are not. Life, not for the only time, bows before the harsh reality of physical laws and does what it can with only half of the energy coming from the sun.

The red light can warm plants and does; it also evaporates water from them; helping drive the plants’ circulation systems, but that is all. Since the laws of physics let plants use only half the sunlight, we ought to amend our efficiency calculation accordingly. We double the calculated efficiencies of wild vegetation and crop plants alike; bringing them up from a miserable 2 percent to nearly as miserable 4 percent. Steam engines and automobiles still manage 20 percent or better, and the greater part of our question about the inefficiency of plants remains.

The next enlightenment to come from laboratory science is that the efficiency of plants depends on the strength of the light. If one shines a very dim light into the laboratory bottles containing the plants, say the light of the dawning or twilight, the plants do amazingly well.

If one calculates the the efficiency with which they are using the meager resource of light, one may well find that they are doing as well as 20 percent efficient or even more. This does not compare so unfavorably with steam engines and automobiles, particularly when one reflects that a plant must do its own maintenance as it works, whereas steam engines are made and looked after by others.

So, we learn that in dim light the efficiency of plants compares quite favorably with the efficiency of man-made machines. They are not very productive in dim light, of course, because the total energy available is so slight. Twenty percent of very little is still very little, and dim light means poor production of sugar.

But plants in dim light yet use what energy there is available to them with tolerable efficiency. Why then do they not maintain this high efficiency when light is abundant and the potential riches in sugar to be won are very large? If brighter and brighter lights are shone into the plant incubators, the rate of sugar production goes up. This we would expect.

But the efficiency progressively falls until it levels off, not at 2 or 4 percent, but at about 8 per cent. It is still at about 8 percent when the very highest rates of photosynthesis, of making sugar, are reached. Eight per cent of an optimum amount of light gives the highest flow of energy into living things that the bottled plants can be made to achieve.

If the plants are given still more light, both their efficiency and the rate of production fall, and a time comes when production ceases altogether. That too fierce a light should stop the plant working completely is not surprising. Presumably, the plant is being cooked. It is the low efficiency with which light of optimum brightness is used for which we must find an explanation.

At this stage in the research, our original problem has been compounded rather than solved. We began by asking why crops and vegetation were so inefficient at handling the sunlight with which Providence provided them, and we have not got an answer yet.

What we have done is to show that plants are much more efficient at handling dim light than they are at handling the noonday sun and that algal cultures in laboratory incubators may be twice as efficient in bright sunlight as is a field crop (8 percent as opposed to 2 percent or 4 per cent depending on the wavelengths supplied).

Why are all plants comparatively inefficient in bright light? Why are all plants more efficient in dim light? Why are algal cultures in laboratory incubators twice as efficient as wild vegetation? The last question is the easiest, and we will take it first.

An algologist once taunted his colleagues, and tempted the public, with the figures from laboratory experiments with algae. See! These plants are 8 per cent efficient—far, far better than the com and the other plants we eat! It is foolish to grow inefficient crops when we could all fatten on green algal scum instead! This theme recurs in newspaper articles about the world food crisis.

It is a myth that is probably as impossible to eradicate as the myth that Tyranosaurus rex was a ferociously active predator. But myth it is. Algae are not more productive than other plants. The catch about the algal culturing is that it is the culturing that leads to higher average efficiencies, not the algae. Any actively growing plant that can be introduced to one of the small laboratory cultures will do as well as the algae.

A whole seedling can be put in a small laboratory container, made comfortable, and it will convert the energy of light to the energy of glucose with an efficiency of 8 percent or so, depending on the wavelengths supplied. A piece cut out of a leaf can be made to do the same on its own in the nutrient solution, away from its parent plant. When conditions are the same, algae are no more and no less efficient than the crop plants with which they were so favorably compared.

We now know that any healthy young plant, com included, which grows in a well-watered field with enough fertilizer, does as well as the algae (or any other plants) in the incubators. Its efficiency is that same rough 8 percent of the laboratory cultures. But the special thing about the plant in the field is that it grows old. When it is old it feels its age and does not work very well. So, the average efficiency over its lifetime has to be much less than the 8 percent efficiency of its youth.

At the start of Transeau’s hundred days, his Illinois acre was bare of plants and there was no production. At the end of a hundred days, there were ten thousand senile individuals who were not doing very much. Somewhere in the intervening time the field was nicely covered with fresh green leaves turning in their 8 percent, but the average for the whole hundred days had to include the beginning and the end, which brought the average efficiency down to 2 per cent. Wild vegetation in temperate latitudes faces the same harsh reality: a spring without leaves,  autumn with pretty colors but diminishing green.

The great deception concerning algal culture came very largely from the accidental circumstance that it was convenient for plant physiologists to use fresh-water algae in their experiments. Such cultures are not good ways of producing food (even if we wanted to eat green scum) because culturing requires massive amounts of work and energy compared with conventional crop husbandry.

If these inputs of the energy was fed into the efficiency equation, we would find that the calculated efficiency was drastically lowered. Algae are no more efficient than any other kind of plant. The answer to our third question is that crops and wild vegetation is less efficient “over-all” than cultures or growing seedlings because of the physical vicissitudes of life, of bare ground in spring, of old age before the winter, of shortage of water and nutrients, of the debilitating presence of neighbors.

Now we must solve the mystery of the dim-light efficiency and the failure of even the favored young to do better than 8 percent. We can find a plausible answer to both questions by pondering the supply of raw materials a plant uses in the essential chemistry of photosynthesis. Plants make sugar out of carbon dioxide and water.

When water is in short supply the plants grow miserably, as we all know. But when water is abundant it is available to plants in virtually unlimited amount. The other raw material, carbon dioxide, however, is always scarce, even though it is always present.

Carbon dioxide is a rare gas. It is present in the atmosphere at an average concentration of about 0.03 percent by volume, a quite tiny proportion. And carbon dioxide is the essential raw material out of which plants must make sugar. Plant leaves are thin and pierced with multitudes of tiny breathing holes (stomates) for they must suck in carbon dioxide from as many directions as possible if they are to keep their sugar factories going.

Even so the rate at which they can soak up the precious gas is strictly limited. It seems reasonable to suggest that it is this shortage of raw material that sets a limit to the sugar-producing powers of plants growing on even the most favorable sites. Plants are inefficient as machines for converting sunlight because they face a shortage of raw materials.

When a plant is grown in dim light, its energy factories cannot work very fast, this being the simple consequence of lack of their light ‘‘fuel.” In dim light they have carbon dioxide to spare, and only considerations of thermodynamics and plant chemistry inhibit the rate of photosynthesis. The plants in this case turn out to be highly efficient.

But as such plants are given lighter, their demand on the carbon dioxide supply quickly grows, until they soon are using it as fast as it can be extracted from the air. At this moment plants are working as fast as their factories can be made to run. They are then about 8 percent efficient. If they are given more fuel still, as by shining the noonday sun on them, they can only waste the surplus, degrading it to heat, pouring it away.

We can test our the hypothesis that carbon dioxide limits the productivity of plants by pumping a little extra into our plant incubators and seeing what happens. If we do this, the rate of sugar-production goes up and the efficiency of energy conversion in bright light is slightly increased.

If we give the plants too much carbon dioxide, we suffocate them; but this need not disturb us. Plants have evolved in a world in which carbon dioxide is scarce, and their chemistry has adapted accordingly. Yet the dependence of sugar production on the carbon dioxide supply is clearly shown by these experiments.

It is well to insert a small word of caution about the generality of this result. The logic that so scarce a commodity as carbon dioxide ought to limit the rate of production is sound, and the experimental data are convincing demonstrations that we are on the right lines. But some of the consequences of a shortage of carbon dioxide are very complex and may impose second-order restrictions on photosynthesis.

Plants must “pump” large volumes of gas as they extract their carbon and this pumping may introduce its own restraints. Flooding the plant tissues with oxygen in the flux of air will have its own consequences for reactions dependent on chemical oxidations and reductions. Opening the stomates must result in the escape of water.

And so on. All operations that boost production in the plant factories must involve their own constraints and we can expect many fresh limits to appear as plants evolve to make the most of the carbon dioxide supply in different circumstances.

These possibilities are reflected in many modem debates about alternative “pathways” of chemical synthesis in plants. But with this bit of mealy-mouthing we can yet say that plants are generally inefficient as converters of energy because carbon dioxide is a rare gas in the terrestrial atmosphere.

This finding is of great significance to practical people for it means that there is a very narrowly defined limit to the possibilities for growing human foodstuffs. Our ultimate yields are set by the carbon dioxide in our air, and there is nothing we can do to push plants to do better. Our so-called high yielding strains of wheat and the rest are in fact no more efficient than the wild plants they replace, whatever the gentlemen of the green revolution may claim.

All that the agriculturalists have done is to make plants put more of their total capital of sugar into parts that people like to eat. A high-yielding wheat makes more grain at the expense of stalk, roots, and the energies to defend itself against pests and weeds. The finest efforts of science have not made any plant one jot more efficient than those nature made.

To a biologist brooding on the great conundrums of life, the inefficiencies of plants have a different message. The fuel supply for all life is restricted to some small fraction of what comes from the sun. A theoretical upper limit is about 8 percent, but this will be reached only for very short periods in very small places. All plants face youth and senescence, and virtually all face the changing seasons.

All suffer at times from a shortage of water or nutrients; none works at full efficiency for long. When we think of the average condition of life on earth, we think of deserts, mountainsides, and polar ice caps, as well as fertile flood plains. The average productivity of the earth must be very low, certainly much lower than that of 1.6 percent of Transeau’s cornfield. Probably only some fraction of 1 per cent of the solar energy striking the earth gets into living things as fuel for plants and food for animals.

When we try to explain the numbers and kinds of plants and animals, we must remember this great restriction in the fuel supply. Plant-eating animals, for instance, can get only a small portion of the sugar made by the plants on which they feed.

This is hard to measure, but practical people generally accept an upper estimate of about 10 per cent. We may think, therefore, that on good pasture land, herbivores get 10 percent of 2 percent of the sun. A tiger hunting those herbivores might theory get 10 percent of 2 percent of the sun. And so, on up the food chains.

We come then to the proposition that the numbers of the different kinds of plants and animals on earth are set by the amount of carbon dioxide in our air. Carbon dioxide sets the rate of plant production and is hence the ultimate arbiter of the food supply of all animals. If our earth had been forged with more carbon dioxide at its surface, the plants would have delivered more food and the opportunities for animals would have been greater.

We might even have had tiger-hunting dragons then, and the ferocious tyranosaur would have been less mythical. But the chemistry of the earth’s surface keeps the concentration of carbon dioxide low, by mechanisms quite out of reach of plants and animals. And so, the answer to many general questions about the numbers of animals as well as to the inefficiency of plants becomes, “Because it is very little carbon dioxide in our air.” Read More – Assemble an Attractive Personality 

Give Respect to Take Respect?

From childhood, we always listening from our elders, Give Respect to Take Respect. Be Kind and Be nice. It all depends upon, how you treat others, and how you feel about me is closely connected.  The more you treat others with due respect, the more you will respect me. Because the more you respect me, the more you will do the same with others. One of the really nice things about being nice is that it’s contagious when you treat others with great respect. In turn they are more likely to treat you in a similar manner. That, in turn, affects the way you respond, and so on.

Any man's behavior toward other people colleagues, family members, friends sends out ripples that impact those we meet, and beyond. Do you select to spread calm, love, soothing ripples, or instead to rough and violent waves? This behavior has been associated with the crude army general, the tough business leader, the ruthless politician.

Our metaphors leave no alternative to this model. After all, in a dog-eat-dog world, it’s better to be the dog that does the eating than the one that gets eaten. It is better to be the strongest than the weakest; and to swim in treacherous waters, one must be a shark.

Though there are many examples of successful leaders that fit this model. Several leaders were no less successful and achieved their success by being gentle and kind. You must be very professional and very nice.  Of course, at certain time, one had to make tough and unpleasant decisions as a leader, and kindness is no substitute for competence, but he always had in mind the dignity of the people he was dealing with.

The people’s humor, generosity, and kindness rippled through his organization, affecting his employees, and through them, the company’s customers. Well-behaved manners are the lubricants of any successful organization. They enable the smooth functioning of organizations and of relationships in general.

If anyone able to use kindness and generosity to run an incredibly successful enterprise in a very competitive industry. Then we can all do so in our daily interactions. Be kind, be nice, when you meet a customer, a friend, a family member, or a stranger.

“Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle”.

JOHN WATSON

When you are a child, you enjoyed a great deal, but when we mature, we stop having fun. Do you think, why this happen? In childhood, we always give respect to our fellows and never mind their words. But when we enter in a young age, we mind and never forget to others. At any age, these aspects contribute to psychological and physical well-being.

It makes us more resilient, strengthens our immune system, enhances our creativity, and improves our relationships. We don’t need to restrict play to the leisure activities or hobbies that occupy us once the workday is over. We can select to bring the spirit of play to a meal with our family or to a road trip with friends, to learning a new skill or to a professional meeting with our colleagues.

Regardless of how important and significant our endeavors are if we go through life with gravity and somberness without having fun we will sink into the abyss of meaninglessness and nihilism. Play is our fuel, providing us with energy and drive.